Operation GOP-lite 3.0 is well on its way

[OzarkDem]

I began this post in response to a thread on the defeat of Kerry in 2004, but thought it needed a post of its own.

Rather than trumpet the accomplishments of the incredibly successful Clinton/Gore years, many DC Dems are still more worried about what their fellow Washington insiders were saying about them in the WaPo and on the cocktail party circuit than they are about listening to voters and acting on their mandate to steer our country out of its current mess. DC Dem leaders are filled with GOP envy and self loathing and continue believe the negative publicity about their candidates and their party.

They're quite willing to invalidate all the great accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore years to appease the DC establishment by blaming all their problems on Bill Clinton's extramarital affair and refusing to defend the party,its ideals, its record and its candidates against GOP/media smear campaigns. :banghead:

They haven't progressed much since 2000. Many of them are still filled with bizarre self loathing and GOP envy and are again mistakenly embarking on another fairy tale dream to promote their new American Idol candidate as they continue to drift farther from their party's legacy. Instead of building on past success, they embrace the criticism of Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the right wing fools as they scramble ever more to have the most vacuous, media friendly candidates and curry favor with the big money donors to out-raise the GOP.

And as they demonstrated in 2006, DC Dems were more than willing to squander the trust of voters to sit on their hands in Congress, do as Bush told them and work for what is most important to them - job security - instead of accepting the mandate voters so graciously gave them. In 2007-2008, many viewed the idea of running on an anti-war and health care reform platform with nearly as much horror as they viewed being the first party to elect a woman president. (Oh the horror, oh the shame. Who cares what those damn women voters want, they'll go along with us like they always do.)

Operation GOP-lite 3.0 is well on its way to defeat in 2008. They're trying to finalize their coronation of the media & corporate friendly candidate who they hope will follow their cowardly lead in Congress by running an administration that will "keep the powder dry" and "not make waves". (They truly do believe the media hide their craven cowardice and lack of leadership from the attention of voters much as they hid the corruption and lies of the Bush/Cheney administration. :rofl:) And again, as they did in 2000 and 2004, they're making these crucial decisions in a vacuum, completely devoid of any understanding of what voters really think and feel.

Those of us who saw things begin going downhill in 2000 know where this current iteration of "re-inventing the Dem Party" is headed. That's why we're not going to let it happen again.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Are you high?

Hillary is an "anti war" candidate? WTF are you smoking?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. And she loathes Eric Burdon.

-

[OzarkDem]

16. ?

[SoxFan]

17. OK, that took me a second

I think it went right over 99% of us...

[karynnj]

60. Not sure I understand

Best guess - The Animals - Please don't let me be misunderstood?

Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Baby, sometimes I'm so carefree
With a joy that's hard to hide
And sometimes it seems that all I have do is worry
Then you're bound to see my other side
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
If I seem edgy I want you to know
That I never mean to take it out on you
Life has it's problems and I get my share
And that's one thing I never meant to do
Because I love you
Oh, Oh baby don't you know I'm human
Have thoughts like any other one
Sometimes I find myself long regretting
Some foolish thing some little simple thing I've done
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Yes, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Yes, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. When Burdon and the Animals broke, he joined forces with War.

Sorry for the oblique reference.

[roguevalley]

104. I don't. he rocks. :)

[rodeodance]

45. will you engage in a discussion ? or just diss Hillary??--and insult the OP!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. I've learned it's pointless to have a discussion with someone when they're stoned.

You're welcome to try one with the OP though.

[rodeodance]

49. stop with the personal insults to the OP. You make up bad rumors. shameful of you

[mrreowwr_kittty]

Just making observations.

:)

[OzarkDem]

52. Pretty sad

One would think if you believed in your candidate so much you could do better than imitate a Freeper in his defense.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. Tell Harriet Christian about that. nt

[OzarkDem]

64. No one can top Obama's clergy

Harriet Christian was at least standing up for something good, something other than hate.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

98. Harriet was standing up against "inadequate black men"

I guess that's good, in your world. :crazy:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. dupe

[emilyg]

88. Sounds like you know a lot about it.

[emilyg]

85. Why do you insult. Try discussing.

[MercutioATC]

2. Obama will "not make waves"?

Riiiiiight...

[Elspeth]

8. What do you think he will make waves on?

Serious question.

[MercutioATC]

31. Let's see...national healthcare, national energy policy, foreign relations,...

...the things that the powers-that-be are comfortable leaving as is.

No, he's not superhuman. No, he will not change everything in 8 years.


I do believe, however, that he has a broader perspective, one that allows him to see what everybody should have been seeing for decades...we don't move forward until all of us move forward. Even in something as small as adopting Dean's 50-state strategy, Obama has demonstrated to me that he realizes that it's not about empowering the few, it's about helping the many realize their power.

Yeah, I think he's making waves...and I think he's going to keep making them.

