Will Obama put progressives in the driver's seat after Specter & Lincoln losses?

[yurbud]

One of the few arguments for the DLC philosophy is that they can somehow win more elections by making the Democrats the corporate party without religious nuts (though they salivate at the prospect of roping in such gullible rubes instead of a base that asks too many questions).

These losses shoot that to shit.

Something else just occurred to me: Do you ever see REPUBLICANS putting their so-called moderates in the driver's seat and letting them over-rule conservative priorities? Admittedly, they are a smaller minority than our DLCers, but even when there were more of them, they were at best treated with benign neglect, but in the Newt days, they were hunted to near extinction.

Contrast that with a President and Congress who seem to be hostage to a handful of members of their own party, even though those members are clearly vulnerable politically, and if they followed through on their threats to switch to the GOP, they probably wouldn't be reelected and definitely wouldn't be treated with the deference they are by Democratic Party leaders.

Will Obama pursue more progressive policies and make more progressive appointments because of this?

[dmallind]

1. Are either Halter or Sestak progressives?

Look like moderates to me. Critz is about as right as a Dem can be too.

[Kdillard]

2. Halter is the only progressive as far as I know and you are correct about

The rest so this poll makes no sense.

[dmallind]

4. I don't think Halter is all that left to be honest. NT

[zipplewrath]

10. No, he's not

He's probably to the left of Lincoln.

Sestak probably isn't any more left than the "democratic version" of Specter. But a bit like Lieberman, god forbid what they can become after the election.

Progressives in these two cases were more about objecting to the "DLC hand pick" so to speak than any hope that they were electing another Kucinich or something.

[harun]

12. This has nothing to do with them, it has to do with the agenda.

Voters said screw you to the establishment and the Corporate sell-outs.

Dem Leadership can keep working for more Corporate funding, or for what the voters want. They CANNOT continue to have it both ways and simply claim "Look, we're not as crazy as Republicans!".

[Drunken Irishman]

26. So I hope Sestak tells the Democratic establishment he doesn't need their help in the general.

[skipos]

3. Obama supported the incumbents in the primary, and now he will support the nominees

Just like most elected Democrats did with Lieberman and Lamont.

When was the last time an incumbent democratic senator wasn't supported by a democratic president?

[zipplewrath]

7. More than supported

He went "all in" for Specter. He went way "above and beyond". The question now is, will he for Sestak?

[skipos]

15. I'd define "all in" as what Bill Clinton did for Hillary, or Lieberman for McCain

Bill Clinton wouldn't have nixed appearances for Hillary the days before the election. Obama and Biden nixed appearances. Their endorsements were pretty standard, and what I would expect they would offer to Specter for switching parties.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. That's funny, eh Skip?

It seems people have different definitions for words than I do because I wouldn't consider tepid support going all-in. In my mind, when someone goes above and beyond - as the poster suggested, it means there is nothing more they can do. They've actually maxed out their possibilities. Pres. Obama made zero campaign appearances for Specter. He might've done an advertisement, but that's about it.

Going all-in, in my mind, is what Ted Kennedy did for Obama. You know, campaigning like mad even at his age.

But whatever. :/

[vaberella]

14. Exactly. n/t

[Jennicut]

5. Obama already called Sestak to congratulate him.

I don't think there will be any issues there.

As far as Halter vs Lincoln goes, I hope he stays out and lets Dems decide.

[WI_DEM]

6. A good night for Dems means a good night for Obama since he's the leader of the party

and he was an issue in PA-12 and we won it bigger than expected. Yes, he supported the incumbents Lincoln and Specter--but he hardly went all out for them. Specter he owed for giving him a 60th vote. Now he will support the Sestak and whoever wins the Ark pirmary runoff.

[zipplewrath]

8. How much "all out" could he have gone?

He certainly did go "all out" for Specter. TV, personal appearnces, OFA, Robo calls, and I'm talking BOTH Biden AND Obama. I'm not sure how much more "all out" he could have gone.

The historical revisionism here is amazing. Folks don't want to defend what Obama does, they want to pretend it didn't happen.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[zipplewrath]

19. Got nothing huh

It's a legimate question. Considering how much support they threw his way, one wonders what the OP would consider "all out". And his entire point rested upon it.

[harun]

9. We're going to get more Rahm-ism DLC BS.

[zipplewrath]

11. You will as long as he's there

Oh, that's not what you meant. Okay.

I do wonder how many times the WH will back the wrong horse before anyone begins to notice though.

[harun]

13. They will probably start using it to beat candidates. Just support

the one they want to destroy.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Probably. That's exactly what Sestak is!

:rofl:

[dumpdabaggers]

16. Have you ever been to Arkansas? Do you really think a "progressive" can win there?

i know Halter won a statewide election but people who vote on those lower races tend to now even know who is running.

[freddie mertz]

17. No, Rahm and the DLC will continue to define his politics.

Which was the plan all along.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was

[polichick]

21. To begin, he'd have to clean out his own cabinet pretty thoroughly. nt

[Phx_Dem]

22. Hope not. n/t

[yurbud]

23. so you like your Democratic Party led by corporate owned pols?

Who only give us as much change as their corporate masters allow?

[Radical Activist]

24. Is the Senate going to start voting on progressive legislation Obama already proposed?

That seems to be the more relevant question. I don't know what you mean by asking if Obama will put progressives "in the driver's seat." I'm not happy with things that were watered down or stopped by the Senate but I'm aware of the progressive policies Obama is proposing.

[boppers]

28. Che Guevara and Abbie Hoffman would be called sellouts here.

The moving goalposts of what defines "progressives" means that Obama is a called a centrist if he eats meat, wears leather, goes to church, has children, adopts a non-shelter dog, or vaccinates his kids.

[old mark]

29. No. Policy will continue to be cautious and conservative, with nothing for the Progressives.nt

[Dr Morbius]

30. I don't figure he'll move to the left, but I suspect this might make him reconsider...

...the next time he gets pulled to the right by his cabinet.

I really, really wish he hadn't chosen to emulate Mr. Lincoln's cabinet. It was a mistake, and President Obama doesn't know it yet.

[WeDidIt]

31. Any time the "DLC" bogeyman card is played on DU

the entire post can be dismissed as a steaming pile of shit.

[salguine]

32. Are you kidding!? He'll take it as a sign the party needs to move to the right.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. Well, I'm in an obvious minority here, but

I voted that he should and he will. But only if the MORE progressive candidates win the GENERAL elections against the Republicans.

I've said all along and I continue to believe that ideologically Obama is a pragmatic centrist, with an emphasis on "pragmatic". IOW, he's not going to get out of the center unless he's FORCED out, but he IS pragmatic enough that if the left shows it can win general elections, he won't oppose a move to the left.

He'll move, but it's up to us to move him.