DU was for change, not progressivism...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 05:24 PM - Edit history (2)

Once we got a progressive sounding candidate, we were unified. That was a mirage and short lived.

For those of us who were listening carefully (speaking for myself, pre-inauguration), we got steamed because we weren't getting progressivism. I'm sure many people here don't even know what they're talking about when they say, "I'm a progressive." David Sirota does a good job defining the progressive. And once you read description, you will understand why the progressive-minded folks among us are steamed.

"Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure.

The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change.

So, is it a surprise, or even a bad thing, that DU is having this ideological battle right now????


EDIT:

Below, I merely elaborate on the nature of the internal debate. I'm not going to start another thread because it should be part of the OP.

Q: Would you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

This could be asked another way.

Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers did as me: I voted for Obama in 2012.

Again, I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers will do as me if Hillary is the nominee: I will vote for Hillary.

But that question is totally irrelevant.

That question is irrelevant to this thread and the heated debate that so many DUers are lamenting and don't understand. The debate isn't raging over the Democratic Nominee vs the Republican Nominee.

The debate is: Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee.

The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her.

That's what's going on, here.

[phleshdef]

1. "The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives". Horse shit.

I'm progressive. I just don't ignore reality in lieu of pie in the sky platitudes.

[Katashi_itto]

2. Cool, then you vote for Hillary

[phleshdef]

4. If she runs and wins the nomination I will.

[Control-Z]

9. Who will you vote for

if Hillary wins the nomination?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

45. Irrelevant. I'll take this because it could easily be directed at me :)

This could be asked another way.

Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers did as me: I voted for Obama in 2012.

Again, I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers will do as me if Hillary is the nominee: I will vote for Hillary.

But that question is totally irrelevant.

That question is irrelevant to this thread and the heated debate that so many DUers are lamenting and don't understand. The debate isn't raging over the Democratic Nominee vs the Republican Nominee.

The debate is: Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee.

The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her.

That's what's going on, here.

[Control-Z]

128. Many of YOU?

"Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee."

Are you really that full of yourself that you would presume to know me?

"The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her."

I was actually wondering if Katashi_itto's obvious dislike of Hillary was strong enough to stop him from voting at all. There was no threat or accusation in my post whatsoever. There are enough people on this board with that sentiment that it was not an outrageous question.

Frankly, I'm tired of people like you who think you know it all and who post for the sole purpose of starting a fight.

I can't tell if you're a bully or just someone who has never been told no.

[truebrit71]

3. Bullshit on your horseshit...

If you think Obama/Clinton are progressives, using that scale what the hell were Paul Wellstone, or Bernie Sanders?

Both Obama and Clinton have made it abundantly clear that they are middle-of the road/centrists...hells bells Obama even described himself as a moderate republican...so no...they are not Progressives by any measure of the term...

[phleshdef]

10. First off, lumping Obama and Clinton together doesn't even begin to form an argument.

Secondly, Obama has pushed for and overseen more progress for the progressive side of things, more than any President since LBJ.

Obama never described himself as a moderate Republican. This is, again, another example of people ignoring context and political realities in order to delegitimize Obama as a liberal or progressive or whatever term you want to use. What he said was true, prior to the religious right and the neocons taking over the Republican party, he could have easily fit in as a moderate Republican. And the truth is, there were a good deal of "moderate Republicans" who were quite progressive before that time. Fuck, the god father of the progressive movement was a moderate Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower did quite a few progressive things. And even asshole Nixon pursued and passed some very progressive, pro-government action type legislations.

You folks just ignore political history and live in your own bubble with this stuff.

[truebrit71]

13. ...and you keep on pretending that Obama, the self-described moderate republican, is a progressive..

...

[phleshdef]

26. He never described himself as a moderate Republican.

He said in the 1980s, moderate Republicans were basically liberal on a lot of stuff. You can ignore context all you want, but that's the truth.

The progressive movement was founded by a moderate Republican.

[PowerToThePeople]

76. You may have moved right, many "progressives" have not and will not.

A moderate Republican "from the 80s" is still a moderate Republican today, even if they have taken on another descriptor.

Not everybody needs to accept the rightward plunge.

[phleshdef]

80. When in the fuck did I say I moved right? I didn't move right. Public ideological acceptance did.

I'm no less liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call it than the vast majority of DUers who disagree with me on this as far as the laws I want passed, the things I want changed, and so on. I'm just not so blinded by it that I ignore the way the real world around me is working. I can also disagree with the President on something without pissing and shitting myself all over the internets with foamy mouthed, unfounded rants that purposefully ignore context.

And no, moderate Republicans prior to the Reagan transformation are not called moderate Republicans today. Many of them are Democrats. Likewise, many Democrats voted for Reagan (sadly). But that was the beginning of the big polarizing divide we have now. You are obsessed with the party labels aspect of it and completely ignoring the history of the ideological transformations behind these labels. Democrats used to have its own god damn Klan wing for Christ sake. While many moderate Republicans were for civil rights, pro-New Deal, pro-Keynesian, pro-Safety Net expansion, pro-Environmental regulations, pro-Minimum Wage, pro-Union and the list can go on and on and on. With moderate Republicans like that, we'd be well on our way to being the most progressive nation in the world. We don't have them anymore.

The god father of the progressive movement was a Republican.

This isn't even up for debate, its just historical fact and can be easily illustrated.

[PowerToThePeople]

82. "Public ideological acceptance did."

Can you provide proof of this assertion?

Because all I see is that FoxNews and Corporate main stream media trys to make that assertion. Maybe also some lobbyist groups such as 3rd way. I do not see that being a true statement.

[phleshdef]

84. "Can you provide proof of this assertion?" Yes, look at election history over the past 30 years.

That's all the proof you need. First came Reagan and Bush. Then the corporate Dems and the Republicans were given control of the House. Then we got Bush and Republicans were given the Senate and the House. Dems got a foothold in 2006 and were quickly rebuked for even doing something slightly liberal with healthcare in 2010.

The American public is not nearly as pro-union as it use to be. And although people on an individual level love social safety nets when it helps them, they seem to have no problem electing a bunch of folks who are determined to destroy those social safety nets. Prior to the 1980s-90s, people like that were mostly eaten alive by the electorate.

