I believe I'm as liberal as anyone on DU, but I'm concerned.

[mountain grammy]

We are proud members of the Democratic party. But we have to understand, as liberals, we are a minority and have been for many years. We were stomped in 1968 and again in 1972 by a Republican and, even though he resigned in disgrace, we barely won the next election. Then 1980 came along and the rest is history. Republicans, even worse, conservatives, captured America, winning local and national elections. If there's one thing about Conservatives we all agree with, it's their ability to find ways to hold on to power once they have it.
After the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses, Republicans reshaped (gerrymandered) congressional districts to their advantage. Conservative judges were appointed at every level of the justice system. The Fairness Doctrine was declared over and right wing radio was born. Liberals were bashed mercilessly, even as Republicans ran up huge deficits and exploded the national debt. The ills of the country were blamed on unions and welfare queens and Americans bought it hook line and sinker.
Our current president is, much like our last Democratic president and many of our Democratic representatives, a lot less liberal than we are. They have to be to get elected in America. Democrats are slowly gaining ground, but real liberals like you and me have further to go. Call the current Democratic party third way or moderate, I don't care, but we have to come to terms with it, and, like it or not we have to stand behind this president because the alternative is unthinkable.
We will never all agree on everything, but we are Democrats and we should be proud. We hold the best answers to America's problems, and I honestly believe that. We just have to keep fighting to bring our party and our country back to the left. It really is the only chance democracy has.

[marybourg]

1. With age comes wisdom, grammy. Not all (in fact damn few) on this board

have enough of either, imo.

[mountain grammy]

18. I'll never forget the horror I felt when Nixon was elected

and then, to top it off, Reagan with millions of Dems voting for him. What a reality check that was!

[pkdu]

2. Tis true. Every word.

But we gotta keep fighting the good fight , cos the alternative in unthinkable.

[mountain grammy]

19. Yes, the alternative is unthinkable!

And Dems better get it together and understand there's another Reagan just waiting.....

[HiPointDem]

3. No. Obama got elected by implying he was more liberal than he has actually turned out to be.

Guess how far he would have gotten promising drone strikes, bank bailouts, more free trade agreements, and an 8% unemployment rate 5 years after a recession. Or by saying he was going to put entitlements on the table.

[msongs]

5. does the phrase "my policies are like those of moderate republicans" ring a bell? nt

[HiPointDem]

9. no, it doesn't. because it wasn't a theme that was important in his campaign.

and i don't believe he said that on the campaign trail, either.

[MotherPetrie]

11. He sure didn't when I saw him in Woodbridge, VA. He sounded like a real liberal to me.

I should have known it was bullshit, though.

[BlueStreak]

6. +1,000,000

America is far more liberal than the media will ever admit. And because of the twisted media, the public doesn't even realize how liberal it actually is. But look at polling issue by issue. American is VERY strongly in the progressive camp on almost every contemporary issue.

Our job is not to find ways to rationalize capitulation. Our job is to educate the public about what is really happening, thereby moving the discussion back to the left.

[mountain grammy]

42. Every day, in every way, that's our challenge.

[mountain grammy]

20. Thing is, he didn't promise NOT to do those things. Of course, I don't agree,

but, please tell me, what was our alternative?

[HiPointDem]

22. why am i supposed to tell you what your alternative was? you know as well as i do.

"He didn't promise not to do those things"

He didn't promise not to murder his grandma either. He didn't promise not to put everyone in concentration camps, he didnt promise not to set fire to the white house.

what's your point? That we are supposed to take note of all the things pols 'don't promise not to do' now?

In fact, he implied that he wouldn't do things of that sort, then he did them.

[mountain grammy]

40. Sorry, rhetorical question, of course I knew what the alternative was.

I will continue to support with time and money every liberal candidate that speaks to my beliefs, but I will also always vote for the better candidate if mine doesn't make the final cut.
My point is, the president wasn't my choice for the nomination and neither was Hillary because they are both moderates, but when Obama got the nomination, I sucked it up and voted for him, even knowing he would do some things I don't like. I will continue to criticize policies I disagree with, but will also support him as a Democrat because, in this toxic political atmosphere, he needs our support.
I'll not forget the Dems and union members I knew in 1980 and 1984 who helped give Reagan two resounding victories, either with their vote or their choice not to vote. They helped set the stage for where we are now.

