The party doesn't have a rift to heal, it's undergoing a fundemental change

I believe what we are seeing is a fundamental change in the Democratic party. Just as Civil Rights issues drove the Dixiecrats (and their conservative and often racist views) from the party, I think we are seeing another slightly less drastic change, but a change none the less. I think you have Hillary supporters who will be leaving the Democratic party. There will be a few different reasons for their departure. Some will leave because they can't stomach a Black Man as President. Others will leave because they don't believe in the idea that Democrats shouldn't sink to the levels of Karl Rove inspired Republican style politics. You will also have some bitter feminists, who feel betrayed by the party (although I think when they realize there really isn't a better situation for them, many of these people will return)that will leave the party. All is not lost though, Obama's appeal is pretty far reaching. Obama will bring in millions of new Democrats who will replace those that depart. These new Democrats will be open minded progressives. They will strengthen the party and it's values.

In the end I think the party will be stronger and better for it. So while change is always painful, I think in the end it will be worth it.

Our biggest problems lie in the power structure of the Owner Class. Excising the DLC is an important part of taking that power structure apart.

sw

Clearly Obama has a different mind set. He doesn't think liberal/progressive is a dirty label that we should be ashamed of.

establishment power structure. It gives US an opening, if we're smart enough to take advantage of it. But we have to be prepared to either push him or run around him -- no let up!

sw

of liberals/progressives. Their defeat will be a driving force behind this transformation.

that a woman who started out as VERY progressive has moved so far to the right.

Glad the party is moving in a positive direction. Funny, at the same time you have a GOP that has totally abandoned whatever unifying themes it once had. The only real thing that unifies the other party right now is the drumbeat of the neocons, seeking new blood for their war machine. And with that, they've completely undermined their alleged fiscal conservativism, as they burn through far more money killing innocents abroad then the Democrats would have ever spent trying to give needy Americans a helping hand. All they really have left is the whole anti-choice movement, and that doesn't look like it's going to win them much in the way of national elections, especially when some of their biggest stars (Ah-nold, Rudy, et al) aren't exactly marching out in front of Planned Parenthood.

I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime, but it appears the GOP is falling apart while the Democrats are coming together in a fresh, yes, LIBERAL configuration. For the first time I can recall, I'm very optimistic about this nation's future. Of course, there's the election in November that we have to ensure is not stolen, but I have a feeling that the surge in Democrat registrations and recent special election victories bodes well for the GE. And I think the experiences of 2000 and 2004 will keep progressives on their toes to prevent any kind of GOP shenannigans at the ballot box.

Who has drifted to the right?

The Freepers have found allies in Obama supporters here who join them in their obsession and hatred of the Clintons. Anger and hatred poison a persons integrity and leave them easy prey to those (freepers) who would influence them negatively.

It's a start.

He and Hillary may not be that far apart politically, but looking at where Obama has chosen to align himself--very clearly with Dean and NOT with the DLC--has spoken volumes about where the party is going, and the voter response to Obama shows, to me, that voters who are paying attention have had their fill of the DLC.

And I could not be happier about that.

Dean & his 50 state strategy :thumbsup:

DLC :thumbsdown:

good point, Shakespeare. Very important that choice that Obama represents.

Hi scarletwoman. I want to see - not the death - but more like a "divorce" - more clarity and then a separation between two factions in the party. I am not sure that "DLC" is the right focal point, though.

This is a great subject - a vital discussion to be having, I think, and I hope we can pursue it in depth and reach some understanding.

What I want to see is a two step process. First, the party is falling under the control of those who are "economically conservative and socially liberal" and I think the Obama campaign is unfolding as the ultimate expression of that movement, a movement that has been growing for 30 years and that is more of a cultural movement than a political movement. Much of the resistance to the Obama movement is resistance to that, and blue collar support for the Republicans has been caused by that as well. I want to see the left out from the straight jacket of the culture war battle as a first step.

Then secondly, moving the public to socially liberal positions within the context of strong left wing economic politics. I believe that within the context of a strong traditional left wong program dealing with power and economics, we will effortlessly achieve the social goals of the progressives, and that within the context of the culture wars between the "fundies" and the "progressives" - really a spiritual battle, not a political battle - we will never get to the economic issues and will lose on the social issues as well.

We are about to see a dissolution and re-organization of the political parties. Very exciting times. To understand this, we can't look at things as right versus left because that gives us a false and distorted view. We have been locked in a battle with the right wingers for decades, a game they designed and created and one we can never win. They don't really care about the culture war issues, the purpose of engaging us in these culture wars is to make sure that power and economics do not get discussed. Within the ranks of Republican voting people are millions who would support a very left wing political agenda. They are all really Democrats, in the traditional sense. Within the ranks of the Democratic party, a relatively small but domineering and influential faction is made up of people who are "socially liberal and economically conservative - I say libertarians with an "organic" label slapped on them. They are really Republicans in the traditional sense, with modern and enlightened social and spiritual views. This makes for a volatile and highly unstable situation.

I've been thinking along these lines for some time.

If the Dem move completely to the economically conservative, socially liberal position, which used to be the Liberal Republican position, and the Rs stay economically conservative, socially conservative position, then that doesn't leave any part representing folks who ARE NOT economically conservative.

