Why are some people here STILL trying to silence progressive dissent?

[Ken Burch]

It was only supposed to be in the ELECTION that we put the party in the "cone of silence". The election's over, folks, and free speech is supposed to be back.

And there's no way in hell that progressives deserve the hostility they're getting from some DU'ers this week. WE were the ones who did the hard work of canvassing and phone-banking, the grunt work of the campaign. We deserve as much credit for electing Obama and as much right to have a say as any other wing of the party.

The LAST Democratic administration was a failure precisely because the progressive wing of the party was silenced for the entire eight years. If that happens again, this administration has to fail as well. Why would anyone want that?

It's the RIGHT that's the enemy, not the left.

[LaurenG]

1. I didn't realize the last dem administration was a failure.

Who is trying to shut you up? :shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

21. It certainly was to the middle class and working americans in many ways

I cant name a single thing that Clinton did to help ME. If you can, I thank you in advance.

[paulk]

64. maybe you can find yourself in here somewhere...

http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-index.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

115. Thank you for the link.....

Brady Act Signed This MAY have indirectly affected me, but so far, I have no way of knowing.

Assault Weapons Ban Same with this.

Safe Drinking Water Act Same with this.

Other than those, all the other things either hurt me or didnt help me at all.

Thank you for the link.

[olegramps]

138. Just look at the economy under Clinton

Look at the job creation during Clinton and the total economic picture both prior to and after his administration.

Are you sure that you were even conscious at the time? I can only suppose that due to the dramatic contrast between the two administrations that you would desire the eight years under the Bush rather than the eight years of prosperity under Clinton.

[girl gone mad]

108. In many, many ways it was.

Most glaringly, by adopting a largely Republican agenda, they only distinguished themselves on a few unpopular social issues, which allowed Bush to run as a likable centrist/social conservative. Democrats had blurred the lines on economic policy too much through NAFTA, deregulation, and corporate welfare.

[niceypoo]

109. Clinton was one of the most accomplished presidents in history.

He did it in the face of the most viscious GOP witch hunt in history. He successfully reversed Reaganomics and brought back to fiscal sanity, amongst other accomplishments.

I picture you standing astride Ken Starr at one of his idiotic news conferences.

[OwnedByFerrets]

116. OMG, I really cant believe you said that he reversed Reaganomics

Reaganomics was greatly forwarded by Nafta and Cafta. The destruction of the middle class WAS Reaganomics. Its STILL going on.

[Virginia Dare]

153. Compare the gap between rich and poor...

during the Clinton years as opposed to the Bush years. No comparison actually. On that score some American cities compare to African cities now. While I agree with you that Clinton was a fiscal conservative, I don't think he deliberately set out to destroy the American middle class the way Bush did.

[OwnedByFerrets]

158. Of course he did NOT. The fact that it happened

anyway is little consolation.

[Raineyb]

122. If Clinton had reversed Reaganomics we wouldn't be in the hole we're in now

What are you smoking? Clinton did not a damn thing to reverse Reaganomics and we're no in the last throes of the odious system of oppressing the working and middle class while slathering tax breaks onto the rich in the pathetic hope (in theory) that the rest of us may get a crumb.

That trickle you're feeling is the rich pissing on the rest of us from their perches on high.

Regards

[Virginia Dare]

152. We're in this hole because Bush practiced Reaganomics with no controls or oversight..

there was absolutely no firewall between government and corporations, and the republican majority congress didn't do it's job by overseeing or regulating what was going on.

[Two Americas]

120. in this way it failed

Any Democratic administration that sets up for what we went through in the Bush area has most definitely failed.

Much of the success of the extreme right wing was enabled by the weakness and centrism of the Democratic party, and much of the blame for that must rest with the Clinton administration. That was when we started settling for the consolation prize in politics - being right. "Pay no attention to how we are losing, to our lack of results, to our compromising and rolling over. we are right and they are wrong. Remember, we are better than the Republicans. We are the good guys. Be loyal to us." Being right does not house the homeless or feed the hungry or put people back to work.

Just the power that Clinton gave to the MSM is damning enough, since that became such a powerful tool for the right wing propagandists.

Anyone ridiculing, mocking and smearing voices from the left - and that happens here every day - is trying to silence those voices. Obviously. We should be familiar with that tactic, since the right wing uses it continually against all of us.

[baldguy]

124. Clinton was the best Republican President we've ever had. And the most successful.

The fact that actual Republicans hate him is only an indication of how for outside the mainstream they are. But it doesn't change the fact that Clinton was mostly conservative - and a failure for real progressives.

[Bicoastal]

No one's silencing us. If they were, posts would be locked and people would be tombstoned.

We're just engaging in discussion, which is what a discussion board is for.

BTW, I was one of those who canvassed for Obama--and I agree with most of his appointments thus far.

[Alter Ego]

2. *facepalm*

[Deep13]

3. I've been mouthing off right along.

So I guess I have not noticed any code of silence. Frankly, "shut the fuck up" is never the right answer.

I dispute that Clinton was a failure. If you want to know the definition of a failure, you need only look to the current "president."

[stray cat]

4. Everyone has the right to display ignorance or stupidity

[BeFree]

5. That's right: is the enemy

I am a progressive and I'm not feeling much hostility, so what's your problem? Seriously, what bug crawled up inside of you?

This is a discussion board, remember.

[Ken Burch]

9. It's all those posters who've basically said that because Kucinich didn't make much of a showing

the party doesn't really HAVE many progressives and those who identify as such should know our place and shut up.

I guess you and I are having different experiences.

[BeFree]

23. Yeah different

The only problem I've seen is the progressives want the country to lurch hard left. Well, so do I, but it's just not gonna happen.

I haven't seen much anti-progressive content here. What I have seen is pseudo progressives trying to stir up shit.

[Ken Burch]

26. That's not my intent. I'm just in here standing up for my principles.

I remember how it all slipped away in '93 and '94, and how we were all told then "you have no right to say anything, because it's enough that we have a Democratic president".

Some sort of trust needs to be established.

[BeFree]

44. Yes, indeed

One wonders what else Obama could do, besides all the progressive actions he has promised us, that would help those worried about the future have more trust.

In the halls of government surely Obama is appointing people who have trust therein, and out here what else can he do? Who do we trust? What do we trust?

[Two Americas]

127. each other

United we stand, divide we fall.

We need to trust and respect each other. Instead we rip each other apart over our loyalties to and identification with powerful strangers and celebrities.

"Put not your faith in princes."

In a representative democracy, the politicians represent and work for us. Too many now see this the other way around, and demand that we all represent and work for the politicians. That is a certain invitation to tyranny, and sabotages and undermines representative democracy.

[maseman]

140. People on the left seem to forget

that if you leap far left OR right the pendulum swings back much harder. I am as progressive as it gets. But you CANNOT have Obama come in and make a ton of hard left turns with policy.

I would rather take moderate to left leaning policy for a generation than to push extreme hard left policy for two to four years and be back to the right taking the House or Senate.

[Two Americas]

159. define "hard left"

I don't see any "hard left" people here. Most in the activist community are quite a bit to the right from the general population.

