Seriously, folks: what's a conscientious liberal to do?

I guess this comes down to the same old question we've wrestled with for decades: should we vote for a Democrat who is clearly the lesser of two "evils" or should we simply refuse to vote for anyone who hasn't demonstrated a commitment to putting liberal values into practice when given the opportunity?

While I certainly agree that Barack Obama has accomplished some positive things in his not quite 18 months in office, he has absolutely disappointed me, even disgusted me, with some of his actions or failures to act.

I strongly favored a public option. While it may be technically true that Obama the candidate never actually promised a public option, he sure seemed to favor it and said so. What happened?

He DID say he'd close Guantanamo when he was a candidate. It's still open with no firm end date in sight. What happened?

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell; passage of the Employee Free Choice Act; reversing most of the Patriot Act---What happened?

And, endorsing off-shore drilling? Whose ass did he pull that out of?

All of the above, and more, make me want to at least consider encouraging and supporting a primary opponent to the president in 2012. I know it would be a lost cause, but it might make me feel better about my vote.

And, when President Obama is again the Democratic candidate? What then?

I don't care who the Republicans nominate. They will either be "much worse" than Obama or "Holy Shit! You can't be serious!"
So, the question is: should I cast a "protest" vote and write in Kucinich or Sanders or vote Green?

I am aware that President Obama is about to nominate his second Supreme Court Justice and that a third Justice might be named before his first term is up. And, I literally shudder to think what our country would be like with two or three more like Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

I believe that there must be a way to expand our choices beyond "vote for a corporate candidate who takes us for granted" or "waste a vote and risk allowing the election of a Limbaugh-approved candidate". But, what is it?

I am frustrated by the fact that we seem to be effectively boxed in to the "same ol' same ol'".

"Work harder", we're told. "Sign petitions. Call and write your elected officials." "Contribute to progressive candidates. Volunteer your time in support of liberal candidates." That's all fine and many of us already do most of that. And, many of us who "busted our ass" to get Barack Obama elected still wound up with a President who apparently has to stop and think when the choice is between ordinary individuals and mega-corporations.

I know many here are totally pro-Obama and may view this post as heresy. That would be foolish. The issues I am raising are, I am convinced, issues that many in our party are struggling with.

I really don't expect any specific formulas or instructions. I'm hoping for some intelligent comments.

I also never had "hope".

poverty would be a major issue in both his campaign and administration. But it wasn't.

And, I will mention again... it looks like Obama is cutting people off SSI.

Does that matter?

Remember , it is just "words" anyway, and campaign promises don't have to be kept, particularly those to folks who have nowhere else to go.

I know that I really don't care any more about elections.

To hell with it, and I'm sure you know that your words sting.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

bookmarked...will be used.

Thanks!

in this admin.

Me, I'm grateful for an admin who has demonstrated they're willing to work like hell to make this country better. Perfect, absolutely not. But after 'surviving' the 8 years prior, I'm damned grateful.

No, this administration has NOT demonstrated that at all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bye.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You seem to be an intelligent person and you are obviously well-read and politically involved.

So why is it seemingly impossible to disagree with you without your resorting, at best, to snide remarks? ("So sorry you're disappointed---")

I, too, am grateful to have survived the darkness of the Bush years. That does not mean I am willing to give President Obama a blank check to do as he pleases without regard to promises, explicit and implicit, that he made as a candidate. I say that as someone who, with my good wife's help, downloaded and printed out Obama posters at our expense and risked life and limb in a VERY RED county to paste them up in the wee hours of several mornings.

Believe it or not, I am an ally, not a traitorous enemy.

Some people are no longer recognizable.

And meanwhile offer as much support as one can to the real liberals in government, and try as hard as possible to get more liberals in office.

I think we have to win the argument. We haven't won the argument, and I don't know if we can with the right owning so much of the media. But we certainly must try; can't succeed if we don't try.

People vote for hope, for anger, for many different reasons. It is personal and up to you.

But as someone once said, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It's difficult, I guess you just have to close your eyes and imagine how much worse it would be if the Repukes were back in power.

Have you ever considered that you just might not be able to get what you want, NO MATTER how much you want it or how you try to get it? That voting for the lesser of two evils results in, well, the lesser of two evils, but doing anything else results in the greater of two evils (no matter how much you might not wish it so)?

they've been counting on us to give in to their "lesser of two evils" offerings for decades now. ENOUGH. We must start backing non-corporate controlled candidates if this Nation and our species is to survive.