[BlueStreak]

48. Obama is playing the cards he was dealt. We can criticize how much of a gambler

he is (or is not), but the fundamental problem is the ard in his hand, and most of that is not his doing.

Let's work backwards from where we are today.

1) We have no control over Congress. We could control the Senate with filibuster reform, but there wouldn't be any great advantage in that as long as the teabaggers rule the House.

2) How did the teabaggers control the House? That's all about 2010.

3) How did 2010 happen? Well, we can blame some of that on Obama. Much of 2010 was a reaction to the health care division. We might argue that if he had pushed for a single payer system, maybe the public would have supported Democrats more in 2010. I don't believe that. Moreover, it was academic because there were plenty of Democrats (as well as almost all Republicans) that would kill that.

4) And how is is that there were so many Democrats in 2009-2010 who undermined Obama? Well, we have a lot of worthless, well-bought assholes wearing the Democratic label.

5) And how did that come to be? That goes back a long time, but we can trace much of that to Clinton's DLC.

Those aren't all the important milestones, of course. We lost control of legislatures all across the country in 2010. And why was that? This CAN be laid at least partially at Obama's doorstep. He made the decision to go it alone. IN contrast to the Howard Dean period when the party was strong at all levels, Obama went it alone. He essentially shut down the Democratic Party and ran everything through his own operation. That was great for Barack, but sucked big time for the party. And now we are paying a very dear price for that. This, I believe, is his biggest sin, and one that will haunt us at least until 2022 (the next election after redistricting.)

[HiPointDem]

61. there are many ways to play the cards he was dealt. he's decided to play them by droning,

putting social security on the table, forging new and worse free trade agreements, etc.

[BlueStreak]

63. If he saw those as compromises, he hasn't gotten much in return for those compromises. Therefore

we must assume that is who he really is and what he really wanted.

Even so, if those right-wing outcomes were what he really wanted all along, a smart negotiator still should have been able to get something in return.

[Warpy]

4. We're going to have to be content with social progress

because the current incarnation of the Democratic Party is not interested in any financial reforms, at all, beyond a token increase in the minimum wage from time to time.

Social progress is good, but it's going to take another catastrophe, maybe the collapse of the derivatives casino, to persuade those hidebound Third Way fossils to do something about a crooked financial structure that is killing us.

[mountain grammy]

21. I think so too, and maybe not even then.

[marions ghost]

34. "a crooked financial structure that is killing us"

Greed, lies, culture of corruption, rampant dishonesty, theft, no trust, no fairness, no justice...

This is the cancer within.

This is what pits us against each other --and makes us their slaves and supplicants.

[Hekate]

7. Granny Hekate gives a hearty KnR to Mountain Grammy

I worry about the same things. I've seen too much in my life to want to see us throw this opportunity away again.

[mountain grammy]

29. Agreed.

[magellan]

8. The country is more liberal than you think

And more liberal than politicians prefer to acknowledge.

Poll questions are often skewed by agencies to illicit the desired response. When the questions aren't skewed, the majority of respondents choose the more liberal approach on most everything. Americans want universal health care, think defense spending should be cut, support gay marriage and stricter gun control, and so on. Yes, that includes self-identifying conservatives.

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/04/one-study-explains-why-its-tough-to-pass-liberal-laws/

The problem isn't with Americans. It's with politicians who have gamed the system for their own ends and use the media to distort the truth about what Americans want.

[mountain grammy]

23. Yes, they are, but so many don't know it or don't want to admit it.

If Americans would take an honest look at their lives, 98% of them would be liberal Dems.

[demwing]

30. If America is so liberal

Why do we have to deal with officials that want to drag the country ever to the right? Either the polls lie, or the politicians lie.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Because the amounts that we pay officials as salaries (and pensions if they stay around) cannot

compete with the amounts paid by the rich and the super-rich to the officials and parties related to them.

Many of these officials are making their bones while auditioning for future positions with the rich and the super-rich.

Basically, we can't compete with them.

[DemocratsForProgress]

13. Such language

and you a "mother" and all...

[Rowdyboy]

15. Then you are truly in the wrong place....You do realize this is a Democratic website, right?

I'll give you this-most trolls at least try to fit in-you have the guts to be an open hater.