The reaction and swing to the right came after the Democrats took a more centrists position, not after any hard left positions were taken. The most moderate and centrist Democratic administration led to the moist extreme and vicious attacks from the right wing.

Obama could most definitely make "a ton of hard left turns with policy" at this point and get enthusiastic support from the public, if we define "left" in terms of economics and power - which historically is what politics was always about before the right wing created the cultural war context for politics.

I work in rural red areas around the country,m and what I heard from working people was "we need another New Deal" not "we need a "moderate Republican right administration that is more competent."

The activist community is dominated by extremely conservative people, and this gives us a distorted view since so few activists ever break out of that circle and talk to the people. I have spent decades speaking and touring in poor rural and inner city neighborhoods, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have ever seen a liberal activist there.

[Virginia Dare]

154. The litmus test for a true progressive is to be a Kucinich supporter?

sorry, no sale.

[stevenleser]

67. And dissenting just for the sake of dissenting is idiotic

A cabinet appointment isnt policy, and appointing someone to a cabinet post needs to be properly analyzed before one jumps off the deep end. Even appointing a McCain or a hard right Republican to certain posts isnt necessarily a bad thing. Just about any Repuke as SecDef is fine IMHO provided they take orders from the President as to policy. Obviously, the same isnt the case with a Hard Right Repuke as Secretary of Labor or the Interior.

[Sensitivity]

6. Not "progressive" just "rational" to question HRC SoS rumors -- Quals and Fit is NOT best

[deadmessengers]

7. 8 years of peace and prosperity is a failure?

Are you serious? What would your definition of a success have been, then?

[Ken Burch]

15. NOT bashing the poor. Getting a real healthcare system in place.

Most particularly, STANDING UP to the right instead of surrendering without a fight to them on every major issue.

Also, having our incumbent actually try to get a Democratic Congress when he ran for reelection(which should've been an easy retake after Gingrich pissed off the country with the government shutdown).

It was an ok time for the country in a bland, mundane way, but our party and its values were treated like dirt by the president WE elected. We never deserved to have the whole eight years be a punishment for liberals and progressives.

[Generator]

77. Thank you

"Most particularly, STANDING UP to the right instead of surrendering without a fight to them on every major issue."

Everyone seems to think that the Bushies came out of a vacuum. That they didn't take their cue from what came before. Clinton backed down from everyone almost every damn time and thus we had the last eight years. Not that simple, but certainly a large part of it.

As you do I worry this is a REPEAT of 1993/1994/1995. I don't want to go backward. We achieved nothing but endless capitulation, moving our party farther right than the people actually are.

We see Obama "wanting to make nice". I guess the Dixie Chicks are out of his inauguration balls. If he is a genius and gets the other side to work with us, for us, and it actually works to the benefit of true Democratic ideals then we will hail him. But now it looks like a return to the Clinton years-which maybe some of us could live with compared to the horror of the Bush years-which is what some immediately say when you criticize the Clinton years.

But if the Clinton years led to the last eight years-NO MORE TRIANGULATION. Next time we might have competent criminals in the White House and making nice will be our death knell.

[Ken Burch]

83. Indeed. Speaking out now is crucial in order to defend the party from its opponents.

The dynamic that always seems to occur between the center-left party and its right-wing opponents tends to echo William Butler Yeats' old observation that

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Our opponents from the right always attack relentlessly and with passion and energy. On our side, the repeated tendency has been to defer to the attacks, to agree with part of the attackers' points in order to try to "ride out the storm"(an approach that, history proves, NEVER works)and to tell the most passionate and intense on our own side to hold fire.

Progressives who express their opinions are acting out of the truest loyalty. We don't want to see the same damn movie again.

[girl gone mad]

110. We're paying for that "prosperity" now.

Clinton continued Reagan's trickle-down policies. He supported NAFTA. He signed off on the deregulation that's behind the derivatives mess. He was responsible for the DMCA and countless other corporate giveaways. He's a crony, to this day. He pals around with a cadre of sleazy billionaires who have sex with teenage girls. Clinton was and is a sell out.

http://gawker.com/tag/the-big-chill/?i=394649&t=bill-clinton-and-the-billionaire-boys-club#cbill-clinton-and-the-billionaire-boys-club

[eridani]

121. Food bank use was up dramatically in the 90s

Also income inequality. The slight rise in average income in the late 90s came nowhere near getting working families back to the peak year of 1973. Also a major intensification of the jailing of America via the War on Some Drugs. It wasn't the blowjob that cost Gore the election in 2000--it was the disenfranchisement of so much of the Dem base. (Yes, I know the Rethugs cheated. They did this year too, but there was enough turnout to overcome it.)

[patrice]

8. Many cross-currents and rip-tides caused by all of Obama's Crossovers.

I saw all of this coming at least a year ago.

It is a time to concretely KNOW whom you're working with and specifically what they are doing and why.

i.e. LOCAL

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

11. We are Democratic Underground.....

and we didn't exist last time there was a Democratic Administration.

As DUers, most of us are in the habit of being in the minority and being out of power and resenting the hell out of that...... However, habits may need to be revisited, in my opinion, and transitioned to fit the times.

We are not here to help see this upcoming administration fail, as we were the current one.

There are ways of voicing one's opinion as this adminstration is birthed.....
15 days out, and not yet in the White House are facts that we cannot ignore....and to do so may be harmful to our cause.

Just saying.

Also, if you want your voice heard, expressing yourself by posting criticism is certainly an option, but there are additional avenues as well which should be tried and tested.....
Contact page: http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact

[Ken Burch]

17. Thanks for the link.

n/t.

[dmallind]

12. yeah no moderates ever canvass or phone bank

I'm a Blue Dog - I did. And if you think DU is nasty to the progessive wing try sitting on my side of the party once in a while.

The last Democratic administration was a failure? What number of jobs over 23 million did you want created? What level of unemployment below the 3.7% level it attained do you think is feasible. How many millions out of poverty do you expect? What budget deficit elimination is enough for you? You can see the damn right wing anti-progressive European countries like France really HATE that guy uh?

You DO have as much right to have a say - but you have no MORE right to demand obeisance than any other. You certaionly have no right to be immune from criticism if you start crying all is lost and doom and gloom because Obama selects a cabinet member who once worked for Clinton. When did he ever say he wouldn't? The guy campaigned, and won, saying he'd reach across the aisle for god's sake and you're complaining because he reaches a few percentage points towards the center from himself?

[Dr Fate]

16. I know lots of anti-war and anti-Bush moderates who volunteer for DEMS.

But I can say that I never met any Lieberman DEMS or pro war, pro Bush DEMS who volunteer.

In my experiences, I never met any Pro War or Pro Bush DLC types on the ground...

[BootinUp]

22. wtf is a pro-Bush Dem? lol.

[Dr Fate]

28. So no DEMS supported Bush's far right war or his far right economic policies?

During Bush's 1st term, there were plenty of little Lieberman's running around talking about how we all need to suppport Bush's war and economic plans and how "the far left" who disagreed with them were supposedly a bunch of nuts. Still too many of them during parts of his 2nd term for my taste as well.