I like him personally. I think he's a good person and a great father. I voted for him. I worked my tail off to elect him. And with most major decisions he's made, I've wanted to scream. He's way too corporate and compromising for me. I'll vote for him in '12, but not with anything like the enthusiasm I had. People can tell me it's my fault for getting my hopes up. But they weren't really all that high. I just thought we'd have a president who cared less about appeasing the right (Olympica Snowe, Chuck Grassley and Joe Lieberman) than the left (Ron Wyden, Patrick Leahy, the freaking Congressional Black Caucus!). I really didn't think that was too much to expect. My bad.

I'll also vote for him because a win for Sarah Palin's party is unthinkable.

We just had 2 terms of Bush. No way in hell we should ever go through anything near that again. I'm not going to not vote to have those people come out and elect fucking Palin or some shit. Obama is the closest thing we have; I think he will push for more liberal initiatives once people settle down about the economy and some of his policies have had been proven beneficial.

because most of them (outside this forum) are actually fairly moderate...certainly 'left of center' but hardly to the point of embracing actual communism (which, if you really think about it, is the system Jesus the Christ promoted...proving that irony is far from dead.)

When I signed up here, I read the rules very carefully and even printed them out...the word liberal doesn't appear anywhere in them. "Progressive" is mentioned as a desirable if not totally required position, but whether that equates to 'liberal' as it's commonly understood isn't all that clear to me.

As to our current President, I'm pretty much neutral...I certainly don't hate him but I don't love him either. I assume that's a permitted opinion (?) Some things he has done are okay and some just suck.
In that way, he's not much different from any of the last 10 presidents I've had the privilege to observe.

Just curious--if it's not liberalism or progressivism, what are the qualities, or issues that bring you here?

I still say it's true...for me at least: I'm very liberal on social issues and somewhat conservative on fiscal matters. GLBT rights are probably my most important issue and aside from the Log Cabin republicans (a group I absolutely can't understand) there's virtually no support in the GOP. I'm also a big defender of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms but not so blind as to switch over to the 'right' (wrong) side. :-)

I would consider myself a moderate with liberal-leaning tendencies as far as social issues go, and maybe liberal on some fiscal issues ( that is a gray area )

help people who truly are in need and have actually made a good faith effort to help themselves. A line from an old movie "Flashback" has stuck in my mind for years; Dennis Hopper referring to Ronnie Raygun says "now we have the truly needy and the truly greedy"

;-)

I still say it's true...for me at least: I'm very liberal on social issues and somewhat conservative on fiscal matters. GLBT rights are probably my most important issue and aside from the Log Cabin republicans (a group I absolutely can't understand) there's virtually no support in the GOP. I'm also a big defender of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms but not so blind as to switch over to the 'right' (wrong) side. :-)

and after eighteen months you're pissed off because he hasn't fixed everything yet?

Sounds like you need to wake up to political reality. There is no instant gratification in this world. That's a bogus marketing plyoy you see on the Teevee machine.

Funny how that could be done to reinforce Hyde but not for anything progressive. I guess that was because the GOP and the Blue Dogs wouldn't be offended.

Some people don't like facts.

Where did I say that I was "pissed off because he hasn't fixed everything yet"?

I gave the man credit for some accomplishments, but stated my disappointments with his performance.

You respond, not on the issues, but with pissy-faced generalities and jabs at strawmen. Here's some "political reality" for you: as evidenced by the responses to my post, a LOT of people who support/supported Obama are, at the least, disappointed with him with regard to some pretty important issues.

Your type of "debate" is the type Beck and Limbaugh like to engage in: If the facts are inconvenient,(i.e., what was actually posted) just invent new ones that better serve your purpose and mix in a heavy dose of snark and sarcasm.

And some recent threads suggest that we are very much in the majority at DU, as elsewhere in the progressive "blogosphere."

My advice is to ignore the sniping and cat-calls being directed at you.

These are the familiar tactics of a (noisy and insistent) minority here.

But I hope you will persevere despite the flaming, and wish you the best in struggling with these issues in your "real" life.

I wish I had an easy answer for them myself, but I don't.