[Elspeth]

Let's take healthcare.

From what I have read, his plan is actually not single payer, which would be the best for the average person. Do you see him changing to the single payer idea?

[MercutioATC]

42. I don't WANT him to try single-payer...at least not yet.

What I want him to do is expand the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to cover all Americans. It offers a variety of plans (PPO, PPV, HMO) from commercial carriers that have to meet defined criteria (ex: no exclusion for preexisting conditions).

If this becomes a national plan, insurers will have two choices...fall in line or close their doors.


Congress is still Congress. Why spend years fighting lobbyists to eliminate private health insurance companies when you can simplt co-opt them by expanding an existing program?

[Elspeth]

46. I know that plan well, and it is a good one

Is Obama committed to that particular option?

[OzarkDem]

66. His plan is weak, expensive and destined to fail

just as its drafters planned it.


The health insurance industry is putting a great deal of money into this election. Not much of it is going to McCain, none of it is going to Clinton (she's obviously too progressive in her health care reform plans to suit them), they sure didn't want to support Edwards. So where is their money going these days?

[Elspeth]

74. Can you explain the plan?

I'd appreciate it.

[OzarkDem]

80. Sure

In classic Obama style, his plan looks similar to Clinton's and Edward's but is missing key components.

It provides tax breaks and subsidies to help individuals buy health insurance. He claims to support giving everyone a choice between a "public" plan and private insurance, but has since backed away from the idea in the near term. The downside is that it:

Doesn't require everyone to be covered (a big part of exploding health care costs are those for uninsured people who had no access to preventive care)

Doesn't place a "cap" on insurance premiums, which, like the failed Mittcare, caused the cost to consumers and the govt. to skyrocket as private insurers raised their rates

Premium caps, stiff regulation of private insurance, mandates and coverage for all are essential to keeping real health care reform affordable and sustainable. Those are the ones Obama left out. IIRC, his plan was written by conservatives at the Brookings Institute and it contains many of the same "smoke and mirrors" that Gingrich touts in his latest career as a "health care reform" guru.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. Clinton's isn't either. But I'm sure you knew that. nt

[Elspeth]

75. Catburgler! Long time no see!

I was just talking about you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6216224&mesg_id=6217192

[OzarkDem]

97. She has caps on premiums

a commitment to giving consumers a choice of buying a "public" plan that competes with private insurance. Her plan is sustainable for the long term.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

99. I'm sure it would get through Congress with all those features intact.

Sure it would. :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

117. If you fight for it, it will

If you don't fight for it, Americans keep dying when they don't have to. Some people think that's wrong, though apparently not all.

[quaker bill]

93. No one with a chance of winning

was for single payer. This would include Ms. Clinton, though it is now fair to state that she has no chance of winning.

[Elspeth]

95. But single payer would have been "wave-making"

And that was the poster's contention: that Obama would make waves once he was in. My own opinion is quite different, but the poster did provide a bill that showed some initiative on Obama's part, although it did not go anywhere in Congress.

[quaker bill]

118. It would have been

if anyone with a serious chance ever proposed it. No such person did.

Dennis Kucinich on the other hand did propose it, and finshed his campaign poorly and early.

If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had proposed "wave making" radical change, they too would have finished this season early.

However, with this candidate (Obama) we have a someone who was not "for the war before he was against it".

The "waves" any democratic President will make will be dependent on the down ticket races. As we approach 60 votes in the Senate, the waves will get larger. If the republicans remain somewhere close to control of the agenda, with the ability to fillibuster in the Senate, the magnitude of the change will be more modest.

Much can be done by executive order, and this is where I expect the real action to occur. Simply allowing the scientists to speak the truth about the environment will be a large step forward, and requires nothing from congress. Undoing administrative directives that currently prevent enforcement of workplace safety and civil rights laws, will be another. Refocusing the civil rights division in DOJ from the current focus on preventing discrimination against fundamentalist religious speech toward voting rights and equal accomodation will be yet a further important step.

There is so much to be undone and most of it will not rate alot of press.

[Shae]

113. Kucinich was the only one who had a single payer

health plan.

But he was short and had big ears.;(

[eridani]

127. No, I see popular organizing getting HR 676 passed

Either candidate would then sign it.

[OzarkDem]

38. Give us an example

of any instance when he's followed through on a promise and pioneered innovative public policy while in office. His colleagues in Ill referred to him as a "bill-jacker", stealing other people's ideas and putting his name on as sponsor.

His legislative record is very sparse. Its not a priority for him, running for office is.

I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him 4 more years to prove that he can get behind a quality policy agenda and build on the Dem party's past record of accomplishment.