WTF is a pro-Bush DEM? Joe Lieberman seems to be a good example, at least b/f he ran on a 3rd party ticket and was no longer a DEM by name....

[dmallind]

27. Well here's your problem

You are conflating two groups. I'm not fond of Lieberman and would prefer him gone. I'm not fond of the war - it's an economic, political and vital drain. I'm certainly not fond of Bush. None of those things are necessary to be DLC (not that I am of course personally, but I support many of their priorities such as global trade and balanced budgets). You lose all credibility when you assume those of us who don't belong on the uber left are for Bush (ans it's specifically a violation of DU rules). I met plenty of people who loved the Clinto era and Clinton style policies (essentially DLCers to you) on "the ground". It is you who is the purist exclusionary self-established arbiter of what a Democrat should be, not the more moderate Dems. Your complaint is entirely projection and you proved that by assigning all not on your level of teh spectrum as bush supporters.

[Dr Fate]

31. I dont have a problem. DEMS who were stupid enough to support Bush have a problem.

And I can say that I've never met these kinds of DEMS on the ground- the only place I ever saw them is on TV and on DU.

However, you are correct if you are suggesting that we all have our different defintions for what a moderate is...

[midnight]

13. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best when he said the day we become

silent about what matters is the day we start to die. "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

[Ken Burch]

32. That's a great way of putting it.

There was enough silence in the campaign. The "shut up and let the grown ups do it" tone has to stop now. The only way to make sure this administration matters is to keep constant grassroots pressure and activism going.

You can't leave it to "the pros" or they'll screw us over again. It was only the Civil Rights Movement that made the Kennedy Administration worth remembering, for example. Left to what the insiders wanted it to settle for, that administration would've been just as pointless as Grover Cleveland's.

[Dr Fate]

14. DLCers were 100% wrong in their support for Bush, and now they want to make up for it?

They cant have the Liberals and anti-Bush moderates who were 100% right muddying up the waters, can they?

They have to marginalize the people who proved them 100% wrong on the major issues of the day so they can pretend their views are the only valid options for DEMS.

The DLC types did this during the war when they sided with Bush while attacking "far left war protesters." They basically all acted like a bunch of Joe Liebermans.

It is interesting that some of the folks talking about "bipartisanship" for the benefit of Lieberman dont want to give Liberals or even anti-war moderates (which is how I classify myself) the same benefit.

I dont see Obama as someone who would agree with these kinds of tactics- I hope I'm right.

[Ken Burch]

19. In my own way, I'm being pro-Obama.

I just don't want to see him boxed in from the start.

And I know that the Lieberman thing was the Senate Dems, but it's disturbing that the message was "the old boys matter more than the people" in that particular choice.

[Dr Fate]

36. Yes- let's be pro-Obama and give him a chance to succeed!

I'm hoping we could all agree on that one...

[scheming daemons]

37. By publicly shitting on every appointment our two-week-old PE is considering....

Yep... that's pro-Obama.

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

41. For the record, the only problem I have is Lieberman.

You havent seen me say one single negative word about people that Obama is actually picking as his top choices...

[scheming daemons]

50. For the record, I wasn't replying to you..... look again

[Dr Fate]

53. I thought this was an open discussion board, and you were posting in my sub-thread.

I apologize for making my positions available in my own subthread that you joined in on!!

[scheming daemons]

58. You seemed like you were responding directly to my post, as if I directed it at you...

I did not.

[Dr Fate]

60. No, I was just trying to express my views to anyone reading. A "discussion board" as it were.

It's my subthread that you posted on, so I thought I'd add more of my input by replying to you...

I have this strange habit of trying to start discussions while I'm on discussion boards.

[Ken Burch]

54. I'm not against every appointment. I like the AG appointment.

It's having the Summers and Begala types(the ones who don't want Obama to be different than Dubya)that worries me. It should worry you.

[Skwmom]

38. Obama says he wants to hear dissenting voices. Well where are the progressive voices in his

administration?

[scheming daemons]

43. He's named less than 5% of his administration. Sheesh.

[Dr Fate]

51. Exactly. Who are some good Liberals that you would like to see in an Obama admin?

???

[Dr Fate]

65. I'd love to hear your answer to post #51.

I'm only asking you twice b/c I'd love to hear your choices for Liberal cabinet members who will certainly be represented in the other 95%, as you suggest...

[Ken Burch]

74. Reich as Commerce Secretary(we can't have another corporate type in there)

Lawrence Tribe should finally be appointed to the Supreme Court. Roger Wilkins would be good.
Jim Hightower as Agriculture Secretary. I'd like to see people from the peace and human rights movements get some appointments.

And I'm glad to hear that openly gay people are being seriously considered for appointments.

[Dr Fate]

79. It would interest me to see if scheming daemons would agree with you on those pics.

He did seem to suggest that there would be room for Liberals in the other 95% of unfilled appointments...

Even though I'm a moderate and even in the center on some things- I agree with Liberals on some issues as well- and they were certainly right on the war, so I'm interested in seeing which Liberals Obama picks...

[bunnies]

18. Oh the drama... the DRAMA!

*faint*

[PBS Poll-435]

103. ,,,

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

20. If "progressive dissent" is being silenced, why am I reading your OP?

[scheming daemons]

24. Why are you trying to silence those of us who are telling you to shut the fuck up?

;-)

We have a right to tell you to shut up.

You have the right to ignore us and keep talking anyway.

[maxsolomon]

25. you know how i deal with it?

i don't come here that often.

[Forkboy]

29. Let them try. The only one who will silence you is you.

This is part of the game. The left and center push and pull each other in the direction they want the party to go. This is just part of it. Speak out, and ignore the ones telling you to be quiet. And I'd tell the ones in the center to do the same thing.

[Ken Burch]

39. That's why I AM speaking out.

And the truth is, the "centrists" need us, because only with a strong progressive component to the debate do "centrists" have the space to do anything that matters. We are the ones who create the chance for any change at all.

[Forkboy]

49. And we need the centrists.

The sooner both sides get that we need each other the better. And while I'm a pretty far lefty, you give us too much credit, or I should say, you don't give the centrists enough credit. They worked for Obama and did the grunt work, too. Any good thing we see pass is done so with their help. Do I wish they listened to the left more often? You bet. But the Left isn't responsible for all the change, the chances for change, or the will to change.

We just tend to be more vocal about it. ;)

[Two Americas]

118. sure we do

And most of us recognize that.

The question is do the centrists realize that they need us?

[Skwmom]

30. With the progressives track record on being right on so many issues, it makes you wonder why they

would want to silence progressive dissent? It's really mind-boggling.

[scheming daemons]

33. If you're dissenting against an administration that doesn't take office for two months yet, then....

....you're just dissenting for the sake of dissenting.

The exact opposite of productive.

[Ken Burch]

42. If you don't speak out AT THE START, the opening for action slips away.

Democratic administrations never do anything progressive after the first two years or so. After that, they lose their nerve and settle for mundanely administering the status quo.

It's not that I'm not giving Obama a chance. I'm trying to make sure he HAS a chance. And Obama only does have a chance if as much space for discussion and dissent exists as possible. It's progressives who are fighting to keep the door open, and "the pros" who want to shut it again.