....up to the Dem Leadership....

....if they can assure me before November that a strong push for new progressive legislation and policies will be made during the next two years (with a change of tone and content), then I'll gladly show up and vote straight Dem....

....if not, I may have to take a long nap on election day....consider it 'tough love'; we can't keep enabling bad or destructive behavior....it's terrible for us, it's terrible for them, and it's damaging our country....if I have to accept more puke medicine, I will....

movement of any kind to suggest folks stay home on election day unless the Admin moves to the left. They said for the first time ever they were considering such a thing. I said all kinds of folks were privately pondering that. And I did not suggest that as the course of action to be taken but the idea is out there.

it was even more about 2012.Actually, I don't think it is a good idea but it is an idea more folks than would think are talking about.There is a lot of anger out there on the liberal side as well. Just look at the numbers threads on this subject are getting.

if you knew the folks considering it for the first time. They were staunch Obama supporters. I do not say this is a good thing.

It was called "Party Unity My Ass".

The media bought into it but in the end it was a few nobodies who didn't matter at all.

But it is likely you wouldn't believe this. Funny, in my frustration, I had threatened not to vote and this person reminded me today that they had talked me into voting for the president, and they said that they found it ironic that I was now attempting to convince them to vote. Both of us have been Democrats for more than 30 years. They were deeply involved with the Obama Presidential campaign and I preferred other candidates but we were ok with that. They were thrilled that this was the first time that their candidate had ever won. They no longer feel that way. And there are many others. But I still hope they all will vote.

and letting fuckwads dishonestly use that as proof that the country is moving to the right so they can retain their corporate lackey perks.

I just can't do it. :yoiks:

probably Howard Dean--if there is no proven committed progressive to vote for.

on edit: meant to say, I switched from Democratic to Independent in my voter registration for the first time in about 45 years of voting a few months ago.

Advocating that is a violation of DU rules.

bandwidth.

I'm sick of these above-it-all purists and their demands.

in fact, the former head of the DNC -- remember that?

"purists" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

if he were really in office.

Sick of your bitterness.

You're of no help at all and your "contributions" do nothing but help the conservatives.

My "demands" for accountability, inclusion of We The People, low priority given to ass-kissing and deal-making with corpos, and general adherence to the principles of the Democratic Party have been well proven by Dean. He is outspokenly FOR a generally progressive agenda, he is innovative and accessible. Obama only hinted and implied that he was, never really committing himself to much, so later he could say, "I never ran on that." His first allegiance is to the big corpos, and Dean's would not be -- as he HAS DEMONSTRATED.
I don't seek "perfection," and I know Dean would disappoint in certain ways--but I am confident he would not be a total sell-out.

If you're "sick of my bitterness" as you call it, don't read my posts. Problem solved!

folks who are demanding the Democrats actually support their own platform and refuse to compromise anymore to the GOP every day. And they certainly outnumber the conservudems on this board.The recs for those demanding support of the left are in the hundreds, most longtime members.And most ARE Democrats.We want our party back.

It fitted your online persona perfectly, you know. :shrug:

Fitting.

And reversible.

do you hear us now, Rahm?

We're allowed to vote only for the officially sanctioned "democrats"--or "leave the party."
After being told so many times to vote their way or the highway, I took the highway.
I am firmly convinced that only a voter rebellion will change anything. Constantly voting in corporadems does nothing and will not advance a progressive agenda.

trying to humiliate people will WIN VOTES?

:wtf:

http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/03/we-are-losing-america-right-before-our.html

It's not working. We vote for what we don't need and for those unwilling to truly address our enormous structural injustices that are driving our country further and further away from anything remotely good or remotely just, or remotely honorable for the majority of its citizens - out of ridiculous fear that the alternative is "worse."

Hows that worked out for us? Badly. The ship's sinking. You can align yourself with those that want to make it sink fast, or your can align yourself with those that want to make it sink a little slower.....

OR, you can fight - even if it seems like a long-odds fight - with those who would actually try to save the ship. Protip: it aint the "captains."

You can buy the least popular product but still have the use of that product. Even if everyone else is using something more people buy.

With politics, you have to work with other people. That is simply the reality. No one can expect to get everything they want, especially if one is out of the mainstream. The tea partiers are just as frustrated, too. Their dream is likely not to be seen in their lifetimes, either.