Despite a good education and a life in an urban area now (formerly a small-towner), I feel more and more like I'm being pushed out of the party into a no-man's land. I'll still vote Dem, because the Rs are so heinous on social issues, but there hasn't been an economically progressive Dem in some time.

It benefits the wealthy and powerful few to divide the people up into these two teams for the culture war battles and to eliminate any discussions about economics and power from politics. Modern liberalism is predicated on the odd notion that politics is a matter of personal transformation, that personal transformation is the only way to effect social change. I can just imagine characters like the president of the US Chamber of Commerce laughing at us and thinking "that ought to keep them busy for a while" as the liberal community sets about the hopeless task of trying to reform human nature, one peasant at a time. The problem is, the peasants do not want to be fixed, and resent the arrogance of people who think they have all of the answers, and do not trust them.

At the very least, I hope.

My ultimate goal is the overthrow of the Owner Class altogether, of course, so I figure the "dissolution and re-organization of the political parties" is just one of tasks at hand. :D

Sorry I didn't see your post sooner -- now I'm in a rush, and will be gone for the rest of the day -- else I'd attempt to write something more thoughtful and worthy of your own thoughtful post.

:hi:
sw

liberal politicians who don't feel the need to apologize and stop and explain "what they really meant" everytime they say something... LIBERAL?!

yes plz I wants it precious

I cannot read the under-currents well enough, so I cannot put into words what exactly will change and what will be longer term implications of this change, but change IS in the air. It will be fascinating to watch it unfold.

I do think the Party is going thru a generational change. However, for it to succeed, Obama has to succeed. Otherwise, we will remain much the same Party we have been for the last 30 years. Ask yourself, when was the last time the Democrats did anything for the people? The Great Society?

that we, as a nation, are capable of making it better. I also have to agree with your point, that the party has been living on past glories. Wish I could have talked to you before posting, I would have loved to incorporate all the ideas into one post.

Old-fashioned wardheeling is coming back, made very different and upgraded a lot by the internet. The last shift we saw like this was in 1960, the first campaign that was won because one candidate "got" TV and the other didn't/

Here's a recent posting of mine, that mentions that aspect of Obama's campaign: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5902836&mesg_id=5903862

pnorman

policies.. There in lies my problem with the candidate. I want Universal Healthcare. I want fair trade policies. I don't want Nuclear Energy to become the saving grace from oil; not when my degree and knowledge says better. I want to work 30hrs a week and my husband to work 30hrs a week and for that to be enough money to provide a life, home, and existence (esp. want time enjoying my home and family). I want my science degree to mean I can actually get a job in that field (increase scientific funding). I want more money spent on education; not bombs.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand that Obama is not the congress. I understand that these things haven't happened yet. I'm not sure they will happen in the next 4 to 8 years. I really hope so.

that all of them may not be fully achievable. The key is to understand what we want to achieve and what we can achieve. A great leader is able to tell the difference and get the public to understand it.

were paid for.. Stop thinking can't and start doing.. Its going to take a lot of work to unseat that ass hats in congress that work for big corps instead of us the people.

Once we win I plan on holding his feet to the fire.

Real liberals got too relaxed and complacent during Bill Clinton's presidency, thinking everything was going to be okay now that there was a Democrat in the White House.

Don't get fooled again.

sw

and then the GE.. I will be his biggest critic right along with my reps in congress. Little steps are not going to fix this mess.. It is going to take drastic policy changes to move this country in the right direction for all Americans and those who have chosen to live here for a chance (I'm talking about the "illegal" ones--personally, I don't think any person is illegal, but that's just one more thing to fan the flames).

He's not so entrenched in the status quo, we should be able to push him on some things.

sw

a bit nervous about how dedicated he will be to a response that deserves serious action.

Neither candidate could possibly veto it, IMO.

to do what is best for the people.. and the people would help pressure the movement. This is not the time for a half assed policy to pass that supports big pharma and ins... its time people receive medical care for their selves. A lot of the drastic costly conditions are a culmination of years of bad habits and lack of simple care. That whole section.. FDA and Big pharma and insurance.. the whole thing is a nightmare. The FDA needs to die away.. Food should not be associated with drugs. And the FDA shouldn't be funded by big Pharma. AND congress shouldn't be able to trade on the stock-market knowing inside trader info concerning Pharmaceuticals. AND GM foods need to die. HFCS needs to be banned along with aspartame and Splenda (which is just a sweet pesticide that I cannot believe people actually pay more money for to ingest than plain old sugar or learning to go without--try some fruit if you want a sweet treat). AND fruit and veggies shouldn't be microwaved before selling. My first tomatoes came out of my garden.. I forgot how good natural, garden grown goodness tastes.. My 3 yr old, who loves tomatoes anyway, is peaking in the garden everyday for the next ripe one he can pick off to eat. Sorry.. long bird walk.. but our food.. the building blocks of life is woefully inadequate.. our bodies are starved for nutritional requirements.. and the FDA is not doing the health of the nation any good... They ban supplements that are good for us and boost drugs like they are a cure.. they aren't a cure; they are a thing that helps with one symptom--and the side effects normally create another symptom.

That is of more use than splitting hairs on policy nuances during a primary.

Remember that in the 1932 campaign, FDR did not roll out specific proposals for the Minimum Wage and Social Security. He was vague and nondescript, sticking to inspiring themes that the country could get back on its feet.

