The coming party clash will be between the "activists" and the "governing" class.

[madfloridian]

What Hillary Clinton said about the activist class should be no surprise.

This view regarding the activist wing of the party was pointed out in 2004 by Simon Rosenberg, a fellow founder of the DLC who nows runs the New Democrat Network.

Simon Rosenberg said the coming clash in the party will be between the "activist" class and the "governing" class for the heart and soul of the party.

This was from a Time article from 2004 the day after the election.

What Happens to the Losing Team?

It shows the mindset of the party insiders like Rosenberg, though he is not as "inside" as some are.

If there's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, predicts Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a moderate advocacy group, it won't be the usual skirmish between the liberals and moderates of the professional political class in Washington but one between the Washington insiders on one side and the rank-and-file activists spread out across the country on the other. "What's changed over the past two years is that activist Democrats believe that Republicans are venal people," says Rosenberg. These activists "are going to be very intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans. There's going to be tremendous pressure to stand up and fight and not roll over and play dead."

Here is where Simon Rosenberg even more forcefully made his point about the activists. Remember, he is not really that fond of us himself...but he's doing better.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word 'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."

Mrs. Triangulation

Simon Rosenberg to his credit spoke up powerfully about the way the Clinton campaign is using the Florida delegate issue. Considering his previous close ties to the Clintons...this is a very important statement. I don't think the Clintons listened to their old friend, though. They are still pursuing this course to disrupt the party rules, and they appear to intend to continue it.

Rosenberg's statement from January.

But there is a line in politics where tough and determined becomes craven and narcissistic, where advocacy becomes spin, and where integrity and principle is lost. I am concerned that this Florida gambit by the Clinton campaign is once again putting two of my political heroes too close - or perhaps over - that line. So that even if they win this incredible battle with Barack Obama they will end up doing so in a way that will make it hard for them to bring the Party back together, and to lead the nation to a new and better day.

Amen. The fact that Hillary Clintons criticism of activists and Move On is on audio shows that the mindset Rosenberg mentioned is still active.

The Clintons have been the governing class, the group they founded has spoken out often against activists...calling them fringe or elitists.

What she said was not surprising. It has been that way for years now in our party.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yup. Clinton supporters + republicans on one side, the rest of us on the other...

... We'll see who wins - good fight. Wasn't really planning on the Clinton supporter defection, but I think we'll still win.

[MindMatter]

29. 2008 has a whole different calculus. Trust me on that.

People, we don't need the Liebermans, Clintons, and the other Junior Republicans.

The number of voters that really feel strongly that the DLC / "New Democrat" thing is a good idea -- after seeing in in action for almost 20 years -- is dwindling.

There may be 10,000,000 people who feel that way. In election strategy, it it tough to walk away from 30,000,000 votes. But what is the cost of pacifying 10,000,000 Joe Liebermans?

The cost is too high. The cost is to go into the general election without any driving principles. And that would cost us 10,000,000 votes easily.

In 2004, about 60,000,000 voted for John Kerry, despite his inability to effectively present any coherent message. There are easily another 15,000,000 already on our side who simply didn't bother to vote because they didn't see a clear reason.

And here's the major factor that nobody seems to recognize. The GOP got about 60,000,000 votes in 2004. At least 20,000,000 of them are up for grabs this time when we field a candidate who is free to articulate a clear vision without having to water everything down to satisfy the Junior Republics who are hanging out in our party because the GOP doesn't want them.

Sending away the 10,000,000 hard core Clinton supporters could be the best thing we ever did.

In another year, this might be a bad move. But not in 2008. Not this time. This is a year where 80% of the public inherently understands the ruling class has things all f---ed up. They will not all join with Obama, but many of them can.

[paulk]

53. yeah, let's get rid of 10 million Democrats

just when I think DU can't get any stupider....

[MindMatter]

64. Correction. 10,000,000 DINOs

who don't seem to agree with any progressive principles, and who are preventing us from making a legitimate appeal to 30,000,000 voters who have been giving the GOP their votes because they don't see us representing principles in any meaningful way.

And in reality, once you get outside the beltway, the number of DINOs may be far less than 10,000,000. But if it is really 10,000,000, the new calculus still is a big improvement over the calculus that lost 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections.