[scheming daemons]

46. The last administration made the MISTAKE of being too progressive during the first two years

A. Clinton's very first act in office was "Don't ask, don't tell".

B. Hillary's health care proposal was too much for the American people to accept in one fell swoop.


We got hammered in 1994 midterms because of it.


Obama either governs from the center to start, or his margins in congress go away in '10 and he ends up with an impossible situation.

[Ken Burch]

52. Bogus analysis of those first two years.

1)The problem with gays in military issue(and btw, "don't ask, don't tell, was the conservative act of surrender, not the progressive position), was not the idea(which had and still has majority support), but the insistence on surrendering to Sam Nunn and letting the homopbobes control the debate. Also, the fact that he didn't just quietly lift the ban at once. If Clinton had actually FOUGHT for lifting the ban(if he'd toured the country with Margarethe Cammermyer and Barry Goldwater to build grassroots support)he'd have won.

2)Hillary's healthcare plan failed because it was too bureaucratic and byzantine, and because he waited too long to have it rolled out. Starting an immediate push for, say single-payer, would've been a much easier sell and would've helped keep the base in the game. We lost Congress in '94 almost entirely on Democratic voter abstentions, because the base had been left to feel that they didn't matter as much as the big-checkwriting heavy hitters.

And the biggest problem of all was that, every time the Right howled, the administration caved. If they'd stood up to the howlers and the bullies even ONCE, we'd have taken control of the debate. The problem was the failure of nerve, not the liberalism.

[paulk]

70. yours is the "progressive" analysis?

:tinfoilhat:

maybe that's why Obama isn't appointing anyone that you would define as "leftist".

[Ken Burch]

72. It's not "THE" analysis, It's just mine.

You can't deny that it was a major problem that Clinton NEVER faced down the RW during those first two years.
If he'd stood up to them even once in that time, the next six years would not have been a dead zone with a Republican Congress.

There was no need to accept the RW argument that the administration had no right to set the agenda and no right to make any real change from the Reagan/Bush policies.

[Ken Burch]

75. I noticed you offer no actual rebuttal to it, simply an insult.

Which is weird, since I'd made no insulting comments towards you.

[olegramps]

139. What exactly would you like the administration to do?

You throw out this charge, but I don't see anything about any particulars that you want to be addressed. As far as the economy under Clinton it was one hell of a lot better than under Bush 41 or Bush 43. But, all I hear from some on this board is that his administration was a disaster. I guess that eight years of peace and prosperity while fighting off the Republican attack dogs doesn't impress you. Remember when we actually had allies? Remember when our president wasn't the laughing stock of the world, but respected as an intelligent informed leader? I can only guess that you aren't going to be very happy with the Obama administration if he can only be as successful as Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

148. Here's what I'd like

1)A foreign policy that's as unmilitarist as possible, that places dialogue and negotiation on at least an equal plane with sending in the Marines. So far so good on that, actually(the hawkishness on Pakistan worries me, though).

2)A strong healthcare proposal. I'd still like to see single-payer given real consideration.

3)A real economic revival program for urban areas. Present it as "reparations for redlining", since it was the institution of redlining by the government in the 1940's that was the true cause of the collapse of inner city economies.

4)A push to get alternative energy in widespread use across the country. The recent oil price surge, even though it may now be passing, gave people a real reason to back this. Tie in retraining programs for people so that new job skills can be obtained.

5)Electoral reform as a priority proposal. Get an constitutional amendment abolishing the EC in debate in Congress A.S.A.P. Also, get legislation establshing proportional representation for Congressional races(legislative on the state level)and Instant Runoff Voting for executive offices(presidential and gubenatorial).

6)Fund Americorps at a serious level. It could be a place where a lot of that Obama movement energy could be put to continuous good use.

7)Oh, and close the damn School Of The Americas. It's a government-funded torture training academy and it's a disgrace that it still exists.

Those would be first-term priorities.

[Skwmom]

61. Oh yeah, let's wait until he makes all of his appointments to start voicing our concerns.

What an idea. Why didn't I think of that.

[Two Americas]

128. nonsense

The powerful players who are trying to influence the new administration, the insiders and big money people are not waiting or holding back.

It is extremely reactionary and suppressive to make this unsupported claim that people are "just dissenting for the sake of dissenting" or are being "unproductive."

I suppose you will deny that you have any interest in suppressing freedom of speech. What then is the motivation for your remarks? You are not stepping up straightforwardly and responding to the message, but are attacking the messenger. That is an ad hominem attack.

[phleshdef]

34. I think the new administration should be given a chance before anyone complains.

You don't KNOW how things are going to go, how well the current cabinet appointments are going to work out or how "progressive" the Obama administration is or isn't going to be because they aren't in power yet.

You should give them 6 months to a year, actually witness the way policy is being crafted and see it in action before you decide whether or not dissent is even necessary.

Right now we have an economic crisis, a housing crisis, a healthcare problem, a couple of wars going on and a planet that needs better cared for. Not as an Obama supporter, but as an AMERICAN, I believe now is the time to support the incoming administration and wait and see if they screw up. You never know, you might actually be surprised when and if you get "your way" (and my way) on some things.

Aside from that, Bill Clinton is the most successful president since the 60s. History would not judge his administration as a "failure" and you shouldn't either. You may not have seen everything go the way you want, but you can't deny that the country was doing pretty damn good.

[Thrill]

35. No one is silencing anyone. But can the man get a chance to fucking govern

or at least finish putting his administration together before people start having hissy fits?

[scheming daemons]

40. Nope.

Progressives on DU have it programmed into their DNA to be pissed off at "the man", no matter who the man happens to be or what he has or hasn't done yet.


They're not happy unless they're pissed off.

[Ken Burch]

45. It's not about being "pissed off". It's about standing up for ourselves.

We remember the lessons of '93 and '94. We shut up then like people like you said to(yes, there was no DU then, but there was politics then, for pete's sake). And in shutting up, we let all the chance for anything progressive happening in that administration slip away.
The result was a political dead zone, an administration where only CEO's and defense contractors mattered.

Can you blame us for not wanting to get burned again?

[scheming daemons]

47. You have it exactly backwards

Clinton tried to be too progressive his first two years, and it killed the 40-year-old Democratic majority in the House.

[wyldwolf]

111. you're not supposed to point things like that out. That's an attempt to silence someone

[olegramps]

141. Just how were you burned again?

Please be more specific so that I can understand your problem. It seemed to me that the Republicans were determined from the outset to be as uncooperative as possible. I expect that they will do the same during any Democrat's tenure. I can only hope that we can enjoy a veto proof congress so we can actually get something done.

[Bonobo]

48. So criticism of your impatience is now "stifling dissent"? What a pantload of crap!

Jeebus.

[stevenleser]

66. You are estimating the quantitfy of crap by a couple of exponents...

More like a Supertanker full of crap

[TwilightZone]

55. "The last Democratic administration was a failure"

What planet do you live on, exactly?

