I'm sorry, but I don't remember Che Guevara being on the Democratic ticket in 2008. (pic heavy!!!)

[Writer]

This is Che.


This is Barack Obama.


And this is how a bill becomes a law.


If you wanted a liberal revolutionary, and not a Democratic president who is willing to navigate the above schematic in order to solve problems for the American people, then I'm not surprised you're upset. If you're upset that the schematic makes the President look weak because he's compromising to actually get bills passed within that schematic, then you need to break down the political structure and build something new. For that you need a Che.

Or you need to try one of these. En masse. And with independents. 100 times as large and 100 times as fierce.


Because as long as we breathe there will always be guys like these taking up space in Congress.


And to believe that there's a magic workaround that will enable all things liberal to get passed through Congress is like believing in one of these.


If you want great things to happen you HAVE to fight! Because a large part of the political formula is this.


And this.


Stop waiting for this.


Because real change is up to all of us!


FIGHT.

[Skidmore]

1. Well done. Sometimes people

need a few pictures with the narrative.

[EFerrari]

50. Right. And sometimes iconic images are wrenched so far out of context

that it's just embarrassing.

[Ken Burch]

85. "Be Like E!(...Ferrari, that is...)"

n/t.

[Go2Peace]

58. Now we have our own anti-intellectual brigade on DU, just like the right does

Th OP mocks liberal values to make a point. Quite interesting where some are heading...

[Skidmore]

63. I don't see a mocking of liberal values.

What I see in the OP is a much needed injection of reality and facts.

[Honeyporter735]

112. He was an ignorant self-important unbathed

MURDERER.

[SteppingRazor]

2. To quote Guevara himself:

"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves."

[Radical Activist]

105. Yes.

That's another reason I'm so irritated by the crowd who think it's Obama's job to just do it for us. They don't get it. Obama does get it.

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

[Clio the Leo]

3. CLEARLY you missed the memo....

[Writer]

4. If someone felt sincere when they put that together, then they were actively deluding themselves.

Geesh!

[Clio the Leo]

19. Nah, I think that was more about "Obama as Pop Icon"....

... than a statement on political ideology.

[closeupready]

20. LOL

:rofl:

[frazzled]

5. Clear, concise, persuasive!

You are indeed a writer, though the pictures truly help!

[rug]

6. I don't remember Wendell Willkie being on the Democratic ticket in 2008.

[Writer]

8. I don't remember Democrats being political couch potatoes, either. n/t

[rug]

9. There weren't many of them in 2008.

[Writer]

10. So there shouldn't be many now. n/t

[rug]

13. What do you suppose happened?

If you're calling for grass roots action and demonstrations, which I hope you are, do you realize those actions will be in direct opposition to many of the Administration's policies and decisions?

[David Zephyr]

82. LOL. I don't remember George Washington being on the Democratic ticket in 2008.

Or Napoleon either. Or Thomas Edison...

[Ken Burch]

86. Or Herbert Hoover

n/t.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[progressoid]

11. There are a few holes in the "how a bill becomes law" chart

Like the parts where lobbyists write and re-write the bill.

[Deep13]

12. For the most part, we were not expecting Che Guevara.

I was hoping for (but not expecting) a genuine liberal American president in the pattern of FDR or LBJ (except for the war). Instead, we get a lackluster leader who is to the right of Nixon on many issues. We voted for an end to the Iraq war, for universal (if not nationalized) health care and for an end to the most grievous of corporate privileges.

Yeah, he's better than Bush, although with double-digit unemployment 13 months after taking office some might doubt that. We prevented a bad recession from being worse than it is--though it is bad enough. And the non-war parts of our foreign policy have been returned to sanity. Kudos for those things. And of course Sotomayor is far better than the two Nazis Bush put on SCOTUS.

On the major issues, he has been ineffectual and I have to chalk that up to inexperience with Federal governance. The choice is not Che or milk toast. It is not unreasonable to have expected more from POTUS than he has delivered. Bush with a 50-50 Senate, a small House majority and the support of only 47% of voters got pretty much everything he wanted. Things like prosecuting war criminals for grievous violations of federal criminal law is not radical, but the very basis of civilized society.