[paulk]

65. your "calculus" is beyond stupid.

good thing lunatic like yours are confined to the nutroots and have no real influence out in reality.

[MindMatter]

78. Do you have any idea how many new voters Obama has registered?

[paulk]

86. ten million?

LOL...

[MindMatter]

89. It is millions already,

with 7 months ahead.

You don't know very much it seems.

Many of us have been out there working for the Obama campaign. Voter registration has been a PRIMARY focus of this campaign. The only purpose of Clinton's campaign these days is to try to destroy Obama for her own personal benefit. Obama's campaign is 180 degrees opposite. He hasn't attacker her in any significant way. His focus is on bringing new voters into the system, much as that has been Dean's focus since taking the helm.

So yes, I don't really give a shit about the 10,000,000 who don't get it. I'd rather work my ass off for the 30,000,000 we can bring into the system or bring across from the other side.

[MindMatter]

90. Here's some data to ponder,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-06-voterregistrations_N.htm

In NC along it is 200,000 when you look at new registrants plus ones who have switched their affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

Now, I suppose some of those are part of the Limbaugh gang switching over so they can prop up Hillary, but most of them are legitimate new voters for the Democrats. And I challenge you to show me evidence of any significant registration effort put out by the Clinton camp. They aren't part of this effort at all. They are the "new democrats", which is to say old democrats who just want to take their turn at the feeding trough.

The Obama organization has had major registration efforts in practically every state. He is spending a great deal of his war chest on registering new voters. That is good for the party all the way up and down the ticket. Anybody who is missing this point should spend a little time educating themselves before they shoot off their mouths.

[paulk]

94. yeah, like none of those Republicans voting for Obama

have ulterior motives. In Obama world, only Hillary is the source of all political evil...

You and the rest of the Obama kids keep on dissing us "old Democrats". I'm sure you can win this all by your all powerful selves.

What a bunch of arrogant fucks you are.

Hey, I thought Obama was all about uniting the party! Yet you're willing to throw 10 million voters in the ditch. God, I hope Obama is a little smarter than his supporters. Otherwise we're fucked this fall.

[juno jones]

57. I agree with that.

People are missing the calculus of the new registration phenomenon as well. I work as a cook in what is, of course, a very blue collar enviroment. These guys aren't stupid by any means and I know most of them are supporting Obama, although we rarely discuss politics at work. Most have rarely or never voted before due to alientation froom the political process that Obama summed up so well in his comments about the 'bitter' state of our country. They aren't into guns or religion and knew voting wouldn't get them shit except lied to. These guys will never come out for Hillary. They won't register, and noone'll ever know they were even there. But if Obama is the nom, they will come out of the woodwork. If there are a few pro-Obama cooks in every restaurant across the US, you are going a long way to making up a mere 10,000,000 votes.

[SoFlaJet]

2. thank you MadFlo

this is exactly what I was asking you about in that PM

[madfloridian]

3. I think it was.

:hi:

[NashVegas]

4. Which Group Does Obama Think He's More Beholden To?

If he should win the nomination, which side will he view as the one who butters his bread?

[madfloridian]

19. I would hope he would do what is best for the country.

If you think back, that is usually been the biggest gripe of the "activists". Going to war unnecessarily for starters.

Most of our gripes are about hurting the country.

[KittyWampus]

49. considering he spent time organizing disenfranchised in Chicago, I'd say the answer is obvious

to anyone without their head up their ass.

[ulysses]

5. I'll be #3.

A lot of us have been saying this for years, haven't we? :hi:

[VenusRising]

6. K&R

Another great post madfloridian.

The activists happen to be mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. The DLC has sided with Republicans on so many major issues there will be no love lost for me.

Screw the governing class. They've never done jack for me, and I don't owe them anything. ;)

[LongTomH]

25. VenusRising: Who is the source for that great quote?

I'm sure that's from the American Revolution era; but, who? Patrick Henry?

[VenusRising]

30. Samuel Adams.

:)

The full quote is in my profile. I only had so many characters for my sig line, so I had to cut it down some.