From FDR through Carter, Americans elected Presidents who did not embrace trickle down bullshit, Presidents that believed in government action, collective spending toward common goals, progressive taxation, Keynesian economics and support for unions and Social Safety nets. That changed with Reagan.

The American people are going back and forth with voting against their own interests and that's why things are as bad as they are now.

[PowerToThePeople]

88. I do not consider that proof of a general move to the right by the public.

I consider it proof of candidates moving to the right. I may accept the premise that there was a rightward move in the Reagan-Clinton years. But, I believe any rightward move has been completely offset by the last 15 years. The issue now is that the candidates are still to the right.

[phleshdef]

90. Not true. There are still true left wing candidates to choose from...

At least at the congressional level... yet Americans continue to support just enough centrists and right wingers, not wholly, but enough that we have a very powerful conservative wing of the overall government that can and does wield that power effectively.

The problem, as I described to another poster, is that although the electorate largely seems to favor liberal solutions when polled on individual issues, many of them also do not wholly reject conservative or centrist based solutions. That's where the big disconnect is happening when you look at polling results vs the people who get elected and the platforms they get elected on. We have a lot of wishy washy voters who are, honestly, too damn ignorant to understand the big differences between the 2 competing ideologies or they do understand and vote against their best interests anyway for one misguided reason or another... some because they are single issue votes. They might be against legal abortion and FOR all kinds of progressive economic ideas. But they vote for the anti-choice candidate. Others, its because mixing up their votes between parties for different offices or supporting someone who is running on a moderate/centrist platform makes them feel good, like they are being fair and nonpartisan and shit. That's what we are dealing with.

[JDPriestly]

97. The job of those of us who are active in politics is to lead our country toward a better future.

The problem with the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party is that, while most of them seem to agree with progressives on where the country should go, none of them are willing to make the effort to educate the public or even discuss with the public where that direction would take us as a country, why we should go there, and how we can get there.

There is no effort by the Hillary-wing to try to change public opinion, try to reshift the swing to the right away and swing just a bit to the left -- the left that used to be called "center."

The Hillary wing of the party is actually through acquiescence and failure to push back, shoving the country further toward fascism. To be sure, I am not accusing the Hillary-wing of being fascist. Far from it. They are not. But I am accusing them of taking the easy way out, sort of sliding into a position that makes it more and more acceptable for our country to continue the right-ward lean that has become our position.

We can do better than just allowing ourselves to be carried out to a sea of ignorance by the ignorant right-wingers. We need a pro-active campaign in 2016 that wakes up the erstwhile members of the middle class to their imminent descent into poverty and that also wakes Americans up to the horrible risks of climate change, our insufficient funding for education and the myriad of other serious crises that we face.

Now, I suppose you will accuse me of having my hair on fire and being an extremist. It's not me that is extreme. It's the state of our country and the direction of the political sentiment in the US that is extremely dangerous to the futures of our children, the health of the planet and all its inhabitants and the Democratic Party.

Apathy is the worst extreme of all. It can kill among other things

[phleshdef]

98. "Now, I suppose you will accuse me of having my hair on fire and being an extremists"... No I won't

I believe you are stating your position in a reasonable way that doesn't make me want to head butt my computer screen until either I break it or my skull.

I agree with some of what you are saying. I believe that a huge chunk of Democratic politicians at the national level, are progressives at heart, but they play it safe because of the electorate they are dealing with. Its kind of a catch 22 and it would require a lot of people falling on their swords and losing to Republicans in order to finally change the narrative and create a more informed electorate. I truly believe that's the only way the politicians themselves could swing that. Honestly, I believe it really should be the job of the media to give an unbiased, informative, completely fact based story to the electorate. The media use to operate more along those lines and I blame the shift from political news to political entertainment as maybe the biggest culprit for having such a poorly, politically educated electorate now.

[JDPriestly]

168. If we didn't have so much money for campaigns, we would have a better informed electorate

(less hype and irrelevant ads) and better candidates (relieved of the task of raising far more money than a responsible public servant should have to raise).

[Jackpine Radical]

106. Most of the "moderate Republicans" of Teddy's era--

Bob LaFollette, for example, bailed on the Republicans for the Progressive Party & became Democrats by 1932.

Teddy himself bolted the Republicans & helped found the Progressive Party.

The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, after a split in the Republican Party between him and President William Howard Taft.

The party also became known as the Bull Moose Party after journalists quoted Roosevelt saying "I'm feeling like a bull moose" shortly after the new party was formed

[phleshdef]

107. Right on. The history of the constant ideological morphing between our 2 biggest factions...

...is rather fascinating stuff really.

[dreamnightwind]

124. Fascinating but it is not very relevant to 1980's Republicans

which is the statement Obama made that got this conversation where it is at.

I remember the 80's pretty well. No progressive I knew thought anything good about the Republican Party, certainly not that it was host to a progressive movement. There may have been a few that fit that category, and from reading your posts it is quite likely that your view of what constitutes a progressive is different than my own. But there was, as far as I know, no moderate Republican block in the 80's that a progressive Democrat president should be proud to identify with.

In Obama's defense, I think his remark was more to explain the ridiculousness of people seeing him as a far-left socialist than it was about proclaiming himself to be ideologically aligned with 80's moderate Republicans, although after all of these years of his presidency I actually don't think it's that much of a mismatch.

[phleshdef]

126. Well theres overlap. The 1980s saw the beginning of the end for Republicans...

...that were supporters of progressive ideals in regard to taxation, social safety nets, reasonable business regulations, so on and so forth. And I think its fair to blame Nixon's crookedness for the right wing's ability to take control of the party. Nixon discredited Republicans who tolerated liberal solutions with his actions.

Maybe he shouldn't have said 1980s, maybe he should've said 1950s. But then you have race issues there.

[dreamnightwind]

134. But he did say 80's

and on a different occasion he mentioned Reagan along the same lines.

