President Obama and the myth of the liberal base

I am hard pressed to believe that meme that is being circulated that President Obama rode into office on the shoulders of the liberal activists. There are a few reasons why I have a problem with this concept:

1) The farther left liberals preferred Edwards or Kucinich over President Obama. At best most liberal "supporters" supported President Obama as their 2nd or 3rd choice.

2) President Obama's campaign platform was left of center and hardly what could be honestly characterized as a liberal agenda (not that the Republicans didn't try).

3)President Obama's rhetoric made it pretty clear he had not intention of pushing anything more than a left of middle position and that he wanted to unite the nation rather than push it far to the left or divide the nation with harsh tactics.


Now in order to think of progressives as one of President Obama's core support groups, I have to ignore those three major issues. I simply can't do that. Sure many progressive voted for President Obama but far fewer strongly supported him.

And working on a campaign does not entitle one to demand that the rest of the country be ignored.

As for the rest of the country, I'm seeing polls which suggest the HCR reform bill has about 35% support without a public option and it skyrockets to well over 60% in every poll (higher numbers in other polling up to 70%). Even Republican states show, at least, a simple majority support HCR if a public option is included. It would seem the liberals are pushing for what the rest of the country wants while the centrists tell us to STFU and take what we get. And be happy for it. And, oh yeah, don't forget to vote in November.

elected, Denny would have made a bigger splash....

The resons I've read as to why Kucinich does as poorly as he does in the primaries is because the MSM ignores him and the money people don't fund him.

But then I read other posts which make the claim that liberals/progressives aren't spoon fed their info by the MSM, they can think for themselves, can raise lots of money to be donated to the candidate of their choice and they did the bulk of the field work Obama needed to win the primary and general election.

If the latter is true, then it must follow that the great majority of liberals don't support candidates like Kucinich.

The OP seems to have an agenda about making the mushy "middle" the heroes and the progressive base the villains. 'Cept the "middle" doesn't exist:

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false... (emphasis added)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

The fact is that the people I met who did the calling and canvasing in my community spanned a HUGE range. It was a very diverse group of people - extending even to a few former "Main Street" Republicans. Obviously, in addition to working, there was some socializing. Now, where I am probably near the center in DU, I was clearly more to the left among the people I met.

I agree with the OP, here on DU, Obama was not the favorite of those who considered themselves more to the left - Edwards was and there were tons of threads repeating Edwards' (or Trippi's) language associating Obama to corporations.

Heaping steaming piles of bs. Jesus. I got people to work during the election who had never supported candidates before, right or left. Long hours of phone banking and canvassing and entering data, and preparing materials for meet-ups. Step back from the edge. For pity sake. No one hold the market on virtue.

even after opposing him during the campaign because he made clear he wasn't.

Be disappointed but don't be disingenuous.

Amen! The President is much of the latter. None of the former. Thank goodness.

...him to be an idealogue rather than just a progressive.

I voted for someone who would deal with practical realities and arrive at pragmatic solution. I did not expect my candidate to do everything I would like to see done in one fell swoop--we do live in a nation with a wide range of beliefs. I still believe my vote was the right one.

But people did expect him to stand up for something. Instead of live in the corporatist center.

You're funny. With your siggy line and all. :rofl:

Corporatist? Lame, tired talking point. :boring:

If it barks like a dog...smells like a dog...and shits on my floor like a dog and looks up to me to clean his crap up...then I say it's a damn dog. Obama talks like a corporatist (now that's he's not running a campaign), makes deals like a corporatist, and ignores progressives...just like a corporatist.

it reminds me of someone saying your mama wears combat boots. In other words, it's a poor excuse for bashing the President.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Might as well call Obama a "terrist sympathizer"...or a "Commie pinko socialist" ... or a "Kenyan black nationalist".

I've learned that there's little benefit in discussing politics and policy with one who drops the "corporatist" label at every turn.

But people are getting tired of politicians telling them one thing and doing something totally different. Obama was supposed to be different from that. I guess we were all played then. No, I wasn't expecting an uber liberal President. But I also wasn't expecting a man who would cave on almost every issue he ran on. That to me says he's either really weak or a corporatist and was never going to be as Progressive as he made himself out to be.

as he is clearly doing what he told people he was going to do.

of dollars at banks and insurance companies.