I imagine that Obama will have a HUGE stack of Executive Orders, ready to go the day after Inauguration Day which will make a sharp left turn in the policy of the government.

for the man to really do something.. Along with shouting out to my congresscritters.

to get an HR676-type bill back on his desk to sign...

You pretty much express what the middle class wants, needs, and deserves in this so-called democracy. But even these basic expectations have been made to seem too much, out-of-reach, dreams of fools over the last couple of decades.

There's a window of opportunity now. But we will have to keep up the push for what we want in a very active way.

If Clinton supporters leave the party, you're seeing the destruction of the democratic party, not a realignment.

I know some of you would like us all to leave, but that's pretty short-sighted. You can't win the white house with just the votes of some internet warriors.

Luckily, it's not happening. Clinton remains popular with Democrats, so we'll stay around awhile longer.

that percentage will be made up by all the new Democrats Obama is bringing in. Even Hillary has mentioned the millions of new Democrats that have joined the party.

Just something I've been wondering about. You, along with many other Clinton supporters here, seem to be of the mindset, "fuck the Democrats, I'm only here for Clinton!" - so... if she fails in her bid, what will you do?

how clouded your thinking is.

I have said for months that I like both Obama and Clinton, I just prefer Clinton. I have said for months that I think Obama would make a fine candidate and a fine President.

No, it's YOU and your team that are trying to split the party.

How am I trying to split the party. Please, do tell.

by lying about me.

Find me evidence of your claims about me being here "only for Clinton". Let's discuss one topic at a time - right now we're discussing your lie about me.

I don't follow you around, digesting every post you drop. What I've seen from you is pro-Clinton and with a heavy tinge of disdain for Obama and his supporters. If I'm wrong, then hey, I'm wrong, glad to hear it. A statement of observation is not a lie, however.

Even if I were lying about you, I fail to see how this splits the party. You must think quite highly of yourself.

New question, though... If you think there is a split being caused in the party in such a manner, how can you then tell me you'll vote for Obama anyway if he gets the nomination? Either there's a split (one part of the party refusing to vote for the other candidate) or the party remains united (voting for the other candidate anyway)

is your side lying non-stop about Clinton and her supporters. You guys want us gone. You should hope you don't get your wish.

Whozadowha?

I haven't lied about anyone, nor have I stated I want anyone gone.

But what do I know, I'm just a kool-aid drinking, personality cultist, elitist, sexist, latte-loving, homophobic person who only supports Obama because of white guilt. Even though I'm not white, ain't that something! :lol:

I was convinced that most Obama fans here don't give a shit about the party the day the Elliot Spitzer scandal broke. The Obama fans were wetting themselves with glee because they thought somehow it would hurt Clinton. They didn't care that it was bad for Democrats all around - all they cared about was how it could hurt Clinton. It was a disgusting display, and nothing I've seen since convinces me that, on the whole, the Obama fans here care about the party at all. Most are just driven by hate for Clinton, and refuse to recognize that half the party supports her - they're happy to drive away that half of the party so they can sit in their own echo chamber.

v

As I explained, it's what I've seen from you. I already conceded that there's probably more from you I've never seen - I don't tag along behind you, as I said.

I'm not in the crowd who are waiting for any opportunity to cudgel Clinton. I prefer Obama (Actually I prefer Kucinich, but *wistful sigh* you know how it goes...) but I don't have a hardon to attack Clinton.

However what I've seen of her supporters is really no different at all from what you're observing with regard to Obama supporters. Well, there are a few differences, but I doubt you'd agree with my notes of them, so what the hell :)

clearly you are one of those that will be staying with the party. As I said in the original OP the split will not apply to all Hillary supporters. Many simply backed her as they would any other Democratic candidate. However as many polls show, there are many that are backing her over party and plan to vote GOP in November (unless they get their way). Those are the ones this OP applies to.

far more of the Obama fans would be threatening to leave. This notion that Clinton supporters are somehow disloyal to the party is just more hateful spin from you guys.

where are you getting your information?

Democrats are always very divided on many issues as we're a much less monolithic group than the repukes. The problem we get into is when we pick a nominee like Obama and his supporters who foster this "with us or against us" mentality.

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

as it sadly appears an attempt is being made against Hillary and her supporters.

This is not 'a fundemental change' for the good of the party; not in any way, shape, or form.

The best thing that could happen to the Democratic party would be the end of the DLC.

the Clinton supporters anywhere. Those who will leave, will do so of their own accord, because they feel that the way the party is turning no longer fits their own views. Same as the Dixiecrats did.

Then again, the world and current issues have changed as well.

I hadn't thought much about it, but for many years many people have believed that there wasn't much difference in the parties (even though there certainly is) and many, many Americans do not vote. People feel as though neither party really has their interests at heart and that their votes do not count much for anything, nothing really changes. The average American does not prosper during a Republican reign and prospers a little more during a Democratic reign, but the CEOs and the huge corporations thrive under both. If the party turns into a party that people feel does have concern for them, we might begin to see the turnout of those previously apathetic voters. That would be a marvelous thing to behold.

Edit: Every study I remember seeing on the subject shows that Americans are overwhelmingly liberal in their ideals. The political parties over the years, though, have discouraged most Americans from even voting.

