Please consider the "Progressives Against Inevitability" Movement

[Perky]

Someone has to say this

The historical challenge of the "Progressive Agenda" is that it has never be truly "defined" let alone acted upon when only 51% of the electorate ks behind the president with such an agenda. The type of "change" progressives want require the president to have more than 275 electoral votes. A lot more

The three great "change president" of the last century: (Roosevelt in '32, LBJ in '64, and Reagan in '80) were able to move their agendas forward because they were elected with substantial mandates and had the gifts to mollify the 1/3rd of the other party necessary to advance through the Congressional minefield. Each had the ability to lead the country and thus had the ability to twist the arm of Congress.

The notion that real change can occur when half of the nation opposes the agenda is myopic nonsense. Very little has been accomplished in this country since 1984 on core issues people care about because the pink and pale blue voters have been unwilling to climb on board and give anyone a landslide or a coattails effect.

As much as some of my friends would like to impose a progressive agenda on the country it does not work that way. Maybe conservatives can bludgeon their way to change, but liberals have never been particularly adept at autocratic rule. The only way to move the country forward progressively is to elect a President who can carry over 300 electoral votes ant simply all the deep blues.


As I look over our field of candidates and measure it based on known political sentiments. the talents (trustworthiness, intellect, charisma) necessary to move the country in a new direction and the ability to move some purple and pink states to our column and bring 1/3rd of the GOP along with him, The choice is down to two.



They are also the only two candidates capable of keeping Mrs. Clinton and her hubby off the stages when the balloons drop on the last night in Denver.... because she is neither a progressive nor can she get over 280 electoral votes to bankroll her agenda. The consequences of her ascendancy ought to worry Democrats of every stripe.

While we should definitely support her should she get the nomination, she remains lightning rod for the fear mongers and the fearful that she will make put every close congressional race in every purple district in play. Nearly all of our takeaways in the 2006 election were by very small margins. We have the chance to increase those numbers substantially but we allow those new one seats at risk and the potential for six more senate seats at risk if Clinton is at the head of the ticket. A democratic loss in 2008 will have dire impacts on SCOTUS. We need to build on our margins not put them at risk. Moreover her political leanings, instincts and abilities to persuade are deeply and historically suspect. Her great claim to wanting to be president has to be more an "I used to live in the White House"

The only two candidates capable on all scores are Obama and Edwards.They may not be the the most progressive. but they are the only two candidates with the potential to get over 300 Electoral votes and the only tow capable of stopping Clinton.

I know progressives are hoping that Dennis Kucinich can pull off a miracle or that AL Gore is going to ride in on his white steed. but neither is likely and time is running out.
From what I can tell you folks make up about 1/3rd or the DU. I am pleading however that you also consider joining the "Progressives Against Inevitability" movement here on DU and thus keep Hillary Clinton from the nomination.

[William769]

1. Hillary is 44. NT

[Demeter]

2. There Is Nothing Inevitable About Hillary

It's a long way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Iowa's Yepsen's take on Hillary: Don't be surprised if come December, many Iowa Dems desert her...

A Lot At “Steak” In Iowa
David Yepsen

September 16th, 2007

For her part, Clinton did not respond in kind. She probably figures she doesn’t need to mix it up too much with people whose support she’s going to need after winning the nomination. But that could be a risky strategy for a frontrunner who faces questions about her electability. Clinton really didn’t address that issue, which is the single biggest impediment she faces as she hunts votes in the caucuses.

She may be leading in national polls now, but don’t be surprised if, come December, many Iowa Democrats desert her for another candidate simply because they don’t think she can win. (That same thing happened to Howard Dean in December, 2003. People liked what he had to say, he led in the polls but crashed late in the game when droves of people said the guy would be a loser in November.)

Unless Clinton convinces Iowa Democrats she can go the distance in November, she’ll may have that same difficulty on caucus night and she missed a good opportunity to deal head on with the issue.

Instead, she came at it through a side door. She talked about being the first woman with a serious chance at winning the presidency. That’s not a bad strategy, considering how a majority of caucus goers and voters are women. She’s hoping to attract support from those voters who think it’s “about time” or it’s “our turn.”

http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=8735

[William769]

9. Does he think Iowans are that Stupid?

The latest poll has her up by 5 Clinton 28, Edwards 23, Obama 19. And thats not a National poll, it's from Iowa.

[flpoljunkie]

10. We will indeed see. Most polls still have Edwards in the lead in the Iowa caucuses.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. This entire screed just to prop up

Obama and Edwards? Those of us on the "looney left" understand that Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all the same candidate. From experience, I can predict that most of us will vote Kucinich in the primaries and do anything else but vote for Hillary in the general. No, I doubt we'll be propping up your establishment-controlled candidates either.

[zulchzulu]

4. Instead of that tact...

...I would suggest you do grassroots efforts for the candidate you want. You mentioned Obama or Edwards. I do tabling for Obama at the Madison Farmers Market (which gets 10,000+ people there on Saturdays) and have seen a table for Edwards come back in as well as a recent addition of a modest but capable Kucinich table.

Instead of dreading "inevitability", get out in the street or contact your local Democratic Party office to see how you can pitch in.

Don't wait for the Official Cavalry to arrive. You are it.

[Totally Committed]

5. Those of us who backed Lamont against Lieberman only to be torpedoed by the HRC wing of the Party

still have a bad taste in our mouths for grassroot efforts against the "inevitability" of the DLC, thank you. It won't work if they don't want it to... they'll see to that.

TC

[William769]

7. Is that the organization you speak of the one Wes Clark Just joined?

[kenfrequed]

8. They are...

Good at castigating the left and browbeating liberals into thinking that ONLY their candidates (such as Hillary) can win against a republican in a general election, but after attaining the nomination they very rarely deliver an electoral victory. Those that manage to eke out a win usually end up selling Democratic principles down the toilet (see Liberman).

[zulchzulu]

13. So just give up?

I'm not that cynical. You have to still believe we have a democracy and you have to move on after past battles.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. "modest but capable Kucinich table"

Formica topped?

[zulchzulu]

12. Well...

It was a guy with a small table, some stuff printed out from the Kucinich site and a sign. He was also head-bobbing to his iPod the whole time... nice kid on a mission.