he seems to take all of Obama's bad traits but much worse.

when he is in the national spot light.. Obama has handled these kind of attacks very well.. A little too well sometimes in my opinion.. He just seems to trudge forward..

Maybe Corey will change his attitude when he quickly realizes that his close financial friends are the ones who push the racism..

It's curious that progressives couldn't do better against him in a closed primary in a Democratic state where the GOP opponent has virtually no chance.

Why?

Any questions?

but whatever. It's not like you care for progressive anything and you're always eager to defend the status quo. and no, actual liberals don't have much use for him at all.

Here, have a good hearty chew and then let's hear more lame denial from you. I'm sure you'll oblige.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/liberals-un-endorse-cory-booker-just-he-becomes-shoo-senate/68278/

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/13/dont_vote_for_cory_booker/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/06/the-secret-e-mails-about-mark-zuckerbergs-100-million-to-newark-schools/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/08/13/yes_cory_booker_s_victory_will_be_lousy_for_progressives.html

....to use your cutsie little sentence construction.

Go shit on someone else. My comment was limited to "consider the source"

Have a swell sanctimonious day, now.

I post facts. you dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your towering confirmation bias jonesing.

Typically.

This was an ideal race to show off progressive electoral muscle. Democratic state. Closed Democratic primary. No fear of the GOP opponent in the general. And Booker supposedly one of the worst of the "Turd Way" worst. Yet progressives couldn't field a candidate who could even come close. The chosen progressive candidate pulled less than 20% of the vote. This would be the easiest electoral field for progressives outside of a Bernie Sanders' reelection bid. And yet progressives failed utterly in preventing the ascension of Booker. It's weird that progressives would want to bring this up at all. It's a resounding embarrassment, and calls into question whether we can get any progressive elected to anything ever. We can't beat the Wall Street candidate in a closed Democratic primary in New Jersey? That's pretty dismal.

No one wants to be told what an inferior shithead they are, and that seems to be the marketing strategy from some corners of the progressive end of the Big Tent.

Bernie Sanders is a pragmatist. He persuades, he doesn't finger wag. He talks with, not down to. He compromises when the result is a way forward.

People should take a lesson from him, and from the ghost of Wellstone, instead of acting like scolding assholes.

will be met by a thousand cries that money trumps all.

Of course the progressive message and strategy is severely counterproductive...if the goal is getting elected. Unfortunately, the goal seems to be feeling good about oneself and drawing a circle around the righteous: typical group identity stuff rather than actual politics. So, yeah. That's why Booker will be the Senator from new Jersey, while various so-called progressives will be able to huff and puff and have their little complaint session, which seems to be all they really want anyway.

(and I use the word advisedly, because the person could be a troll for all I know) tell me that because I objected to the gassing of civilians in Syria, that I was in favor of a US-Syria war and was a warmonger.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't want to see US troops anywhere near Syria.

It's this kind of crap that makes DU suck, when people will misrepresent your POV in an effort to start fights on the board.

I guess one can take that sanctimonious, intolerant attitude writ large, and see why progressives have a hard time of it. Too much finger wagging and lecturing, bullying and mocking, and not enough listening and empathizing.

That kind of shit doomed the right wing of the GOP, too.

You're implying that "the progressive message and strategy" should have been different and then a progressive (presumably Holt or Pallone) would have won. Exactly what different message and strategy should that have been? Neither of them focused on "typical group identity stuff"; they focused on issues. For example, one of the campaign ads that got the most attention was a Holt ad asserting that Booker "doesn't support" a list of things like reinstating Glass-Steagall. Booker's campaign cried foul, responding that he hadn't taken a position on the subject. That seemed to me to be conceding the ad's accuracy. Anyway, whatever you think of Glass-Steagall, it's not group identity stuff.

The most prominent evidence of "group identity stuff" came from the media, not the candidates. Although Booker was the early favorite, there was media speculation about whether the entry of Oliver, the fourth candidate, would cut into Booker's vote, because both of them are black. (In the end, Oliver finished well behind, so she was no threat to Booker's victory.)

Some people who charge that progressives wish only to complain would advance a specific practical prescription: that progressives move to the right. In other words, they should cease to be progressives, and then they might be able to compete with other non-progressives like Booker. Is that your view?

Here's my take on the election: Booker is a superb media manipulator. It's likely that more voters in the primary had heard the phonied-up story of his rescuing a freezing dog than could even tell you what the Glass-Steagall Act did. Because quite a few wealthy donors supported Booker, he outspent the other candidates. (No, I don't believe that "money trumps all" -- some candidates have won despite being outspent, but money sure makes a hell of a difference.) Another factor was Lautenberg's death and the resulting snap campaign. Booker's advantages of money and higher name recognition would have meant less in a normal campaign stretching over several months, because his opponents would have had more chance to get their message out.

Alas, we are now likely to be stuck with Booker for decades.

I think one of the biggest issues for this Senate campaign was the short time span. Gov. Christie made a good call for his pal Booker (yes, Christie is a Repub and Booker supposedly a Democrat, but they support each other in too many ways) and for himself in the November governor's election by setting up this early election for the Senate seat and keeping it off the November ballot, where the Democrats might have had a better run against Christie for the governor's seat. So in the end, progressive message is not the biggest issue here. Timing and money and media coverage all converge to make the election of Booker and Christie almost a foregone conclusion.

FYI, the people of NJ don't appear to be as progressive as the rest of the country thinks they are. Live here for a while and you'll see, it is all in little pockets around the state and the power of NJ progressives his been dimmed by the light of Christie's bullying persona. And the money interests in the state which dominate both the Republican and Democrat party. In fact, Christie's claim to bipartisanship is really just based in the money, both parties care more about that than the people here in NJ. Those are just my thoughts though. Maybe someone else has a more positive outlook than me.

The reason Booker is gliding to an easy victory is that he had already had a campaign structure planned for 2014 and I believe he either had or had promises for funding. With the death of Senator Lautenberg he had a steep advantage over any other Ds.

I have my reservations about him, but will wait and see what happens once he is elected.

>>>“Someone who wants to shake things up.” A vehicle for bringing “street-level experience to a Senate that often seems disembodied from the whole planet,” is how The New York Times endorsement put it.>>>>

.... in an upper-middle-class family magically imbues someone w. "street-level experience."

Throw the progressives a few bones on issues that don't concern the 1%, but be a force in protecting the banksters and in opening up new opportunities for them to steal money. Make lots of great-sounding speeches.

.

from the peanut gallery.

Sadly.

That says it all right there.