"Fuck Obama and his betrayal. I am OVER him for all time. Make all the excuses for him you want. That's all they are - excuses, for this smoothly lying traitor "

My feelings for you echo your feelings for my president. Plus 1000+.

[TheKentuckian]

12. Sounds sensible but is built on a foundation of sand. We are losing ground and dangerously fast.

Losing big economically, civil liberties are way under siege, we are steadily loosing control of our governance to multi-national corporations, schools and prisons privatized, more free trade deals sought, the ranks of the homeless swell, folks owe more but own less, labor withers, and we are doing massive damage to our environment.

"A lot less liberal" is getting beside the point. We are losing what we have, not gaining ground. A little rearranging of the cabins and deck chairs for more equitable arrangements on the sinking vessel.

Shit, there is a trial balloon or some jacked up deal offered up to the TeaPubliKlans from DEMOCRATS damn near constantly.

Come to terms with the people are being used for extraction and driven into poverty while being transformed from citizen to consumer to subject to fodder and that must not be "come to terms with".
All this goofy ass just cheer for the team and take what you get is nonsensical, we are talking life and liberty here, this isn't some entertainment or something to do.

Letters next to names when they answer to same fuckers doesn't make a whole lot of difference save social equality issues after the public gets ahead of them and rhetoric. The list used to include responsible governance but the movie to rule via crisis makes that an oxymoron.

This "plan" is bullshit, a political pacifier. Standard Lanny Davis shtick.

[HiPointDem]

24. "We are losing what we have, not gaining ground." = Exactly.

[mountain grammy]

25. It has to start with making the word "liberal" acceptable again.

And remembering what it really means.

[Loge23]

31. I guess we're just not good at marketing!

You are correct, the thugs have successfully demonized the word "liberal".
I like to remind people when this comes up in conversation about all of the dreaded liberal achievements - accomplishments that really define this country.
I also like to ask my opponents to name one - one - great accomplishment or contribution to America from a Republican.
I usually get "Lincoln" in answer - Eisenhower is a close second (for the highways, which effectively destroyed our passenger rail system), after I easily swat down their first choices: RR, Nixon, etc.

Still today, even with the totally batshit crazy party and their poorly informed followers being so far out of what this country once was, they still grab the headlines and manage to stay relevant as an accepted governing party.

The sad fact is, they destroyed this country. It will never be the idealized free-market/fascist paradise they espouse. But they will (apparently) continue to destroy all the accomplishments of the Great Society and New Deal along with any attempts to reserve the tide. What we have now and seem to be trending towards is a ungovernable mess of a government apparatus that is powerless to provide the very things that government is charged with providing! Private business is not interested in building/restoring infrastructure, providing for the less fortunate, or promoting a healthy society. They are not interested in providing broad, public, unbiased education. They are not interested in a representative government.

I don't know how long it will take for the majority of Americans to rise up and identify the most serious and significant threat to American society - their own elected kleptocracy.

[okieinpain]

43. great post. n/t.

[mountain grammy]

53. I don't know how long it will take either, but someday!

[marions ghost]

59. Kleptocracy

yes, we have been hijacked from within.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Not as bad. Politics as usual. Working within the system isn't working.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

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

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

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

[mountain grammy]

28. Wise words from our Founders, but they didn't always live up to their wisdom.

They were also politicians.

[olddots]

16. I'm with you Grammy

Are we better off than we were in 1968 ? yes and no,with wisdom comes frustration too .As Blaze Bonpane says "don't get mad get organized " .I will march again even if it seems like it never works -I will march again.
I am pissed at Obama ,pissed at Hillary , Bill and all the Democrats less liberal and pissed off than I am but what else do we have ?
All of us here should be proud together. I know hokey ra ra drivel but look at Ryan and those sub human tape worms ............

[mountain grammy]

26. True, thanks!

[hfojvt]

17. we didn't get stomped in 1968

Nixon got 31,783,783 to Humphrey's 31,271,839 with Wallace getting 9,901,118 winning Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia - states that Kennedy won in 1960 and Adlai Stevenson won in 1956 and 1952 and allowing Nixon to win the (then) traditionally Democratic states of North and South Carolina.