[activa8tr]

15. Totally agree, This guy is NOT what I worked for and gave $ to.

I was expecting an FDR, a Kennedy, even a liberal kind of Reagan with the "voice" who could get stuff done with a mandate of popular support.

Well stated! Let's not be so "easy" on him, as he is "easy" on the Republicans who obstruct the wishes of the voters.

[jefferson_dem]

32. "This guy is NOT what I worked for and gave $ to."

I believe that.

[depakid]

37. Unfortunately, what tends to be learned the hard way is that there are tens of millions like him

Clinton & the Dems found that out in 1994 and the Gore campaign had similar realization in 2000.

[Go2Peace]

59. and comments like that just alienate. Do you really think it is helping matters this way?

Do you really think that you are going to get people to understand things like you feel it this way? I mean this seriously. What is the strategy here that is so superior?

I believe he/she could have worked for Obama and spent money on his campaign. Obama had the largest war-chest of "regular guy" funds of any candidate. Most on this site certainly supported him financially.

When I watch what is going on here it feels more like "scorched earth" than anything resembling what some here want to think is going on. And that is not just those who are frustrated, it is coming from those spending their days and nights in GD Presidential.

You realize that if we were to meet and chat in a restaurant away from DU we likely would be more alike that most people out there. You do don't you?

[activa8tr]

61. Your insults are duly noted. and here is my reply

I worked from the day he opened his campaign in Illinois, I gave hundreds of hours and my retirement dollars, NOT for someone who caves to the big banks, insurance companies, and pharma, and wastes a whole year playing footsie with Republicans, while people needed single payer health care, or a public option, or meaningful reform on so many issues a year ago.

If you are happy with the "progressive" message on domestic issues coming out of the White House in the last year, I hope you will be happy with the next Republican President, too. They are about the same, "don't rock the boat for the fat cats".

[4lbs]

18. There's a reason for that.

"Bush with a 50-50 Senate, a small House majority and the support of only 47% of voters got pretty much everything he wanted."


That's because the GOP Congressmen are very good at falling in line like good little soldiers, and marching and voting in lockstep with each other.

Democrats in Congress are actually split into two subgroups, Progressive Democrats, which we here would call "true" liberals, and the Moderate/Conservative Democrats, which are also called "Centrist" or "Blue Dog" Democrats.

So, if you really think about it, there are 3 main groups in Congress: The GOP, the Centrist/Blue-Dog Democrats, and the Progressive Democrats.

The GOP is 40% of Congress. The Centrist/Blue-Dogs are about 25% of Congress. The Progressive/Liberal Democrats are about 33% of Congress. Then the remaining 2% is the Independents.

The Centrist Democrats like some of the Progressive policies, but like the GOP, tend to worry about the impact on the federal budget and deficit, as well as taxes. They won't be too keen to passing those policies unless there is a defined way to pay for them without adding much to the deficit or the tax burden.

What's that tell you? Ideologically speaking, it will be much more difficult to get Progressive policies passed than it will right-wing policies.

Until Progressives become a true 51% of both Houses, it will stay that way.

LBJ and FDR had those 51% majorities that were Progressive. Even then, they still had some trouble getting Progressive policies passed because Southern Democrats (what the Centrist/Blue-Dogs were back then) filibustered!

The Southern Democrats in FDR's time threatened to filibuster Social Security if it covered minorities, and non-married women. So, a compromise was reached that excluded half the country from being eligible for Social Security at the beginning.

The Southern Democrats filibustered Civil Rights in LBJ's time, until a tragedy occurred that forced them to withdraw their objections. Even then, it still took about 4 years from the time that JFK/LBJ promised Civil Rights legislation during their 1960 campaign until when it finally happened.

Then LBJ and MediCare. That was a big fight as well.

[jonnyblitz]

24. I expected exactly what we got and I will leave it at that. nt

[TheWraith]

14. Kicked and recommended.

It's said that politics is the slow cutting of hard boards. People around here act like if they don't have a lightsaber to cut with, it's not worth it.

