How would you characterize the split between the pro & anti Obama factions within the Dem party?

Here we go again.

We all remember the fierce battles on DU between the Obama and Clinton (HRC) supporters. Challenging - yes, but part of the process - part of our democracy.

Yet this feels different.

It's one thing to battle to the finish line during the presidential primaries, but what we are seeing here is a fundamental breakdown of the linkages that unite us as a party.

I'm hoping this question can be asked without getting into a mean spirited conversation (we are all progressives after all), but what do you think separates those Dems willing to support the President's actions as a necessary compromise (Steny Hoyer) vs those who say "enough" (Peter DeVasio)?

One side says it's pragmatic, the other side says its caving --- the problem is, both sides are Dems!

Why is this question important?

2012.

Our strategy to keep the Executive branch in Dem hands may be undergoing some pretty radical change if this keeps up...

Or at least thats what they'll say.

Good observation MadBadger. :hi:

Do you propose we be rubberstamp robots grateful for a little oil on our squeaking hinges?

LET'S HEAR A WORD OF CONCILIATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. Listening. Listening. Crickets.

Both sides are NOT Democrats and we are not all progressives.

One side that seems very smitten with Mr. Obama is the conservadems who for what ever reason, feel the need to call themselves Democrats instead of realizing that they are nothing except republicans and conservatives that are too chickenshit to identify themselves as such. You will recognize them because they always have their pom-poms ready--no matter how egregious the issue and seem unwilling to continue along what has been the Democratic platform for years and are highly critical of those that don't agree with that.

Then you have the traditional Democrats/Liberals/Progressives who don't give a pass to this outlandish republican behavior and refuse to rubber stamp it solely because the president has a (D) behind his name.

BUT after reading this, it sounds to me as if you're saying those who support the president AREN'T real Democrats/progressives but rather Repukes who are afraid to admit it.

Did I read that correctly? If not, could you please explain what you mean in you're first two sentences please.

Thanks in advance.

But those that are willing to trade off the Civil Rights of women, GLBT or ANY other minority group to advance their agenda and belittle and criticize these groups when they try to stand up for what is right and what our party has ALWAYS stood for...even if they call themselves a Democrat...they really aren't. The only person they are fooling is themselves.
Those that are willing to empty the coffers to the corporations instead of helping the people probably aren't Democrats either.
Those that are willing to gut or even dare touch Social Security and Medicare other than to enhance it, are not Democrats.
That isn't a platform principle.

Granted, we have the Blue Dogs and Dinos for sure.

Yet until a 3rd party becomes prominent enough to challenge 2 party rule, we gotta create some synergy as a party or we will get our ass kicked again in 2012.

Either we unite or as much as some see this as implausible, I really see the possibility of another Dem (in the mold of Howard Dean) challenging Obama in 2012 - assuming he plans to run.

At this point, we have nowhere to go regardless of how badly we feel we have been let down. Such is life in a two party system. I think the difference is between "realists" and "idealist". Simple as that.

both parties want to retain office and power. so we may not have any good place to go but that doesn't mean we have to shut up and take it.

that difference between idealist and realist is the same bs argument as to why we couldn't get a public option, an option that a majority of americans wanted.
going straight to the middle is hardly a realist position.
they have the money but the numbers are on our side.

money and power will always vote themselves more money and power.
still fdr was an idealist i guess and should have been more realistic about what was possible.

Speaking only for myself, of course.

I've used the sailboat metaphor before, I think. A sailboat with a Democratic crew. We all want to get to the same place, but have different ideas on how to get there -- a long, safe way or a quick little zip through a rocky tidal passage that's more risky. Some of us think we've got the boat and piloting skills to get through the short way, some of us want to take the longer way.

There are certain realities those of us who've been boating longer recognize -- can't sail into the wind, for example, you have to tack -- and others don't. We're forgetting to teach the newer crew members those realities, ridiculing them instead of explaining things in a respectful way. We long-time nautical experts are also poo-pooing the new navigation methods, unjustifiably.

We sailors, new and old, ultimately choose our course by all of us leaning on the tiller, pushing it to point the bow the way we want the sailboat to go. Or at least that's the only meaningful way to go about it.