:hi: LongTomH

The full quote:

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams

[LongTomH]

66. Thank you!

:loveya:

[rhett o rick]

84. Love his beer. nm

[patrice]

7. Again! that tendency to embroider the facts to fit her agenda. : - (((((((((((((( nt

[SoFlaJet]

8. also what is becoming clear

is that WE don't agree with the DLC strategy of "you MUST win a few key states to succeed" Bullshit, Howard Dean's 50 state strategy finally won us back the congress and can win us the presidency. The DLCers are fighting with all their might to avoid becoming irrelevant. Again, they are trying to play with the 1992 rulebook-which is a proven loser.

[Cassandra]

15. The whole FL and MI exercise...

has been all about the DLC taking down Dean and lying about what they are doing.

[madfloridian]

16. Yes.

I think you may be right.

[Cassandra]

17. Which makes the chaos...

not a bug but a feature, as they assume they can win by losing, if necessary.

[madfloridian]

32. The party chaos does not bother them.

As they are not worried about the state of the party....just winning.

[Tatiana]

21. Interesting theory... and it really does fit.

They knew the consequences for moving their primary up. This was trying to make Dean look incompetent. I think they didn't count on the grassroots or other state Dem parties defending Dean.

Donna Brazille has really been surprising. She was not a big Dean fan, but she has become one of his biggest defenders.

[madfloridian]

22. The day of the vote emails were sent out saying Dean "disenfranchised" us.

It was all planned, and even the Florida bloggers went along.

[Cassandra]

27. I just want to thank you...

for all the information you've shared about the goings-on in Florida. Without it, I might have been fooled, too, or at least confused.

[madfloridian]

44. Well, I can tell you..

that I wrote about it to save my sanity. It is like I felt before the Iraq War invasion.....knowing the media is lying and not being able to do anything about it.

At least I could write about it, and it helped my feelings even if it accomplished little else.

[YDogg]

81. BINGO

[PM7nj]

9. "These activists 'are going to be very intolerant of Democrats who cooperate with the GOP"

There is a difference between cooperating with Republicans to actually get things done and giving into them. I am intolerant of the DLC and Blue Dogs who think they have to act like the Republicans.

[SoFlaJet]

11. Note To Senator Clinton....

your seat WILL be in play in 2012-we will ALL donate to her opponent

[calmblueocean]

36. Yes! Exactly. This is framed dead wrong. It's the Repubs who've turned their backs on negotiation.

Democrats of all sorts have always been willing to work with Republicans. We believe in the notion of reasonable compromise, of finding consensus. It's the Republicans who've rejected compromise wholesale, whether on the war or FISA or any number of other situations. Here's what Republicans believe about compromise, straight from Limbaugh's mouth:

"Partisanship is ideal. Partisanship is crucial. Partisanship is based in ideals and principles, and people who hold those principles dear and are loyal to them will not compromise them. Partisanship founded the country; partisanship propels the country. What we do not need is an end to partisanship. If we finally come up with this notion of bipartisanship across the board and the country's unified, one of two things is actually going to have happened. One side is going to have lost. So the question is, "Who wins?" The question is victory, not bipartisanship."

We don't want the Democratic party to become Limbaugh's mirror image. We just want the respect we deserve, and we want politicians who embody that respect, politicans with the strength to make genuine compromises where both sides give up something to gain something greater, and not simply knuckle-under to Republican bombast and attacks. Maybe that's too complicated for the cable news politics of today, but that's the way I feel.

[crankychatter]

38. Thanks for bringing this up "listen to each other even when we disagree"

THAT's Obama's message

[PerpetuallyDazed]

77. Ok...

I love the vision, but I don't see it playing out pragmatically. How can our side continue to promote compromise with a group that refuses to budge? One side MUST become victorious when playing by those rules, unfortunately!

[rhett o rick]

85. Respectfully disagree. The republicans in Congress today have their main goal is to discredit

Democrats. No cooperation with the devil. Many Democrats have cooperated with the republicans and look where we are today. I say no cooperation at all.

[The Wizard]

96. When Democrats reach across the Aisle

they come back with bloody stumps. There is no compromising with rabid fascists who will not bargain in good faith.

[rhett o rick]

98. Agree. The only way Democrats should be reaching across the isle is to stick their feet right up

the republicans backside. No compromise and no cooperation. We are mad as hell and we ain't going to take is anymore.

[undeterred]

10. Whats funny is when you see the good ol boys and girls

thinking they can control the activists by bullying or criticizing or even by buying them. They still think they can govern the party top down. And they are so, so wrong.