[MercutioATC]

53. An example: Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007

http://nationalgazette.org/articles/iraq-war-de-escalation-act-of-2007

[Elspeth]

76. This is a very prudent bill on his part. But I wouldn't call it wave-making.

I'm not criticizing here, actually. I don't believe in making waves, myself. It scares people. I like prudence, even though Poppy Bush has ruined that word for me. :( But I wondered what kind of wave-making things he was going to do. And I'm serious about this; it's not an idle question.

Thank you.

[MercutioATC]

86. Well, since Congress refused to address it, preferring to just issue non-binding resolutions,

I consider it "wave-making".

Try this one:

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

http://www.nationalcampaignforfairelections.org/content/advocacy/support_dpvipa


Not exactly edgy stuff, but it criminalizes voter deception, which has always been moaned about but never been illegal.

[Elspeth]

90. Well, this Congress runs scared. Harry Reid is just one frightened Senate Majority Leader.

But your point is well taken here. Thanks.

[roguevalley]

105. the very act of booting * out of the white house is wave making.

[OzarkDem]

102. Introducing a bill is one thing, making policy a reality is different

We expect more from our Dem leaders in Congress than introducing bills.

[MercutioATC]

108. So show me what "wave-making" legislation Clinton (or any Dem) has passed in the last 4 or 5 years..

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's not a receptive environment for making large changes.

[karynnj]

68. Can you give me an innovative program that HRC authored and

got written into law?

Obama/Lugar which continues the effort of Nunn/Lugar in dealing with non-proliferation is pretty important.

You mentioned corporate corruption in the OP. It was Obama who wrote and got provisions included in the ethics bill that control bundling by lobbyists. That and other Obama provisions made the bill far stronger than it otherwise would have been - to HRC's Buddy, Shumer's dismay.

[chill_wind]

101. Did you ever get an answer?

It's been directly asked a couple places in this thread. Oddly, I don't see a response.

[karynnj]

114. I'm still waiting

instead I've been told that Obama did not write his ethics reform amendments - the "voters did".

[OzarkDem]

13. Of course not

Why would he risk all that money in the Dem campaign coffers?

Take some time to review his paltry past legislative record and see if you can find any substance to back up the rhetoric. The man has spent his entire public career preparing to run for the next highest seat on the ladder.

[depakid]

22. He hasn't "made waves" or shown leadership his entire time in the Senate

all he's done is position himself for a presidential run by going along to get along.

THAT'S HIS RECORD.

You can project all the wishful thoughts on that you like- but his record speaks repeatedly for itself.

Caveat: I could say similar things about the Clintons.

[boppers]

28. Ethics reform to totally revamp the flow of money in congress?

Perhaps you've heard about this?

[rodeodance]

40. HE IS NOT far behind Hillary in taking corporate money. so how will he do these ethics reform?

[OzarkDem]

57. When all the dollars are counted

you will see him well ahead of Clinton in corporate money.

Seriously, the corporations arent' giving their money to McCain or the GOP and we know they stopped giving to Clinton. Yet mysteriously, Obama is now raking in cash by the trainload. So who are corporate donors giving money to these days?

Dems should be smarter than to fall for this stuff. I guess some of them are too easily flattered by someone on MSNBC or CNN saying something good about their candidate.

[depakid]

43. Yep- he was right in front on that, eh?

just like he was on the Alito filibuster....

or pretty much ANY OTHER BILL (including Bush's insane energy bill that he voted for, and essentially lied to Oregonians about).

Of course, I don't expect objective analysis from people who post up graphics that remind one of the personality cults in the old Soviet block....

[boppers]

70. His name is on it for a reason... but all bills are group work, yes.

As far as the poster design goes, it evolved from skateboard culture.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_the_Giant_Has_a_Posse

For some history on the culture-jamming meme. The little star on the poster in my sig? It's from these guys:
http://obeygiant.com/

[OzarkDem]

54. More Obama "bill-jacking"

To be fair, the idea for those reforms came from the Dem voters who put the party back in the majority in 2006. They sent a message loud and clear.

Sadly all we've seen is a lot of high talk and carefully worded proposals and zero substance.

[karynnj]

73. That is ridiculous

Obama wrote the amendments. Are you suggesting if anyone ever expressed an idea of something needed, that it doesn't count when it is done.

WHAT ARE HRC's big legislative achievements. (If she had them she wouldn't have stolen credit from Dodd to claim the Family Medical Leave or from Kennedy to claim she "initiated" S-CHIP.)

[OzarkDem]

83. Dem voters wrote that policy

and mandated it to Dem leadership in Congress. Obama and friends created something that looked good, but did little. It was watered down even more in compromises with the GOP to the point that Dem Congressmen must list items like medical research and funding for local National Guard units as "mark-ups" aka pork barrel spending. Great job. :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

89. Which Dem voters?

Did they write anything for HRC?

As to whether did little - that's just not true. If it did nothing, Schumer would have been less angry.

