Clinton herself--on domestic issues anyways--is a liberal herself

a really evil scheme by the WTO and neoliberals to take over the world.

Progressive in that context means ever tightening, just like a noose.

Liberalisation means privatization basically, and deregulation.

Thats what the Clintons neoliberalalism has been doing.

Also they used jobs here as bait and deliberately prolonged the health care dysfunction so it could be used as a crisis to 'justify' this huge job swap which would destroy wages.

User Kip ********* actually discussed this decades ago wit Miss Leading herself.

They want to break the wages for everybody in the world down to some low level.

I would think this all was a ridiculous fabrircation had I not discovered it bit by bit myself on my own.

Indeed, everything weve been told about healthcare s wrong. The real cause is this clintons trade deal.

And the young man who dutifully and greatly wrote it up suddenly died shortly afterward just a few days before a single payer vote was supposed to be taken in the House, on August 9 2009.

I swear this is all true and we all should be screaming holy murder.

Why is that?

Doesnt fit the narrative?

Democrats pushed back on their tea partiers.

Can you enlighten me on what exactly the Tea Party has in common with the Sanders campaign?

Having beliefs is purity. Don't have beliefs. Just buy everything the politicians tell you. Don't ask what they do all day, or what drives their decisions. Just accept and obey. If you ask them to do differently you're being a purist. If you support a politician who challenges them you are a purist.

Your logic is also circular, because you are telling those "purists" to not question or challenge or criticize the Dear Leaders. In otehr words, your telling them to follow "my way or the highway."....Which sounds a lot like what you are accusing Sanders supporters/progressives of.

That kind of purity, or...?

many of them here and calling themselves Democrats argue FOR

GMO,
NAFTA,
TPP
Monsanto
Fracking

and against
$15/hr
and the wall street transaction tax et al

There is no longer a progressive liberal democratic party. It should change it's name to:

Neo-Democrats - to honestly make the distinction

And the continued demonization of the Progressive Liberals that support her.

Does criticizing him for policies one does not agree with "slurring him"?

You are making my point.

Or where his campaign has been sending out the "She killed Vince Foster" talking points.

Don't be ridiculous.

The real obsession with Vince Foster appears to be in the Hillary group. I guess it works great to pump up their perpetual victimhood.

Weird.

in the Hillary group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=42551

The way Bernie talked about the president ...a Democratic President is disgusting in my opinion. Bernie is in Congress. He knows the level of obstruction our president has faced. I used to like Bernie. In fact after much thought, I voted for him in Ohio. But honestly, I don' like him anymore at all. Even my husband listened to Tad this morning (taped Rachel) and he was disgusted by the lying Ted approach to delegates Tad intended to pursue. Bernie has lost it. The idea that Tom Hartman and others is that Bernie stays in the race and stops being critical of HRC and makes it about his ideas instead. it won't happen. His followers won't allow it , and I don't think Bernie wants to do it either. the idea of switching out delegates like Nevada which I don't think will work is pure poison and GOPesque. It looks like Bernie is attempting to make sure the Democrats lose in the fall. I am just sick that Bernie Sanders would behave this way. I feel betrayed by someone I once admired.

...fiercely for big changes. Remember when the public option was taken off the table before negotiations even began? That's a valid criticism if you ask me.

...was off the table. Disgusting.

when she consulted with Blumenthal on State business. Is this correct?

against Obama's direct orders?

marionette to the same bankers that bankrupted us count for progressive liberal ideals?

Some people have lost their mind.

to attack progressive liberal Democrats like Clinton & her supporters - all the while they claim to be progressive liberals.

Aren't anything more than RW propaganda & mud-slinging.

Like pretending their hatred of Clinton doesn't come from listening to & believing that RW propaganda. And dismissing the fact that she's been among the most admired women in the world for 20 yrs straight as a "fluke".

Like losing an election & then claiming victory anyway, because the votes for your opponent shouldn't count. All the while doing everything to undermine the results of that election.

Like insisting that the established rules shouldn't apply Sanders & his supporters, but Clinton should be required to jump through hoops & submit to examinations that no other candidate is subjected to.

Like believing that it's sexist to vote for a woman not only because she's a woman, but that she's the best, most qualified candidate. But it's not sexist to call her a whore & support a guy who thinks his rape fantasy fiction is appropriate for publication.

etc, etc, etc ...