[dkf]

12. Having a "governing class" is the true meaning of elitism.

Ironic in the extreme.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. We shouldn't allow them to frame us.

"Activist" has such a negative connotation, especially for us who live in conservative counties. Perhaps we should be called Democratists? Or informed citizens? Or public stewards?

[Irishonly]

18. I Don't Like That Activism

has any negativity associated with it. I am an activist and proud of it. We are the ones who get things done.

[Political Heretic]

34. "Activism" doesn't have a negative connotation anywhere but amoung washingon insiders

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. Activist = dissenter = stink'n liberal. At least, that's how the commissioners

use it when they want to discredit someone.

[Political Heretic]

39. That would be an insider.

The term activist has a very long and beautiful history among the People. Social and political activism, that's what community organizers are. Community development social workers are activists, and they're called activists both in the community and in professional settings.

[SoFlaJet]

14. Recommended

and bumped up for a great thread by MadFlo

[NJmaverick]

20. Screw you Hillary! Screw you and your elitist attitude

You have alot of f**king nerve to be attacking me and the other people that are the backbone of the party. Sorry but you are not ENTITLED to anything but losing this primary!

[windoe]

23. Beware of this Republican divide and conquer meme!

It is designed to divide the Democratic party. Please stay unified against McCain--we have bigger fish to fry here!!!

[madfloridian]

24. Perhaps you could direct those words to the Clinton campaign.

This is what she said:

""We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Most people are very happy when their activists come out and vote and take part. Why isn't she happy about the huge turnouts?

I am not dividing the party, I am presenting the truth of how she has been using FL and MI to split us.

[grasswire]

26. oh that's just outrageous

Do you think that Democrats who support Hillary are not activists? Outrageous.

Nice try at framing, though.

[madfloridian]

28. Her own words.....read them.

""We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/

They are not my words....they are her words. Simon Rosenberg may be a centrist, but he knew how to put the situation into words.

Your gripe is not with me, it is with Hillary.

[Political Heretic]

35. You're committing the part / whole fallacy.

The fact that you can identify individual counter-examples does not prove or disprove a characterization of a generality.

So, that there are some activists who support Clinton doesn't change the fact that the majority of her support is not from that base. And we know this by her own comments, by her financial disclosures, by her campaign's donors, and by the demographics of her supporters. Party activists do not flock to Clinton. There will always be individuals who don't fit the general pattern.

[madfloridian]

40. I don't think that poster even read my post.

:shrug:

or followed the link to Hillary's words.

[windoe]

31. Unfortunate that this ploy has worked so well,

derailing us from having real life and death policy issues that face the country. This is actually a great post, because at some point in time (perhaps real soon!) Democrats will need to unify behind one candidate. I see more and more people tired of being manipulated by words and sound bites and Faux News propaganda techniques, people are tired of being lied to.

[JoFerret]

33. No peasants in sight

Nor actual working class people.

[Fovea]

41. 'against activists...calling them fringe'

It really is the sixties all over again...

Look at all that fringe.

Flower power baby, it's back- it's bad.

[windoe]

43. Exactly- creating the illusion that mainstream America

-you know, the ones that are 'bitter' and becoming active because they (we) wish to change the status quo-are on the outside. Seems Bush used the same tactics, calling the millions of anti-war demonstrators a 'focus group', before going ahead with his own agenda.
This is really a core issue for Democrats, and Americans. Time to put on the xray glasses and see through the smokescreen. If you are not rich and well connected, you are marginalized!!! To the fringes with ya! You're either with me or against me, same sh*t different smell.

[madfloridian]

42. From the mouth of Mark Penn in 2005....

From 2005...Matt Bai on a possible Hillary run

"In fact, Clinton's advisers disagreed about whether a bunch of 20-something bloggers really mattered. In a conversation last month, Mark Penn scoffed at my suggestion that there might be a strong backlash in the party against the ethos of Clintonism. "Strong backlash?" Penn said. "Former President Clinton is at a 70 percent approval rating, stronger than even during his presidency. More people would like to see him president than President Bush. In this environment, that is a notion I would have to laugh at." It's true that most Democratic voters are probably too busy working and raising kids to spend a lot of time debating political tactics online, and the importance of the "Net roots" can be overstated. And yet, the blogosphere is bound to be an important organizing force in 2008, and some other candidate will almost certainly rise to fill the space that Dean once occupied. If nothing else, this would make it harder for Hillary Clinton, the heir to her husband's legacy, to run the unity campaign her advisers envision.