How'd I ever miss that?

Hang in there - many people share your views.

In essence we live in a Corporate enabling, right-wing duopoly. Back in the 1970s, most of us liberals would be considered "mainstream democrats" instead of that dastardly label "leftists."

That people have plowed their own agenda into his and expect him to cut to theirs....or else....is their problem. And if you can't refute without using the corporatist hangtag...that's your problem too.

It ranks right up there with "socialist" in terms of lame arguments.

over the needs of the people.

Words have meanings, your ignorance of them doesn't change that.

Anybody threatening to sit on their hands come election time (bellicose hot air) almost certainly didn't break a sweat working on his presidential campaign.

and, others with their own agenda do not want to face.

bloggers, readers of said bloggers and internet snarkers love to say they are the liberal base. Which of course is nonsense as those groups are generally useless when it comes to GOTV.

The liberal base is minorities, unions and women.

:thumbsup:

since Dean's campaign the democrats have relied upon internet activism to GOTV.

Obama stole Dean's tactics to win.

are you really so stupid that you don't know this, or are you just a pathological liar?

"No center, no centrists."

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

this is a bullshit claim.

are you so out of it you don't realize the numbers of people who are online who are active in various campaigns?

were you sleeping during the 2004 election?

do you actually know tactics used to GOTV for 2008? they involved lots of people who are online.

does someone have to be an idiot to make a claim like yours?

DADT, Immigration reform, Gitmo, HCR, Financial Reform... the list goes on.

The things that are happening are promises and half measures at best. I don't hate our President, and I didn't expect him to be a liberal, but on the basic things I was promised, public option, DADT, Gitmo, I've been let down.

I don't hate our President, I'm just very, very disappointed in his first year.

an economic disaster. Still most of those issues are still in the works and some are close to being accomplished.

of reality..they just wanted it done.

"Many of his detractors, and even some of his wavering supporters, will be surprised to learn that in his first year, Barack Obama has already fulfilled at least 79 campaign promises. This is one of the most accomplished records of any first year in office, and it has come with considerable difficulty in working with and around a Congress fraught with obstructionism and distracted by its own mythology regarding specific points of policy, and in the face of the most uniform and inflexible opposition any president in recent decades has faced."

"The 79 promises kept, as fact-checked and reported by PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking service of the St. Petersburg Times, are as follows:

■No. 6: Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
■No. 15: Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
■No. 16: Increase minority access to capital
■No. 33: Establish a credit card bill of rights
■No. 36: Expand loan programs for small businesses
■No. 40: Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
■No. 50: Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
■No. 58: Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
■No. 76: Expand funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
■No. 77: Increase funding to expand community based prevention programs
■No. 88: Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
■No. 110: Assure that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as ‘must-pass’ legislation
■No. 119: Appoint a special adviser to the president on violence against women
■No. 125: Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq
■No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq
■No. 134: Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
■No. 154: Strengthen and expand military exchange programs with other countries
■No. 167: Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
■No. 174: Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration
■No. 182: Allocate Homeland Security funding according to risk
■No. 184: Create a real National Infrastructure Protection Plan
■No. 200: Appoint a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
■No. 208: Improve relations with Turkey, and its relations with Iraqi Kurds
■No. 212: Launch an international Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA)
■No. 215: Create a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
■No. 222: Grant Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
■No. 224: Restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
■No. 225: Establish an Energy Partnership for the Americas
■No. 239: Release presidential records
■No. 241: Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions.
■No. 247: Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
■No. 266: Encourage water-conservation efforts in the West
■No. 269: Increase funding for national parks and forests
■No. 270: Increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
■No. 272: Encourage farmers to use more renewable energy and be more energy efficient
■No. 277: Pursue a wildfire prevention and management plan
■No. 278: Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
■No. 284: Expand access to places to hunt and fish
■No. 290: Push for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to include sexual orientation and other factors
■No. 300: Reform mandatory minimum sentences
■No. 307: Create a White House Office on Urban Policy
■No. 325: Create an artist corps for schools
■No. 326: Champion the importance of arts education
■No. 327: Support increased funding for the NEA
■No. 332: Add another Space Shuttle flight
■No. 334: Use the private sector to improve spaceflight
■No. 336: Partner to enhance the potential of the International Space Station
■No. 337: Use the International Space Station for fundamental biological and physical research
■No. 338: Explore whether International Space Station can operate after 2016
■No. 342: Work toward deploying a global climate change research and monitoring system
■No. 345: Enhance earth mapping
■No. 346: Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy
■No. 356: Establish special crime programs for the New Orleans area
■No. 359: Rebuild schools in New Orleans
■No. 371: Fund a major expansion of AmeriCorps
■No. 380: Bolster the military’s ability to speak different languages
■No. 391: Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer
■No. 394: Provide grants to early-career researchers
■No. 411: Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
■No. 420: Create a national declassification center
■No. 421: Appoint an American Indian policy adviser
■No. 427: Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees
■No. 435: Create new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
■No. 452: Weatherize 1 million homes per year
■No. 458: Invest in all types of alternative energy
■No. 459: Enact tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
■No. 460: Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity
■No. 475: Require states to provide incentives for utilities to reduce energy consumption
■No. 480: Unprecedented expansion of funding for regional high-speed rail
■No. 483: Invest in public transportation
■No. 484: Equalize tax breaks for driving and public transit
■No. 494: Share enviromental technology with other countries
■No. 498: Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
■No. 500: Increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
■No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy
■No. 503: Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet
■No. 506: Raise the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
■No. 507: Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
■No. 513: Reverse restrictions on stem cell research
Most of these items are complex campaign pledges that Pres. Obama has been able to follow through on. Some just show he’s a man who follows through on his word, something the media should take more note of. But PolitiFact’s research shows a long list of serious political accomplishments, many of historic import, yet the mainstream media continues to report on the delays seen in enacting the most complex and comprehensive reforms undertaken in a generation, many of which —like healthcare reform, energy policy reform, terror prosecutions and financial regulatory reform— are actually moving forward at a historically meaningful pace, and will likely be achieved in the first half of 2010.

<more>
http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2010/01/05/5658/2009-examined-obamas-first-year-in-review/


The Obameter Scorecard

Promise Kept Promise Kept 96
Compromise 33
Promise Broken 16
Stalled 84
In the Works 272
Not yet rated 2

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

We rate their status as Not Yet Rated, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

The report card at right provides an up-to-the-minute tally of all the promises.

Other ways to browse the Obameter

All promises
PolitiFact's Top 25 Promises
By Subject

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises /

The People out here, the People in my neighborhood, know it has not been enough. I'm not attacking him, I'm disappointed in my President and my Congress. I'm not talking a scorecard that is easily fixed, I'm talking the real world.

Signature issues matter, and we've seen little to no progress.

Not a single one. In the works does not help the people being tossed out of the service everyday. Or the 120 or so people that die everyday without healthcare.

It's too slow.

If that's the only way you feel you can get your point across, then fine.

I've seen that list, everyone's seen that list. The number of words don't add up to a lot of change for the people I know who are losing their house. Four on my block alone, five if you count the one behind me, and they are still adding up.

Card check? Real help for families losing their homes? Plus all the other things I've mentioned in this thread. The people in my neighborhood, many of whom I registered to vote for their first time have gotten no help, no jobs and they do not feel help is on its way. Those are just the facts here, on the ground.

You should read Waiting on Roosevelt by Langston Hughes, since we are suggesting reading material for each other.

also flies in the face of reality. They're really good at being willfully ignorant and ignoring facts to continue to complain.

I'm not interested in going in circles with these people who won't face reality.

Fair point. I share the disappointment, to a degree. While we could list many remarkable accomplishments, most of us would have liked to see more action in those signature policy areas.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The President certainly deserves some, as do those within our own coalition who lost sight of who the real opposition is and instead promoted the formation of intra-party circular firing squads. If nothing else, this year has also demonstrated how a unified front of absolute obstructionism pays big political dividends...that is "non action". And the media are just as fucked up as usual.

He could not have won on liberal support alone. They are an important part but no President can win by their base alone.

And if the left withholds its support in the future because of his unending compromises with the worst the republicans have to offer, he will not win again.

But I will never stay home in a Presidential election and not vote the Dem. 2000 was the perfect lesson for me.

knocked on the doors.