[Ken Burch]

57. The one where the poor were abandoned and insulted by a "Democratic" president

The one where gays were told to shut up and put up with the hatred forever(which is what the message of signing DOMA was, since it closed the door to LGBT rights, and gays made no progress anywhere in the country for years afterwards as a result).
The one where the School Of The Americas was kept open and executions increased, even though the violent crime rate was falling.
The one where the progressive wing of the party was told it had no right to expect anything from the president it elected.

[grantcart]

56. President-elect Obama hasn't even taken his oath of office and the

"I am the purest mother fucking progressive in the universe" crowd already wants to register their dissent.



We don't want to silence your self proscribed "dissent", we just want to make fun of it.


Why don't you save all of your self appointed outrage until Obama has actually done something and then you can get your full scale pout in.


Oh and all unreasonable assholes are the enemy even those that want to pick apart the President elect before his first day of office.



Of course that includes the jerks on the right, but it also includes any on the left who want to do the same thing.

[Barack_America]

62. But, grantcart, what is taken as "dissent" around here lately is pretty ridiculous.

I've been called a concern troll for simply saying that I wasn't crazy about one or two of Obama's choices. I didn't say he was wrong or unreasonable, in fact in one post I simply said, "meh". And that earned me the distinction of "concern troll".

:shrug:

[stevenleser]

95. Once again you are on the side of common sense and facts

always a position guaranteed to be attacked by the feebleminded

[Binka]

134. Go Back To Thailand Grant

You obviously have plenty of time. Really, they need you there.

[Barack_America]

59. Thank you.

I donated over 500 hours of my time to Obama's campaign. I feel I've earned the right to critique his decisions.

He can handle it. He's not the delicate little creature that some on DU seem to take him for (even if he did read DU, which he certainly does not).

[Alexander]

63. OMG! An AG against the death penalty and an HHS Secretary for national health care!

Obama is caving to the right wing! He's just like Bush!

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

68. I SAID upthread that I like the AG appointment, and also I like Daschle.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Alexander]

114. So what, exactly, is your problem?

Seems like progressives are getting quite the voice this year.

[Two Americas]

69. it is an ongoing battle

Under the guise of merely lecturing us on "reality," a small but very vocal and domineering conservative faction - conservative as defined by the traditional measurements of political allegiance, power and economics - is actually promoting moving to the right and defending conservative economics without acknowledging that or taking responsibility for taking those positions.

Remember how we were told that we needed to remain silent only during the campaign, for the purposes of practicality, for getting Democrats elected as a first step? How many times were we told that once the election was over we would be free to express our opinions without being attacked and ridiculed? How many times did people say that as a matter of practicality and being realistic, we needed to run a centrist campaign, but then once the election was over we could move to the left? How many times did we hear "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT...?" I no longer believe that those saying that do in fact agree with us, I think they are using a deceptive tactic to oppose us.

This is not a battle that we on the left asked for or initiated or desire, and we are the ones who again and again have been asked to make all of the sacrifices and compromises. Those who are determined to drive the party to the right are relentless and willing to use any and all tactics in their efforts.

As I said on another thread -

When the public is surveyed on matters of power and economics without regard to culture war clues and indicators, on issue after issue 70% or more of the public supports very left wing positions.

Here, on poll after poll, the left wing positions prevail by margins of 10-1 or more again and again.

Yet the conservative among us - economic conservatives and apologists for wealth and power - repeatedly claim that their positions are the majority opinions, and that left wing opinions are "fringe" and "purist" and that those expressing them are disloyal, whining, throwing temper tantrums - every sort of malicious smear and personal attack is thrown at us.

To look at the threads, one would think that the "centrist" and "move to the right" economically conservative point of view was held by half or more of the people here. When it is pointed out that this is not true, then we hear the argument that "DU is not representative of the party or the people." The arguments defending conservatism and attacking leftists continually evolve to suit the circumstances, even though they often contradict one another. When all else fails, ugly personal attacks are the rule.

The conservatives here are a small minority, as they are within the party and among the general public, but they cast a large shadow by using bullying and domineering tactics.

Were they to say "I support conservative economics, and while I know that is a minority position, here is my most persuasive argument for conservative economics" we could have intelligent discussions about this. But they don't do that. They attack and ridicule and smear their opponents, and they deny that they do in fact support conservative economic positions but instead claim to be merely "realistic" and tell us that we have no sane choice but to support conservative economics, and that only lunatics would hold any other point of view.

I feel that we have a duty to resist and counter that bullying, not for the sake of our selves but rather for the sake of the people, those in the 90% of the population who are not "winners," who are not among the well-off and gentrified people who dominate modern liberalism and the party, who are being abused, left behind, silenced, persecuted and marginalized.

[Ken Burch]

71. Excellent post. I'd have no problem with the centrists just disagreeing with me.

It's their "We have a right to have a real say and you DON'T" tone that causes the problems.

If centrists would simply accept that they are one wing of the party, and not it's eternal natural leaders, we could have a healthy discussion.

[Two Americas]

78. the conflict

We have two groups, both of whom we call and who call themselves liberals and Democrats. This need not be the enormous source of controversy that it is, but so long as it is hidden and not out in the open it will fuel bitter antagonism and hostility.

The right wingers have succeeded in re-define right and left along their cultural war issues, all of those manufactured and superficial and controlled and defined by the right wing.

We have one group of Democrats who are socially liberal, or leftist, and economically conservative. We have anther group that is socially and economically liberal, or leftist. Many of them, myself included, place more emphasis on economics because we feel that within a context of left wing economics, the social causes can also be more quickly and effectively advanced as well. We also are resistant to battling the right wingers on their own turf, because that gives them too many advantages. But the economic conservatives are opposed to left wing economic politics, first and foremost and battle like tigers against that. There is no compromise possible there, because there is no give in their position on economics. That puts them in opposition to the core traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the Labor movement, and will always cause contention within the party until and unless the party becomes a haven for what we once thought of as moderate Republicans, and completely abandons any pretense of being pro-Labor.

[political_Dem]

133. Bravo. Very well put.

[jonestonesusa]

145. You make an excellent point here

I was a wholehearted Obama supporter during the primary and the GE, and I still feel very strongly about the potential of his presidency. However, like you I wonder why Democrats, elected politicians and everyday citizens, do not strongly push for the policies they prefer when it comes to the actual business of politics. I think it's a strength among Democrats that it is a diverse party and encourages internal discussion and dissent on key issues.

Last night I saw activist and writer Tariq Ali, who really put some of the early Obama appointments into perspective. He mentioned, for instance, the hazard of the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation and was hoping that the hubris of some of Obama's statements were just campaign rhetoric, and that the new Secretary of State wouldn't take a Condi-redux approach to diplomacy in that region, but one would surely say that Hillary Clinton is more of a hawk on national security issues than Bill Richardson, the choice I would have preferred. Also, Ali mentioned the outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and his recent willingness to call for greater humanitarianism in the policies toward Gaza and the Palestinians - a two state solution and other key compromises. What is the likelihood that we are going to push for a reasonable new policy in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict with Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Lieberman in prominent leadership positions in the White House and Senate? Part of the potential promise of electing Obama was potential improvement in U.S. - Arab relations due to having a president with family connections to the Islamic World and a policy shift from the bellicose days of the Bush administration. I know Obama isn't president yet, but why not take full advantage of this opportunity to re-energize diplomacy and work hard for peaceful solutions in these conflicts?