Hence, "realpolitik" will prevail over hope and the DLCers will win in the end.

I don't disagree that we are seeing a fundamental change.

The party leaders have apparently decided that they can win elections with a chi-chi coalition of AAs and the arugula crowd. Granted, it's a fun and interesting coalition, but not enough voters to win.

But enjoy the fun until November! :party:

arugula, could you send me some? By the way, what is argula? I think it is a salad green, but not entirely sure about that.

Have to watch it again. Love Steve Martin. I really know what arugula is, but I really have never had it. :-)

B-)

time "reaching out" for his own party members. That's a sure fire way to failure. Those that lack the loyalty to the party and the ideals, are best cut loose.

To quote Chelsea clinton, maybe you're Clairvoyant, and if so that is amazing. Unless you know the demographics, attitudes of people in the U.S. for the totality of its future existence, you can't provide the data to prove that statement.

of your lines for her next book.

What a beatchy thing to say.

you mean like since Bill Clinton took office?

im a working class white man and i love Obama because he reaches out. Unity is his core value and i support that. Those like you who will take victory over ethics do not belong in the party of liberals.

except for healthcare, and his are not more progressive. People keep saying that, but the establishment is supporting Obama. His handlers are the same old political hacks that have been around Washington for years.

He is not preaching anything new or different.

Clinton is. And all the while using the same old political tactics that divide and attack.

Reconsiliation with whom?

Clinton especially never practiced what she preached.

In reviewing senate records, Clinton has proven time and again that she can and will and HAS worked with the other side, to bring them together.

I don't know what you are pointing to that makes Obama any different. ALL he has done is lip service.

Really can't be any clearer than that. See that's the problem when you brag that "being a fighter" is an attribute you are proud of.

They also find ways to create hopelessness by making up evil stuff, just to remain hopeless.

Obama fights. He just fights in a chicken sort of way. And it has worked in the primary because the media lets him get away with it. But it will not work in the general. I will give you an example:

"We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."

That was a McCain surrogate who was responding to Obama's remark that was a comment on McCAin's age--just like he does with Clinton's gender.

He has no new politics. Same crap. Different day.

from the politics of bush or Clinton. It's that ability to be respectful and understanding to both sides, that creates the atmosphere of unity, that is so sorely lacking in this Country. As for Obama attacking, that's just not accurate.

Shouting "RAcism!" from SC is not respectful. Suggesting that Clinton was responsible for the death of Bhutto (her friend) was reprehensible, calling Clinton a liar and like Bush, is a distortion, a like, and not in the least respectful.

It makes me wonder where the hell you have been to come up with such a distorted view of what is going on? Oh. Yeah. DU. You seriously don't believe DU is a reliable indicater of reality?

So I am fully capable of forming my own informed opinion. As for the racism charges, well when Hillary starts to ask people to vote for her because she is white... Well let us just say those charges have some merit.

she has shown a willingness to work with people who have been just viscious during her husband's tenure.

work with the 'other side'. This is worrisome, he hasn't had the experience to prove himself. Anyone who believes that it isn't necessary to work with their opponents (like some of the posters on this forum) know little about how government works. Bush is the ultimate example of how voters were led into the fire because of how little was know of him by the average Republican voter.

than Hillary...not that it 'matters'. It kind of bothers me that with all the information available on the internet people dismiss his experience.

Casting the Clintons as racists? That's reconciliation?

You guys are in for such a huge nut-smashing surprise. I can't wait to watch.

He admitted to sending a letter to the media claiming the Clinton's were "Racist!" admitted it, apologized for it at the debate, as he surrogates came out and purposefully continued shouting "Racism!" Clyburn did it again just before NC.

x

sorry I was very offended at her pleas to vote for her, because she was white. Sorry there is no place left in this Country for that kind of thinking.

that's just insane. You're making it up out of whole cloth.

than Obama does??????????

I'll vote for him. But I don't think he's nearly as likely to win in the GE as Hillary would have been. Just because he squeaked past Hillary in the most competitive primary season in a long time, with much of his advantage coming from caucus states, his more naive supporters are full of hubris and predicting a landslide, and ready to alienate Hillary's supporters. They look at McCain and see an old man and don't see the GOP machine behind him. They look at their candidate and see a demigod where others see someone who's okay but hardly inspiring, and really lacking in experience. (Try going back just a couple of years in archives and you can find news stories about people who did want him to run for president someday but didn't think he'd be ready in 2008, and were very clear about 2008 being too early.)

I'm glad Obama is apparently much less lame a candidate and less obviously elitist than he was in the Congressional primary he entered in 2000 -- he's worked hard to transform himself since then (and he had to; he was hopeless then), especially his image.

But I wish there was more substance behind the image.

Another word for hope ?

I was an Edwards supporter, and have been less than thrilled because Hillary and Obama are, indeed, not that far apart on policy (and not as focused on poverty as Edwards was). HOWEVER, as far as the party goes, Obama has aligned himself with Dean in what is a clear move away from the DLC. For the duration of DU's existence--and I've been here since the very beginning (my old nick was Not_over_it)--we have almost unanimously rejected the DLC and its tendency to advocate for the status quo and center-right policies. Dean has pushed away from that, and so has Obama. I'm cautiously optimistic that his policies in office will be more center-left, but it's clear that he and Dean are rejecting the ways of the DLC, and that is exactly what our party needs.