You don't honestly think the majority of the party actives were the mushy-middle, do you? That would be hilarious:

"Hi, I am mushy-middle. I am not really passionate about issues one way or the other. I am a centrist and an incrementalist,and I am asking you to support Obama for President." LOL!

The party actives are not the same as the liberal blog sphere. Democrats have been around a long time and they come in every variety from moderately conservative to far left liberal. They are the party core and the same core President Obama has.

Or are we going to have purity tests?

Nothing like that.

The stronger and more informed someone is on an issue, the more likely they are to have a strong party ID. Those who consider themselves 'strong Democrats' are, by their nature, the ones who will be the party actives.

Those 'weak Dems' or 'Leaning Indys' are not likely to be the ones to donate time and resources to get the Democratic candidate elected. They are, on a whole, less interested, less informed and less passionate. It is the party actives who run election campaigns. These party actives are typically more liberal than those who 'just vote'.

were Black folks and middle age+ soccer moms.

there won't be any winning.

This is no transformational President but rather Reagan's eighth term-a tireless defender of the status quo. Very few people independent or otherwise went to the polls and significantly fewer made calls, donated, and knocked on doors for the shit that is being shoveled that didn't go solidly for McCain whatever their crazed protests of the moment.

nor have you figured out that liberals are not likely to fire up independents

If you were, you would not be saying the things you have been saying.

...and then I'll be interested in your take on winning elections.

You'll get your chance to put your time where your mouth is very soon, when liberals who have worked endlessly for the party decide not to lift a finger.

then we can talk

I find your attempted insult to be rather ironic. Your comments show a lack of real world life experience. So odds are pretty good that you are actually significantly younger than my 46 years of age.

so I see my real world experience is still useful in getting a read on people.

...is aware of how long I've worked for the party.

Nice try though.

NOT count. They have a class system. My state party regularly segregate small donors from big ones and corporations who give big bucks get ALL the benes. I remember trying to sneak a former candidate and very ill party volunteer in to a reception with Madeleine Albright and they would not let her in because she was told that she wasn't "important enough". She had dedicated her life to the party. She was in a wheelchair and took oxygen. She and her hubby had also "paid" $400 to go to that fundraiser, but it wasn't enough to meet Madeleine.And every year they make the volunteers nominated for awards pay to attend the dinner in their honor! But all the staff go to these events for free.

MONEY is the reason Obama met with Big Pharma and not the doctors and nurses supporting single payer. And MONEY is the reason the WH Dems don't really support the Public Option.

:rofl:

NGU.

Mighty Rape-Publican, that sentiment. Mighty Rape-Publican.

NGU.

responding to it's not unexpected. That's what you get from DLC apologists.

...someone as liberal and non-corporate as Kuchinich, it makes no difference if there's a Dem or Republican in the WH?

What i did imply was that if liberals/progressives were as important as they say they are in helping a candidate win a nomination, Kucinich should have fared much better in the primaries then he actually did.

And no real volunteers who know what they are doing? Have ya talked to anyone from OFA? I wouldn't let most ofthem near any campaign that wanted to win.Put them to work shredding papers in a back room.There are very few competant staffers.

I'll take it.

everybody finish your drinky!

The idea that far left ideologues should be rewarded for somehow making Indies vote for Obama is ridiculous. Like they wouldn't have without them.

The liberal base actually WORKS for the party - knowing that candidates don't actually walk on water and win all alone.

Who fired everybody up, who got the people who never vote wanting to cast their ballot for him? Barack Obama.

I don't think you fully appreciate the real scheme of things and what is and isn't truly important.

...those of us who worked - not those of you who pontificate.

rather they are the sort of comments intended to distract and detract

LOL.

Simple as that.

What will you day then?

you don't get it. We all have a RESPONSIBILITY before we entertain any personal agenda or self interest, to do no harm to our nation.

How about voting for an anti-choice and anti-LGBT rights Senate candidate, just because he has a D after his name?

fuck the scapegoating. you need to make up your mind one way or another.

Why would we get any blame at all?

why don't you accept the RESPONSIBILITY that your posts hurt Obama on this site by aiming to alienate democrats from their own party?

because, honestly, if you think that liberals are not needed to elect democrats, your head is so far up your ass you are seeing your own soul, not the soul of the party.