You are right. I look at this and see supposed Democrats attacking for no good reason. Bernie Sander is not a good enough reason to lose in the fall. And I am horrified that he and his supporters have used GOP tactics and are smearing Hillary Clinton who will be our nominee. The "whore" thing was particularly horrifying. They tried to make is seem as if he said Wall Street whore, but he said, "Democratic whore". I saw and heard it...and the idea that they meant our elected (the next excuse for obvious misogynist behavior) which I don't believe is awful too. Nancy Pelosi gave up her majority to pass health care and is a hero in my book. It may not be perfect, but it has saved thousands perhaps millions of lives. My daughter is on it...she has pre-existing and would not be able to get insurance any other way. Her premium is reasonable under $100.00 a month with a low deductible...better coverage than my work plan actually. Single Payer would be great and eventually, we will get there but not with this congress...that is just a fact. I think given the GOP obstruction, the Democrats have behaved admirably.

Oh wait, that was a respected physician has been fighting for universal healthcare who got cattioede away and said something stupid as a speaker at a rally, that Sanders didn't even hear until later, and for which he immediately said such language was inappropriate.

The best they can come up with is someone saying "corporate Democratic whore" as an attack on Hillary. It's really pathetic.

Just stuff you're pulling out of your butt.

Black Lives Matters doesn't think she is progressive:

...of using right-wing rhetoric.

agenda. Richard Perle and the Neocons all love Hillary. Henry (mr. Satan) loves Hillary.

Not so far from the Libertarians and Trump on actual policy they are simply the secular wing of conservatives on their third decade of an assimilation or destruction agenda bank role by the likes of Pete Peterson and even the often cursed Kochs.

has defended Hillary on policy with an articulate argument, I haven't seen it. All I've seen are insults directed at Bernie and his supporters and the claim that Hillary is the only real Dem in the race. Wish one of them would be honest enough to admit that Hillary's agenda is to the right and her supporters are fine with a less extreme version of Republicanism that leaves out the pro life/anti gay talking points. What we have in the party is an ideological split between those who want to embrace and fight for progressive values and those who don't but don't want to admit it.

It's been nasty on both sides, but as usual, your post is proof of just how much nastier it is on one side.

It's been very disheartening to watch one person and groups of people after another being tossed under the Bernie bus for not thinking (really knowing) he can do even 1/10 of what he's promising.

When I read some of the things people write here, I realize they have limited sense of the reason why things are the way they are, little historical understanding.
The Democrats realized that in order to compete with Republicans they needed money. The Republicans had huge cash flows from big business.
Democrats were being drowned out, couldn't get the message out.
I don't blame any Democrat who has learned this.
So, in order to get things done, you have to play the game against the R's.
One must always consider the greater goal and take the wider view.

nm

Have Dems been in total control of the government? Since 1992, the Democrats have controlled all three branches of government a grand total of 4 years- and that was separated by FOURTEEN years. Not much time to get a lot done but Dems did accomplish a few things.

the pattern and message from Dems has been the same. The GOP drives the agenda because of their dominance, or they control the agenda as a minority by blocking or preventing Dem initiatives.

The GOP are like wolverines who keep aggressively pushing whether in power or not. Dems not so much.

Always a "reason" for not really pushing a liberal agenda or not fighting back. Even when Obama and Dem Congress was in control , the GOP was the agenda driver and blocker. The one possible exception was the ACA...and there, unfortunately it was still drawn up in a way that kowtowed to corporate healthcare and conservatives and conservative corporate Dems in the pocket of the insurance industry.

And in the 90's, with Clinton in the WH, the GOP Corporate agenda was enthusiastically pushed by Clinton and corporate Dems.

When Democrats are partially in control, they have to work hard at "holding the line" on preventing GOP policies from being enacted and/or keep the GOP from undermining/rolling back progressive gains (or just keeping government minimally functional). If there is a way that Democrats in Congress are going to get Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan to support a more progressive agenda (or at least stop being jerks and trying to actually govern responsibly), I'd like to see the strategy because, short of working to get Democrats/progressives elected at supermajority levels in Congress and keeping the WH in Democratic hands- effectively neutering Republican opposition- I don't see how Democrats/progressives are going to be able to aggressively implement a drastically more progressive agenda in a short amount of time. IMHO we need to replicate- and then, more importantly, maintain- the kind of successes we saw in 2008.