I get where you're coming from but it's inaccurate to associate the earlier progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt with what Obama was referring to. There are better and more accurate ways to defend those remarks of his, such as he just wanted to show people he wasn't the far-left socialist the RW media and astro-turf tea baggers were making him out to be. I don't buy that argument entirely but it's a more appropriate one than the one you are making, IMHO.

[Control-Z]

12. When did the president

describe himself as a moderate republican? Can you give me a link to it please? I'd never heard that.

Thanks!

[truebrit71]

15. Here you go..

http://fusion.net/leadership/story/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s-12240

[Autumn]

170. The 80s St. ronnie years.

[alsame]

17. Here

[phleshdef]

24. Which is still taken completely out of historical context.

Moderate Republicans used to have quite a few progressive stances before the religious right and the neocons took over. The progressive movement was founded by a moderate Republican.

[alsame]

32. ?? I didn't take anything

out of historical context. I presented a link without comment. The words are coming directly out of his own mouth.

[phleshdef]

37. Actually he never said the words "I am a moderate Republican".

So no, those words didn't come right out of his mouth, contrary to the title of the video.

[bvar22]

44. I don't understand HOW you do that.... I'm in awe...

[font size=3]"If I had said....ah... the same policies that I have back in the 80s,
I would have been considered a Moderate Republican."[/font]

You SAW and HEARD that straight out of his mouth.
I BELIEVE him.
He certainly knows WHO and WHAT he is whether you choose to believe him or not.


Back in "the 80s", I FOUGHT AGAINST Moderate Republican Policy.
Why should I support these Moderate Republican policies today just because BOTH Parties have moved so FAR to the Conservative Right
that the Democratic President would have been considered a Moderate Republican in the 80s?

[phleshdef]

46. Moderate Republican policies like the EPA and OSHA?

You fought against those?

Or those moderate Republican policies of dismantling the military industrial complex, building an interstate highway system, founding the Environmental Protection Agency, supporting expanded welfare programs (Nixon), imposing wage and price controls (Nixon) and basically being in full support of Keynesian economics?

These are Republicans that largely believed in the New Deal and social safety nets.

You are against all that?

I don't care what you did back in the 80s, the fact is, progressives/liberals and moderate Republicans were able to agree on a LOT of important items prior to the rightward shift. That's what Obama is getting at and to say otherwise is either just plain stubbornness or purposeful dishonesty.

[dreamnightwind]

129. Was Ted Kennedy against all of that?

Was he a moderate Republican? No, he wasn't. Sure they worked together better than they do now but your point here is ridiculous.

[phleshdef]

131. Of course he wasn't. You are missing my point. And its far from ridiculous.

My point was, this entire conversation, is there use to be a much, much smaller gap between the 2 parties in terms of moderate Republicans and progressive Democrats. There were a good number of Republicans that were accepting of a lot of progressive ideals, not on everything but some very significant things.

[dreamnightwind]

136. You should probably re-read the post I was responding to

Aside from that, agree to disagree.

[phleshdef]

141. You misunderstood where I was coming from in that post.

The poster was basically acting like he worked against moderate Republicans in the area when they were more accepting of progressive ideals and that poster seemed to be coming from a position that they weren't more accepting of progressive ideals.

[dreamnightwind]

147. No, I also fought against them

in the 80's and agree with that poster. You seem to be looking for a way to justify Obama's statement, fine, knock yourself out, by looking at areas of intersection between moderate Republicans and Democrats in the 80's, though that isn't what Obama was doing.

And I feel you are mis-representing the Republican Party of the 80's, which on the far left of their spectrum, such as it was, may have had a few people a Democrat could point to as ok, but overall was horrific and put our country on the ruinous path that to this day we have been unable to correct.

It wasn't just some extreme right-wing of the Republican Party that did those things, it was their mainstream, which really means it was the corporations behind them, same as what is behind Obama and the Clintons.

[phleshdef]

166. " though that isn't what Obama was doing"

Yea actually it was.

If you go on to listen to the rest of his statement, he lists a good number of things that he supports, that are considered liberal approaches and ideas, and are things moderate Republicans were fine with during that era.

And no, I'm not misrepresenting the Republican party of the 80s. The 80s was the transition that pushed liberal republicans out of the party. And yes, there was a such thing as a liberal republican. The transformation did not happen over night. Reagan didn't just come into office and move everything to the right after his inauguration. It was an incremental change and there was a lot of backtracking on it at the time as well.

This was also a time when you could be in good relationships with corporations but still support the litany of progressive policies I've mentioned several times throughout this thread. Social safety nets, progressive tax brackets, oh my god do I have to list it all again? Reagan was way to the right of a good number of Republican senators and congress critters and his popularity encouraged that rightward shift on their part until it went so far right over the next few decades that moderates or would be moderates were fleeing or avoiding the party altogether.

Also keep in mind that throughout the 80s, Democrats had a lot of leverage over Reagan in terms of getting shit done, much the way Republicans do right now under Obama. The big difference is, the Dems played ball for the most part.

[Ed Suspicious]

50. And I voted against moderate republicans then.

I don't appreciate having to vote for one now. Centrist Dems have shifted the party rightward. They have made moderate republican policy the new normal and have established that movement toward the left is pie in the sky liberalism that is simply not palatable to the American people and should be frowned upon by grownups in the bluedog-shit center who know better.

[phleshdef]

62. As I told another poster, I don't care who you voted for. Thats irrelevant to the point.

The point the President was making was that this enormous, polarizing, ideological divide between the 2 factions were not nearly as large and pronounced as they were now.

Unfortunately, its another nuanced statement by Obama that's being misused by people who don't do nuance.

[malokvale77]

74. Because you so understand nuance? (nt)

[phleshdef]

75. In this situation, I most certainly do.

[malokvale77]

93. Don´t make me link (nt)

[phleshdef]

94. I believe you spelled "think" wrong.

[malokvale77]

100. You are so funny

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4707988

#350 was nuance
#351 showed you don get it

[phleshdef]

102. Hahahahahahahaha. Seriously? Thats your big trump card in this discussion?

For one thing, a troll is a person trying to stir some shit up. That's not even up for debate. That's the universally accepted use of the term.