Of course it is the lesser of two evils. That is just the reality. That's how it is. You can work towards the change (while the other side pulls the other way) and the country does become more liberal over time. It is not giving up to vote for the "lesser of two evils" but preserving the ability to keep moving left over time.

Rather than looking at it as the lesser of two evils, one could say voting for the side most likely to help promote leftward change and least likely to start taking the country to the right.

Maybe it takes maturity and experience to get this - I don't know. But why people want to diss the Dems when there are Republicans out there, with control of the media, and about 48% of the voters - that's a luxury the left cannot afford. And threatening to take your marbles and go home? Just stupid. You may as well campaign for Palin.

A campaign is public. Last cycle, I campaigned for Democrats, flat out. This time, and next, I will be very honest about my process, and I will not gloss over nor speak strongly in favor of a candidate, I'll just say 'I have to vote against his rival, in spite of all the many bigotries and crimes he embraces.'
So you can vote for a candidate, but you do not have to pretend to like it for the sake of the candidate. Make an honest vote, and if it is a nose holder, call it a nose holder. If he's the lesser of evils, call him that. Voting against the GOP is valid. Claiming to be thrilled about it is absolutely not required.

embraces'

thank you for trying to lose us votes. you're a true patriot and noble hero.
:patriot:

It's a moral question at heart. Do you see more ethical value in having a good chance of minimizing harm or in trying with sure certainty of failure to maximize benefit?

Consider the last presidential primary. DU was, predictably, heavily behind Dennis K and against Hillary C. However it quickly became clear the former had absolutely no chance of winning and that only Obama could beat the latter. Whether Hillary really was that much of a potential harm compared to Obama even in the eyes of the very far left is immaterial - she was certainly perceived so.

So you could either cast a vote for Dennis that would have absolutely no impact on the race, or cast a vote for BO to hope to stop HC.

Now even the most wild eyed DSA fan would probably if pushed admit that the differential harm between Obama and, say, Pawlenty as president in 2013 is greater than that of the differential harm between Obama and Clinton as our nominee in 2008, even from their point of view that all options are "corporatists in teh pocket of the banksters" or some such. The problem is only Obama or whoemever the GOP does nominate have the slightest chance of being president, so voting any other way is irrelevant, and not voting for OBama increases the chance of the GOP winning.

To me conscience voting is valuable only in Utah or New York, where the result will not depend on any margin a fringe minority on either side could amass, but that's because the results matter much more to me than the intent.

I agree with a lot of what you say President Obama let my hopes down a bit too but I know the other side is nearly guaranteed to not be better and as a whole there is no chance of them caring about what I care about.

The solution is to breed, have lots of children, adopt kids, or to a lesser extent volunteer to spend time with children, perhaps become a teacher and then educate them to the tune of the things you believe in and why, when appropriate. This, barring you yourself attempting to run as a liberal candidate for office is your best bet to get more liberal issues favored or at least unless you devote yourself to educating people as to why you think your beliefs are correct and the other side is wrong. Kids and young adults are easier to convince, have less preconceptions about the world and are more easily 'changed' than adults who often don't want to accept new ideas or have their lifelong beliefs trampled about. I'd be remiss if I didn't make mention that when you educate kids about your beliefs as a liberal you also teach them to explore and consider things for themselves so they aren't simply your puppets like so many other parents attempt to render their children.


Simply refusing to vote for anyone who hasn't demonstrated a commitment to putting liberal values into practice when given the opportunity only works if there is a viable alternate candidate to vote for so you get them out and put the other person in.

Including Guantanamo and the public option.

So what this liberal is doing is to focus on moving the Senate left. Sestak's victory sent a good message. Defeating Blanche Lincoln would be even better.

to make it in Washington, you have to go along with the corporate/government oligarchy no matter what your personal feelings or inclinations might be . . . anyone who would dare to spout clearly liberal or progressive positions on major issues will quickly become irrelevant, be s/he a Member of Congress, a Senator, or even a President . . .

that's just the way things are in this totally fucked up system we have . . . and I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to change it . . . money is power, and it's the corporations and their owners that have all the money . . .

As long as we keep enabling them by willingly voting for ever-more-
Rightward candidates, the folks in the Party who are actually closet
Right Wingers will deliberately keep delivering ever-more-Rightward
candidates.

