= new reply since forum marked as read
Sid
The same bunch may cheer when, and if, she won, and it might last a year at the most, but sooner or later, just as you said, they will turn on her and start in say the same BS they now say about president Obama, no matter how much good she may be doing, it won't be what "they" want so they will turn.
No matter who gets into the WH, democrats of course, they will never be good enough for this bunch. Hell I would be willing to bet that even if their hero Greenwald were in the WH, sooner or later they would turn him also.
after all, must play nice and wait for our turn.
He was more of an idealist back then, now he is a pragmatist, without surrendering his socialist ideals.
And, that comment was never meant to be taken completely literal. It is relative. They are like two sides of the same coin. Wait, that sounds a lot like tweedle dee and tweedle dum. 
What Bernie says in public and what he believes may differ slightly. He votes with Democrats while maintaining his independent status, and he may run as a Democrat. All of these things are part of politics, and are not contradictory, especially if you want to be electable. Of course there is a difference between parties, otherwise there would be only one party. But the difference between parties is sometimes vanishingly small.
But, it is a left wing meme that the parties are no different, not right wing. I stand by that. It is possible, like I say, that Libertarian wing of the Republican party may say that, as it is likely that the left wing of teh Democrat party may say that. But it is more a left wing feeling than right wing. Simply because the left is less authoritarian, hence liberal, which goes against the military industrial complex of both parties.
but the only time I've been bitten by a dog was this spring while running. Three put bulls came out from a yard, one bit my finger, it will leave a scar. All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't a toddler.
All too often the acting like a Democrats is worthy of an Oscar and nothing more.
If some called the president a piece of shit used car salesman they would be ppr'd in time also, right?
To be truthful whatever unwarranted extra criticism *is* coming from certain sections of the Left, against President O.....it ain't got a damn fuckin' thing to do with his skin color. And I'm one of the most sympathetic people to Obama that you'll find on this board for the most part, not to mention that I've been a longtime fan of Senator Warren as well.
My friend, if you truly *need* to say something about faux-liberals, they DO exist. But these aren't the droids you're looking for(apologies to George Lucas!). Nope. Here's a basic guide of some of the things to look for, down below-
Faux-liberals may, or may not believe, amongst other things:
1.)That America can never really do any good in the world.
2.)That F.D.R. was a secretly closeted hardcore "racist progressive" who actually willingly shat on black people, and that the New Deal was a throughly Southern racist creation, etc.(no kidding! I've actually seen the latter pushed, at least, on a few occasions)
3.)That only white people can be racist(people such as Louis Farrakhan, Ayo Kimathi, etc. not withstanding), and/or that ALL white people are inherently racist.
4.)That certain cliques of people should be allowed to completely and totally dominate the terms of discourse when it comes to conversations, ethnic/racial, religious, etc. issues, and that only they have that right, and that no one else outside their clique should be able to contribute without their complete approval.
5.)That all men share culpability for the problems with misogyny and other forms of sexism.
6.)That anyone who may be religious or spiritual is a fool and a moron, or a Young Earth Creationist, etc.
7.)Pretty much any form of historical revisionism that may be popular in certain fringe-left circles(such as Gerald Horne's "The Counter-Revolution of 1776", or Ira Katznelson's "Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time", etc.).
That's only just a few pointers, too, btw.
In short, while your concerns are admirable, you're still barking up the wrong tree in that regard.
On the other hand, it is unfortunate, indeed, that otherwise informed genuine liberals are indeed being misled into believing the myths of Obama being a "Reagan lite"
he's really not, not socially!), beholden to corporate interests(again, no), and certain other things. To be truthful, though, whenever we DO need to point things out, we need to be accurate in identifying & describing the problem.
As much as I may disagree with some of the hardcore critics of Obama on the Left, to say that even ANY of that, to any significant degree, is motivated by race, or more specifically, anti-black racism, is honestly not only inaccurate, but even fallacious; because, as pretty much anyone with a basic understanding knows, the two sides are *NOT* equal(at all!). One side has a major problem with racists, misogynists and other bigots on the whole, and the other side only has a few individual problem people(whose ass-backwards attitudes are largely condemned by their fellows). Guess which side is the former? It ain't the Democrats, or even the Left in general, that's for damn sure.
How those who bash the president and the party the most on DU can so easily twist thing around and turn themselves into the victims, and those who actually want to support the president and the party are now the bad guys!
since I don't think that every action he's taken has been the best thing since sliced bread, I must be just a 'hater'.
Because I want democrats whose views and actions reflect my own, I'm 'unrealistic'.
Because I feel the 'choices' I'm allowed are between bad and worst, I'm only claiming to be progressive?
Thank you for your honesty.