"“It is the most significant provision in the bill,” said Marc Elias, a campaign finance lawyer who represents numerous senators. “They have essentially created a new campaign finance regulatory structure.”
<snip>
The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.

In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.

“Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. Mr. Obama also this week started a bid for his party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Senate+Ethics+Bill+Obama&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[OzarkDem]

103. There were many mandates from voters in the 2006 election

and we all had high hopes something would happen. Sadly, our Dem leaders didn't follow through and ignored voters mandates.

[karynnj]

115. But here - Obama did - even if you label it a voter written mandate

when in fact the voters specified nothing. You can't simply write "Stop corruption" in a bill and have it actually do anything. Which of these mandates did HRC pick up and push for a solution?

[neverforget]

4. So you've seen the future?

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

I've experienced the past

and see we're still headed in the same direction.

[neverforget]

15. ok

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

37. so have I, but apparently I was paying better attention

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/71

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

[quaker bill]

94. not really

Hillary Clinton was the exactly same direction, Kerry was Bill Clinton 2.0, Hillary is Bill Clinton 3.0. She was "for the war before she was against it".

[Blue-Jay]

5. huh?

[OzarkDem]

18. Yeah, discussing issues is boring

for some. Why worry about leading the country out of its current mess when you can have a media friendly candidate?

[Blue-Jay]

19. When did you start doing that?

[avenger64]

6. Excellent post.

I especially like "their new American Idol candidate". Personally, I think Neo, from the matrix. You know, 'the one' - I think it may have had more cultural impact than we think, especially (and incredibly) on some of our Obama supporters here.

[newmajority]

7. Operation GOP Lite is the DLC

And they are writhing in the agony of death throes as we speak.

[OzarkDem]

10. It's Pelosi, Reid, Emmanuel, Hoyer, et al

and their hand picked candidate Obama.

[Bread and Circus]

120. You are just an outright fool if you don't know that Clinton is a leader of the DLC

aka "Republican lite".

You should just hang your head in shame.

[SoxFan]

21. Oh, cut it out

The DLC wasn't the Hillary campaign. Napolitano, Richardson, and Sebelius are three of Obama's most effective surrogates, and all three are leaders in the DLC. Harold Ickes and James Carville are among Hillary's biggest supporters, and both hate the DLC.

[Swamp Rat]

32. "and all three are leaders in the DLC." - I do not see their names here:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Where are Napolitano, Richardson, and Sebelius? However, I see Hillary is a DLC team leader.

[OzarkDem]

44. GOP - lite are Obama's Congressional sponsors

Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel, Hoyer, etc. If Clinton is the "conservative" Dem, its interesting how the do-nothing Dems in Congress who refuse to challenge Bush and the GOP are so busy fighting her.

Congressional Dem leadership is only interested in job security and continuing to raise enough money to get re-elected. There's no way they're going to back a candidate for the WH who will actually change things or upset the status quo in DC.

[SoxFan]

51. Here

Sebelius is a member of the board of advisors of the DLC's "Ideas Primary" project
http://www.ideasprimary.com/
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450015&subid=900152&contentid=254472
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254373&kaid=104&subid=116
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254034&kaid=450013&subid=900115

Incidentally, other board of advisors members include Jack Markell and Cory Booker, both ardent Obama supporters.

Napolitano was the honorary chair and host of the 2004 DLC national Conversation in Phoenix
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252592&kaid=131&subid=192
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254270&kaid=106&subid=122
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253636&kaid=104&subid=116

Richardson has been a frequent participant in DLC events on state-level policy
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251978&kaid=106&subid=122
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253999&kaid=131&subid=192
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251963&kaid=104&subid=116
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251934&kaid=131&subid=192

[Swamp Rat]

56. You stated: "and all three are leaders in the DLC."

These are the DLC leaders: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[OzarkDem]

63. GOP-lite v 3.0 is cagey

They don't always sign up for DLC membership because they know the inexperienced newbies who support Obama don't like it. They've learned to take the money and sign up for the agenda without getting a label.

[Swamp Rat]

67. That reminds me of Rumsfeld's rhetoric:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld

[SoxFan]

77. There's no such thing as "DLC membership"

Learn a little about the subject at hand before shooting off your mouth

[roguevalley]

107. tin foil hat time.

[SoxFan]

65. The only ones who are actual "leaders"

are Al From and Harold Ford. The others have titles that rotate every few years. By "leader" I mean someone who is active in the organization, who attends the National Conversation, who participates in panel discussions, who write articles for DLC publications, who participate in DLC and PPI policy forums. Napolitano, Sebelius, and Richardson all fit that description.

[OzarkDem]

71. Stick to the subject - Dem leadership in Congress

to wit - their failure to live up to their mandate, their Bush and GOP loving agenda and their willingness to reject half the voters in the Dem base to back Obama.

Its about job security over good Dem policy and leadership.