And the funny thing is - Obama does not need to get re-elected in 2016. So there is no longer any excuse, any need for him to be a backstabbing weasel.

Democrats do need to get elected in 2014, but the old backslide to the right was not all that effective as a strategy in either 2010 or 2012

[mountain grammy]

27. I don't think Obama's a "backstabbing weasel." He's just a moderate

and we all knew that going in.

[NewJeffCT]

32. No, a lot of people assumed Obama was a liberal

because he opposed the war in Iraq before we went into Iraq. A lot of liberals/Democrats/progressives didn't look much further than that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. He's not moderate, he's a profit-before-people conservative. And he won because the republicans

nominated extremist idiots from a clown car.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. He's not a moderate. A moderate, for example, would follow the law and prosecute openly admitted

war criminals.

A moderate would not have (1) voted in 2008 to give immunity to the telecoms that spied upon all of us for the Bush Administration and (2) participated in the creation of a surveillance society as bad as or worse than what existed in Russia and East Germany.

A moderate would not squander the resources of this country on expensive endless military adventures in the Middle-East.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. No, we're not. What liberals are, are the victims of a very effective PR campaign to sully

the word 'liberal' and muddy the meaning thereof.

Liberals didn't get stomped in 1968, or 1972. Timid, status quo, establishment Democrats got stomped because they rejected the liberals who in turn walked away from a party that refused to represent their interests. They ignored, and continue to ignore what Harry Truman told us.

The American heart and spirit is still liberal, they just think that 'liberal' is a dirty word because no one with a microphone is telling them what it means. Just keep capitulating and see what happens next year.

[mountain grammy]

37. But voters aren't voting liberal and that's a problem.

It's a problem that people bought into "government is the problem" propaganda that's still out there and going strong. Using phrases like that one and, my personal favorite, "nanny state," have hurt us badly and we have to get our good name back.
I'm not capitulating, but I am realistic. Let's get rid of the teabaggers, and then work on who we elect to replace them. Not voting, now that's capitulating.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. Voters aren't voting liberal because they have no liberals to vote for. Alan Grayson was voted for

in one of the very dimmest states in the nation. In 2010 the republicans made him their priority and the Democratic Party abandoned him, so he lost. But guess what? After two years of another clown-car conservative, he brought himself back.

Do you know where the Floriduh 9th is? If what you believe were true, we'd never have heard of him. The Party hates him. They hate him because he is not only a liberal, but because he is an outspoken, honest liberal. That's how he got the "Plums" of serving on the Foreign Affairs and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology committees.

The strategy you are advocating has never, doesn't, and will never work. All it does is to make the Democratic Party less and less distinguishable from the republican party. If you want voters to choose you, you have to give them a choice.

And BTW, that's exact;y what the republicans are going to do. They used the teabaggers to get the House and redistricting. Now, they're busy rebranding themselves in preparation for the mid-terms. And what are the Democrats pushing? "Let's accept some more bad republican ideas, that'll make them like us!"

People bought into the Reich-wing bullshit because there was nobody showing them that it is bullshit. People believe that cutting the defense budget, for example, means cutting into the service people's already meager slice because there is nobody telling them that that's a lie. And why is there nobody telling them that? Because the people whose job it is are too busy feeding at the trough.

The Party is the problem.

[mountain grammy]

50. I'd believe that was true if I hadn't seen co many good liberals go down in defeat

even in Democratic primaries when only Democrats are voting.
Yes, liberals can win elections, but we're coming from behind. We can whine about the right wing media, and they are, and about moderate Democrats, and there are many, but to turn it around we have to call out the lies and lack of information.
Personally, I wish we had our own party, but that's not happening in my lifetime. And I am never for accepting bad Republican ideas so "they'll like us." This is about survival and overcoming the extemism that's threatening America.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. Name three. Liberals usually lose Democratic primaries because

The Democratic Party backs the "pro-business" conservative against them.

Let me ask you this, if we really are coming from behind, how is do you suppose it is that we got behind in the first place?

[mountain grammy]

57. Andrew Romanoff lost the senate primary to Michael Bennet

here in Colorado. Romanoff, good liberal, takes no PAC money.

How did we get behind in the first place? First answer: Ronal Reagan, downhill from there. You had to be there.