We all have to keep on pushing for progressive policies and turn the page on the neocon policy disasters abroad and at home, even if that means criticizing Democrats under an Obama administration.

[alwysdrunk]

73. The OP in this thread was a failure

No is trying to silence anyone. People are just discussing these real political situations with with their thoughts focused on political reality. President Obama will be the president of all Americans right, center and left, and all Democrats moderate, liberal and progressive.

[Two Americas]

82. this post is itself suppressive

You are portraying one side in the debate as being "realistic" with no evidence to support that. That is a call for people to dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you a priori, without giving them any consideration, since it is implied that they are "unrealistic" and therefore irrelevant. That is the main tactic that is being used to silence the left.

I agree that all Democrats should be heard. I do not believe that a small faction should be able to bully their way into appearing to be larger than they are and drive out other opinions. We have the tail wagging the dog. 10% of the members are talking as though they represented half or more of the people here, and dismissing the majority as fringe and purists and whiners and as irrelevant and not to be listened to. That can only be in the hope of silencing people, or at the very least discouraging them and distracting the members from giving their points of vie a fair and honest hearing.

[Ken Burch]

84. It's about treating the progressive faction in the party with respect as an equal force.

There's no good reason for anyone in the party to have a problem with that.

Progressives have never been the problem.

Respect is what's needed.

[WI_DEM]

76. I don't see anything being silenced--2/3 of the posts are critical of Obama, so...

what are you talking about?

[Two Americas]

not so

There are very few posts "critical of Obama." I have never been. Painting this as a matter of loyalty or disloyalty is itself a suppressive tactics, and a call for denial of freedom of speech.

It is our civic duty and an essential underpinning of a healthy representative democracy to question the actions of all of our elected representatives, at all times. Claiming that this is an attack on Obama is to betray an over-riding personal identification with a politician, a cult of personality hyper-loyalty approach, that is contradictory to the spirit and practice of a representative democracy.

The politicians represent us. It is not our job to represent them, an though we were supposed to be public relations agents for them. They work for us, we do not work for them.

The very definition of a good politician is one that we can criticize and who will listen and respond to us. We do them no favors by engaging in hero worship and trying to shut down any and all critical commentary. That cripples the political process. If we are going to be "yes men" we are giving the politicians nothing to represent and they cannot effectively do their job, and democracy will collapse.

[WI_DEM]

92. my point is nobody is trying to stop dissent and the 2/3 of the posts are

posts which dissent on choices or speculation on choices Obama has made.

[Two Americas]

98. understood

And I disagree with your point.

To say that 2/3 of the posts are against Obama requires categorizing anything other than complete trust and affection as therefore being against Obama.

To say that no one is trying to suppress dissent is to ignore the ad hominem attacks on dissenters, and the ridicule and trivializing of their remarks by falsely portraying the remarks as destructive or illegitimate in some way. That is the exact way that dissent is suppressed, as we should all know from having watched the right wingers raise it to an art form over the last couple of decades. "They are tearing down Obama!" is not much different from "they are tearing down America!"

[bread_and_roses]

112. Exactly: "our civic duty...at all times." (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

80. This is another "I want my say and no one should argue with me" post

[Ken Burch]

81. I'm fine with people arguing with me.

But it has to be on the assumption that I and those who agree with my views are treated as equals in the argument and the party.
That's not too much to ask.

It's the "we are the natural leaders" tone you guys take that's the problem. That and your pointless insistence on blaming progressives for every defeat we ever had.

[Dr Fate]

85. It would be cool if we could ALL agree to cease name calling & bullying of any kind.

I think it would be a good DU rule- but I realize it might be too fine of a line to inforce...

It would be neat if Skinner could make a direct appeal to ALL sides on this...

I'm thinking about all the pro-war, pro-Bush and pro-Lieberman DEMS who used to call me a "far left wacko" and other dishonest bullshit labels just b/c I opposed Bush and wanted DEMS to oppose him on more issues...

I always got the feeling that such tactics were designed to shut down debate as to DUers who dont like hard conflict arguments- It didn't work on me, but maybe that is what you are saying.

Oh well, one can dream- both sides guilty of it so I guess one feeds off the other...

[Ken Burch]

87. You're right. Both sides have launched their share of invective.

There needs to be some way of establishing what was called "parity of esteem" in the Northern Irish peace process.

[Dr Fate]

90. For the record, I've been defending Obama's centrist picks all over this board for days.

Everyone but Lieberman, who Obama didnt really choose anyway.

I've always thought I was pretty close to the center, but I know a lot of DUers who think they are to the right of me, so who knows?

I think it's important to point out that I dont agree with you on everything, but I see your point about certain attempts that might be designed to make people shut up...

Maybe the only solution is to grow thick skin and jump in the mud- but I'm getting tired of some of this too, and I'm not even a Liberal on everything...

[Ken Burch]

97. I appreciate your comments and your respectful, open tone.

Good posting with you, Doc.

[olegramps]

143. Pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Lieberman Dems?

Well, I just haven't meet any of these folks. You seem to have encountered a lot of them. I have been a registered Independent until the 2004 election when I registered as a Democrat to support a candidate in the primaries. The majority of Independents that I know lean heavily toward the Democratic Party. I really don't know any Independents that fully support the Republican Party.

I confess that I have encountered many of this type of people you have described and they were all Republicans. I guess I must be looking in the wrong places.

[wyldwolf]

86. if you don't believe you're being treated as an equal, that is your issue and no one else's

Oh, blaming "progressives" for every defeat?

Let's be honest. How many posts daily blame centrists (void of any fact I might add.) Don't get pissed because it's turned around on you.

[iamthebandfanman]

91. you wish

why dontcha get off that high horse of self righteousness for a lil while, i know your head has to be light from that altitude.


seriously tho,
its not about not being argued with...
its about people dont even discuss or 'argue'... they just tell you to shut up and call you not a democrat because you dont agree 100% with decisions by the party or its leaders...

if this is the way its going to be on DU, its gonna be a loooooooooooooooooong 4-8 years... ill tell you that much right now.

[Dr Fate]

94. Next thing you know, DUers will be accused of being disloyal for not supporting Lieberman!

I can see it now...

[wyldwolf]

106. umm.. there's only one group here who accuse others of not being a Democrat

[Dr Fate]

107. There were/are at least 2- maybe 3.

I've seen Liberals accuse moderate & conservative DEMS of not being real DEMS.

I've seen Conservative DEMS accuse moderates & Liberal DEMS of not being real DEMS.

Hell- I've even seen people calling themselves centrists accuse people they disagree with of the same...


In all honesty, I have to admit that more than one group has used these tactics...