Indicidual politicians come and go.

Bottom line is for several decades the GOP has been relentless. "This is what we want and we're going to push for it." When they lose, they pick themselves up, brush themselves off, and keep charging.....Thus they have driven the agenda to the right, whether in or out of power.

The Democrats have either waffled, collaborated with the GOP, started negotiations at 60 percent in the GOP direction, and allowed Corporate lobbyists and ConservaDems to dominate the left half of the spectrum, fueled by corporate money.

(The ACA, for example, was designed to placate insurance lobbies and their lackeys Joe L. and Max Baucus....where are they now?)

however, most Democrats recognize political reality and fight for what they believe is achievable at any given time, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that they know or think won't go anywhere at that particular point in time. The fact that we *barely* got the ACA through should prove the futility of pushing for single payer back in 2009-2010. Should they have tried? Maybe, but valuable time would have been spent pushing for something that most Dems (and probably Obama) knew wasn't going to get through Congress. Worth recognizing that Single Payer failed to be implemented in Sanders' progressive state of Vermont, so it may not be as easy of a sell as some progressives think that it might be (which isn't to say it isn't a worthy goal).

She had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support gay marriage. She's only liberal on social issues when she's forced to be.

nm

Then the real loss here is the definition of "progressive liberal"

R.I.P., meaningful political terms.

and a even more of a shift rightward by the Democratic™ party, because Hillary was pulled too far left and that is why she lost.

Like you are saying, it is a formula that has worked for decades, so why would they want to change it.

A movement cannot be achieved on the cheap and lazy. It takes a grass roots effort to elect like minded individuals at the state and federal legislative levels. Like the Tea Party did. That coalition must be built first before a leader can lead. Trying to do it on the cheap by electing a 75 year old first and building a political coalition at the legislative level second was never going to happen.

First, one can't generalize about a movement in which millions and millions of people are involved. The people who enthusiastically support Sanders range from young millennials in their first foray into national affairs to grizzled old progressives who have been activists for decades to average people for whom his message resonates....It ranges from people who can't stand Clinton to people who wold be happy with either.

More importantly, Sanders did not step into a void and create a movement out of thin air. Sanders has simply tapped into a combination of forces that have been alive and vital long before he stepped onto the stage.

Much of the energy behind him has come from people who HAVE been working in the trenches for decades. I would bet you that a large number who are old enough worked hard for Obama, and before that Dean....And many who work on the local level.

And many have been working in ways that are "political" in a broad sense but outside the template of party politics. Working on issues, local grass roots movements, etc.

No, this is not a single issue or single candidate movement. He simply has focused and is expressing it.

That's my whole point. Why haven't those "millions and millions" of people had any impact on the legislative level ? Why are 37 states run by Republicans ? Why is the Senate and House controlled by Republicans ? THAT IS WHERE THOSE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE MUST MAKE A DIFFERENCE FIRST. No individual can lead without the proper political power. Hillary did not demonize Sanders. Hillary understands the current political power structure in Congress and what is legitimately achievable and what is not.

There are are no "one size fits all" templates for this.

The superficial "packaging" of candidates has an impact, plus there are politicians who are a mixed bag.

For years, my Congressman was the blandest, most boring, stodgy uninspiring candidate you can imagine. But he was also one of the most consistently reliable supporter of truly progressive legislation you'll ever find. A workhorse not a showhorse.

Then there are the flashy ones like Bill Clinton, who talk a good progressive game and get people all worked up, but then undermine what is truly progressive.

When you say "understands the current political power structure" that does not mean one has to accept what seems achievable. It means actively working to CHANGE what is achievable. And, more important, wanting to change what is achievable.

A public option, for example, is achievable. Single payer is achievable. Can a bill be introduced tomorrow that would get them enacted? No. But if you start with those as the stated goal, and fight like hell for them, and work to convince the public of the merits it can move towards that and eventually get them enacted.....That is a while lot different than dismissing it out of hand from the start, and demonizing the people pushing for it as "unrealistic" and calling it a pony.

I could go on here, but I won't.

There is no home for progressives anywhere in mainstream American politics.

but in terms of just desserts, yeah.

This primary is making a very convincing argument that there is no place for progressives under the Democratic tent any longer. It's become a centrist party, center-left on social issues, center-right on anything the oligarch paymasters give a shit about. That party's not for me.

