Straight Story's rant is exactly why this election may be my last tango with the Democratic party.

[Skidmore]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2541941

Read his rant. It is exactly what some of us have been talking about for some time, and have endured the derision of whom I'm not certain on these boards who seem to think that corruption and excuses pass for policy and action. I will tell you that I have been a Democrat since I was old enough to vote, as were my parents and grandparents. I've seen so many excuses made in particularly the past 4 years for mealy mouthed platitudes and convoluted rationalizations for our elected officials supporting this corrupt regime that I want to vomit. I will not support a corrupt party. Now you may gnash your teeth and beat your chest about how we must all be loyal or the universe will fall apart. Well, the universe has been falling apart for sometime now, and blind loyalty isn't accomplishing much. I'm disgusted with so much. I will support any candidate we put forward except for Hillary, who is the candidate of the status quo. I will not countenance the shit eating grins and shell games of the congressional leadership any longer. Straight Story and others like him can see the truth--all the rationalizations in the world cannot bely the truth staring you in the face.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Changes start at the grassroots and getting rid of ALL incumbents. All of them. No exceptions.

[TahitiNut]

2. All I see is astroturf.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. A particularly apt analysis.

:toast: :applause:

[Buzz Clik]

31. Well, my dear friend, we need to find some real grass roots.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Le Taz Hot]

49. Cool site.

To register to run for Congress in CA: $1,652.00 Well, THAT was discouraging.

[rhett o rick]

72. I also thought it was an interesting site. Why was it deleted?? nm

[rhett o rick]

15. How? The Democratic Party will fight you every step of the way.

My question is legitimate. I am asking everyone, how do we dump an incumbent in our own party. Best answer I have gotten is to vote republican and then hope the Democratic party will listen when you help them decide on the next candidate.

[brentspeak]

20. When you say "best answer", I assume you're being sarcastic

[rhett o rick]

24. I wish as you that I was, but no. I have yet to get anyone to advise how to

replace a Democratic incumbent in the primaries. I have read at least two posters stating, probably sarcastically, that it may be necessary to vote them out in the general. They, as I, do not suggest that, but use it to emphasize the frustration in having a system in which you really don't have a say. We came close with Lieberman, but a number of top Democratic Senators turned their back on the grass roots Democrats of CT and the country and supported Lieberman, an Independent, over the Democrat, Lamont. Sen Feinstein is a DINO but will be supported every inch of the way by the Democratic machine.

[harmonicon]

27. vote them out? It worked against Lieberman

sure, he still ran and won, but now it's clear that he's no Democrat. I'd be happiest to not have him in the senate, but I'm happier to have him be there as a non-Democrat than as a Dem.

[rhett o rick]

30. You consider what happened with Lieberman as a success?

I don't. It proved my point. Even though the grass roots Democrats voted against him, he succeeded. The Democratic Party machine choose Lieberman over the people's choice, Lamont.

[harmonicon]

32. a mixed success

What should happen now is running strong candidates against those Dems who supported Lieberman over Lamont in the election. Maybe the incumbents will win, but it will help clear them out of the party. I do think it's nice to have a sort of "big tent" party, but we're better off without Lieberman or his supporters in it, don't you think?

[rhett o rick]

41. It sounds so democratic to say that we will run candidate against those that supported

Lieberman. But it is not possible. I wish it were. But how do you get some one to run against an incumbent??? Lamont was an exception because he had his own money and could buck the Democratic machine. But even he didn't prevail.

When will people understand that saying that we will vote out someone is total rhetoric. You can't. I haven't found anyone that has any suggestion how to do this. But it sounds so democratic. We will just vote them out. You can't. Please be aware that our system as it stands today will not let you.

[harmonicon]

54. but we can, and they did!!

Lamont won!! Yes, he's an exception, but there could be more exceptions like this. Sure, Lieberman won the vote that mattered for the senate, but that was with nearly all of the republican vote, which he'd been getting a lot of before anyway. Do you really think we'd be in a better position now if Lamont hadn't beaten Lieberman in the primary and he'd been able to run and serve as a Democrat? We're better with him out of the party, plain and simple. It can be done.