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. And who did President Obama and the DNC back? That's exactly my point.

What makes you think I wasn't there in 1980? The commonly spread narrative of the 1980 election is another example of the authoritarian narrative that is fed to us. The Iranian treason of reagan & co. was almost certainly enough to tip the balance, but reagan won in that landslide because Jimmy Carter was a pretty bad President, he was too southern/religious/conservative to bring the liberals back to the polls, and the Democratic leadership hated him because he didn't do what they wanted from him. In short, he was too conciliatory and made nobody happy. Sound at all familiar?

From what you're writing, I get the feeling that I was paying a lot more attention to what was actually going on than you were. My family has been very involved in politics for generations, alas, in the republican party. One might even say that it is the family business.

I was also there when you claimed that 'liberals' got stomped. You're conflating liberal with Democrat and that's where we part company.

Going back well into the 19th century, the Democratic Party has been openly hostile to liberals with the two exceptions of FDRs first two terms and the JFK/ LBJ administrations. Surely, you remember Chicago 1968. You remember that this nation was literally burning over the basic issue of egalitarianism vs. authoritarianism. This issue came out in conflicts over race, sex, war, the draft, and generally rejecting the prescribed choices allowed to Good Americans.

Compromising principles is the road to losing, and the Democratic Party can't depend on the republicans insisting on outright insanity forever. One day soon, and remember they're working on it right now, the republicans are going to start nominating people that look and sound quite reasonable, and then the Democrats are going to experience the 80s all over again.

Now is not the time for more compromise, more conciliation, more betrayal. Grayson, Conyers, Lee, McGovern, etc. are the future. The DLC Third way losers are the path to republican hell.

[mountain grammy]

67. So Jimmy Carter couldn't bring "liberals back to the polls?"

I was raised in a very political and strong union family of Democrats. My mother was the first born in the USA. Patriotic immigrants, all of them liberals.
Reagan won because Democrats voted for him. Liberals voted for Carter. I damn sure did, but there were damn few of us. Realistically, people may love liberal policies, but a minority of voters consider themselves liberal. Carter was weak, but Reagan? My liberal friends and I were beyond horrified. One friend's husband was an air traffic controller. He became the first person I knew to be axed by the Reagan presidency.
I don't think the Democratic party has rejected liberals, but they do support more centrist candidates because that's who gets elected. I would love to live in liberal utopia, but it just ain't happening in America yet. Someday, maybe, but until then, we compromise, because that's what people do every day to get along and survive.
We should never give up on core principles, but I'm just not ready to yell "betrayal" yet on social security and medicare/medicaid. It just hasn't happened. I don't think it will.

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. The liberals didn't vote, look at the numbers. Sure, those that did voted for Carter, but the

turn out was one of the lowest in our history. And don't forget about Anderson, without him reagan would have won even bigger, a Mondale sized rejection.

I don't see how you can look at the history of the last 50 years and say that centrists win. Carter was a centrist who slipped into the nomination because of a convention rule change and won against the man that pardoned Nixon and couldn't tie his shoes.

Mondale was a centrist and lost by the widest margin in history.

Dukakis was sort of a liberal that was beaten down by the party and propped up as a centrist, another landslide loss.

Clinton snuck in the back door and won with 43% of the vote because nobody knew anything about the anonymous governor of a southern state that nobody lives in, against an empty suit in the middle of a recession, because Perot took 20% of 41s votes even after a delusional meltdown and interrupted campaign.

Gore lost because he embraced Clinton's republican policies even while running away from Clinton and listened to his DLC campaign manager that created a campaign with the sole objective of not upsetting anybody.

The Centrists dumped Dean like a bag of vomit at a black-tie party and embraced yet another centrist who went on to prove Truman's edict.

And finally, the republicans, after literally demolishing the global economy and plunging the the world into a depression, nominated a geriatric numbskull so dim-witted and confused, he made shrub look reasonable, and stuck him with an untrained pet poodle for a running mate, and still, the DLC centrist candidate lost out to a good looking, one term Senator that could give a speech as well as reagan.

So, just where are all these centrists that win?
The 50 Blue Dogs that were out-of-favor republicans running on Democratic tickets in red states that only managed to survive all of four years?