...with the liberal base working for progressive candidates instead of party or WH choices. Obama would be smart to stop coming out for centrist incumbents.

And the zombieocracy was going 24/7 yammering about how Obama was to the left of Mao.

So save the revisionism.

Including liberal and moderate Democrats, Union members, gay and lesbian Americans, minorities pretty much across the board, Independents of various stripes, new voters, and disenfranchised Republicans.

It may have been a once in a lifetime convergence of these elements.

To win again, he will need many or most of these people to turn out again.

Given that, it seems stupid to me to dismiss one of the stronger elements in his own party base.

But then, I get the impression that you really do not like liberals very much.

Technically, I guess this is incorrect as Nevada has caucuses. Most of my friends here sat in Hillary's section. I went for Obama to the great consternation of my Democratic friends. And, Man! Have I heard about it from them lately.

campaigned for him.And yes we DID put him into office.Do you think he would have won if we didn't vote for him? Somehow you have a very odd impression of the Primary process and seem to feel that if folks originally didn't support a candidate they are disqualified even as a voter.Edwards had the majority of the Unions.Do you think that if they didn't support Obama he would have won? Hillary had most of the women. What if they stayed home. What the heck is wrong with your thinking? And your judgment of who you think of as these far left groups is really strange. You would have to add Unions and Planned Parenthood as well as NAARAL to those groups and most of them supported Obama in the GE.

Maybe that was someone else.

"You know there is a reason that the liberals only make up 20% of the population while conservatives make up twice that at 40%. Liberals have a bad habit of being self destructive. I suspect a major reason for this is that they are younger and lack the wisdom that comes with life experience. " NJmaverick

That's a good one.

I thought so. It's sorta like what they call me, only in a good way.

My state caucus was in early February. By that time there were only two candidates in the race.

One of them was a DLC Clinton retread (literally) who wanted to obliterate Iran and force everyone to pay corporations for insurance. Three strikes against her right there. Not even a consideration. I would not have voted for her, even in November, for exactly those reasons.


That left Barack Obama as the only viable candidate. He wasn't Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean. Nor did I expect him to be. But he - according to what he fucking campaigned on - was going to be significantly to the LEFT of more Clinton DLC triangulation and corporatist fellation bullshit.

I campaigned for him. I donated to him. I voted for him. And given the same media dictated "choices" I would do so again. But he is not living up to his own promises. Not by a long shot. And that pisses me off..... not because I feel like another goddamn politician lied to me, but because he had a clear public mandate to be the 21st century version of FDR, not Bill Clinton with higher Melanin content.

He was the "option" ... a bit of a pig in a poke.

The appointment of his COS was all I needed to know
we had basically been hoodwinked.

Still...

We DID show the DLC that we CAN choose otherwise, and
they are obviously having to deal with us now.

In the beginning I was for Biden and then he dropped out,then I went to Hillary as she,Obama and Edwards fought it out. Then as the campaign went on I began to see the differences in the two. I talked about Obama so bad my daughter was shocked as she began to notice how I began to shift my views on the candidates.

She would sometimes come into the room shaking her head saying how she can't believe how much I changed my views but the longer the campaign went on I began to see many things that I liked about Obama and his views. I never thought of him as far left,that was the media spin.

the primary for state senator. My disappointment runs several years deeper than most. Don't let any of this change your mind though.

Exactly whose side are you Amateur Message Managers really on?

Because every time one of you squeezes out a "libruls-are-bad" post... and every time one of your little crowd chirps up with a "progressives-who-needs-'em" reply/kick/ditto...

... you actively undermine Pres. Obama and the Democratic Party itself. Every time.

And then you have the nerve, the absolute goddamn nerve, to run back to the BOG and mutually masturbate each other with the idea that you are the pure, the anointed, the selflessly martyred defenders of All Things Democratic.

When in fact you have shown yourselves endlessly willing to dismiss, discard, explain away and outright trash just about every historically Democratic ideal there is.

It would be painful to watch, if it wasn't so laughable. I mean... you really suck at this, all of you. You have no subtlety, no sense of style. No touch.