Secondly, you can't take that rather pointless, ultimately unimportant exchange between the 2 of us there and claim theres any nuance to be had. That barely qualified as a conversation. Hell, "barely qualified" might even be a generous way to put it.

[malokvale77]

112. Nuance does not depend on your definition of conversation

You insinuated left wingers were shit stirrers, hence the same as trolls in your book. Again, you need a new book.

Does this now qualify as a proper conversation in your ¨book¨?

[phleshdef]

113. No, I did not insinuate "left wingers were shit stirrers".

I clearly said that there are left wing shit stirrers and right wing shit stirrers. It was not a broad generalization as there are obviously people of both persuasions who are not shit stirrers. (way less on the right I'd say)

There was no ambiguity about my point whatsoever.

And no, it isn't a conversation, its pointless sniping.

[malokvale77]

132. I asked you a simple question

You replied with snipe. I responded in kind.

¨I clearly said that there are left wing shit stirrers and right wing shit stirrers.¨ Please point out in our non-conversation where you said that.

I ask you again - Do you consider left wingers to be trolls? This is a Democratic forum. Are Democrats no longer the left on the political spectrum?

[phleshdef]

139. Its a stupid question thats worded in a very loaded way.

"yes" or "no" is not a correct answer to your question because some are trolls and some are not

This goes back to nuance and its obviously you that has the problem in regard to nuance.

[malokvale77]

148. OK...

but I never asked for a "yes" or "no" answer.

There are no stupid questions, only lack of answers. The question was certainly not loaded.

I have no problem with nuance. You, maybe.

[phleshdef]

164. Either your question was intended for a yes or no answer, or...

...your issues with the way I responded to said question have no basis. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Again, painfully, I'll boil it down for you. There are liberal trolls and conservative trolls and both camps hit this site in order to stir up shit. Trolling isn't an ideologically exclusive activity. No, liberals in general are not automatically considered trolls on this liberal site (another reason that its a stupid question), but yes, there are people who are in fact ideologically liberal that troll here. Does that help even in the slightest?

[Control-Z]

159. You need to stop digging your hole.

Seriously, you are wrong. I read your link. You were wrong there too. I just can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or not.

[malokvale77]

161. My hole?

Seriously? My link? I´m wrong?

You are right, you just can´t tell, can you.

[Control-Z]

162. Yep. I can. (nt)

[malokvale77]

163. No, you can not (nt)

[phleshdef]

165. If it were proveable, I'd bet $$$ on intentional.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. And here.....

The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was," Obama told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly

[frylock]

42. but but but he DIDN'T say the exact phrase that he was a moderate republican

[Number23]

153. Yes, because saying "I'd have been CONSIDERED a moderate Repub in the 1980s" is the same

thing as saying "I AM A MODERATE REPUBLICAN."

Jesus Christ, some of these people here!! No wonder this web site is so fucked up right now

[Control-Z]

156. Yeah. That's why I asked.

I had a feeling this was the "proof". I won't bother arguing with any of them because they know exactly what they are doing and I doubt any of them actually buys their own spin. Not worth my time.

[Number23]

158. You are exactly right.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

I wouldn't bother arguing with them either. Folks that have to lie and distort so shamelessly in order to prove their "points" do nothing but show they have no point at all.

[bvar22]

23. Middle of the Road Centrist is exactly correct.

Back in the 80s, I burned up a lot of time, money and shoe leather fighting Moderate Republicans because I disagreed with Moderate Republican Policy.
Why the hell should I suddenly support "Moderate Republican" Policy today?....because OBAMA!

At least President Obama KNOWS exactly WHO and WHAT he is.


...and YES, a Moderate Republican is better than a Hard Core Republican,
but that doesn't make either one a "Liberal" or a "Progressive".


I want to vote for someone who would have been considered a DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
Please!

[phleshdef]

38. He was basically saying "Eisenhower" Republican.

Which differs very little from progressive ideology on the whole...

Prior to the big swing to the right that the Republican party underwent during that era, there were moderate Republicans that could be quite liberal.

[bvar22]

47. More BS.

Are you really going to try and sell Eisenhower as a Liberal Democrat?

There was a HUGE difference between an Eisenhower Republican and a Democrat (FDR/Truman/JFK) back in the 40s and 50s,
and there is STILL a HUGE difference between an Eisenhower Republican and a Liberal Democrat TODAY.

The observation that the Democratic Party Leadership today is MORE conservative that Eisenhower on many issues is TRUE,
but can't be twisted into saying that Eisenhower was close to being a Democrat.
It actually demonstrated the opposite.
It shows how FAR to the conservative right the Party Leadership has drifted,
and lends support to Obama's statement identifying himself as a 80s Moderate Republican.

[phleshdef]

48. Really? What was the HUGE difference? Ike didn't lock Japanese people up in internment camps?

Today in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only a handful of reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions and depriving working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice. I have no use for those -- regardless of their political party -- who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when organized labor was huddled, almost as a hapless mass. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

This huge polarization between moderate Republicans and liberals, prior to Reaganites, mostly only exists in your mind.

You also ignore the fact that the Democratic party once had a huge wing of racist southerners right around that same era.

You are dead wrong on this and I will not concede my point.

[theaocp]

6. What institutional change are you thinking is "pie in the sky"?

www.wolf-pac.com

[phleshdef]

22. Passing single payer when there wasn't enough political desire for it among the elected.

That's a great example. Bernie Sanders himself even admits fully that single payer was impossible when the ACA was being written and passed. He said it would've gotten 8-10 votes max.

[rhett o rick]

28. Perfect. You are a progressive that doesnt ignore reality. I think that says a lot

about what's going on here in DU. I think there are a lot of people that claim to be progressive but hedge by saying that they are pragmatic. For example, they say their progressive but support the President signing indefinite detention into law. Or they support the TPP because "that's reality". I am not saying that's you but you qualified your progressiveness with reality and reality is subjective.

Do you consider Pres Obama and Ms. Clinton as being progressive?

[phleshdef]

66. I'm against indefinite detention. I believe the TPP is crap but also overblown.

I consider Barack Obama a progressive on the whole.

Hillary Clinton probably would've been more progressive had she not been so bound to the establishment from the beginning. Then again, she could get elected and surprise everyone.