I sure hope no one who remains in the party is surprised when it takes triangulation too far and crashes and burns spectacularly. I believe that will occur as early as November.

and was split intentionally by the DNC - who is trying to get rid of the progressives.

This is a purging of the progressives in the party - their biggest bane who challenge what their biggest donors want.

They have purged democrats themselves from the party, as well as everyone else they should have welcomed in to grow the base.

I don't think they care about winning and losing - because they absolutely don't have the numbers with this intentional split they've gone for. I think it's a dismantling and they're paid off to do it.

1. Their vote

2. To STFU, 'cuz Hill's got this!

Very astute analysis,

Everyone knows NAFTA sped deindustrialization. People are just learning about how it sped financialization.

And when it comes to finance, as everyone who's watched bad guys in a cowboy movie divide the loot after the bank robbery:

the fewer, the better.

Who gets to survive to the next rodeo?

Thanks so much Octafish

by Sander's campaign and followers.

"Stockholm syndrome".."Confederate states".."Deep South" etc.

All code word meant to denigrate, disparage, isolate and marginalize a whole region of the United States and its democratic voters!

Sanders has never said southern states don't matter and that the voters in them don't matter.

He DID say that with limited resources, he had to set priorities for his primary campaign, he knew he had little chance of winning there, and thus he was spending his time in places where he had a better chance.

Duscussing the practicalities of campaign strategy is NOT the same as saying an entire section of the country doesn't matter. How about all of the Clinton campaigners and supporters who say sanders wins in states like Utah and Washington "don't count."

You are doing exactly what I am referring to, with all of the nasty dog whistles implied.

from many democratic leaders in the south to lay the fuck off of that shit!

Or did I just make that up too?

I suppose you are going to claim southern AA voters where not denigrated here on DU by Sander's fans as well?

They saw what their leader was saying and jumped right on the pileup!

That's just using a dog whistle to imply that Sanders is a racist or does not care about AAs.

Those people who wrote a complaint are probably sincerely offended, as I might be. And if their response is based on their understanding of it, fine. They have every right to complain.

However, the way Sanders statements have been portrayed by Clinton and her surrogates is totally misleading, as I noted above. And that dishonest messaging is an example of the Rove/Brock distortions that I was referring to in the OP.

saying what, in political terms, has been mainstream Democratic thinking for years, regarding their prospects for winning in the south.

“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South. No question about it. We got murdered there. That is the most conservative part of this great country."

That is a straightforward analysis of why he lost those states. Conservative does not automatically mean racial. It means that the southern culture, bith white and AA, is more likely to stay with what is known than someone new, especially one who is associated with being a "socialist."

That is simply a pragmatic assessment of where he had so focus on in the primary.

Now, if one wanted to put the political marketing of the Clinton campaign aside (the 2016 version, not the 2008 version, when she was courting white voters and dismissing Obama's support among AA's) there is certainly a valid argument to make that Dems should work harder to regain support in the South, including building on the ASA vote.

In fact, Sanders himself has said the same thing in terms of the Democrats needing a 50-state strategy.

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-speaks/

when he suggests they are bought and paid for Establishment and morally corrupt. When you are attacking 98% of the Officeholders of your political party as morally corrupt maybe you aren't a part of the mainstream of that party

This election is shaping up to be about the candidates and not the issues. People are voting for Hillary because she's Hillary. The issues she supports/opposes are secondary. The same is true for Bernie. People are voting for him because they think he's honest. His stances on the issues is secondary.

The same is true for the Republicans. Trump is winning on the Republican side due to his personality and not the issues. His views on many issues put him far to the left of rank and file Republicans but they are voting for him anyway.

Yes, there are segments of Bernie's and Cruz's supporters who support them for the issues because they appeal to the issues people in their parties. However, much like with the two front runners, their supporters will stick around even if they were to change positions.

Progressive liberalism is certainly not being demonized to any great extent during this election because the issues are not driving this election.

The personalities of individual candidates do drive elections. Always.

But in this case it is about issues on a basic level.

Face it, if one were to go to Central Casting to find an ideal candidate in terms of style and superficial things, Sanders would be one of the last in line. By all conventional metrics, he should have been what he was portrayed as at the beginning -- a "fringe" candidate who might get 5 percent of the malcontent vote.