[iamthebandfanman]

88. we are always silenced.

nobody gives a shit about our ideals, they just want our votes... its unfortunate that some on DU share that point of view...

i always thought of DU as a place for progressives first, and democrats second....
both being required, but none the less progressive ideals enforced ...

but ultimately,some people dont care we are registered democrats if we dont play follow the leader...

this is why there are people like nader out there 'taking/stealing' votes from democrats...this sorta thing happens everytime to progressives within the democratic party...

nothing but love until the elections over.

well, fortunately im not like nader and i wont give up on this party being the means to push the liberal agenda.... dont let them run you off either, cause im for damn sure not going anywhere. theyll know it every primary election too,i promise you that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. "The LAST Democratic administration was a failure" reminds me of this classic article:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01

WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

more: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

[Pisces]

93. Wow, starting to see the problems the Repigs have with their fundamental right wingers.

No middle ground and stuck on stupid. The man has not taken the oath of office. We are facing multiple problems that the dems or Progressive dems can not solve alone. How insane that Obama would want to reach across the aisle and take the middle ground ( exactly what he said over and over again on the campagin trail) Nothing will ever make you whiners happy. You thrive on dissent and dissatisfaction.

I was in "the I despise Clinton camp" during the Primaries, however, I have no problem that Obama would reach out and include her in the cabinet. As he has said before, we will need all hands on deck to tackle the enormity of our problems.

You have your free speech and you can continue to whine and complain, don't expect everyone to go along with you. I am exercising my free speech and guess what The Right is not the enemy, the Extreme Right is the enemy and so is the Extreme Left.

[Ken Burch]

99. For the record, I can accept HRC at State IF Obama makes it clear

That she's not to be the kind of hawk there she would've been as president. She needs to go along when he tries dialogue and negotiations. If she can live with that, I can live with her.

Also, she needs to be told that she can't use STATE to push for 90's style trade policy. This time, it has to be fair trade, and it has to be accepting that other countries have the right to use the economic models THEY want to use.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. I just want the 'centerists' to begin each sentance with the truth

and say " I agree more with Palin and Bush than I do with Progressive Democrats". Then they can say whatever. Just be honest about it.

[Dr Fate]

100. To be fair, the DLC types used to openly admit that during Bush's 1st term and shortly thereafter.

They used to openly admit that they preferred Bush's & Lieberman's positions on the war- or far-right postions on the economy- while openly disagreeing with "far left wacko DEMS" as they called them.

They only started hiding the ball or even agreeing with "the far left" & anti-Bush moderates in vague instances- when it became clear to everyone that they had been 100% wrong on the major issues of the day.

For instance, you cant find a single DUer who will admit that they preferred Lieberman over Lamont- but at the time, they were everywhere, and very open about it...Almost as hard these days to get a DLCer to say he/she supported the war "at first."

[Ken Burch]

101. The only thing that was good about some DU'ers backing HolyWarJoe

Was that it finally led to the tombstoning of the nastiest and most abusive DU'er that ever posted here.

[Dr Fate]

102. Let me guess- Mr Benchley?

;)

[Ken Burch]

104. I didn't want to get my post deleted by mentioning him by name, but yes.

I think the man posted while drunk, especially at the end.

[Dr Fate]

105. Crap- I didn't know that I might be breaking a rule!

I assumed that tombstoned disruptors were subject to ridicule!

Note to mods: My bad!!!

[Odin2005]

144. Mr. Benchley was a truely nasty character.

Despite me being at the left end of the party I often come in the defense of more moderate posters (Wyldwolf has always been one of my favorite DUers), but Benchley was just beyond the pale...

[BzaDem]

113. No one is questioning your right to speak -- some are just questioning some of what you have to say.

For most of us, it was obvious that Obama was running on a platform of bipartisanship and working with even those whom he disagreed. So when it came out that Obama will appoint some people from the only democratic administration in the last 25 years, or that he won't pursue a vendetta against Lieberman, it wasn't a surprise at all.

But then you come and say that not only was it a surprise, it was a betrayal, and that it was no different than Bush.

If you wanted Lieberman out or everyone having to do with the Clintons out, just say it on the strength of your own opinion. If you instead start saying that this is what Obama ran on (or this is why people voted for him) and that he is betraying something, that is disingenuous. Obama ran as a centrist and most people here saw it. Kucinich did not, but Obama did. So when you start wondering why Obama isn't acting like Kucinich, one starts to wonder who actually won here. And when you start saying that there might be no difference between this administration and the Bush administration, people start thinking about what Nader's people were saying in 2000.

You have the right to speak your mind but you don't have the right to others' approval of what you have to say, nor does anyone.

[Dragonfli]

117. It appears our services are no longer required.

Rather than move from the right to the center, as I had hoped,(I was actually wishing it would move center left-but knew better) the Democratic party as well as die hard Democrats appear to be moving the party to it's extreme right neo-liberal/DLC minority.

They are effectively marginalizing progressives and even some centrists that are not corporate or hawkish enough for their tastes.

I worked very hard for Obama even though I knew him to be a centrist because I thought he would bring progressive ideals and politicians into the circle as well as the corporatists and hawks. I was mistaken to expect such large tent unity.

I worked very hard for what is turning into a republican-light only tent.

The reason progressive dissent is being silenced is because we are not invited to the party - period! Many of the posters here are simply reflecting that new reality.

If we want a liberal party that is not in the pockets of military contractors and corporations, our only option left is to go Independent until such a time as a viable progressive party can be built.

The Irony is that the progressives that had much more than is admitted to do with the election of this administration are going to have to wander the desert for several years before a new party can be built or grown from the greens.

I do not know how I could have fallen for the "hope" so deeply that I worked as hard as I did to be ignored now. I never thought of myself as gullible before.

I shall attempt to root out that gullibility and banish it from my character so I do not get used so shamelessly in the future.

[BlooInBloo]

119. Because we're nazis.

[mkultra]

123. arent you silencing the dissenting dissent?

No wonder people are telling you to stfu.

[Enna]

125. Silencing the progressives

All:

It seems to me that the problem is the "Democratic Leadership Council" wing of the Democratic Party is where this is coming from. It's crystal clear that some people want the next administration to retain a "centrist"(read "center-right") image. They are afraid, very afraid of the "paradigm shift" that has already taken place.
Anne Gilbert

[Ken Burch]

151. Well put.

n/t.

[stillcool]

126. I was one who did the hard work...

to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States, and I'll be damned if my hard work is going to be for naught because you or any other so called "label" is upset with an appointment or any other stupid shit. Do you even want the guy to be inaugurated..I mean after all your 'hard work' and all?

[Ken Burch]

150. Of course I want the guy inagurated.

And then, I want the full range of possibilities in terms of action to be kept available to him. I want the debate to be open and the lines of communication and policy infuence to be open.

Chill.

[KakistocracyHater]

129. emotions, micro-focusing on minutiae

falling for sneaky divide & conquer tricks. There ARE ways that MOST LIBERAL IDEAS CAN BE MADE REALITY. I find that laying out major achievements on a map with lesser achievements located on same map with easily explainable milestones to watch for that indicate progress is being made & goals are being reached helps. It's like planning a crosscountry trip, you know where you want to go & map a way to get there so you see all the landmarks along the way.