[frylock]

40. the reality canard is fucking bullshit..

the REALITY is, when you strip labels like liberal and conservative, poll people on POLICY and not personality, it turns out that we are a left-leaning nation. the idiots in DC trapped in their little bubble don't see fuckall and are too cowardly to enact progressive policy.

[phleshdef]

43. Wow. No it isn't.

I mean, what you say is true when it comes to polling people on individual policy stances. But its not true when it comes to voting patterns. Also, a lot of people may favor a liberal solution for a particular issue, but they don't DEMAND it. And many of those people will accept a more conservative solution and be just fine with it. And a lot of that has to do with having an electorate where a minority are politically literate enough to understand the fundamental differences.

Furthermore, I believe a lot of Americans tack toward the center because it makes them feel good, like they are being fair and rejecting status quo labels. The people that do that are misguided at best. But they do it nonetheless. These things matter. So no, the "reality canard" is not fucking bullshit. Its reality. And we won't get things like single payer or the other things we know we should have until the electorate comes around and demands it with their voting habits. That's reality. I know its a huge inconvenience, but that's the way things are.

[Maedhros]

5. I'm a progressive who voted for Obama in 2008.

I had no delusions that he was a progressive politician: Obama was a Chicago Machine Democrat.

My disillusionment is not a result of his lack of progressive ideals, but with his furtherance of neocon foreign policy goals and entrenchment of the Unitary Executive theory.

[Ed Suspicious]

56. And he seemed to campaign against the idea of the

of the unitary executive. I swear he was like the anti-bush while campaigning. What the hell happened?

[Maedhros]

61. He got elected [n/t]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Not debating what the party stands for is like a surgeon throwing out the diagnosis before surgery.

The Left/Right/Center wars have been going on since I signed up in 2001. And, so should they be. There are those that think that being a Democrat is enough and questioning what that actually means is a threat.

There are some Democrats who want to know the ingredients of the stew before eating it.

[randome]

11. And there are some who think 'debate' means insults and childish name-calling.

America changed when Obama assumed the Presidency. Not enough but is it ever enough?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. So? "Childish" or not, debate within the party is essential to its being more than "not as bad".

Unfortunately, politics is not a gave of gentlemanly discourse. It never has been.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/22/mf.campaign.slurs.slogans/

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. See 8 great campaign slogans »

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."

[randome]

34. I would have thought we'd progressed since then. Perhaps not.

We should not behave like politicians. At least I would have hoped for better.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ed Suspicious]

60. Lol, racist homophobes, the founders were.

Thanks for the fantastic quotes.

[ctsnowman]

67. Exactly!

And if you go to the pre-civil war era it's just as bad if not worse.

[bvar22]

30. And there are some who think 'debate' means insults and childish name-calling.

See Post #11 for Exhibit A.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

14. That was me before I joined DU in 2005!

You described me exactly!

"There are those that think that being a Democrat is enough and questioning what that actually means is a threat."

I believe I've grown, and for the better, since joining DU.

[frazzled]

8. If Warren is the progressive wing ...

why is it that in her first year in the Senate, she has done rather poorly in votes in the economic realm (causing her to be ranked 31st most liberal senator). I mean really, voting with Republicans to "repeal or reduce the estate tax"? And how has the Consumer Protection Bureau done thus far? Anything revolutionary? You will recall she staffed it with executives from the banking industry.

This year, the vote ratings of another Massachusetts Democrat are eye-catching, but for the opposite reason. Elizabeth Warren, the newest liberal icon, is not the most liberal member of the Senate, according to this year's National Journal vote ratings. Warren's composite liberal score of 73.2 places her as the 31st-most-liberal senator. How could that be?

For starters, she broke with President Obama on a very significant piece of legislation, voting to repeal Obamacare's medical-device tax—a core element to the funding of the Affordable Care Act. Many manufacturers are based in Massachusetts, so this is an instance of her voting her constituency over her party. She didn't stop there, joining with many Republicans to "repeal or reduce the estate tax" if done in a fiscally responsible way. Warren even irked consumer advocates by opposing a measure that would have allowed states to mandate labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. Those differences gave her a liberal percentile score of 75 on economic policy.

...

On foreign policy, Warren received a liberal percentile score of 54 . . . voting with almost every Senate Republican against an amendment to limit the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees brought to the United States.

...

On social issues, Warren lived up to her reputation, tying with 26 other Democratic senators as the most liberal.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-vote-ratings/why-elizabeth-warren-isn-t-the-most-liberal-senator-20140206

I'm not trying to rag on Elizabeth Warren. I like her. But this distinction is in your HEAD, not in reality.

[polichick]

16. Warren was a Republican until pretty recently...

imo we don't know exactly what she stands for yet.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

18. Not so much

The 125-page paper, called “An Unfinished Mission: Making Wall Street Work For Us,” was unveiled Tuesday morning ahead of an event, keynoted by Senator Warren, where most of the authors presented their arguments and discussed the future of financial reform. Warren, a progressive favorite in the Senate, has been a strident advocate of curtailing Wall Street’s power.

http://www.msnbc.com/all/roadmap-financial-reform


That's one example of her progressive challenge to the economic infrastructure, one that Obama/Clintonian Democrats don't have a stomach for.

[frazzled]

25. She hasn't done it.

Let's be clear here: you have to actually achieve something progressive in order to be accorded that label. You just can't talk about it. Or at least that's the rule here on DU. Until she does that, she hasn't really advanced economic reform.

And you haven't addressed voting to repeal the estate tax--which is one of the most PROGRESSIVE taxes we have, which prevents the concentration of wealth.

[Control-Z]

20. Thanks for posting this. (nt)

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

27. Warren on "Too Big To Fail". Has Obama or Clinton ever said anything...

progressive like this?

[frazzled]

31. Talk, talk ...

Call me when you see anything accomplished: that is the measure by which DU decides whether Obama is a progressive or not. It's the constant refrain: "nice words, that's all." What's good for the gander must also be good for the goose.