What Penn misses is that the backlash right now is really not so much against "Clintonism" as it is against the divisive campaign she has run.

[madfloridian]

45. I wonder if some would like to eat their words from 2004...Ickes? Brazile?

From the 2004 article in TIME.

Sometimes it is interesting to look back. To those who say Donna Brazile is pushing Obama...she was not doing that in 2004. And Harold Ickes...bite your tongue.

What Happens to the Losing Team?

Brazile:

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000, agrees. "There will be John Edwards' band of friends, but in this party, the Clintons have the juice," says Brazile. More than any other potential candidate, she adds, Senator Clinton transcends the party's ideological fault lines and the battle between its insiders and outsiders. "She's acceptable to everyone," Brazile says. "The moderate wing likes her; the liberals like her. There's no question, Hillary's the person people will focus on."

Ickes, who is in effect running Hillary's campaign now..

"I'm one of the few in the semi-inner circle who don't think she can win," says Ickes, a close Clinton ally who was deputy chief of staff to her husband in his first term. "It would be a brutal, bruising fight. It would make this year's race look like kindergarten."

Ooops, Harold. :evilgrin:

[Demeter]

46. Haven't Seen Any Symptoms of "Governing"

Seen an awful lot of enabling, though.

[truedelphi]

71. Ain't that the Truth! n/t

[Jakes Progress]

47. And the last activist elected president was.....

Nope. Can't think of one either. Can think of a couple of candidates and hot flashes in the pan, but no winners.


Activists sit around all day with people just like themselves and spend all their time drowning out other voices so they think that they are a larger crowd than they really are. They tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive, more holier than thou than holy. I spent a good part of my youth being one. I made me feel really good. I was just so much purer than those other guys. Of course we never got anything done and that was okay with us because we weren't going to compromise our ideals (which changed with the actions of our heros). It is wasn't perfect then it was crap.


Then I spend years working with people who needed things done. Battered women. Homeless. Battered children. They didn't care about my ideals. They needed food and money and homes. Sure they would have liked a perfect society where all the bad guys admitted their misdeeds and confessed their sins. But they were truly in need right now, and I found that getting food and money and homes and jobs for these people took trades and compromise.


So in my later wise years, I may not be a pure as you, but I've gotten a lot of food and money and homes for people that posturing activism would have kept them from having.

[madfloridian]

48. Is that "pure" remark directed at me? I hope not.

Hillary just disowned the ones who do the party work, so I hope your remark is directed at such hypocrisy as that.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/audio_hillary_privately_blaste.php

""We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

That attitude probably didn't set well with those you helped. Judging those you don't know.

[madfloridian]

51. "So in my later wise years, I may not be a pure as you"

Your statement:

So in my later wise years, I may not be a pure as you, but I've gotten a lot of food and money and homes for people that posturing activism would have kept them from having.

First off, I would never judge your wisdom.

Secondly, I would not even attempt to judge your age.

But I sure as hell think your attitude is condescending.

[Jakes Progress]

58. Didn't mean to touch a nerve.

But I have to ask how you think your post is not judgmental or condescending. And you seemed to have missed my point and my attitude.


My point is something that you miss in the response before this one. It depends what is meant by the word activist. I was using it in the contest that Hillary seemed to be using it - that of the avid and eager worker who disdains other points of view, one who demeans his opposition as less than human. I guess the term would be left wing nut. I was one. I hung around with other left wing nuts and couldn't understand why everyone didn't enjoy me. A friend reminded me of a cute truism: It is fine to march to beat of a different drum; just don't expect the rest of the world to join the parade. I believe that much of what is happening in the Democratic party is people with some loud drums who think everyone agrees with them. They feel so empowered by all the support they get on their blogs that they ignore political reality (even condemn it) and alienate those they will need to win in November. My attitude is that this is wasteful and counterproductive to getting things done in the years that follow the election. It sounds like you would like a war within the party, a war for its soul. That war will take precious resources that are needed to battle big oil, big media, big pharma, big insurance and all of the other bigs that are laughing at us while we battle for our soul. My attitude is that waging this battle is an ego trip for both sides, proving once again that the middle is where things get done.