The more frustrated are letting some sails slip, a roundabout way to turn the boat that works quicker in a pinch but screws up your abilities to pilot effectively later. Some are lashing the wheel -- again, you're screwed if you need a quick course correction. Still others are jumping ship, looking for a different sailboat to get on.

And some are putting bombs in the hold.

The metaphor falls apart, of course, if we can't even agree on a destination. :shrug:

experienced vs naive.

D e s t i n a t i o n.

Some Dems really are corporatists who just want a kinder, gentler capitalism that would allow them to accumulate untold wealth that they would, of course, share with the less fortunate (read = less worthy). This type may even be actively involved in "community activism" but at their heart, they really want that big mansion in the gated community.

And some other Dems are those who believe that a system that allows the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few is inherently flawed and cannot be the model for a society that truly values justice and fairness. We (I obviously am in this second group) believe that the production of society should be for the benefit of all of society's members, no matter what their role.

it's the difference berween traditional democratic values, pro working/middle class, pro labor, pro civil liberties. pro equal rights versus the new democrats who imho are more like liberal republicans of the past.

the successes that the administration and it's supporters point to as examples of being pro middle/working class are half measures at best. a bone thrown to the masses after the wealthy got theirs.

the new nafta style trade deal with korea while unemployment is still near double digits

the hcr bill with a mandate and no po while premiums and deductibles go up while health corps post record profits.

and now 13 months of ui extensions with a deficit increasing taxcut for the wealthy while the gop is using the deficit as a reason to go after ss.

at this point what's good for the wealthiest is no longer good for the majority and the democrats are going to have to pick a side.

Because John Q. Public does not pay attention like we do on DU.

Right now, the reality TV crowd is seeing a president operating from weakness. I believe it would be better to go down fighting for principles that are unapologetically non-negotiable vs wobbling in the middle ground.

People like to vote for someone that stands on principle - that's what I did in 2010 voting for Obama. Now, I wonder was it a Trojan Horse? I'm amazed that some of our Dem leaders think it's no big deal (to deal on taxes). By compromising, who's votes to they expect to win in 2012?

I don't think you can generalize about either side. The reasons they feel the way they do, or act the way they do, are as numerous as there are people. If I did have to generalize about each side, I would probably break it down into people whose loyalty is for this President (or this Presidency), and people whose loyalty is to the issues they care about. There are many people who love Obama personally, and will support him no matter what. It is painfully unnerving for them to watch other Democrats criticizing this President. Then there are people who feel hurt and disappointed because the issues they care passionately about, the very reason they care about politics at all, are not being addressed. Neither side really understands the other, because they are coming at politics from totally different viewpoints. Each side thinks the other side should think more like their side (now there's a awkward sentence!).

I think we saw exactly the same thing during the primaries. Perhaps because time has passed, this "feels" different. If we could go back in a time capsule, I think you would realize, things really were very similar. People who supported Obama (or Clinton) then...supported them for various reasons. For some it was purely for the issues. For some it was about the person (or even...the person they hated). Most people I think fell somewhere in the middle, it was a mixture of liking (or disliking) one candidate personally, and agreement with them on the issues.

I think a lot of people have a breaking point. They will support the person up until a certain point, until they feel like they have lost faith in a politician's integrity. I think that is what we are seeing now with Obama. A lot of people are simply fed up, and they can no longer hold back their frustration. They are now butting heads with those people who lean more to the side of "unconditional" support for this President.

This is an ugly thing to watch. But make no mistake, this was bound to happen to some degree. Obama was bound to do things to piss off some of his base. Personally, I didn't expect it to get this bad. But let's be honest here, he has brought a lot of this on himself. A lot of people are simply in a state of shock over the difference between candidate Obama and President Obama. Myself included.

I still love Obama. But MAN, I'll tell ya...I am REALLY pissed off at him right now.

Thanks for the honest answer - I think you covered it well. My concern is if people stay shocked, there will be a challenge from within the party in 2012. Historically, the odds are against that happening - but it could it will if people (myself included) remain disillusioned with Obama's direction.

If he shifts back to the man I elected, I'll work like hell (again) to re-elect him.

WELCOME to DU :hi: :kick:

Wish I didn't have to agree with it, but...

base up in arms with most of what they do. The only reason you didn't see it on DU under Clinton is because there was no DU under Clinton. Clinton of course easily won re-election.

Obama's approval rating among Democrats is the highest among any President since JFK.