Because candidates much farther to the right than the Party's
mainstream is what they want, and we're merely acting as willing fools.

So one of these years, we will all have to agree that "this year is it"
and we'll all withhold our votes from the Democrats.

2010? Maybe. 2012? Maybe. But eventually, it *HAS* to happen or
soon, we'll be being told to hold our noses and vote for a Rand Paul
equivalent.

Tesha

If Obama wants my vote, he can accomplish at least 2 or 3 major progressive goals: Repeal DADT or ENDA, End the War in Iraq and Call for a draw down in Afghanistan, and 1 more of any number of actions.

:thumbsup:

The more people that vote to "let their party lose," the further to the right the party will go to make up for that loss by centrist-independents. Losing too many from the left because it was impossible to enact a public option? OK, they'll make up for it among independents by enacting more welfare reform. Still not enough? Then they will extend their spending freeze and enact more tax cuts. Eventually they will find the sweet spot, though it would be much further to the right than it began. This isn't what you want and it certainly isn't what I want. But it is inevitable given the incentives in our political system.

Independents (even if they are low information voters) are quite rational, and it is generally more productive for a politican to try to please a rational group of people than it is to please an irrational group who will eventually come around anyway.

Furthermore, switching an independent from Republican to Democrat really nets the Democrat two votes (-1 R, +1 D). Whereas trying to switch an irrational Democrat from nobody to the Democrat only gains them one vote. So they get more "bang for the vote" in replacing you with an independent in their electoral coalition.

Your plan is an exercise in futility (unless you actually want the party to move further and further to the right to get around you). A third party to the left won't work either, since our Constitution mandates a winner-take-all system that mathematically prevents third parties from holding any significant amount of power.

The correct solution is to vote for who you believe best represents your views in a primary election. If you lose, then you lose fair and square and should blame no one. You can convince others to vote for your candidate, or you can run yourself if no candidate satisfies you. The judgement of the people in our party will decide whether your views are representative of theirs or not.

when you consider the stuff our guys pull that the pukes would never get away with like the horrid trade agreements, welfare deform, attacking public education, and the pending strip mining of Social Security and Medicare.

Politicans should be criticized (and often) for not adhering to one's views.

But to actually consider not voting for the best viable candidate on the ballot in any election? What a joke. People need to realize that their views MAY not correspond with those of the rest of the country. That however correct you believe your views to be, that others may not believe in the correctness of the views.

Most people who are considering not voting for Obama would have preferred Kucinich have won the primary in 2008. The problem is that Kucinich did not win the primary. He didn't even get double digits. There may be many reasons for this; maybe people voted strategically to knock out another candidate, or voted for Obama even if they approved of Kucinich for a different reason. But in the end, the election result was that Kucinich did not represent the voting views of a majority of the Democratic party. He did not even come close.

The anti-Obama folks lost fair and square in 2008. They will have another fair opportunity in 2012 at the primary ballot box.

This is why we have primary elections. It allows our imperfect two-party system to select its candidates in a way that preserves the power of the people to ensure their voices are heard. While having a two-party system with primary elections may not be the most optimal way to funnel the diverse opinions of the people down to few enough discrete choices that can be voted upon, it is the winner-take-all mathematical system we have enshrined in our Constitution and nothing other than a change to our Constitution is going to change the system.

If Kucinich (or Dean or whoever) again gets a very small percentage of the overall Democratic primary vote, that will again show that whatever the merits of your views, they are not shared by most people in your party (to the extent that most are perfectly satisfied with Obama). You would have again lost fair and square.

But even if this happens, you are still considering not voting for the winner of the primary election. You are by definition throwing your vote away. Democracy is not a game. People who cast "protest votes" are no better than people who are too lazy to get off their couch to vote. Voting is an exercise in selecting someone to govern, not to protest or to make a statement. While you may have the legal right to vote for a non-viable candidate, a couch potato also has the legal right to give his middle finger to democracy and not show up to vote. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you are actually fulfilling your responsibility as a citizen to vote for the viable candidate that you would like to govern your country.

No one on the ballot that you think adequately represents you? TOO BAD. You LOST in your effort to make that happen in the primary election. Regardless of your efforts to convince others to vote for a better candidate, or to run yourself if there were none, the people of the party did not agree with you. The people on the ballot are not chosen in a ruse by a dictatorship. They were chosen by the people, who happened to disagree with you. There is a difference.