[madfloridian]

59. Again, there you go...Judging who I am.

You assume I am a lefty nut job....or else you would not have called me out that way.

Yes, you touched a nerve.

Activists and those who are passionate to get things done are going to change this party from Clinton speak.

Hillary is trying to destroy the nominee for the general so she can run again in 2012.

[madfloridian]

61. That war you think I want???? It IS going on right now.

And Hillary is leading the way to put the rest of us in our places.

"It sounds like you would like a war within the party, a war for its soul. That war will take precious resources that are needed to battle big oil, big media, big pharma, big insurance and all of the other bigs that are laughing at us while we battle for our soul. My attitude is that waging this battle is an ego trip for both sides, proving once again that the middle is where things get done."

I am not waging war. The Republican wing of the Democratic party is waging war and I am calling them out on it.

I am probably as old or older than you, I am probably as wise or wiser...I am very much activist in many ways you have no way of knowing.

There already is a war. It is going on right now.

[windoe]

67. The loud drums you think are coming from left wing nuts

are coming from everywhere. There are extremists and then there are people who seek to work together. People that have been excluded and alienated and whose voices have not been heard are angry. Bush administration wants us to see everything as a war. War on this, war on that. You can say there is a war within the party, and you can also say there is a great diversity within the party. Wars build walls and barriers that impede, kill or delay communication, but honoring diversity creates windows and doors and bridges instead. Many of us have forgotten how to do that.
Framing is very important here, and so is a paradigm shift--toward cooperation.
response to #58, couldn't help myself.

[truedelphi]

70. My problem, which stymies me and maybe you can help me sort it ut is this:

On the one hand activists do often tend to think that people think like them, and that far larger numbers of people would be inspired by ideals.

On the other hand, if to win an election, so that you can thus do battle and fight for the decent things like battling big media, big oil, big pharma etc, you need to appear that you are like those on the other side, and in striving to appear like you are on the other side, you BECOME like the otehr side, how is anything decent ever going to come about??

Thsi is the dichotomy tht worries me.

[Jakes Progress]

79. Me too.

I don't have an answer, but I do have experience. You don't get rich moguls to cooperate by calling them names and spitting at them. You don't inspire them to greatness by tantrums and fits.


We don't need to worry that either of our candidates will antagonize the bigs. Both are part of the moneyed elite and both sup at the table of corporations. Our problem is how to get them to stop stuffing their campaign chests long enough to do something. Neither has shown any inclination to do anything substantive in this way. Both have offered words, but neither has ever put their vote where their mouth is.


Our hope lies in the houses of Congress. We must put two or three dozen good people in those bodies if we want any change at all. We will have to have a super majority of Democrats because at least half of them are part of the problem.

[windoe]

56. This is one reason I do not like labels

-one dimensional words that describe human beings. An 'activist' is someone who is motivated to take action on an issue. Somehow I get from this post is that you think activists are all talk and no action. Cindy Sheehan, Martin Luther King were activists. Having meaningful conversations and dabates about the issues of the day are not to be scoffed at. What I see are Americans expressing themselves however they can in order to process and bring about changes to a country that has become corrupted. Talking leads to action and activists are actually the people that instigate changes in society. These ideas then manifest in people actually doing political and humanitarian and counselling work like what you have done, which is to be commended. But please do not dismiss the process that leads up to and must accompany the work that needs to be done--everyone has a part to play in this world.
Activists inspire people.
This response to post 47.

[Jakes Progress]

80. Okay, we agree.

Labels are dangerous. You have to look at the context in which the term was used. Surely you agree that many activists are all talk and no action. And that some of them enjoy disruption more than progress. Then you mentioned two of my idols. I marched with Dr. King, and on two occasions, I traveled down the road to demonstrate with Cindy Sheehan.

I was very depressed that America didn't rally behind this fearless and selfless woman. Our country blew it when we let the chimp take us to war, but we redoubled our shame when we didn't take the chance that Cindy gave us to repudiate our leadership. Perhaps my use of the term activist here refers to those that I have issues with from that experience. Where were all these activists and zealots when Cindy was camping in the dirt near Crawford?