[Whisp]

16. yay! good work! hahahah!

[Mojambo]

17. All I ask is that the campaign rhetoric matches the path pursued once in office

People can judge whether that has been the case with this president or not.

In some respects it has (escalation in Afghanistan)

In a lot of respects it hasn't (health care, privacy rights/patriot act)

[andym]

21. Very amusing and apropos.

I would still want more liberal political action NOW, but we must work with what we have.

[Cha]

22. Brilliant Writer!

Thank you.

[DevonRex]

23. Absolutely brilliant! Spot ON analysis. Huge K&R nt

[Bobbie Jo]

25. Love this.

K&R :kick:

[yurbud]

26. I voted for someone who wouldn't ask for Republicans advice and consent before he did anything

especially when there are ways to work around them.

[boppers]

103. You voted for who, exactly?

I don't recall someone running who said they would dictatorially rule without Congress, was that some candidate that wasn't on the ballot, or some election outside of the US?

[yurbud]

27. If the DLC keeps up with this unicorn shit, they won't be able to collect enough corporate money...

to make up for the actual voters they alienate.

I don't expect Obama to be Che, but if Democrats don't get a little more radical, they might have real revolutionaries to deal with.

[yurbud]

28. the last word of your post (FIGHT) contradicts all that came before. Obama is not fighting, he's

pre-emptively surrendering on too many issues.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. I was just looking for the guy who campaigned --

- ya know, the one against mandates and for a public option, for the reimportation of drugs, for sunshine and not secret deals with Pharma, that guy. :shrug:

[yurbud]

30. How did Republicans get anything done without a unicorn? oh yeah, corrupt DLC Democrats

who are the same ones who blocked progressive policies and killed the Democratic supermajority in the crib.

[amborin]

31. i voted for someone I thought wouldn't endorse union busting or harm the middle class

[jefferson_dem]

33. Indeed!

Great work, and so true.

[Sky Masterson]

34. I love you!

:) :applause: :pals: Awesome thread!

[David Zephyr]

35. There was no need to mock Che who was murdered by the United States.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest that Che, who was not an American and who, last time I checked was dead, was on the ballot for President.

Why the need to try to diminish someone who gave his entire life in struggle for truly oppressed people in order to bolster an American politician?

Are you aware that the CIA woke Lyndon Johnson to tell him that "we" had killed Che in Bolivia?

I know you meant well, but seriously, you could have made your point a million other ways without mocking Che.

[harun]

41. I don't feel he was mocked.

[EFerrari]

47. Of course he was. This doctor that was assassinated after his hand were cut off.

Posters who actually expected Obama to stop torture, end the war in Iraq, lead on heath care, lead on equal rights, lead on green solutions and climate change and the whole laundry list of no delivery are now being red baited as if it's somehow unreasonable to expect a president to keep his word, or at the very least, not to insult us via his chief of staff while he doesn't lead at all.

I know, I know, IT WAS ONLY ONE SONG!

Che Guevara did what he had to do. But on the whole, he fought with his own body for the people. He didn't put up charts on the internet. And that is why HE is honored all over the world. He came from a privileged family and he could have just skated. But, he didn't. And he paid for it first with his hands and then with his life.

And anyone that doesn't lay that out clearly is either willfully ignorant or lying to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SynVFM_6ezk

[Kaleva]

51. Che's preference for confrontation over compromise lead to his death.

It coan be argued that the more pragmatic Castro was able to accomplish for the people much more then Che.

[EFerrari]

52. And that's JUST the kind of rationalization that adds pique to DU.

:)

[Ken Burch]

87. Nobody on the Cuban right was ever WILLING to compromise.

None of those people who ended up in Miami were going to settle for anything short of continuing to have total power. None believed in democracy and none in a decent life for the poor. And the U.S. never cared about democracy in Cuba until AFTER the Revolution.

[David Zephyr]

67. Word!

!

[era veteran]

55. He was a murdering thug killed by the Bolivians

He also enjoyed executing prisoners. He surely oppressed those people.