I know the Hillary supporters are angry and disappointed right now, and I know how that feels--I was crushed when Edwards dropped out (and spent a day or two here on DU telling everybody who dared to mock him to go fuck themselves). But we ARE seeing a transformational shift in the way our party works, and I think that's a very, very good thing. I hope we can all go there together.

Thank you. Too many DLCers in my midst for sure.

...CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression — working people, the unemployed — and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

just what the media and the conservative influences in the Democratic Party are in denial about, or are desparately trying to "manage".

This recent Frank Rich article points out how the idiocy of the current media, when it comes to politics, is rooted in not recognizing that things have changed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"In this one-size-fits-all analysis, Mr. Obama must be the new Dukakis, sure to be rejected by white guys easily manipulated by Lee Atwater-style campaigns exploiting race and class. But some voters who lived through 1988 have changed, and quite a few others are dead. In 2008, they are supplanted in part by an energized African-American electorate and the young voters of all economic strata who fueled the Obama movement that many pundits didn’t take seriously before Iowa. And that some still don’t. Cokie Roberts of ABC predicted in February that young voters probably won’t show up in November because “they never have before” and “they’ll be tired.”

However out of touch Mr. Obama is with “ordinary Americans,” many Americans, ordinary and not, have concluded that the talking heads blathering about blue-collar men, religion, guns and those incomprehensible “YouTube young people” are even more condescending and out of touch. When a Washington doyenne like Mary Matalin, freighted with jewelry, starts railing about elitists on “Meet the Press,” as she did last Sunday, it’s pure farce. It’s typical of the syndrome that the man who plays a raging populist on CNN, Lou Dobbs, dismissed Mr. Obama last week by saying “we don’t need another Ivy League-educated knucklehead.” Mr. Dobbs must know whereof he speaks, since he’s Harvard ’67."

well said:thumbsup:

and for all. And I say good riddance, and don't let the door hit you, where the good lord split you.

This party has to represent civil rights for everyone and an end to the divisiveness.

Bigots and haters are always welcomed in the Republican party.

I'm happy to continue ushering in the new era of responsive politics. The 50 states strategy was a perfect start. Obama is the right candidate to reconnect us to our natural majority.

the party should be more than just coastal.

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

and it's also apparent, based on the animosity being generated, that there is a minority of Hillary supporters who are no longer compatible with the party and what it stands for. They will be gone, doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's going to happen. It's better though, that we Democrats understand the dynamics of the situation. It's would be unhealthy for the party to cling to a mistaken belief that all the Hillary supporters will return or their positions can be accommodated.

It's pretty clear by the positive and thoughtful response this thread has garnered, that it's you that has lost your grip on reality. I don't know what's sadder though, that you fail to realize that, or that you are so delusional that you think rational and perceptive people share your affliction

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

who Is talking about voting for Mccain and I'm pretty sure it's based on race. This OP is right on the money IMHO.

will join the party.

...inviting them to leave.

NGU.

We've heard several first-hand accounts from people on this forum who have canvassed, or work with, or who are related to those who will not vote for "a darkie" or "a nigger".

The OP was clear - some of Hillary's supporters are her supporters for this reason. Not all or even most.

If you truly, truly think it's not possible that some people are sticking with the white candidate chiefly for that reason, then you're turning a very blind eye to the reality that racism does not respect political party lines.

I believe there is a certain level of 'tolerance' that some people have for others who are different, and nothing tests that like a shift in the balance of power or control, such as the woman who wouldn't vote for Obama because she feared that he'd put too many other blacks in powerful government positions.

Jon Stewart was joking when he asked Obama whether he would "enslave the white race" when he became president. But I know there are some out there who harbor that unspoken fear. I think it's a key reason that so many people are afraid to open up a TRUE dialogue about race - 'Don't talk about it, and maybe everyone will forget. Let's not make the blacks angry, or else.'

You may not want to believe that that thinking is possible in your political party, but I'd bet good money that if you could get into people's thoughts, you'd find it more often than you want to think.

There are racists across different ethnicities, amongst gays and straights, amongst men and women. Why not amongst Democrats, Independents, Republicans and Greens?

Never has a non-white candidate been this close to the highest office in the land. And we're seeing a nation react to the potential shift in this new dynamic.

And it's important to point out that the problems the OP talks about do not apply to all (or even most) Hillary supporters.

I truly believe that if socially progressive issues are pushed through Congress, those that feel they don't have a stake in the system will enter the fray; realizing that now they do.

I think the best we can hope for is that the left will have slightly more influence with Obama than the no influence it had on the pandering to the right..er, "triangulating" Clintons.

would tend to indicate you are mistaken

Clinton supporters. Nothing more.

:D

I bet that would be good on POPCORN!

There you are Swamp Rat! I have been wondering about you!


GREAT work, as usual!


All 57 states, including my own, Cascadia! http://www.zapatopi.net/cascadia/
The Republic of Cascadia is not yet officially recognized by Canada, the United States of America, or the United Nations. Not that it is any of their business.

Hope you are well!

:popcorn:

I do think that the party is splitting, and I think it is inevitable and long overdue. I also think that the outcome will be very good, as the political logjam from the last thirty years finally breaks apart. There will be much clarity and freedom in this.