But, as he would be the first to admit," his progressive message hit a chord with a huge chunk of the electorate.

To dismiss that as just a personality contest is to once again confuse and marginalize the underlying issues and forces Clinton and sanders represent as a Tiger beat beauty contest and rah-rah team sport.

"Ohhhhh. Bernie gets grouchy sometimes, and some of his supporters are not always well-behaved. . That means everything he says and does and stands for is to be dismissed."

his support. He's the only candidate hammering on economic inequality and climate change. Voters aren't coming out in droves to support a little known, well past retirement age, transplanted New Yorker from Vermont. They like his policies. Hillary's support seems to have little to do with policy. Those who like her like who she is probably more than what she stands for. Same with Trump on the other side. Cruz, however. garners his votes from those who like the right wing theocratic policies he's expounding. He even uses a Christian flame symbol on his stickers to be sure voters don't miss the point. interesting that the candidate on both sides with the least issues appeal is ahead.

First it was 10s of thousands of Occupiers. Then it is 10s of millions of Sanders supporters. A movement is growing of people who the economic system is not working for, and who are demonized and effectively shut out of the political process. The movement will only continue to grow. Those holding power must recognize that and address the issues. The sooner that happens, the more smoothly and peacefully the 'revolution' happens. Squashing it or kicking it down the road will only make the inevidable result more turbulent, and yes violent.

I was thinking the same thing as I read down this thread. 8 years of another neo lib Clinton in office and it will be too late to even fix things politically I am afraid. I thought we would have a chance to do this the easiest way, without bloodshed, but when you elect someone who apparently is not bothered by other people getting bloody for a cause they did not expect then we are sunk and bloody it may become.

... by a small group who think they own its copyright.

That's the short answer.

The longer answer is that you are doing the same thing I am referring to. A variation of "those purists" to characterize everyone who dares to challenge the system.

Every time I hear Hillary refer to herself as a Progressive, I throw up in my mouth a litttle. It would be funny if so many people didnt believe it.

For your own sake I think you should talk to somebody about that.

Yep, I don't think my brain can handle the inherent contradiction between someone who calls themselves a Progressive, but:

-Supports Fracking and other environmentally destructive policies
-Supports Endless wars
-Supports Regiem change
-Cackles gleefully at the death of human beings
-Takes a hundred million dollars in Salary from banks for "giving speeches"
-Supports throwing people in prison for drug use
-Supports the death penalty
-Is chummy with people like Kissinger and GWB

absolute back ass wards hijacking of the term "progressive".

Obviously Hillary's main goal is to keep the military-industrial complex happy. Fuck affordable education and things that actually improve the lives of the peons she disdains so much.

Why can't Hillary stand up and say: "Our priorities are wrong. We're spending way too much money to prop up giant corporations. What if we cut some of that and used it to help fund college for students?"

She could change the tone and start a new conversation, like Reagan did with "government is the problem." But she won't, because she's a tool of the giant corporations. She doesn't give a shit about the little people. She's too busy raking in millions from her Wall St. buddies.

She sickens me to the core.

She said her vote on the AUMF was supposed to be limited to force inspections.

She said before the crash that Wall Street needed to reign in some practices.

In both cases, she gets ridiculed. So how am I supposed to believe that if she were to say such things as you're suggesting, that you would ever give her credit?

according to your candidate.

Which, of course, is what it was about all along, the reality behind the stated rationalizations.

flat out willfully deceptive and devoid of a hint of responsibility.

The second is first magnitude weak sauce with a side eye rolling as she hovered up that ca$h while running with the same crowd.

Brushing off the lame wink and nod crap is as much credit as it should be given and scorn and derision are perfectly acceptable and natural responses.

Add in she is one of the ringleaders and a generational movement driver of the Turd Way philosophy ridicule is completely in order she is full of it by definition.

Tell us, seeing as how you are using that argument, how that happens in the red states who haven't expanded Medicaid?

I believe he was quashed by mass voter suppression and a 1% media supporting Hillary.

Hillary, has managed to energize the middle age to vote the same as they always have.

Certain parts of it are, though. Maybe they should rest for a bit.

It's ridiculous that those young hippy Marxists should want to have a voice.

and an observation that is verified by those of us who are long term FDR leaning, Activist Dems who have watched this all unfold since the assassinations of Jack and Bobby Kennedy in our very young years.