Do our party's leaders WANT the last victory to last?

[Ken Burch]

I know President Obama himself wants his healthcare plan to be passed. Obviously the majority of the American people want it to, or want single-payer(A.K.A "That Which We Are Aot Allowed To Have Debated By Those We Elected").

In any OTHER democratic country, that would be enough.

Yet, at them moment, it appears that corporate-sponsored hate mobs in town meetings are about to win, and in winning are about to end the Obama Administration(as they ended the Clinton Administration in 1994-since everything that happened AFTER 1994 would have happened in the second Bush The First Term or in the one term the Ancient Bob would have served before dying in his sleep in 1990 or something).

The impediment is the establishment wing of OUR party.

It really looks like that wing WANTS President Obama to fail, as they wanted the Clinton Administration to be ended before it began.

Is there ANYTHING we can do to dislodge the insiders, the DLC, Rahm, and the rest, and actually make this the party of those who elected it?

If not, is there a reason to keep this party alive?

What the hell do we do here, folks?

I hope the Prez hits a home run in the speech on Wednesday night. But that may not be enough, and we may have to look at other options.

"Hope" is dying. How do we keep it from being killed?

[DrDan]

1. why do you assume the problem is with Rahm and the DLC

[Ken Burch]

3. Rahm has identified with the right wing of the party since the 90's

helping organize the New Democrat Network(one of the big anti-healthcare factions).

As chair of the DCCC, Rahm also forced the nomination to winnable Congressional seat of many, if not most, of the Blue Dog Dems who are disrespecting President Obama and trying to water the healthcare bill down to nothing. It's not worth having a Dem in Congress who votes against the party on everything that matters.

And the DLC have been the masterminds of the whole notion that Democratic candidates shouldn't be expected to be progressive or to demonstrate party loyalty(though they should have the right to DEMAND that everyone stay loyal to them come reelection time, because they are supposedly doing the rest of us this incredible favor by even allowing us to vote for them.)

[DrDan]

6. well don't you think we need a little bit of leadership out of the WH?

Just "wanting" reform is not enough. Time for leadership - actually, the time was months ago.

Why count on congress to draft a meaningful bill? How about spelling out some specifics, and standing behind them. Want to know why there is so much confusion among the masses - look at the garbled message - or lack thereof.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for this failing attempt at needed legislation.

[polichick]

2. imo there really are two distinct parties within the Dem Party...

There are progressives and there are DLC/Rahm/Blue Dogs ~ unfortunately, by his choice of advisers/staff, the prez has shown which "party" he belongs to. (No surprise really ~ we all suspected it during the primaries. Problem was, Hillary is also part of that party, and more hawkish besides.)

[iceman66]

4. The only real progressive in the race was Kucinich

- and we all know how well he did.

I think Obama is about as good a president as we can reasonably hope for, absent a major change in the way elections are financed in this country.

[Ken Burch]

5. Obama would be fighting much harder and for much better policies

If Dennis had won 600 or 700 delegates. I backed Dennis twice and it was sickening to see the number of people saying "I agree with him, but I can't let myself vote for him". No good came to this party of Dennis being humiliated in 2008. And he never deserved to be dismissed as a freak or a wackjob.

[polichick]

7. imo Obama could be a great president if he'd surround himself with...

...members of the democratic wing of the party and really fight for Democratic principles. (Don't see that happening though; he seems to like the DLC crowd.)

I agree that we need a major change in the way elections are financed ~ but the only way we'll see that is by electing new people who are dedicated to election reform. Not many of those already in office will vote for it; they're looking ahead to cushy lobbying jobs.

[notesdev]

11. Yep, Kucinich was the only one

amongst the Democrats other than Mike Gravel, who was not a CFR candidate.

In other words, he was the only real hope we had for change.

[TxRider]

8. I think you have it wrong

The majority of Americans do not want single payer. If they did there wouldn't be a problem.

The issue is the people who put getting reelected over anything else.

For blue dogs they vote for more public health care they will not be reelected.

Same for Obama, he has to have independents on his side to win.


The American people need to be sold on single payer, at least a lot more than they are before it can be passed.

Just pushing this as much as it has been pushed may mean a republican controlled congress in 2010 or 2012. At least pushing like they have been.

Maybe Obama can seize control of the debate with his own plan, ans sell the people on it.

[DrDan]

9. they "do not want single payer" because they are being fed a

pack of lies to move the coversation elsewhere - death panels, etc. Repubs are sooooooo good at changing the focus of the debate.

Neil "the boob" boorz now proclaims the D's intention to rope in all the 401K dollars and redistributing to all. He has listeners that will believe this as it validates their dislike of the D's. This is all part of his "don't trust the D's" mantra delivered daily to include health insurance reform.

If Americans truly understood what single-payer coverage was, they would be all for it. The only losers are the greedy insurers.

[dionysus]

13. also, and i don't see it mentioned a lot here, the majority of people aren't like us. they don't

care about this stuff. most people are apathetic about politics in general and just don't give a shit. compared to europe, we have a dismal percentage of people who follow or care about current events and politics, or even vote.

that's how industries are able to control so much. people don't realize how much they are being robbed. if more people were aware of whats going on, they wouldn't be able to buy off the govt like they do now

[DrDan]

15. that's why they fear change so much - if they don't understand that the change is for the good,

they are fearful.

Americans are a very fearful people. Afraid of Muslims, travel, gays, blacks, women in leadership roles, Americans do not know or associate with Muslims, know about their religion or traditions. Americans think a trip to Canada is an international adventure. Gays, blacks women leaders - won't work in the minds of Americans.

KKKarly Rove knew this and played it for all it was worth.

He knew our weak areas and exploited them.

The R's are carrying this tradition to the fullest extent. Americans are sooooooo fearful of a health care system that is a success around the world - but led to believe it cannot work here - we are different. WE ARE THE U.S.A. We do things our way - and that is the best way. We will not change.

Shameful. We are the losers and the lobbyists and the insurance companies will just add to their obscene profits.

[Ken Burch]

14. The polls consistently show that, actually, the majority of the American people SUPPORT single-payer

also known as "That Which Our Rulers Will Not Allow Us To Have".

You're buying into MSM spin when you repeat the statement(and I'll assume you didn't know this)that the people are against single-payer.

[treestar]

17. True. The weakness of our system is that people in less densely

populated areas get overrepresentation in the Senate, giving them disproportionate influence. This is also true of small states - and the smallest states are blue, so that offsets it somewhat. But I believe Carper from Delaware is considered a Blue Dog. All that representation for a mere 800,000 people.

Unfortunately the nature of the Senate and the effect it has. Add the filibuster and you have a few Senators able to dictate and they want to use that power. When it went to 60 and the Repubs were out, look how those Blue Dogs stood up to obstruct.

Term limits might help. If they could not be reelected at all, that incentive would go and real reforms could be put through.

[notesdev]

10. Nope

They just want to loot what they can while the looting is good. Just like the other party.

And in the midst of it all, Obama has firmly established himself as the elevator music of Presidents.

[dionysus]

12. well, let me tell you what amazes me. obviously you've got people in the senate,

not so much the house, that apparently are bought and paid for by the insurance industry.

wouldn't common sense dictate that, if they passed meaningful reform, they would be popular enough with the electorate not to need insurance co campaign money?

do they fear that real reform won't work? are they just plain dumb? i don't quite understand it myself.

[depakid]

16. Sometimes, one has to wonder