[harun]

64. Can't get omelets without breaking some eggs.

[David Zephyr]

66. Then, by your standard, so were the Founding Fathers of this nation.

He didn't "enjoy" executing prisoners. I am an authority on Che. Ask some of the DU'ers who have been to my home and seen my library.

[era veteran]

74. La Cabana Prison

He was a sadist. Which one of our founding fathers held drum head court- martial and then executed prisoners with zeal?

[David Zephyr]

95. George Washington executed poor American farm boys as "an example" to others.

You are really quite ignorant.

Our founding fathers were just as murderous, if not more, than Che ever was.

Why are you at a left wing internet forum anyway with such reactionary views?

[era veteran]

98. Which founding father? I am waiting.

Not reactionary views, the truth. It is surely not up to you where I post. We probably will not come to an agreement. I am glad that his ruthless brand of communism died with him in '67. I have been in a communist country have you? A death of spirit prevailed. Good Day

[David Zephyr]

99. George Washington. I already told you. And he's just one.

And are you aware that Washington was a SLAVE HOLDER when it was considered reprehensible by anyone with any decent mind at the time? It wasn't "vogue" to own and punish and whip slaves almost to their deaths, but there's the father of our country. And yes, he shot poor American farm kids with his own pistol on a rather regular basis to make the example that he was in charge.

And yes, I've been in "communist countries" including East Germany and Cuba.

You need to read up and find out why the Soviet Union forced Fidel Castro to leave Cuba and how they then left him to die in Bolivia.

Che is one of the greatest men of the 20th Century.

[era veteran]

100. Washington hung deserters, Che killed prisoners

East Germany, the grey, sad country sucked. When I get my Panamanian dual citizenship I might pop down to Cuba. The Soviets forced out Fidel? Must be an interesting library you have. Washington never shot a prisoner with his pistol.

[David Zephyr]

101. Washington put bullets through the faces of his own troops.

The Soviets forced Che out of Cuba (typo, my error) right after he spoke out against the Soviets publicly. Che returned to Havana only to be met by Fidel at the airport and days later he was gone.

[era veteran]

104. Substantiate these allegations on Washington

I call complete bullshit. No loyalty among ' revolutionaries' with the Bolsheviks. I am leaving this old argument about Che. After all it was over 40 years ago.

[Flaneur]

69. He was a revolutionary hero, and is admired all over the planet.

Except in certain reactionary precincts.

[proteus_lives]

71. Why would anyone admire a Stalinist?

Sick.

[era veteran]

75. I am anything but reactionary

He became what he professed to hate.

[David Zephyr]

83. He did not.

.

[Ken Burch]

88. He probably had to execute the leaders of Batista's military

After all, if they'd been left alive, we can assume they'd have done unto Fidel as the Guatemalan army did unto the democratic Arbenz government in 1954(only five years before the Cuban Revolution). That military coup(which informed all the choices Fidel and Che made)ended up killing 100,000 Guatemalans.

We all know the Miami exiles would've matched that body count if they'd ever taken power again. None of them had positive reasons for wanting to end the Revolution.

[era veteran]

97. So you agree,he was a murdering thug who killed on as assumption

Cheney assumed Iraq had WMD. Too bad for the cadre in Batista's Army. He murdered down in the ranks. I am sorry but we are NOT fellow travelers on this subject.

[proteus_lives]

68. Che was a Stalinist murderer who got what he deserved.

[David Zephyr]

72. Apparently ignorance thrives and has a keyboard.

Do you have any idea why Che was in Bolivia? I doubt it.

Now go google and come back and pretend you actually know something on the subject, which you clearly do not.

[proteus_lives]

77. Sorry I disrupted your fanboyism.

I know what Che failed to do in Bolivia. He didn't get the chance to organize show-trials and dispense "revolutionary justice". We all know how much he loved that.

Seriously, idolizing a Stalinist? Silly.

[David Zephyr]

79. Ignorance with a keyboard.

You obviously don't "know" what Che did or did not do in Bolivia and how and why he was there. Did you Googling fail. Try some books. They are great for helping lazy minds.

Are you remotely aware in your vapid conceit that Che challenged what you would call Stalinistic Communism which is precisely WHY he wound up in Bolivia.

