It's always good to hear what Thomas Frank is thinking.

Thanks for posting

Good show, I thought.

I realize that comments about "Stockholm Syndrome" have really caused a lot of badly hurt feelings on both sides, but there really is a disconnect between those who feel the pain of the DLC takeover and those who don't see it or refuse to see it.

The problem begins with thinking President Obama has governed as a Progressive, or that he has but has been stymied by outside forces.

To this typical White Progressive, it seems abundantly clear that he did not fulfill promises (implied or directly stated) made before he was elected and instead pursued a course that seemed very much overly cozy with Republicans and with Wall Street and with the legacy of Ronald Reagan and so forth.

Now I will undoubtedly be called a racist for such comments, but I was expecting and wanting a much more aggressively Progressive President Obama. I wish he had used his mandate to really stick it to those who were on the other side. I wish he had been a tougher negotiator, and we did go ahead with accepting the Bush Tax cuts, for instance, or caving on prosecuting anyone from Wall Street on the financial crisis or on limiting the stimulus or structuring it the way we did. I'm sure this might be an unpopular notion, but I was wanting and expecting someone who could bring on the bad like Puff Daddy and I got something more like Urkel.

I appreciate his dignity, his intelligence, his poise, all sorts of things about him, but I do not appreciate his actions in "giving away my stuff", meaning caving in on things that we have fought for for so long and indicated so clearly we care about through working for him, donating to him, and voting for him.

I have struggled for a long time wondering why he would operate this way. How could he actually get pleasure in not being more forceful or Progressive? And now, I simply have to accept that he has governed largely the way he has wanted and the way he believes - more in accordance with Third Way principles by far than I would like.

And now, now that shenanigans and power plays and dirty tricks and perhaps just so many other variables have put Hillary ahead and she may very well be the candidate, I am being asked to accept another bunch of years governed by much the same Third Way philosophy and probably even worse. I mean, I voted for President Obama in the first place because I couldn't imagine he would be as Conservative as he has turned out to be (all the while being mislabeled as a "Socialist" in the most misleading way). Heck, if he's a Socialist, I must be a Trotskite or worse!!!! If I find either Obama or Clinton to be more Third Way and less Progressive, which seems only confirmed by their words and actions, then I am an easy target to many here as a racist or a sexist, which really is not accurate. I am acting completely and solely on the basis of my political views.

So, yes, this now is underneath a vast disbelief that PoC could support overwhelmingly a candidate that will continue down this path, where the people who need government on their side the most are likely to get less and less of that, no matter which party they support.

Heck, at least look at the video above. Seems completely right on to me. And makes me realize why we are losing all the time, even when we say we are winning.

It is really a shame, because there is through this a vast split in the Democratic Party, which will not be easily healed. And if the video is correct, there will never be any true Progressive action, only a regressive kind of retreat and entrenchment, if we continue on the tracks we now seem to be going down.

have a real hard time figuring out how he ended up giving so much away--and how he can possibly support something like the TPP.

I didn't see much in the interview about the role of money and funding in the interview with Frank and I think that it has played a much bigger role in the ideological split than was indicated in the interview. The utter corruption and force that big money plays in policy and the chipping away of values, piece by piece, is a terminal cancer on our country. One only need to read the book by Perkins "Confessions of an economic hit man" to see how it was done to other countries to realize how it is now happening here too--and it is all done in the pursuit of power and money.

I don't think his answers on where we go from here were as convincing...no mention of $$ in campaigns - nor was nepotism even brought up...I see that as a growing phenomenon in both parties. He suggested that the party rather than divide would be reformed in the spirit of a Roosevelt if not by Sanders then a follower....

Doesn't confront the idea of how many are turned off and may not vote if Clinton is the candidate.

I don't find that someone will pick up from Sanders in 4 years to be convincing either - I think that one of Sanders' strengths is his authenticity which is backed up by decades of public service....don't see anyone like that in the current House or Senate....