[roguevalley]

106. honorary chairs, frequent hosts. Jerry Lewis is the frequent host

of his telethon. I hosted a fundraiser once. I even repped a group at another group meeting. didn't make me a member.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Quit hogging!

[WeDidIt]

11. Don't bogart, dude

You're supposed to share that shit!

[kenny blankenship]

20. you don't want that

They sprinkle dead Iraqi children on the filler. No hallucinogen is more potent. After 3 hits, they can't see all the dead Iraqi people anymore.

[nomaco-10]

12. You know what?

I've had the beer on ice and papa john's on speed dial just for you... I figure you might, maybe make it for two more days. I just hope I'm here to witness the happy event.

[AllentownJake]

14. WTF?

Ozark Dem, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

[democracy1st]

23. Clintons and the DLC policys are corrupt and weak

[OzarkDem]

29. Clinton policy is not DLC policy

and trying to frame the argument as such is nothing more than GOP spin. Do a little research on the Clinton/Gore administration instead of buying into the MSNBC/CNN/GOP message.

[Swamp Rat]

33. Hillary is a DLC team leader:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

[OzarkDem]

36. GOP-lite is the 2006 Dem Congress

The same leadership whose handpicked candidate is Obama. Take a look at their record and tell me of their wonderful accomplishments.

[democracy1st]

123. man get out of here with your nonsense

[Warren DeMontague]

24. "They're coming to take me away, ha ha, hee hee, ho ho..."

[MattBaggins]

25. Are you Shirley?

You can't be serious that's for sure. You really want to sit there with a straight face and claim that Obama is GOP lite; yet Miss DLC Hillary is a great progressive?

[karynnj]

26. It was the CLINTONS who did not want to run on an anti-war platform in 2006

They even wanted there to be no discussion of a Democratic exit plan. One concern was actually that if they had a plan, Bush could start withdrawing troops before the election and we would lose the political issue. John Kerry was vilified by the Clinton allies for Kerry/Feingold - which in essence became the Democratic plan soon after the election. HRC even adopted variations on the words Kerry used to describe it.

Al Gore and John Kerry were both good men who had progressive adgendas. In fact, I don't know what your problem is because on many issues HRC took positions that were very close to Kerry's in 2004. As to the media and corporate favorite candidate, that describes the Clintons - not Kerry and Gore.

[OzarkDem]

34. Yes, I guess that's why Clinton bought into the PNAC sales pitch

and invaded the ME for oil when he was president.

In the real world, most of us recall his presidency as one that did more to advance peace in the world than any other in recent history. Do a little research instead of listenting letting the news media define your party for you.

[karynnj]

55. Clinton did not invade the ME - where did I say that?

I've done at least as much research as you have. I note that you did not address any point I actually made.

1) Are you denying that in 2005 and 2006, the Clintons were not in the forefront on a solution for Iraq? They weren't and the reason was US politics. What did the Clintons add that was positive? Nothing, they just aimed to "position" HRC as strong on defense.

2) Media friendly - Bill was given a pass on many things in 1992. Had Gore or Kerry written the ROTC letter or smeared Genefer Flowers after she would not hide that they had an affair, it would have killed their campaigns.

3) He did more to advance world peace than any other? Where is his Nobel prize? Jimmy Carter did more.

[faithfulcitizen]

27. I cannot wait to drink a toast to you and yours when your candidate concedes on Wednesday.

At least every "new American Idol" is actually voted in on his/her own merits, and not just related to the previous winner. You all are incredibly sore losers.

[WillyT]

30. Make Up Your Mind !!!

Is it Operation GOP-lite 2.0 (post), or Operation GOP-lite 3.0 (subject line) ???

How are we supposed to denounce and reject, if we're not sure what we are denouncing or rejecting?

:banghead:

[OzarkDem]

50. Thanks for the correction

I was initially unsure of whether to include the disastrous 2006 Congressional Dem leadership. They do belong, they are failure continued.

[hfojvt]

35. the incredibly successful Clinton-Gore years?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Unless by "incredibly successful" you are not talking about NAFTA, Welfare 'reform', telecom deregulation, ending the era of Big Government, repealing Glass-Stegall, cutting the estate tax and the capital gains tax more than Bush did. Instead, you mean the Clinton was incredibly successful in turning the Democratic party into the GOP-lite party.

In that case, we are agreed. :patriot:

[OzarkDem]

48. Yes, they were successful by nearly every standard

Read up on your history. Bush I negotiated NAFTA and GATT. Clinton/Gore tried to fix them before they were rammed through the GOP controlled Congress. Bush II stripped out all the job and environmental protections.

If you're unaware of those facts, you should seriously question whether you're qualified to engage in any form of Dem policy activism. If you are naive enough to let MSNBC tell you what to believe, you're really out of your league.