And still, no response from defenders on the retrograde vote in favor of repealing or reforming the estate tax, which is one of the few truly progressive measures we have.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

65. Hillary: Beating up the finance industry needs to stop. (talk, talk, words, words)

[frazzled]

69. I was talking about Obama, not Clinton

Clinton is has not been president for thirteen years. He has no official capacity at the moment, but point taken: disagree with him entirely on that score.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. You don't even know that HILLARY said that in December at a Goldman Sachs fundraiser???

YIKES!!




http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

81. I'm not rich and have nothing to lose, but that doesn't describe everyone at DU...

I'm sure people with much more to lose really don't want to see Warren upset the apple cart.

[progressoid]

33. They list Chuck Schumer as the most liberal?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/the-15-most-liberal-senators-20140206

[frazzled]

39. I guess he voted right on the specific set of bills

I never said it was a perfect ranking.

My point was to show that the OP's distinction is not wholly based in reality, either. You can't just make these kinds of wild black-and-white, good-and-evil judgments and not get called out on them.

[malokvale77]

91. That made me literally laugh out loud

I guess the definition of ¨liberal¨ has changed in the last decade or two.

[progressoid]

111. And not Bernie Sanders.

[malokvale77]

119. Sad times we live in

The twisting and skewing in the current narrative is silly beyond belief.

[ctsnowman]

72. The Consumer Protection Bureau

Saved my butt from some jerkwad bill collector so I wouldn't write it off so quickly. They responding quickly and followed up and the company backed off and apologized.

[frazzled]

73. Great news ...

It's a real question I asked. I'm not sure it's had a massive impact in general, yet, but your story is encouraging.

[ctsnowman]

77. I was surprised

But I gave it a go and they came through. I really expected it to be lame.

Have a great evening.

[Laelth]

29. k&r for Elizabeth Warren.

I suppose that tells you where I stand (as defined by the OP).

-Laelth

[ProSense]

35. First,

The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure.

The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change.

...Obama is not Clinton. Secondly, Obama is responsible for re-regulating Wall Street, and other reforms will build on that.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

One of my favorite clips

Obama's CFPB and Richard Cordray.

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

Thank you Senator Warren.

CFPB Sues ITT Tech For Allegedly Exploiting Students, Pushing Predatory Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024570346

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024295777

[genwah]

36. Hey, I just got here, and I'd like to ask what are we talking about here? November is coming up on

us FAST, and we arguing about labels? Koch money is funding ground game offices, Steve Israel is doing FSM knows what with the DCCC, and we're asking if we're "progressive" enough?

[WilliamPitt]

41. DU was for TRUTH.

Truth about the 2000 election.

Truth about the true Bush agenda.

Truth about the wars.

Etc.

Sadly, truth has become toxic around here.

But that's the thing about truth.

It hurts.

Not everyone is up for it.

I am.

Are you?

- DUer since May 2001

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I am, but truth also involves research

And reading. That is not so cool. It is...work. It can also challenge your current view of the world. Some folks, actually most, are not comfortable with that.

I am putting off turning that computer. I hate reading Environmental Impact Reports...speaking of work...lovely weekend.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

53. I've noticed that TRUTH is partisan at DU. That's disappointing.

[yowzayowzayowza]

58. "President Obama is a piece of shit.'

Is that the 'truth' of which you speak? Tiz certainly toxic and hurtful.

Do tell.

-DUer since September 9, 2001.

[mcar]

70. Wish I could recommend this post

Thanks for this truth

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Here is the thing

This president has proven a disappointment to more than a few. Believe it or not, because of that a new generation of voters is having some doubts about playing.

You do what you chose with that piece of info. The second one is that the fastest growing party in the US is neither of the national parties, but the "refuse to state" affiliation "party." Again, you go run along now and figure out what to do about that.

[yowzayowzayowza]

83. Another thing: There are adult ways of dealing with disappointment and then therez...

mealymouthed petulant children who don't do their homework. 'Run along now and figure out what to do about that.'

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. I am giving you the data

What you do with it either will be la,la,la I can't hear you (what you are doing at the moment), or be an adult about it.

Personally I hear often now why should I vote? Really? And I hear this from students, minorities and working poor. Until elections and issues go back to what matters to them (beyond pretty words that is), They will continue to register in droves...as..."refuse to state" when they even bother to register that is.

Neither party is doing well and you need those indies as part of the coalition.

But hey, I really should go read that EIR. They are all kinds of "fun."

[yowzayowzayowza]

92. Calling President Obama a piece of shit is certainly gunna help the cause.

Tiz so deeply nuanced and truthy. Indies are just going to rush out register as Demz!!! Dontcha no!

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Alas, you are talking of a partisan liberal editorial writer here

That should raise alarms. What are we doing wrong to get this response from one of out more stalwart supporters?

Don't worry, I truly do not bother with local partisans either (to be fair both sides). La, la, is the normal answer as well. I expected as much. Thanks for really not disappointing.

[yowzayowzayowza]

116. Said partisan liberal editorial writer seriously misfired his high dudgeon.

A responsible partisan liberal editorial writer would deal with that fact, less it haunt 'em forever.

Thanks for the poor attempt at changing the subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Yup, la, la, la

Tell that to the single mother who works three jobs and does not believe any damn pol is on her side, or the student drowning in debt, or the dreamer who now calls Obama names.

I deal in reality. You should try that. I know better, you won't

Have an excellent day.

[yowzayowzayowza]

120. I'm in no need of a fortune teller. I see reality quite well.n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Funny

Really, even pathetic.

Independent registrations will continue to rise as long as both parties are, or are perceived, to be in for corporations. And voting rates will continue to be embarrassing. And partisans will continue to go la, la, la I can't hear you. At least in this, there is deep bipartisanship.

Well, I will continue to hear why bother? And I know why I am hearing it. Partisans really do not want to listen. De la vie, ce la guerre...

[yowzayowzayowza]

127. Well, then mebbie said partisan liberal editorial writer ...

oughta be more careful with the truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. You know what?

No use

[yowzayowzayowza]

138. In this instance of reality, mebbie said partisan liberal editorial writer...

oughta deal with his idiocy, lest We The People get the wrong idea.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Maybe it is time to say our goodbyes.

Have a wonderful life.