No, the Democratic Party is indeed run by centrists, but Democrats are not centrists.

As for principles, what liberal principle is left to abandon? There's no more room under the bus.

Look, I hope you're right, but everything I see tells me that 2014 is going to be a repeat of 2010 if not worse. It is up to the President to turn this around and he is showing a complete unwillingness to fight for anything with any chance of doing anything except make things much harder for most people, and that isn't going to win if there is any alternative available.

[mountain grammy]

74. Traveling, no time to answer. Safe at home.

Actually, the voter turnout in the 1980 election was more than 52%, which wasn't great, but was about average of the times. The lowest year was Clinton's second term.
I don't agree with your reasoning or conclusions, and I will never believe Gore lost.
I don't think it's abandoning principles to compromise, so long as it's real compromise.
1980 was the big turning point for both political parties, in my opinion. Many gains of the 60's and 70's were halted. Seems everytime I bump up against a bad government policy, it was passed during the Reagan years.
Sadly, I don't see a winning liberal national candidate again in my lifetime. But, in my state, I think we can do it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

78. Hope your trip was good. we'll talk later. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. What? Lose interest, or just not interested in actual history? n/t

[okieinpain]

44. actually the government is

the problem. just depends in what the problem is.

[davidn3600]

39. Republicans are right-wing, the Democrats are moderate. There is no left-wing party.

Both parties are capitalist. Both parties are funded and controlled by the rich and the elite. More than half of Congress are millionaires. And when you look at the top 20 richest people in congress, there are just as many Democrats on that list as Republicans.

We don't have a liberal or left-wing party in the United States. We do not have a party that is truly representative of the working class. The working class elects rich people who claim to care.

And that may very well be the problem. Congress today is NOT representative of the population. The income inequality between your Representative and the people in your district is massive and growing with each year.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. That's exactly right (except it's almost all of Congress that are millionaires), and the reason

the working class votes for rich people is because The Parties ensure that's the only choice available.

Despite the great things FDR did, the worst thing he did was to kill off liberal participation in the political process by bringing them into the Democratic Party which returned to its roots as the establishment party as soon as his health began to decline.

[datasuspect]

70. a concerted PR campaign that comes from the very top:

from the 1% owners of this country who pissed their pants a little when blacks, vietnam veterans/vietnam war protestors, students, youth, women, and LGBT folks got a little too "uppity" in the late 60s and early 70s.

there was an actual movement then, it was gaining momentum, and the forces of hypocrisy and reaction made damn sure that it would never happen again.

people forget we came kinda close to an actual revolution back then.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Yes they do, or they never knew.

I run into people all the time that are completely unaware, or even deny that this nation was on the verge. I suppose that the Millennials have the excuse of never being taught anything beyond corporate propaganda.

[libtodeath]

36. No matters the lies spewed by limpballs daily and the rw press always against us

liberal and socialist policies always have high public approval when polled.

[mountain grammy]

38. You're right, we just have to convince people to vote accordingly.

[okieinpain]

46. not if you put liberal or socialist in

of it.

[LWolf]

45. I don't have to do a damned thing.

No disrespect intended, mountain grammy. I'm also a grandma, and my years tell me something different.

First of all, I don't see anything to be proud of in the modern, 21st century Democratic Party, which is eagerly participating in dismantling everything the Democratic Party has to be proud of.

Secondly, I'm not sure how "liberal" anyone is; that term has been misused and abused so much, as has "progressive," and even "left," that I'm not really sure how to categorize myself. For the purposes of your post, I'll say that, while I'm a registered Democrat, because Democrats have, over my lifetime, been better than the Republican alternatives, I'm not partisan. I support the party or individual D politicians when they are right, I don't when they are not. Politically, I'm about issues, not party or personality. That means that I'm not going to stand behind a politician I think is doing harm, no matter what party he or she is affiliated with. I'm not a cheerleader, and I don't view politics as a sport.

The alternatives? They aren't unthinkable. While the idea of putting a Republican of any kind in the WH is horrifying, I don't know that it would be worse. At least we'd then have a strong, vibrant Democratic opposition to harmful policies, instead of a bunch of fuckwads supporting bad policy because it comes from a D admin. What I really want is to break the two-party vice grip and let some others who have better ideas, and more integrity, onto the field. That's something I think is worth working for.