Try reading, less googling. Try self-reflection and less bumpersticker, imperialistic banter.

I tell you this for you own good.

Your shallowness shows.

[proteus_lives]

91. And your bias shows.

I know many people are in love with the many failures of Che Quixote but not this DUer.

Prison camps, prisoner execution. The man was a watchdog of an ideology that was failing in his day.

Don't buy into cults of personality.

Sorry I don't agree with with "expert" opinion.

[JVS]

36. Do you remember mandates? How about a public option?

[Bjorn Against]

38. You are right, we absolutely should take to the streets and protest Obama's policies

If he is going to be pushing mandatory private insurance with no public option you are damn right I am going to be marching in the streets.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

40. Too bad that Obama guy didn't win.

You know, the one who we voted for.

[Enrique]

42. suppose the 'fight' turns out to be against Obama

will you back us up, or will you mock us for being "firebaggers" or whatever?

Or when you say "fight", you mean fight for what Obama is fighting for? If you want me to fight for Blanche Lincoln, forget it.

[Writer]

43. Think about it like this...

The harder you fight, the more political impetus will exist that will allow Obama to go further left. It's not just a bill that you're fighting for, but it is also a push against current American political culture and Congress.

[Enrique]

44. suppose the fight is directly against Obama?

Raul Grijalva is talking about voting against the health reform bill because of the GOP measures that were added. Do you respect that, or do you agree with the people that are mocking Grijalva for doing that?

Do you respect opposing Obama on principle, or do you consider that pony-wishing?

[Writer]

49. I think the point is that you fight for the world that you want to see.

And if that happens to oppose what is currently on the table in Congress, and what Obama is pressing for, then why NOT fight?

But there are many who DO support the effort of reforming health care, and even what Obama is pressing for, and I think it's worthy that those people pick up some signs and go protest.

[EFerrari]

45. Well you got one thing right. Obama is NOT Che.

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

46. Bravo!

I love a well done smackdown!

:toast:

[EFerrari]

48. Aim low.

[spoony]

53. I guess the unicorn is the new pony?

A new empty symbol to endlessly flail in the parrying hands of the message disciplinarians.

[EFerrari]

54. I think this is the most fatuous post I've ever seen on DU.

And I've been here since 2004.

Unbelievable.

[Go2Peace]

60. I wonder why the mods did not shut it down?

It certainly fit "trolling" and inflamitory?

[Jax]

92. k&r

I ask the same.

and I expect no answers.

been here since day one.


dUnderground and all.

Alyce

[QC]

65. Fatuity is the new wit. n/t

[David Zephyr]

81. The ignorance here is breathtaking.

Fatuity is the new wit. Tell me about it. This thread is a revelation.

[QC]

94. Even more revealing than the thread itself

is the fact that it's still not been locked.

So much for that new era of civility we keep hearing about.

[David Zephyr]

96. Noted.

And, you are correct. This thread is reactionary to the core and surprises me that Obama's supporters have sunk this low in justifying his corporatism.

[QC]

102. Oh well, defending the indefensible's not easy,

so one must use whatever weapon comes to hand.

[demmiblue]

78. Sometimes...

you have to consider the source. Some people are so very fragile that they need to lash out in a way that builds them up.

It is typical bully mentality (passive-aggressive, or otherwise). I feel shitty about myself, therefore,

I will try to make others feel shitty. Rest assured, this isn't about politics. It is personal. And that is sad.

[David Zephyr]

80. Well said.

.

[Prism]

56. People are officially becoming Republicans to defend this President

Which is precisely what this is. People yearning for true health care reform, stronger teacher support, equality, and an end to Wall Street's reign of economic terror over the average citizen is now on par, in your mind, with a murderous leftist revolutionary.

This kind of framing is exactly what the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity types have been putting forward about liberal Democratic policies for years. Even the most moderate requests are painted as radical demands, out of the mainstream, anathema to American values.

It illuminates so well the problem with this president. In order to defend him, his most loyal supporters increasingly find themselves dipping into Republican attitudes, rhetoric, and smears. This thread is but one example of hundreds on this board where the Republican frame, Republican policy, and Republican rhetoric are deployed to prop up an ostensibly Democratic president.