[hfojvt]

78. Read up on my history? At age 46, I AM history. I was there.

Still gotta check facts though.

Congress did not become GOP controlled until January 1995 after the RNC ran a national campaign against Hillary. NAFTA was passed in 1993

"In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),<7> and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

See, 258 Democrats in the House and 185 Republicans (at least who voted) and 56 Democrats in the Senate and 44 Republicans. A majority of Republicans voting for it and a majority of Democrats voting against it in both houses. President Bill Clinton (Republican-lite) 'MAKING APPROVAL A PRIORITY'.

It's kinda hard for me to be duped by MSNBC since I don't even have cable TV or a satellite dish. Difficult, but not impossible. Thank God for YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upBsMmZVho0

[OzarkDem]

91. You forgot the part about Bush II stripping out protections

that protected US jobs, prevented "dumping" and enforced environmental provisions.

If you want to blame someone, blame Bush.

[Duder]

84. With regards to read up on history...

I think I'll pick up this book:

'Michael Meeropol’s study of U.S. economic policy from Reagan to Clinton, Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution, makes a timely contribution to such an assessment. Meeropol, a professor of economics at Western New England College and researcher for the Center for Popular Economics, argues that a major counterrevolution has transpired in American economic policy since the 1980s as the reformist Keynesian New Deal was overturned in favor of the revanchist neoliberal “social contract with America.”

The book’s central indictment is that President Clinton, in submitting his welfare, budget, and tax bills from 1995-1997, “signaled surrender: the Reagan revolution was going to achieve its major goals.” The Reagan neoliberal program of small government, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and monetarist financial policies was more than just consolidated. In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment, however modest and poorly implemented, to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was thus ended. A central redistributional bargain crumbled as well: the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would further suffer the marginalization of deepening poverty. The bulk of the text is devoted to a compelling examination of the neoliberal “revolution in economic policy” against postwar Keynesian demand management and welfare policies. Meeropol emphasizes the policy continuity between Reagan and Clinton over the chimerical differences of presidential campaigns.'

[OzarkDem]

92. No thanks

I'm not a fan of revisionist history.

[Two Americas]

39. good post

Of course the script calls for us to see Obama as the anti-establishment candidate, so it is off-script to say he is the establishment candidate and that he is just more of the same that we have been seeing recently, and saying that will cause short-circuits in the thinking of some here. The same people will deny that there is a serious split in the party, because in their minds there won't be once they can just get rid of us - doubters and dissenters. Apparently it is OK to split the party so long as the "other side" can be blamed for the split in a way that is at least credible to the Obama followers. Many cannot wait for Clinton to quit, because then NO dissent will be permitted within the party. Many of us who are no fans of Clinton and never supported the campaign have been glad that she stayed in so that the inevitable complete suppression of dissent can be postponed a little while longer.

[OzarkDem]

41. Pretty sad that we have to reject the Dem party's legacy of success

just to give him the bogus label of "anti-establishment candidate". Talk about buying into the GOP definition of Democrats.

[Two Americas]

62. the responses are amazing

I have never seen so much intolerance and hostility within the party in 40 years. Many Obama supporters act and speak as though they had won over 90% plus of the people, and they have not. They have barely half. Their response to that is to bully and bludgeon all who disagree with them. The ones resistant are not "DLC" or the "Lieberman" faction, not merely "bitter old white women," not racists, they come from all sections of the party and all political persuasions. What they have in common is that critics of the Obama campaign are opposed to the gentrification of the party, the seizure of power within the party by a small segment of upscale liberals with more of a cultural agenda than a political one. We are suspicious of the religious zeal, the intolerance and bigotry and the self-righteousness, and many of us on the traditional left are resistant to Obama being portrayed as any sort of real opposition to the wealthy and powerful. He most certainly is not. Obama supporters will deny that or brag about that, depending upon the context. If reaching across the aisle can be portrayed as smart politics, then yes yes he is doing that because he is just so brilliant and this is good politics. If reaching across the aisle is portrayed as compromise and pandering, then no no how dare you accuse our hero of that? and you are said to not "get it." Apparently the "it" that we are all supposed to "get" is that the man, the idol, transcends all politics and is all things to all people - but don't say that out loud, or that will also be vehemently denied. This disconnection, between what we are going for and what we say we are going for, has been growing and growing within liberalism for decades and has now found its full and ultimate expression in the Obama campaign.

[MrsT]

72. No, the OP (who posts posts lies and garbage on a regular basis) is amazing.

And as for this "I have never seen so much intolerance and hostility within the party in 40 years"
If the internet existed 40 years ago, you would have seen a lot more of it. I find many Obama and Clinton supporters here to be pathetic, but in the real world I have yet to meet a SINGLE supporter that I didn't like.

[OzarkDem]

110. Feel free to offer some proof

to back up your allegations.