Aiding and abetting a Republican's damage to our country because you did not win a fair and square primary election is the equivalent of a 5 year old throwing a tantrum (except perhaps worse, because a 5 year old is still developing).

Whether you agree with this or not is really not relevant in the long run, because eventually the reality of the consequences of your actions will hit you squarely in the head and you will be voting for a Democrat (no matter how conservative) as fast as your legs can carry you. Other people will also suffer in the meantime due to your choice, but there is only so much pain you can endure before you start acting rationally. (See Nader's share of the vote dropping by 90% in 2004). This is actually a characteristic we developed from evolution; people who continuously acted irrationally were simply selected out.

People who consider throwing these electoral tantrums should get over themselves posthaste, before reality forces them to do it.

It is so sickening to see these jerks making these demands. They are a minority. They can stay home and do nothing but post their bitterness on DU and attempt to damage any real attempts to do anything in the real world.

in fact, uses his power to support the republican in a Democratic primary by bribing the Democratic challenger with a job?

just curious how this fits in with your "fair and square primary," which is good in theory.

Obama has the right just like anyone else to endorse whoever he wants. The voters have the right to ignore him. In this case, the voters did ignore him.

When his own primary comes, he will likewise have the chance to endorse himself, and the chips will fall where they may. That doesn't make the primary unfair.

so bribery and outright interference don't bother you?
interesting.
I wonder what you would have said if it had been GWB trying to manipulate "the people's elections"?

It's called the first amendment. Free speech is not "outright interference."

As for the offering-Sestak-a-job story, I'll believe it when I see proof of what exactly was said.

In the meantime, I don't know why you are complaining, because Sestak still WON despite your claims of "outright interference."

I'm talking about his power as president to try to bribe someone not to run in a primary so "his" person would run unopposed. Isn't that a bit more than "endorsement"?
And, yeah, I'm sure Sestak just made that up--I mean, it would really get his new role as senator off to a good start, wouldn't it? Why would he do that? My sense is that he "blurted it out."

I'm complaining about the PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.
A concept that is apparently foreign to you, since it has the word "principle" in it.
But keep telling yourself it's fine for the president to be sleazy and underhanded and everything.
I hope Issa DOES investigate it, because if there's corruption, we need to know about it and clean it out, I don't care if it's by a D or an R.

I and many others who voted for Obama in the primaries are among the disappointed today.

Your attempt at ad hominem, in other words, is predicated on a transparent falsehood.

I was specifically commenting on the OP's proposition that they vote against Obama in the 2012 primary, yet are still considering voting against Obama in the general if Obama is renominated anyway. So I don't think what I said is predicated on any falsehood; rather, I think it is directly on point.

After the primaries were over, the party united and Sen. Clinton ended up in Obama's cabinet.

Or did I miss something?

What I found to be dishonest or at least off-topic in your response was an effort to turn in back to 2008.

This is 2010 and the world is obviously different now.

You were attempting, as I read it, to discredit the OP's opinions by turning the discussion in a different direction, one of implied personal attack.

We see this sort of thing much too often here.

to vote against the Democratic nominee in the general election for President (and for the most part in Congress).

The OP specifically said they were considering voting against Obama in the general election EVEN IF they didn't get their way in the primary election in 2012. That was the whole point of the OP, and that was what I was responding to. If you think I am trying to discredit doing that, then I was successful.

The OP described a personal, political dilemma, and it is one that many of us can relate to.

Last I checked, politicians have to EARN our votes. There is no constitutional or legal requirement that we give them our votes unconditionally.

If you really want to engage in he conversation and help to persuade the OP or anyone else that they should vote for Obama in 2012, I would suggest you try another tack.

Surely there are better arguments than "Obama won, now shut up about it."

"Letting the Democrats lose" is NO LONGER an option, if it ever was. Because once the Rethugs take over, they go full steam at wreaking havoc and doing damage that will never be undone. Look at the mess we're in now -- the BP mess, the economic mess, etc. etc. etc. Most of it because of GOP policies and unfortunately Dems who got in bed with them.