I think that the progressives are going one way, and the old school New Deal Dems another.

This is hard to see when we look at the political landscape as being linear, running from left to right. That way of measuring people's politics is too simplistic. People who are "socially liberal and economically conservative" are taking over the party, while in the Republican party people who are "socially conservative and economically liberal" are becoming disaffected from the Republican party. The culture wars over the last 30 years - between the "fundies" and the "progressives" - have distorted our politics and submerged and marginalized the true political issues of power and economics.

The unlikely coalitions that have held the two parties together for three decades are coming apart. Collapse and re-organization of both parties, and perhaps the rise of a successful new party, could happen now.

Each faction has its own scenario, its own narrative, a narrative that makes them look like the good guys, of course. I am not going to argue against your narrative that paints Clinton supporters in an extremely unfavorable light, because I want to see that narrative pushed so that the necessary dissolution and collapse of the coalition that has held the party together can happen quickly. The faster it happens, the worse it will be for the extreme right wing and the better it will be for all of us. In my narrative about this, people are driven away from the Democratic party because they want issues of power and economics to be the main focus, not the culture war issues. The debate is not about positions, it is about what the issues should be what the battle is about. But that is not important. Regardless of how we tell the story, we are describing the same thing and agree about that.

There are many people who share the same positions on all of the issues, but who will be on opposite sides as the party breaks apart. The difference will be this - some think that by leading with the culture war issues and themes that this will best advance the cause against the extreme right wing. Others of us think that we will never defeat the extreme right wing by leading with the culture war issues, and that we will sooner see a political revolution by leading with economic issues. We also think that within the progressive movement, many libertarian and conservative economic ideas lurk and hide behind the progressive social ideas, and that this sabotages any hope for the left.

faster than before because of the internet, as well. Changes like this will have a shorter gestation period now because of the rapid transfer of ideas and information.

I was seeing how hard he was working to try and keep to groups together. It was then that I realized that there were more fundamental issues at work. When people have a lot of common ground, you don't run into the sort of acrimony we have witnessed in GDP. It was Skinner's post that lead me to realize there were fundamental difference and values. So different that some people just were incompatible. Its been my experience when that happens, things usually need to change.

in a very very long time.

good luck with that 50 state strategy.

Just remember McGovern and Mondale.

Look, we need to make the party open for people of all liberal opinions. If Hillary voters leave, I wish them well, but I strongly wish they wouldn't. We need them, their opinions, their volunteerism and their votes. If the Hillary voters leave the party, I think it means there is a failure in party leadership and member tolerance of those who are different in opinions.

This is like the situation before the Greens left the Dem Party.

The Greens, after over a decade of trying to work with the party, they finally became tired of being ignored and formed their own party. The DNC immediately demonized them (funny how they weren't "loony" or "fringe" BEFORE they left the party; before they left the party, their votes were perfectly sane, weren't they?), and I predict, if the Hillory supporters leave the party, the DNC will demonize and marginalize them, too. They will become like the Greens: viewed as on the fringe and loony.

The Greens were a pain in the ass, but they were OUR pain in the ass. They were the liberal heart and soul of our party, and their constant irritating challenges on policy issues kept us rooted in our liberal base.

Look what has happened to the party since they left. Unopposed, the DNC has moved the party steadily more conservative, and we have been unable to stop it.

It doesn't matter that the DLC's strategy of sucking up to Republican voters by running increasingly GOP-lite candidates and ignoring the liberal base of their party continually failed. They continue to use the same strategy, and if the definition of insanity (doing more of the same when the same has already proven to be a failure) is true, then the DNC leadership is surely insane.

And they call the Greens "fringe" and "loonies."

The Inevitableness of Hillary was supported by the DNC and DLC. She has been, to date, the most conservative candidate ever run. And it has failed because the Dem Party voters now have a choice to vote for someone who is NOT GOP-lite and does not pander to and suck up to the GOP voters.

Most Dem voters don't realize this, but against the odds and without much fanfare, there has been a quiet coup by the Dem liberal voters against the GOP-fawning DNC. And we didn't even know we were doing it. The DNC has been forced to back off from shoving Hillary at us whenever they can, and embrace the candidate who can move us forward.

I've contemplated for years how to take back control of the DNC so that they, once again, listen to their voters and don't spend OUR donationas and OUR energies pushing candidates that could run as a Republican with just a little tweaking.

And what it took was a candidate who could inspire and motivate the Dem party base so that we have NOT settled for Republican-lite this time. The DNC has had no alternative but to go along for the ride, because they cannot risk alienating such a huge base of motivated voters.

Hillary has helped in the process by being divisive and undercutting our chances for winning in November. Traditionally, that is something that the DNC won't accept. If Jesus Christ came down to earth and ran as a Democrat, and turned divisive and undercut our chances in November, the DNC would turn on him in a heartbeat.

So, while I think Obama has motivated more people to join the DNC, that doesn't mean that we can win in November, and that our party can effectively compete against the GOP, without the majority of the Hillary voters.

I think we are being short-sighted if we tell people who are now reacting out of disappointment over Hillary's poor performance in the primary that if they don't want to jump on the Obama bus RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW GODDAMMIT, they can just leave the party.