[MrsT]

121. You lied about Kucinich talking about Ron Paul as a vice president

When the rumors started flying around, you said you talked to campaign HQ and it never happened. Then the tape came out.

That's a lie of yours off the top of my head.

[Two Americas]

125. character assassination

Ozark Dem has made some mistakes and posted some things I don't agree with, but what you are doing, and it is far too common, is character assassination. "Lies and garbage" just means you don't agree.

I am not talking about just the Internet, nor about "liking" people. I don't care what medium people are using to communicate and don't agree that there is something special or unusual about the Internet. Rude and obnoxious communications are a function of the intent of the one sending the message, not the medium that is used.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Two Americas]

129. do whatever you like

Say whatever you like, and so will I.

I do not think your characterization of the other member is fair or accurate, and I said that. Respond however you like. The ongoing feud is destructive and petty and I am not on either side.

[MrsT]

131. I like to call people who lie liars. You can call them whatever you want. eom

[Two Americas]

132. name-calling

I won't call people anything, and I will object to people doing that. Name-calling is never productive or useful, no matter the excuse or justification. The use of this set of rationales that we are seeing more and more often - "she did it first" or "she asked for it" or "she had it coming" is morally unacceptable, no matter how noble you may think your cause might be.

[MrsT]

134. It is not about being noble, it is about being accurate.

Bush lies, and therefore is a liar. It is a fact, not name calling.
Maybe you can call him "disingenuous?" It does sound nicer.

[Two Americas]

135. the message versus the messenger

Intelligent and productive discourse requires us to challenge and attack the message when we disagree, not the messenger. While I will be the first to point out the lies of the President, you will not see me call him a liar or other names. To do so weakens the case for the sake of a childish and selfish emotional need. The name-calling of the president has worked against the public hearing and comprehending a very serious message, and this is a bad and dangerous trade off. You of course have a right to self-expression for selfish reasons, but I think it is socially irresponsible and politically counter-productive. Once we can subordinate our selfish urges to the greater good, we can begin to make progress against the right wing takeover of the country. So long as we put our personal need for self-expression above the common good, and justify the ends by the means we can not build solidarity and won't see real progress, and we will be subject to the divisive effects of the sort of free-for-all and mob behavior that we now see here. Indulge yourself in it if you like, and I will continue to advise against it.

[MrsT]

136. "Indulge yourself in it if you like, and I will continue to advise against it."

You keep on saying this, and I keep on saying that I will whether you like it or not. We agree that OzarkDem lies, but you don't want to say he is a liar. Great. I do. What more is there to talk about? Why do you keep responding to me?

[Crunchy Frog]

69. I'm sure gonna miss you when you're gone.

:cry:

[LowerManhattanite]

79. Get it outta your system kid...

...and fly your freak flag to you have to furl it the fuck up.

[CaptJasHook]

81. LOL Hillary Corporate, DLC, NAFTA, PRO WAR Clinton is the AntiEstablishment Candidate

Dude, lay off the Acid. You are becoming seriously delusional.

[quaker bill]

96. Sounds like it could be dirty.

bad trips are a pain.

[Garbo 2004]

82. "Triangulation," in which Clinton co-opted Repub policies as his own, & 1994 elections in which

Congress was lost to the Repubs, were also highlights of the Clinton tenure in the WH.

"Welfare reform," weakening of habeas corpus rights, DOMA, NAFTA, deregulation and consolidation of media, etc...legislation all enacted during the term of and supported by the Clinton Administration.

Bill Clinton, as a matter of sheer political expedience, effectively led the way in Dem adoption of "GOP Lite" as a political strategy.

[OzarkDem]

112. GOP spin

come up with something more original.

[Garbo 2004]

119. Fact not spin. I remember when these things were supported/signed by Clinton. I also remember in '92

when Clinton left the campaign trail to rush back to Arkansas for the execution of a mentally impaired prisoner (who no longer remembered his crime and did not comprehend that he was about to be executed) so as to burnish his "tough on crime" creds.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice in GE's, since I'm a Dem and to me voting Repub is not an option. But I'm not a follower of any politician or one who simply parrots a campaign's talking points, much less those of the GOP.

[emilyg]

87. k/r

[mod mom]

100. TELECOM ACT OF '96, NAFTA, MOST FAVORED TRADE STATUS W CHINA, BANKING MERGERS

Sometimes it takes a few years to feel the effects of bad policies. It's time to quit the fantasy of interpreting the Clinton years as good for this country. It was beneficial to the top 1% while it sent middle class jobs overseas, helped create our current mortgage crisis and allowed the media consolidation that lead the groundwork for the GOP coup.

[OzarkDem]

111. Dems only self-destruct

when they buy into the BS of a "failed" Clinton presidency.

Eight years of peace and prosperity are a huge credit to our party. We should be building on success instead of falling for the media/GOP spin.

