So what to do about obstructionist Dems?

[vi5]

So let's assume that as many on here posit, that Obama and Reid did the best they could with the Senate they have. That both really wanted a stronger bill with a robust public option or medicare expansion and the removal of the anti-trust exemption and so many of the other things that the progressives both on here and in the Senate and House wanted. Let's assume they and the party leadership in general really were in agreement on that, but that there really was nothing any of them could have done other than the begging and pleading and negotiating and giving up what we had to give up to get the votes of these 5 or 6 people.

That being said.....then does everyone believe that they (Obama, Reid, the DNC, etc.) should and/or will stay out of primary races to any of these Senators or congresspeople? And that if a more liberal or progressive member wins the primary will they throw money and support and everything else behind them in order to get someone who supports the agenda that we are to believe that they all support and would fight to enact, were it not for the obstructionists?

I know that you do what you can with the dems you have. And that particularly with Obama himself there is only so much control you have over these independent legislative bodies. I may not always believe it, but I'm not going to say people that have that position are entirely wrong or corporate stooges or what have you. It's something on which we can disagree with each other with respect and hopefully all agree that we need to fix the situation and make it better.

But part of that fix is electing more and better democrats. But it's frustrating to be told that is the thing to do, to donate time, to donate money, and then have this very same democratic leadership be more in favor of supporting the incumbent and keeping their own safe in their seats. I mean I know that after Lmont won the primary that yes words of support were given to him. But can anyone honestly say it was an enthusiastic effort and was as much as could have been done? Does anyone want to donate to the DNC or any democratic leadership groups only to watch them put that money towards keeping Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln in office?

Or is this pretty much all there is? That with those seats our only options are a conservative dem or a republican due to the politics and demographics? I'm willing to concede that there are places where this is the case. But then that pretty much removes the "We need to get better dems elected! Please donate time and money and support!" because then ultimately it's an admission that this is all there is. This is as good as it's going to get.

So I guess........even if we stop all the bickering and arguing over what went wrong and who among the democratic leadership bears the most (or any) responsibility I think we can all agree that the Nelsons, the Lincolns, the Baucuses, and the Liebermans (or anyone else I'm missing) are responsible for making this bill less than what we wanted it to be and less than what it could have been. So then I guess I'm asking: Do we just accept the make up as is or can we do something about it. And if there is something we can do about it.......will we get help or will this gang of 5 or 6 continue to serve a purpose for our democratic leadership.

Thoughts? Ideas? Gut feelings?

[EFerrari]

1. Can we compete with Goldman Sachs or Aetna in campaign money?

:shrug:

Until we can, they will always win these battles, imo.

[WeDidIt]

2. Concentrate on the possible

In Ohio and Florida, there is a real opportunity to pick up two more Senate seats and make them very progressive.

Target Evan Bayh for primary. Here's a chance to take a purple seat and turn it true blue.

Forget how Arlen Specter has been acting of late, take him out in the PA primary.

Look to MO for a potential pickup that could be left of center.

More than anything, concentrate on increasing the majority in the Senate, but doing so with as progressive candidates as possible, then go after those seats that are too far to the right and move them to the left.

If you end up with 63 seats in the Caucus and move at least one incumbent seat further to the left by unseating the incumbent in a primary and electing that Democrat, you'll see other blue dogs start falling in line because their power becomes incredibly diminished and threats of joining Republican lead filibusters start becoming political suicide.

Plus, Lieberman will have precisely zero power if you do this.

[katkat]

3. simple answer/mad as hell

Only vote for, donate to, and volunteer for progressives/liberals with track records.

In an election if there's just a choice between tweedledee and tweedledum vote for a progressive third party candidate if none then write in. When the third party vote gets to 10% or so, that will get their attention. Or maybe it will even result a viable third party. It's happened before.

Accepting the status quo is guaranteeing the country being trashed forever. Of course, we've all heard the you must vote for the lesser of two evils stuff, and I believed it. No longer. There's hardly a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Bush III.