[TheKentuckian]

130. Nah, not for the most part. Some off us a step over

would encourage progressives to have some measure and rationality to their judgments. Not to say there are not those who want to "hide the liberals" or whatever but who pays any mind to someone like that. Shit, don't be so thin skinned. More Wexler, less Combes and definitely less anger. Let's face we've got a shortage on liberal pols and when you start filtering ability to get things done, experience, connections, and knowledge and your options are limited. You build such resources like everything else. The proof in the pudding is really in the lower level positions and look for some newer Reps with potential. Lack of Democratic administrations and very moderate ones that did get in leave us with very real reasons for having to go to the well.

This is going to take much longer than is acceptable but hopefully not much more than is plausible. We can't clone the few liberals we have and some of them are pretty desperately needed where they are puts us into an automatic heavy on the Clinton program and be thankful we have them, otherwise you get fucking rolled, obstructed, and killed by the learning curve.
Four and out, unless you're fairly lucky or events conspire into your favor like wars.

[Life Long Dem]

131. Give.....it.....a......break!!

And don't you mean the lefty left lefter?

[TheKentuckian]

132. I mean the cutting edge of the very, very, very leftest of all maaann way out there

:beer:

[cboy4]

135. Yup, eight years of peace and prosperity sure was

aggravating. LOL

[mtnester]

136. Amazing example of a carefully planned under the radar post

and way to use that vague brush as well! It might work for awhile.

[HughBeaumont]

137. Apparently no one ever saw "The Big One".

The Clinton fluffers need to watch that movie, lest they forget about the supposed "prosperity" blue collar workers "acheived". A continuation of the shittiest aspects of Reaganomics WASN'T a step in the right direction; can the NAFTA/free trade defenders (one of them being Mrs. Clinton herself) tell us all NOW that bit of Republican legislation (and the Pukes get no free pass either, as NAFTA was around since the Reagan/Bewsh I years) was a success to working Americans? Or for that matter, working Canadians or Mexicans? It exacerbated the race to the bottom, with plants being moved to cheaper pastures, often to Mexico or the corporate American slave state known as China. The Big One highlights the Great Job/Risk shift in it's adolescence; practices that would become common in the corporation-friendly Bewsh administration.

The signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was also a death knell in making our voice heard. It's the reason the conservative pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-worker, fear-overdrive message was allowed to creep into our lives to stay. It sort of reared it's ugly head in the 80s on occasion (remember The Day After?), but went into full throttle in the late 90s, with powerful conservatives actually dictating the message and memes each week. It made way for our own mild versions of "Two Minutes Hate".

While good things did happen under Clinton, so did a lot of bad things. Obama HAS to discourage the unbridled corporatism of neo-Reaganomics. Our country is not going to survive any longer if we continue with what's failed. Rights HAVE to be given back to workers. Rich people have WAY too much power, wealth and influence. That NEEDS to be reversed and FAST. Strong economies employ EVERYONE, not just the heavily degreed and privileged (which, as the Bewsh-conomy showed, is no longer a guarantee of job security). When we're laying off people with Masters Degrees, you gotta step back and think "what the hell is wrong with this picture and how do I make it STOP"?

The answer is go back to Keynes economics. Slow, boring, but EFFECTIVE. Problem is, Infrastructure/green investment is going to cost money we don't have, thanks to Bewsh's looting of the treasury and bankrupting of the country. Obama's got a nice ball and chain around his ankle and he's not even started. And that's what pisses me off the most.

[jonestonesusa]

146. The Big One is an essential film, a great piece of history from the 90s.

Your last paragraph says it all! The Clinton record has been debated often on this site; all I can add is that the Democratic Party needs to think more seriously about the domestic economy, the social safety net, physical infrastructure, and small business, rather than putting all of its policy emphasis on international trade and financial institutions. There has been a paradigm shift that is a part of the DLC legacy where Democratic politicians pay far more attention to these corporate and international institutions than to specific segments of the domestic economy, and there hasn't been enough national debate on alternative economic strategies. Both NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act are a part of this shift, and this has all been encouraged under the Clinton administration. I think that due to Obama's unique experience with community development in Chicago, he does have an understanding of how this all works out in the day to day context of urban communities, small business, etc. But unless we all keep pressuring our own representatives as well as Obama to keep these microeconomic concerns in mind, we're in trouble.

The $850 billion dollar bailout that included no unemployment benefits is just a sign of those times. That huge sum was apportioned to be doled out by and to large institutions, and the Commerce Department doesn't have a clue on how to best use that money.

We NEED a change in economic thinking, including more diversity of perspectives beyond Clinton-era neoliberal corporatism.

[WCGreen]

142. Expanding the Earned Income Credit was one of the most

progressive items the Clinton Administration can point toward.

As far as free trade, I agree, Clinton buckled under the pressure of his large donors and the fact he did not win his first election with over 50%. That weakened him tremendously in the eyes of the right wing. He caved big time over environmental and union issues in the NAFTA accord and never address the Southern right to work laws that basically killed the National Union Movement.

His tax structure also favored those who "earn" money through owning things vs those who earn wages.

He cut huge holes in the safety-net when he put draconian rules in welfare.

But, in his defense, when the country went forward, all levels of the economic strata were lifted. Admittedly, some more than others. And, he was a much better president for the people than either Bush senior or Bob Dole...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. Progressive Dissent Does Not Equal Insane Or Irrational Rantings And Vitriol With Short Sighted

ignorance as a root.

I, as well as I'm sure many others you're referencing, are sick to death of the latter. The former leads to constructive conversation and can obviously be beneficial. The latter? Accomplishes nothing more than making the poster look like an irrational moron while not having a positive outcome on anything or anybody.

[Ken Burch]

149. I'm against insane or irrational rantings, too.

But trying to shut people up for expressing opinions and concerns they have every right to say doesn't actually stop irrationality. The truly irrational just get MORE irrational.

And I don't think anything I've said actually descends to that category, if that's what you're implying.

[WildEyedLiberal]

155. NO ONE IS STIFLING YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH GOD DAMN IT

I hate posts like this with the white hot heat of one thousand suns. Do you even goddamn KNOW what "freedom of speech" IS? Is the government knocking on your door, telling you to stop posting your "progressive dissent" on DU? Is someone taking away your keyboard and shutting off your internet access? Is Skinner threatening to ban you from DU for voicing your "progressive dissent"?

NO. NONE OF THE ABOVE HAVE HAPPENED. If someone on DU has told you to STFU, guess what? THEY HAVE FREE SPEECH TOO. Free speech includes the right to strongly disagree with someone, or even to tell someone to STFU. If you don't like them, YOU can tell THEM to STFU. Isn't it grand?

Look, I don't even disagree with the meat of your post, but who the hell are you directing it towards? Who are these "people" to whom you have given the awesome power to "silence dissent" on DU? Someone telling you you're wrong isn't "silencing" your "dissent" and I am really tired of the melodramatic posts to that effect.

[codjh9]

156. I mostly agree. But although I think the Clinton admin. was far from being a 'failure', they could

have been better on the environment and a few other issues. (Sure, they were far better than the Nazi cabal known as the Bush admin., but they could've been better as DEMOCRATS).

[Zuiderelle]

157. Leftover hostility from the primaries and the fact that we're not all progressive here.

Lots and lots of "new" democrats around here after 8 years of Bush.

That's my take on it.

(And I agree with you.)