So I agree that activist can be a positive term. But is is more gotcha to go after Hillary for commenting on the activists by saying that she hates those who have helped to do good things. It is the same as the shady use of Obama's "bitter" speech. I know what he meant. And the OP here knows what Clinton meant. But we parse and twist. That is the kind of activist that I meant in my original reply. I think that it would be obvious that I was not complaining about Martin Luther King anymore than Obama was complaining that middle class Americans are stupid. Both sides have to stop this. Those parsing activists on both sides will hand the election to McCain.

[L0oniX]

50. Fuck the Clinton's ...fuck the DLC ...fuck the repukes ...this is war !

:evilfrown: :mad: :puke::wtf::argh: :spank: :grr: :nuke: :banghead:

[madfloridian]

52. Damn! Maybe I should have put Hillary's own words in the OP

So people could see them in black and white before they accused me of all kinds of nefarious stuff.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/audio_hillary_privately_blaste.php

"The Huffington Post has gotten their hands on a secret tape from a closed-door fundraiser held just after Super Tuesday, in which Hillary lambastes "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and their views on national security"

"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Someone needs to tell her that activists are also voters.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

54. those damn activists, they screw everything up

don't they?

The corporations and MSM are up in arms.

tough shit, hillary

[knixphan]

55. Activist here!

Fired up!

[New Dawn]

60. K&R

[bvar22]

62. I'm ready!

:patriot:
K&R


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[madfloridian]

63. Great picture, great statement by Wellstone.

:hi:

[undeterred]

72. What a beautiful man. What a great loss.

[hulka38]

68. It's a revolution within the Democratic party.

The governing class enabled and advocated for the worst foreign policy decision in decades and they still almost won. The Democrats of the Democratic party have risen up and said "no more".

[madfloridian]

69. I think so.

I thought Rosenberg's statement that many in DC were not aware of it was really interesting. I guess they live in a bubble.

[Joanne98]

73. Right on the money!

[Vinca]

74. The Internets have brought the regular people together and

we demand a seat at the table! The governing class has been fired.

[ShortnFiery]

75. You got that right! The Activists far outnumber the Political Ruling Class.

Be Advised. ;)

[rhett o rick]

82. And we're mad as hell and ain't gona take it anymore. nm

[PerpetuallyDazed]

76. It's about DAMN TIME!

This is totally me: "These activists 'are going to be very intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans. There's going to be tremendous pressure to stand up and fight and not roll over and play dead.'"

The GOP has their "religious base", and the Democrats have US... They better start fucking listening. I just wonder how this will impact Obama's presidency? Will he be able/willing to listen to the activists in this case? I know Clinton certainly won't!

[rhett o rick]

83. IMHO the Clintons and the DLC would rather the repukes win than let the "Activists" get control.

If the "Activists" ever wrest control, the power elitists may have a hard time getting back in.

[HockeyMom]

87. I am aligned with my kids on this one

We are all Obama supporters. I guess in a way that goes against the core. The younger generation are supposed to be the activists, but I guess I never completely gave up the activism of my youth, the 60s.

[Sparkly]

88. Did she say "activist class?"

If not, who first used this term?

Broadening a disagreement to an issue of "class" is a problem.

[madfloridian]

92. She used the words "activist base".....which is us.

"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

She actually said the activist base is intimidating her supporters.

Now you can twist and turn and question uses of words....but she just insulted a whole group, class, base, whatever....

[me b zola]

91. I'm feeling like

As goes the Democratic Party, so goes the nation. I feel like the battle for the soul of the party will determine whether the people will ever again have a say in the decision making and direction of the country.


I wish I had seen your post in time to recommend. But then again, I would have sulked that I could have only recommended it once. Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[Canuckistanian]

93. So, which "class" was someone like Paul Wellstone?

Was he a "ruling class" with different ideas or was he truly a product of the "activist class"?

And more importantly, where are his colleagues? Sure, there's DK and to a lesser extent, Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer.

But where have all the activist firebrands gone?

[democracy1st]

95. This should answer your question

"We have all these progressive Democrats here ready to fight on issues of economic and social justice, Democrats who know these are the winning issues and who know that when we fail to run on them we lose," said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois. "But, in the leadership positions of the party, we have the DLC trying to pull us in an entirely different direction."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

[BlooInBloo]

97. It's party realignment. It's fun - it's a party!