[yowzayowzayowza]

144. Best of luck with your studies. n/t

[malokvale77]

104. You shouldn´t be so hard on yourself (nt)

[yowzayowzayowza]

110. Clever.

Not.

[phleshdef]

96. Some of that just has to do with the notion that "centrist", "independent", "moderate", etc...

... are things that people like to claim to make them feel good about themselves. And a lot of these people are politically illiterate when it comes down to the brass tax of understanding and articulating issues.

[malokvale77]

143. ^^this^^

I have grandchildren that have become disgusted with both parties.

Less evil is not all that appealing to them. They are more into no evil.

They are the ones who have to deal with the world we have created. I apologize to them every day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. I know. I hear it often in the field as a reporter.

And the local leaders don't give a damn. Students pfffssss. Who needs them? And to their credit it is both parties.

Minorities, don't get me started.

What I see is a schism, and partisans from both sides are mostly middle to upper class and they don't want to get it. It's become a football game, truly.

[malokvale77]

150. It would be laughable...

if it was´nt so tragic.

The world we have created for them will not be much fun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. I know.

But I also know when change finally comes, at the pace we are going, will not be in the booth, nor pleasant. Hubby and I talk often on how to cover social unrest in a safe tactical manner. And that is as safe as you can. And when that happens the Pom Pom crowd will not like it in the least. Me, I expect it anymore.

Kennedy said it best, and I paraphrase: Those who prevent peaceful change ensure the violent kind,

Change will come...one way or another. I prefer the ballot box myself, but pretty much have realized it will not be that way. The oligarchy is not interested in that.

[malokvale77]

154. I understand (nt)

[yowzayowzayowza]

149. Mebbie you should inform them that tharze no magic incantation

that'll rid the world of evil. Sometimes progress can only be made thru incremental steps, ugly deals with the devil, aka compromise. 'Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight' over and over and over.... Certainly will be disgusting and unappealing at times. Thatz life.

Happiness is an exercise in expectation management.

[malokvale77]

157. magic incantations?

Maybe they are pretty well informed. Maybe they refuse to deal with the devil. Maybe they think they can do better.

[malokvale77]

95. Is that an actual quote from Will?

I don´t think so.

[yowzayowzayowza]

99. Parse away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964

[malokvale77]

101. You did the parsing (nt)

[yowzayowzayowza]

105. Only if you think "used car salesman" ameliorates the sentiment. n/t

[malokvale77]

115. Any thing can be taken out of context

What if we changed the quotation marks to - ¨piece of shit used car¨ salesman?

Nobody likes to be sold a ¨piece of shit used car¨. It´s all in the context.

[yowzayowzayowza]

117. Nonresponsive. n/t

[malokvale77]

121. Not my fault you didn´t understand my actual response (nt)

[yowzayowzayowza]

122. Wow, clever again.

Not.

[malokvale77]

135. Every bit as clever as you?

[yowzayowzayowza]

140. No. n/t

[malokvale77]

151. No?

You must be the official decider on what is clever.

I bow to your superior position. LOL

[ProSense]

59. "Sadly, truth has become toxic around here."

It sure has. The only "truth" that matters is anti-Obama, "used car salesman"

I long for the days of: KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED.

We were so united and full of hope, even in the face of bogus stories.

DUer since November 2005.

[WilliamPitt]

63. Ask Jason Leopold about that one.

[HereSince1628]

133. Oh that kerfluffle wasn't nearly as unifying as anger at SHE who must not be named

The only other thing that came close to uniting DU was Kephra's passing

[phleshdef]

68. Dude, I don't think you need to be preaching to anyone about "being toxic" at this juncture.

[Capt. Obvious]

155. Stop trying to distract from Benghazi

[Bonhomme Richard]

49. The truth. What holds us back from real change are those…..

with low expectations. It's actually worse than the repubs because they infiltrate our own camp. Even Obama himself said that we have to hold his feet to the fire.
President Obama is not a progressive. The vast majority of Democrats in Washington are not progressives. They got where they are using the current system and will not leave the ones that brought them to the dance. They will pander once in a while when necessary but their hearts are firmly in the camp of the stays quo. The only time we get anything is when they think they will lose more if they don't.

[blkmusclmachine]

51. Obama and Clinton are Third Way. Which means NO CHANGE. Well, none that we'd like, anyway...

[pnwmom]

54. "Progressive" and "liberal" are relative terms. Many DUers are on the far left of the spectrum,

quite a bit farther than the average Democrat or liberal. But all are progressive compared to the conservatives, Republicans and tea baggers.

[Squinch]

55. And the result of all of this discussion among Democrats will be a loss of the Senate and

a crap fest for the next two years.

Yeah, I get it. Not all Democrats are Our Kind Dear. But a Republican Senate and House is a nuclear bomb waiting to go off.

[kentuck]

57. Anyone remember why they put the "Underground" in the name.

Democratic Underground?

[GeorgeGist]

64. You can't have progress without change ...

so I'm confused.

[Todays_Illusion]

79. I wouldn't vote for Hillary, she is a conservative.

I also mistrust any organization or person calling themselves progressive, the progressive movement is now full of libertarians parading as progressive(liberals).

If you don't realize NPR is now the national voice of libertarians, perhaps you need to do a policy cross check.

I have never called myself progressive, I thought they were timid liberals, who allowed the conservatives make them feel bad.
So if you want to call out failure to confront, begin with the beginnings of the progressives.

My personal opinion only of course.

[BlueStreak]

85. If we are to draw a line between liberals and progressives, many progressives aren't "liberals"

To the extent that being "liberal" means just cranking out benefits -- a higher minimum wage, longer periods of unemployment compensation, bigger subsidies for health insurance, and so on.

If that is the definition of a liberal, then I am definitely much more of a progressive than a liberal. I want fairness in our society. But if a person doesn't want to make an effort to improve himself, I don't want to pay for his upkeep.

I want people to have free access to a great education and then find their way into an employment market that has fair wages and fair treatment of workers so that the government rarely needs to provide additional benefits.

In other words, I want to fix the root cause, not just keep throwing money at the symptoms.