Clinton/Gore was a highly successful presidency that gave Dems many things to be proud of. Trying to trash those good policies instead of building on them is incredibly stupid.

[CaptJasHook]

122. I will recognize their successes if you will recognize their failures, n'est pas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. What "great accomplishments"? The DLClinton's are the trumpeters of "triangulation" to the right.

The only thing Clinton "accomplished" was to steer a mildly liberal political party into "moderate" replica of the Republican Party.

What he was adept at, was taking credit for things that he had nothing to do with, and evading responsibility for his failures.

He was the author of the "not as bad" concept of politics. Over, and over again, he abandoned what few principles the Democratic Party stood for, in favor of winning office at the expense of those most in need of assistance by "triangulating" to the basest instincts of the American public.

The Clinton's managed to do the impossible in only one area. They made pandering a respectable way to achieve office to those willing to sacrifice principles.

He was, at best, a weak mediocrity as president.

[tabasco]

116. No it's not. Hillary's losing.

[eridani]

128. Both candidates are triangulating centrists

But one knows how to organize a campaign and the other doesn't.

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. Let's compare Sen. Obama's voting record to Sen. McCain's voting record

I have heard some people say that since Sen. McCain is a liberal or moderate Republican - he really wouldn't be that bad. After all he is against torture, he supported campaign finance reform and he accepts the scientific consensus about global warming.

But let's take a look and compare how different their voting records actually are.

Let's see if Sen. McCain is REALLY such a moderate or liberal Republican or a maverick:

All figures are interest group ratings from 2007, except when those figures were not available, in such cases I will post the ratings from 2006 or 2005-2006:

The link for Sen. McCain's ratings on Project Vote Smart:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=45&go.x=10&go.y=12

The link for Sen. Obama's ratings on Project Vote Smart:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

Abortion Issues

In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator Obama a grade of 100.

In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator McCain a grade of 0.

Animal Welfare Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 75 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 25 percent in 2007.
_________________________________

Civil Rights and Human Rights Issues

2007 American Civil Liberties Union gave Senator Obama a grade of 80.

2007 American Civil Liberties Union gave Senator McCain a grade of 50.
______________________________________________________________

2007 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 85 percent in 2007

2007 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 15 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 33 percent in 2006.
________________________________________________________________________

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 33 percent in 2005-2006.
________________________________________________________________________

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 89 percent in 2005-2006

2005-2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 33 percent in
________________________________________________________________________

Conservative Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 7 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2007.
_______________________________________________________________________

Education Issues

2007 National Education Association gave Senator Obama a grade of A.

2997 National Education Association gave Senator McCain a grade of F.
___________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 100 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) 0 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

Energy Issues

2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.

2005-2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Campaign for America's
Future 17 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.
____________________________________________________________

Environmental Issues

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to League of Conservation Voters's position, Senator Obama received a rating of 67.

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to League of Conservation Voters's position, Senator McCain received a rating of 0.
______________________________________________________________

Family and Children Issues

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Children's Defense Fund's position, Senator Obama received a rating of 60.

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Children's Defense Fund's position, Senator McCain received a rating of 10.
________________________________________________________
(The Family Research Council is an extremely right-wing organization found and lead by Dr. Richard Dobson)

2007 In 2007 Family Research Council gave Senator Obama a grade of 0.

In 2007 Family Research Council gave Senator McCain a grade of 42.
_______________________________________________________________

Foreign Aid and Policy Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 81 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Council for a Livable World 0 percent in 2007.
____________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Peace Action 67 percent in 2006

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 50 percent in 2006
________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 83 percent in 2005-2006.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 25 percent in 2005-2006
______________________________________________________________________.

Health Issues

Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Academy of Family Physicians 100 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Academy of Family Physicians 0 percent in 2007
________________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 100 percent in 2005-2006

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 0 percent in 2005-2006.
__________________________________________________________________


Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Nurses Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Nurses Association 20 percent in 2005-2006.
_____________________________________________________________________

Labor

Senator Obama supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 0 percent in 2007.
______________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 75 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 8 percent in 2007.
________________________________________________________________________

Liberal

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2007

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 10 percent in 2007.
_________________________________________________________________

Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score 95.5 percent in 2007.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy 40 percent in 2007

Veterans Issues

2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.
________________________________________________________________

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Obama a grade of B+.

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

[Two Americas]

133. of course

That is like comparing the records of the fire-fighters with those of the arsonists. Of course, if you want to protect the village from burning down, the arsonists' record is poor. But the arsonists are not trying to save the village, so the comparison is nonsensical.

Here is the correct comparison: have the Republicans done a better job of burning the village down (protecting the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few) or have the Democrats done a better job of saving the village (protecting the rest of us from the ravages of the wealthy and powerful few?) By that measure, it is clear that the Republicans have a much better record over the last 40 years.