Do you like what you've become?

[Go2Peace]

57. You have to realize that DU has become a battleground for some

For them DU is about enforcing uniformity and dominating with talking points. They see this as a machievellian battleground.

Trouble is, it is at odds with a "forum".

But I agree with your statement, this place is becomming quite authoritarian and bullying.

Funny thing is, I don't think they can "win" here. They probably can win in general society as it gets more and more fundamentalistic thinking. But on a public board they are kind of flailing at the wind.

[BuelahWitch]

70. +1

[Hell Hath No Fury]

73. Startling, isn' it?

It's like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" around here sometimes. :scared: There is someone with a RFK avatar defending the DLC! Bobby Fuckin' Kennedy! :crazy:

[Radical Activist]

107. Horrible response.

The post doesn't ask people to compromise their values or goals. In fact, it calls for people to fight for them more aggressively.
The reality is that we have a government based on compromise. The fact that Obama compromises to get something he's vigorously fighting for passed means he's operating with the limits of the US form of government. Equating that with betrayal and blaming it entirely on Obama shows the mentality of a spoiled child who failed Constitution 101 class.

I don't believe the conditions exist in the US for a Cuban style revolution. Given that fact, we're left with the limits of the political process at it now exists. Accepting that reality is NOT a Republican argument.

[boston bean]

62. What is this the post by picture forum

what a lazy ass way to try and make a point.

I see it more and more and more, especially in one particular forum, from multiple posters.

Grow up, this aint kindergarten.

And you call yourself "Writer"...

[WeekendWarrior]

109. I'm sorry, but your response is just the pinnacle of douchebaggery

The point was well made. And the photos made it beautifully and creatively.

Sorry you didn't think of it first?

[hulka38]

76. You left out the health insurance executives, pharma execs, big bank CEOs, 12,000 lobbyists,

"defense" contractors and the promise of a lot of




in your schematic on how DC works.

[Ken Burch]

84. Why are you assuming

That those who are dissatisfied with the administration AREN'T fighting? Where the hell do you get the idea that we AREN'T fighting?

The fight is going on everyday.

You can't assume it isn't happening just because the MSM doesn't choose to cover it.

If you wanted to encourage people to fight, that's all well and good.

But you could easily have done that without using half your OP to dis the people who ARE fighting.

You're bashing people here who don't deserve to be bashed.

[Ken Burch]

89. Is this the point at which I should say

that that is the SILLIEST picture of Che Guevara I've ever seen?

It's like Che...as he'd be played in a Monty Python film.

[demmiblue]

90. And you wonder why... lol!

edit: why

[ima_sinnic]

93. no, I was stupid and gullible enough to believe in "Yes We Can"

I was lied to.

[Radical Activist]

106. We had a candidate who promised to let us sit back while she handed us everything on a platter.

Hillary promised to hand things to us with her superior experience and skill. She offered the LBJ top-down model. People rejected that. They opted for the candidate who honestly told us, from day one, that WE were going to have to fight for change.

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

Apparently what some people heard was something like "I'm going to give you everything you want on day one and if I don't then you should give up quickly, sit back and complain about me betraying you."

Che wasn't on the ballot but we've never had a Democratic nominee who echoed so many of the same themes and ideals as Che did. Yeah, I know, "how dare I" blah blah blah. I know a lot of people on the left will never believe that any Democratic nominee can ever be anything but a worthless corporate tool and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.

It surprises me that so few people get where Obama is coming from, the Alinsky community organizing tradition. He knows that you have to accept the people where they are and help them take the next step forward. I don't believe he sees compromise as a sell-out failure. It's a step forward and the next day we'll keep working for the next step after that.

It's sad that the right wing nuts who think associating Obama with Alinsky is an insult understand this reality better than the left does.

[WeekendWarrior]

108. Amen. nt.

[vaberella]

110. There was a Unicorn. n/t

[warm regards]

111. Exactly...Che Guevara was a loser who wound up on the wrong side of a gun and

Barack Obama is a winner.