Finally, I agree with what you about fighting to bring our party and country back to the left. I'm willing to fight with everything I've got for the years I've got left. I'm a young grandma, so I should have plenty of years left, yet I feel so powerless and hopeless in the face of the Democratic Party's abandonment of teachers, public education, labor, social security...I don't see any hope for the years I've got left.

My way of fighting is different than yours. It's not about party, but about issues.

[mountain grammy]

52. I'm fighting too, LWolf, but I do think the Democratic party is, right now, the only way.

I've taken cleaning jobs just to have a little money to donate a few bucks to liberal Dems. all over the country. Most have lost, but I'll never give up.
When and if President Obama actually does cut social security and medicare I'll be on the march, but, honestly, I don't think it'll happen.

[HiPointDem]

62. when and if he does cut it, it will be too damn late.

[LWolf]

66. I'm not waiting for any more destruction.

I'm a teacher. I've had enough.

[forestpath]

47. I'm a liberal and I will never stand behind any so-called "Democrat" who cuts SS or Medicare.

I will never come to terms with that.

N-E-V-E-R.

I don't vote for Republicans. And that is what President Obama is acting like.

[winter is coming]

75. +1. Any Dem who wants to do that can go straight to hell, as far as I'm concerned. n/t

[ann---]

51. From my experience

DU is not a place for independents. It's either you agree with Dems - or you get judged harshly.

[Marrah_G]

54. I find your post confusing

So do we stand behind him and pat him on the back when he is wrong or do we stand true to our ideals and voice our concerns?

You seem to be saying " Hey, I know it sucks, it's howe things are and we just have to learn to live with it" and then later you talk about "fighting to bring our party to the left"

If we do the first, how does the second occur?

[marions ghost]

56. Exactly

While we all see that "the alternative is worse" --how do we ever do better than Rethuglicon LITE, if we do not voice our concerns?

Liberals are not truly represented in US government. We get some bones thrown, some crumbs. But conservatives are driving everything (into the toilet).

[zipplewrath]

60. That's because it's based upon a false dichotomy

The OP suggests it is an either or, with'em or again'em, kind of situation. You can support from behind, or lead from in front. You can push from behind, or pull from in front. It's not that the only thing you can do is sit around and say "my guy right or wrong" or otherwise vote GOP. There are NGO's, and PAC's one can support and you can even support the candidate running against the Obama favorite in a democratic primary.

[Politicub]

65. The center is shifting left

And it thrills me to no end. For a gay guy who grew up during the 80's, living through this time almost feels like a dream.

Is everything perfect? Of course not. But I believe Obama has sparked a movement that is bigger than any of us can comprehend.

With age hopefully comes a little bit of wisdom, and I learned a long time ago that truly the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Oilwellian]

69. Wisdom does come with age

If Obama cuts Social Security, your successes will be short-lived. Democrats will stay home in droves when it comes time to vote. I know I will if all the party gives us is another Third Way fascist. I will chalk your myopic ("I got mine, fuck you&quot statement up to your youth and inexperience. Wisdom would include empathy and support for fellow Democrats who have different issues than yours.

[Politicub]

72. You have to do what you've got to do

There have been so many instances of crying wolf followed by wailing and gnashing of teeth that I don't get wound up about this stuff until there's a reason to.

Btw - you're awfully rude accusing someone that you don't know anything about of being myopic or lacking empathy. You have no idea.

[Bradical79]

71. Redistricting seems to be the biggest obstacle.

Right wing media is in a decline, Conservative religion is in decline, people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals, tired of war, less reliant on mainstream corporate media. The shift on the ground seems to be to the left.
I don't think being a minority is the problem, the problem is the Republicans have had too much success manipulating the democratic process. Every time they have a state level victory, they shove through new legislation to tighten their hold on power that has national ramifications (like redistricting, restrictions on signature gathering, striping away workers rights, education "reform", etc.).

[Freddie]

79. Correct, it's the local elections that truly matter

Repugs know they can destroy the country by owning state legislatures and governors mansions and are gleefully doing so. Look at gerrymandering and abortion laws to name just two. So if pissed-off Dems stay home in 2014 because they're mad at Obama, guess what happens?? 2010 here we go again.