We need to give them time to deal with this disappointment. As Hillary continues to spin out of control, now that Obama is not reacting to her anger-baits, I think she will help nudge the Hillary supporters towards Obama. I think some of the Hillary supporters may, on their own, decide, "Perhaps Hillary really shouldn't be in the Oval Office."

But to just say "good riddance" and "the party will be better without you, your votes and your opinions" is short-sighted, counterproductive, and in danger of making the Democratic Party like the GOP: an inbred group of people congratulating themselves on their stunningly brilliant political opinions. Like any inbred group, however, there is weakness in a lack of diversity. And that is ultimately what we will risk if the Hillary voters pack their bags and go.

The DLC is fighting to maintain their control. If Clinton loses, they will unravel. At bottom, I believe that's at the heart of this upheaval, not feminism or "race" relations or even, old politics vs. new politics. The DLC is fighting to maintain the illusion that what they did ever worked for a second.

there are vision issues. The Clintons represent those in the party that wish to preserve status quo. I think the problem is you can't be true to your PROGRESSive ideals if you don't have progress. While the Clinton years were prosperous, they really didn't produce much in the way of permanent positive change. I think that Obama is helping the party get back to its roots of being the force for positive social and economic progress.

they're just not at the heart of things.

The Clintons are the DLC, basically. They had nothing to do with progress or progressivism, let alone liberalism. The DLC has exerted a lot of control over the party for over a decade. They're watching that all going to hell right now. :shrug:

I think Obama's trying, sort of, but he's had to lay it so safe that Big Hope has yet to be fulfilled.

working class people - workers. Hillary was never really going to do that. I don't know if that's something she got from her Walmart days or what, but I'm very glad people are now rejecting her and her outsource-everything, made in China agenda.

The rest of us mere mortals simple state opinions and then explain the reasoning behind those opinions. Legends in their own minds, tend to just make silly statements.

congressional wins? how's that working out for you? kinda like business as usual, i'd say. i wasn't surprised or disappointed though, because I knew they weren't gonna do shit, and neither is Obama. if there was a chance in heck that O was going to rock the boat he would have been given his walking papers by the powers that be a long time ago. it's called reality.

insults to get your message across. Sort of like Hillary's sad campaign. :hi:

on the clintons after another. if you don't see that, you are truly under the influence of some toxic cult-koolaid. yeah, i've made some insults, because i am seriously pissed off about the disgraceful, embarrassing treatment of hillary clinton and bill clinton (one of the best presidents in american history) by the likes of the over-zealous jack-booted O-ists in GDP.

so take your corporate principles down the road a bit.

Although, as a boomer, for the most part we're still hale and hearty with all our wits about us, it's time to begin putting the reins in the hands of those younger than us.

I agree. I imagine this happens as generations start to switch. A new generation is ready to take over but the old one isn't quite willing to let go of their power. People fear change.

choosing our elected leaders.

Really?

Where are the liberals supposed to go?

In your dreams.

and in the 60s with civil rights. Where do you think social and economic progress comes from? Conservatives?!?!?!

There's just not enough of the Birkenstock crowd to make up the difference - alienate the center and you lose.

You expect people to rail against something that in reality has limited perception: hatred of Clinton. And if not hatred of Clinton, what is the issue? The fact is, around 80% of Dems view Hillary favorably - I'm not sure on what you are basing this "realignment."

A persona? Charisma? A speech from 2002??? Hope and....change???

there is also a percentage, as shown by many DUers, that will support Obama.

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

that had laid a foundation for him to actually do stuff with.

...please enlighten me to FDR's greater experience. I'm not totally familiar with his pre-WH history. And if you don't think there's a Progressive movement now, you're not paying attention.

NGU.

of a progressive agenda that is not the same stuff from back when the Progressives were around. That does include UHC, which was suggested as early as the 1920s.

As for FDR: when he originally campaigned for President the first time, he was the governor of New York, had been a VP candidate, served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and had been a State Senator.

He served two terms as State Senate, resigned to be Assistant Sec of the Navy, was Assistant Sec of the Navy during WWI and served for a total of seven years and was governor for four.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt So a total of 14 years in state and national politics when he became Prez.

The depression hadn't started in 1928.

for me, dude. It's the dlc that's leaving..I HOPE.

and its long over due.

Well said. I think that these new democrats will push Obama, or perhaps give him the excuse, to move farther left. Hopefully we will be able to drive the corrupt corrupt scum back to the rethuglican party where they belong.

Economic issues are what make Dems strong. Poverty is the number one issue in America. The economy is what we need to be talking about.

Anyone who does not see that Obama should be in West Virginia talking about poverty has a screw loose.

Smells a little like fish eggs though.

We certainly don't need to be among persons like you who put women down, while bragging about how supposedly unprejudiced you are.

I guess women don't count. They don't count in this party or with Senator Obama, who rarely mentions women's right....though Hillary talks about ending racism and sexism.

Is this the 'NEW' politics , casting out women and not giving a damn about our status, while feeling smug that we have no choice but to follow?

Think again.

This party should.

I've got a lot better things to do than stick around a place where a bunch of jerks talk down to me and tell me I can take it or leave it and shove off otherwise.

Buh-bye


You are all so smug to treat us like this and believe you will get our votes, as if you have a right to them.

Uhhhhh........

"I've got a lot better things to do than stick around a place where a bunch of jerks talk down to me and tell me I can take it or leave it and shove off otherwise."