So on this basis, a harsh view of idealogoes could be;

The libertarian / teabagger doesn't want government to do anything.
The liberal wants government to subsidize outcomes.
The progressive wants government to encourage a system where subsidies are the exception rather than the widespread rule.

And the reality is that the progressive should have about as much in common with the libertarian as he has with the liberal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

103. I'm all for fixing root causes too.

The 'root cause' of a lot of our problems atm isn't 'people not making an effort to improve themselves'. It's quite literally a lack of jobs. We figured out how to solve this problem something like 80 years ago. When the private sector isn't creating jobs, the government should be. There's a hell of a lot that needs to be done in this country, and if we're going to be paying people, we might as well get useful work in exchange. Why aren't we? Because folks on the right are ideologically opposed to the public sector employing anyone. They want to privatize every function of government they can that can possibly funnel public funds into private pockets, but are simply unwilling to do jobs that need done, but won't result in lots of profits for shareholders.

As a liberal, I *am* for 'subsidizing outcomes', when those outcomes are things that are good for people, like a cleaner environment, an educated and innovative populace, and a lack of people starving and homeless. Because I realize that some things that are good for people and the country are simply not 'profit generators'. Police and firefighters, for instance, are not 'profit generators'. But you still need them for the good of society. They create a 'good' that is not monetary, but still incredibly worthwhile.

Government exists to let people band together to do the things that benefit everyone, not just those with capital to invest for monetary return.

[BlueStreak]

125. I would rather catch things structurally and only subsidize where all else fails

On the jobs situation, I don't want more rewards for not working. I want more access to god jobs. I want to get rid of incentives for off-shoring jobs, offer incentives (which is a form of subsidy, admittedly) for creating good jobs here and absolutely denying any work visas in cases where Americans are qualified to do the work. And if Americans are not qualified to do the work, the visas should be VERY short term while we kink into gear with educational programs to get Americans capable of doing that work.

Those things are imperfect, so I am in favor of subsidies as short-term stop-gap measures. But every subsidy (other than humanitarians ones) is an indication that our system is failing earlier in the process.

But running on a platform of extending unemployment insurance -- that is terrible. It just reinforces the stereotype that liberals are anti-work, anti-initiative, pro-handout. The platform should be to fix the job environment and the educational environment -- and extend unemployment insurance only as a transitional measure until we have the system fixed. That is a completely different message. It is no wonder conservatives hate us when all we want to talk about are handouts.

[wandy]

86. I am a proud, long standing member of the Democratic party.............

Until such time that the GOP can produce a platform, a candidate and a direction that does not clearly favor the rich and powerful, the Military Industrial Complex, Corporatism, Racism, Social Injustices and all other such Bull Shit commonly associated with the Teapublican party I will be damned to hell, if there is such a place, before allowing myself to be given over to the Teapublican mind set and will remain a Democrat, even if I do 'natter' from time to time and occasional disagree with Presidents, Senators, Mayors, City Console members and other people of the Democratic persuasion in general, raising unholy hell should I feel it warranted and if there is a problem with that, so be it, because it ain't gonna change any time soon.

All the run on sentence/rant I can say in one breath.

[clg311]

89. Obama and Hillary are neo-liberals.

Who have more in common on the economy and foreign policy with George Bush than progressives.

[HereSince1628]

137. You know neoliberal was the name of a free market banking movement in the 30's right?

Hillary was among the early DLCers who are committed to helping dems overcome their unpragmatiic history of being LBJ/FDR type dems.

[BlueJac]

108. I will not vote for another Clinton.........

period. Fool me once not again. You see, that is what is wrong with progressives, they always take the bait of a phony progressive. I am done with that and happy with that decision because I was wrong to begin with. Bring on Bernie or Warren I am ready for that, win or lose. At least I make my stand for what I truly believe in!!!!!!!!! Can you all say that?

[d_legendary1]

109. I wouldn't label them as anything other than corporates

No one had the stones to propose single payer, the prez signed off on more free trade agreements (and Hillary agrees with them), and they're both down with TPP. Labeling them as Liberal or Progressive is just absurd.

[Douglas Carpenter]

145. Clintonism was the real conservatism. They balanced the budget, slashed New Deal regulation

as well as the New Deal/Great Society safety net, passed the massive "fee trade" agreements in history which had the dual effect of completely neutering organized labor as a major force and then triumphantly declared, "The era of big government is over." And brought an end to the FDR era New Deal Democratic Party any meaningful opposition to the unrestrained rule of money.

Many people here are simply too young to remember the world before Ronald Reagan when we still had competing economic philosophy as part of the mainstream of political debate.

[Brewinblue]

160. That's it in a nutshell.

A perfect summation of the battle for the soul and future of the Democratic party.

[gulliver]

167. The "easy" way is full voter participation.

Most people are competent enough to get their voting done on voting day. They should just do it, and no one should tolerate skippers.

If that happens, progressive politics leaps forward. There hasn't been anything like an immediate change to full participation before. But once everyone does it and sees how easy it is, there is no going back.

Where the government is now is the only worthwhile definition of "the center." Essentially all Democrats are left of that. If you believe in democracy as a simple machine—votes in power out—that's the truth in my opinion.

[Progressive dog]

169. So, David Sirota says

that it just takes being confrontational.
Hillary and the current president aren't progressives because they aren't confrontational. They're certainly not up to Christie in the confrontation department.

[NCTraveler]

171. I want to just make a statement about one part in your op.

"The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure."

"The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change."

While I could nit pick and argue against a part of those statements, the main thought behind them is very important. I do think it is a major point of contention between two of the factions in the party. The importance placed on the thought that there is a need for fundamental change in the structure of government and its role in society. Some see it as extremely urgent needing immediate change or there is nowhere to go but down fast. Others see the need for fundamental change but feel it isn't as urgent. They believe the current system can hold as long as small changes keep being made to improve it. It is the level of urgency between the two that displays the difference.

In the primary I vote for the individual I feel wants fundamental change now. That is never the person who makes it to the general. I still don't dislike the last couple of votes I have made in the general.

[Scuba]

172. I wasn't here in the early days, but absolutely agree with your OP's premises.

Thanks WhaTHellsgoingonhere.