Just the same old sanctimonious, ham-fisted, "My-First-I-Can-Read-It-Myself-Book" toddler-level talking points, paraded around as insights of value or, even more ludicrous, as Actual Facts.

So... how is it that your actions so obviously, consistently undermine your stated goal? At what point is it fair to ask what your true motivations are?

Whose side are you actually on? Because, by your actions, you don't have Pres. Obama's back. You're punching him in the damn kidneys.

The funny thing is, nearly every time I come to DU, I walk away feeling as if I had listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

People are always bitching and moaning about Naderites, Greens, Socialists, etc. And yet, they never stop for a single second to consider that maybe their hostility towards what they perceive as "those dirty fucking hippies" is what leads many liberals and progressives to feel alienated from the Democratic Party.

It goes without saying that said alienation can very easily kill an election. Of course, when that happens, it's always the Left's fault. Never these hostile-to-liberals Blue Shirters who do everything in their power to push them away.

I'm frankly surprised to find DU so openly tolerant of posters (and, of course, the entire BOG forum) that are so fundamentally dedicated to trashing and denigrating just about every liberal ideal and value there is.

Ok, I'm not surprised. The open, warmly accepted hostility towards LGBT issues totally prepared me for the increasing conservatism and Power-At-Any-Price evolution of Democratic operatives. But it's still a little jarring to read it on a website full of supposedly liberal people.

I'm of the mind that is the driving force behind it.

Who benefits from trying to divide the party?

Food for thought.

:applause:

:hug: :applause:

and you know what?

they'll dismiss everything you say.

And honestly, I don't know why this website doesn't consider that these people might be Republicans actually working to turn away fighting Dems by doing exactly the behavior you have outlined here.

Reading this was like opening a window and letting the fresh air and sun shine it.

You nailed it, my friend.

Endless kudos forever.:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :fistbump: :headbang: :loveya: :kick: :hi: :thumbsup: :toast: :party:

if the democratic party wants to win, they should tell the DUchbaggers to STFU.

kept their collective ass home. Same for most of the other primaries. It seems to me most so-called centrists and "pragmatists" wanted Senator Clinton to win. She seemed like the safe choice. Without these useless whiny liberals Obama would have never been the nominee. Then of course the point of "centrists" and so called conservatives pushing him across the finish line would be mute.

could not have been possible without Iowa liberals. I know for a fact that Chicago area liberals swarmed into Iowa to help also. They didn't want anyone who supported the Iraq War to be the nominee. Obama's in trouble with those very same people now. Their view of him is solidifying and will be nearly impossible to get back. Betrayal is a deep, strong emotional feeling that may cause a voter to end all support, even in a general.

:thumbsup:

I remember the numbers during the primaries. Obama's early support was almost all from the solidly left (not from centrist, who of course supported Clinton) Obama supporters were overwhelmingly younger and better educated, two demographics that both tilt very decidedly to the left. (especially in the last primary)

Edwards was more of a populist then a progressive and his support broke down that way with a lot of support from Unions as you would expect. In addition Kucinich had the statistical equivalent of no supporters.

Seems like you are either very forgetful or you have a serious agenda.

They have no place here

Where is this huge liberal base that I hear about? Nearly half of people polled say that President Obama is too liberal.

so this little talking point is bullshit.

Which would be CNN, a "news" network going out of its way to be FAUX Lite, owned by the ultra-right wing AOL/TimeWarner corporation.

Think their results might be a little suspect?

you obviously don't need them to win.

We're irrelevant, not part of the base, and of no consequence, whatsoever. But, if we don't vote we're helping to elect Palin.

It's just nuts.

and find out if they agree with these bullshit talking points.

he is doing more to encourage voter suppression than any Rush Limbaugh.

The only time in the last decade that the DNC wasn't useless is when that guy in your avatar was running the show. It was a DLC proxy before then with Terry McUseless, and now again with Mr. Virginia Weaksauce.

This thread is pure gold thanks to you.

I've archived some of the best responses.

It's one case where mindless flame bait ended producing genuine moments of insight and truth.

Wonder what that means? Guess it means most people around here know bs when they see it.

He's NEVER put out anything unless it takes time to slam anyone to the left of what passes for center (which normal people call right winged)

What goes around comes around, it seems.

But a very good thread, despite it all.