Yeah, Stupid DU'ers, don't you know that's LulaMay's right and her's alone to decide if her pseudo-feminist ideals are offended enough to leave! Don't you all dare to tell her what to do!

:grouphug:

The OP mentions "bitter feminists," and you paint that as casting out all women and not giving a damn about their status?

You're grasping.

NGU.

It's another baiting OP.

surgery is always painful.

Because in this game, bigger is always better.

Most are real Dems, not Rape-Publican trolls trying to manipulate the cult of personality.

NGU.

I see it as a transformational shift into neoliberalism. And Obama is leading the way. The DLC will not be unhappy with Obama; he fits them too well.

It's other core groups of the base that are being driven from the party. The leftists. The peace activists. GLBT Democrats. Educators. Labor.

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

by supporting and nominating neoliberals.

If we didn't intend to allow it "we" wouldn't have allowed the nomination of a neoliberal.

:crazy:

NGU.

I'm saying that too many Democratic voters reflect the Democrats in Congress they love too hate much too closely.

Democrats: long on rhetoric, short on action.

Democrats who REALLY wanted progressive change WOULD vote for a progressive candidate.

Saying you want progressive change, and then voting for a neoliberal centrist, is not walking your talk as a Democrat, imo.

Are you saying that Democrats are too stupid to see beyond the bullshit campaign propaganda and media circus to recognize a non-progressive when they meet one?

It's either that, or it's on purpose. Which?

Or perhaps Democrats just like being victimized and taken advantage of.

Or they don't really care what happens to the nation, as long as they get to "win" a few elections.

Which?

...a true Progressive has been nominated. Hell, if we were all as Progressive as you want to believe, PDA would be king and the DLC would be in exile. But why is that any reason to scoff at the opportunity real Progressives DO have this time around? Are we making "perfect" the enemy of "good" once again?

NGU.

I'd like good.

When Democrats decide to nominate one of the two worst possible candidates, what good am I supposed to find in that?

There were plenty of choices I would have considered a "good" compromise candidate. They were bypassed for BAD. BAD is the enemy of good, too.

NGU.

I'm honestly not seeing it.

I'm seeing a majority of Democrats participating in pushing the party further to the right.

...Progressive movement pulling the Party back to the left where it -- and the majority of the American public -- belong.

NGU.

Are you suggesting that we will have to FORCE a Democratic president and Congress to move left, that you think they actually WOULD move left if we pressured them, when they haven't for many years, and that you think having to apply pressure to our own party to do the right thing, and then hope someone is listening, is somehow going to pull the party left?

Because I see the opposite happening. I see posters right here at DU championing centrist and conservative ideology because Obama does. The same people that, a year ago, were opposing that same centrist and conservative ideology.

You give up if you don't like it.

As for me, I will...

NGU.

The media and some Obama supporters (note the "some") have denigrated Hillary as a woman to such an extent that the woman-bashing has been blatant. Some of the stuff I have seen on DU has shocked me completely.

Will it cause me to change parties? Combined with the Vichy-like behavior of our own Dems, maybe. For now, I am trying to ignore it to make sure that McSame doesn't get elected. But after the election? We'll see.

but because people are JOINING. :thumbsup: The political terrain of the Dem party is being transformed and infused with new voters who are hungry for CHANGE. The unprecedented voter turnout in the primaries is an obvious indication of that trend.

I'm not as cynical as you about the Clinton supporters leaving the party, either.

I have more faith in them than that.

Here's to positive new change and an Obama landslide in the fall! :toast:

These new Democrats will be open minded progressives.

I haven't seen any evidence of this, do you have any proof?

:eyes:

Sorry, not directed at you.

Leave the "old center" to the pukes and work towards a Progressive Populist Democratic Party!!!

When I was a kid, I had a teacher who had a strong dislike for JFK. Even though Kennedy had been dead for at least 10 years, about once a week this teacher would go off on a rant about how women should never have been given the vote. His argument was that the women had voted for Kennedy because he was good looking, and theirs was the vote that gave him the win. I'm a woman, but his argument did seem logical, so for several years I accepted as fact the idea that women voted for shallow reasons.

A few years later though, I read where William Henry Harrison successfully wooed male voters by giving them free whiskey. I realized that the argument against women voters was unfair, because it implied that men made wiser political decisions. The truth was (and is) that people in general vote for shallow reasons.

Even though I had learned that lesson very well, and had often used it to remind myself to look at situations in broader terms, I failed to realize that it applied to the Democrat/Republican scenario these past few years. Ever since Bush took office, I have allowed myself to think, "Republicans aren't logical. They shut their minds to reason and logic because it threatens their worldview". What I understand now is, that it's the same mistake I made when I believed men were wiser voters.

Obama's popularity is based in emotion, not logic or reason and certainly not pragmatism. His supporters make ridiculous claims and accusations in an attempt to somehow add credibility to a candidate that stands on shaky ground. I had hoped that our salvation could come from the Democratic party, but now I realize that people just don't seem to be capable of making decisions that would easily take us from where we are to where we need to go. It's disheartening, and disillusioning, but it is enlightening.

Real change isn't going to come from either party or the voters. Real change is going to come from that handful of individuals who have enough perseverance and luck to drive their issue, despite all the political nonsense.