With regard to those Dems: We just have to yell louder in our insistence on candidates who are Democrats from "the Democratic wing" of the party and not DINOs.
:rant:

I assure you that I am capable of reciprocating---ad hominem snark for ad hominem snark---but what purpose would that serve? We are both Democrats (I am---I'm assuming you are) and surely have more in common politically than we differ over.

Why mention "anti-Obama folks"? I am not one and have never been one. After supporting Edwards in the primary, which, of course, I now regret, I supported Obama. I was not "anti-Hillary". I was pro-Obama. I really believe there is a difference.

I donated money to the Obama campaign. As mentioned elsewhere, I plastered Obama posters which I down-loaded and printed all over my very red hometown. I attended two of his rallies. I voted for him.

If that does not give me the right to question whether or not I want to vote for him in 2012, then maybe we AREN'T both Democrats. If it is your position that, as a Democrat, I am obligated to vote for WHOEVER is nominated---no exceptions---your position is not just wrong, it is immoral.

We have "drifted rightward" because we liberals have supported Blue Dogs---in the interest of party unity and electing "Democrats"---time after time after time. Each one may have been just a little to the right of his predecessor, but the cumulative effect has us supporting bankers over union labor and literally begging Republicans to allow us to govern even when we are in the majority.

I believe that it is just as wrong to support everything Obama says and does as it is to oppose all that he says and does.

But, this is already lengthier than your reply merits. If you are actually OK with "voting for a Democrat {no matter how conservative)", then you are beyond my poor powers of persuasion.

it is your choice. Make it well.

If there's no difference between an R or a D, or it's just better to "sit this one out in protest," who are you really hurting?

Imagine if it had been john mcsame who was allowed to pick a replacement for John Paul Stevens? :banghead:

In Congress - imagine, for example, if it was that idiot neanderthal global-warming denier james inhofe continuing as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee - and not Barbara Boxer. Especially NOW, when we really do need to have somebody's boot on the neck of BP! :scared: That one nightmare scenario in particular is all I ever need to keep in mind.

Unfortunately, in this climate where liberals have been aggressively demonized and marginalized for at least 30 years, we have to take the crumbs. Sometimes there are larger and fresher crumbs than at other times. I find myself envisioning the pendulum that hopefully will swing back eventually. We had a liberal surge with FDR in the 30s and 40's. That spawned a CONservative backlash that took some 70 years to bear fruit - about an average human lifespan, which may mean it's all about the movers and shakers of these movements dying out and being replaced by whippersnappers rebelling against their elders, especially since they weren't around to learn the hard lessons that their elders did and from which their elders got their motivation. I heard a very interesting observation regarding Wall Street reforms. The protections were originally put in place to remedy and curtail the robber-baron rape-and-pillage mentality that led to the Great Depression. So, fine, 'eh? Well, not so much - because, according to this premise, once the regulations were in place and having an effect, the young 'uns growing up found themselves restricted when they wanted to take chances and cut corners, because they weren't around, or they were too young, to remember what calamity ensues when you DON'T have those restrictions and protections in place, and they either forgot or weren't interested in the lessons that should have been learned. The attitude becomes - "hey? WHAT problems? We're fine! All better! We don't need those regulations and restrictions and protections anymore! It's all fixed! Screw it! Let's party!" The conclusion of this argument was that this stuff happens in something like 80-year cycles, for this generational reason. So it may take 70 more years to push us back to a liberal-leaning nation as people wake up and realize - "uh - hey! Gee, this is fucked up now! Something's gotta be done to fix this mess! There oughta be a law..."

For example... there are threads right now about low-income housing being cut even further by the president we were assured would help poor and homeless people. Yet, I don't see a lot of you flocking to that thread, and plotting of ways to INCREASE low-income housing.

But, here you are, telling us that it matters to YOU who is sent to the Supreme Court, and that we should care about that, even though this is no end to us living in our cars?

I ask again... when you ignore us, why should we care what YOU think is important?

70 more years of this shit and there will be no resources to reverse or even significantly mitigate the problems.

Worse we're still fervently digging the hole. No, we can't play wait and see or magic pendulum.

from completely destroying the country.

Whatever progress we get from them is bonus material.

We're not going to get the government we want--this is a center-right country where Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln are considered swing votes.

Stop accepting the MSM-GOP-DLC party line and free yourself from despair.