[rhett o rick]

63. Lieberman in the Senate is terrible every way you look at it. For some reason that still

escapes me, many top Democrats favored him over his true Democrat challenger. The Lieberman case is a great example oh how our system is messed up. The Democrats grass roots in CT wanted Lamont in the Senate and the Democratic organization didn't. The grass roots lost. Lamont isn't in the Senate and Harry Reid is always saying his hands are tied because of it.

[harmonicon]

69. but Lieberman ISN'T a Democrat anymore - that's a victory for the party

By kicking the bad elements from the party, we're making it stronger. I've said it time and again, but I'll repeat it here: we're better off with a strong and principled party that may be small for awhile and can grow than with a large party that's continually being watered down by compromise. Trying to compromise lost elections time and again, with the exception of 2006, but the compromisers (really, republican enablers) have made that victory meaningless. We'd be better as a strong opposition party than a panty-wasted majority.

[rhett o rick]

81. So you don't think there is a Clinton/Lieberman ticket in the making?

I would like to discuss this more but no in here. I will send you a pm.

[harmonicon]

83. God I hope not - you know, I hadn't even considered that.... beyond my worst nightmares

[rhett o rick]

87. Sorry to give you nightmares. I hope it never comes to that but I believe

it is a good possibility.

I like you cat pict. Looks like my cat.

[harmonicon]

88. it's not my cat pic (got it from here), but it looks like my old cat (best friend) too n/t

[Buzz Clik]

34. Lieberman got the message loud and clear.

He dumped all pretenses of loyalty to the Democratic Party, and now he has no party.

We need to keep doing this over and over again.

[rhett o rick]

42. Are you kidding. Lieberman is in the driver's seat. Both parties are kissing his ass

He loved the way it turned out. He may well be a vice president candidate on either John McCain or Hillary Clinton's tickets.

[MsMagnificent]

74. Not for long

[rhett o rick]

82. Plez don't leave me in suspenders. What are you predicting magnificent ms?? nm

[MsMagnificent]

89. What I think will happen

is that both parties will not be kissing LIEberman's ass for long.
People are sick to death of Republicans and their actions, and it's going to be a rare person who still will think LIEberman is any kind of "Democrat".

God willing, knock-on-wood, etc.
after the next election ole Joe is going to be very lonely, and to try to 'get along' (especially with a true majority) will start softening his stances --even to revising his history.

Thank God/dess for videotape and transcripts!

Further, I believe this is his last stint in the Senate. Unless he just switches outright to the Republican party, but I don't think that will help him much either. Since his last win he has definitely shown his true colors.
Even if he doesn't switch to that horrendous party, how much and how long can the pooh-bah's of the Connecticut Republican party ignore their own prospective politicians to support Joe Blow?

All MHO of course.
But I'm usually right when it comes to politics.

My own personal life? Shoot, I couldn't make the right decision if my life depended on it... but in politics I tend to have a pretty good accuracy.

Ah well, only time will tell.

[Skidmore]

66. Yup, yup,and yup again.

[Buzz Clik]

33. Voting Republican is not the answer. Third party is not the deal either unless...

... we make absolutely no headway with the Dems.

Quite seriously, unless and until we start dumping incumbents at the primary level, we stand no chance.

[rhett o rick]

43. I know everyone is tired of me saying this but tell me how do we dump

an incumbent? I haven't found a way. They are golden and they know it.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. They did it in Virginia

with Webb replacing Allen. OK, it took a major blunder on Allen's part but that race wasn't even going to be close and all of a sudden, things turn around.

[rhett o rick]

62. My fault. I meant in the primaries. It is easy to dump a republican, we proved that in 06

but our bigger challenge is to dump incumbent DINO's. Now that's impossible. I didn't make that clear in my response because I think people are tired of hearing me go on and on about it. But it is a huge road block, not being able to dump incumbents in our own party.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. I'm going to PM you

as my response would get deleted.

[rhett o rick]

68. Please be gentle. nm

[MsMagnificent]

75. Put in a REAL Democrat against the incumbent

Having recently moved to PA, one of my incumbent Democratic candidates is Casey. Geez Louise.

Put a REAL Democrat in against him -- and everyone like him.
It's the right time. It'll work.
LIEberman was ensconced, and the 'pubes completely neglected their own candidate and put everything behind LIEberman.

Do you think they'll be able to do that with every challenger?

Especially with their recent poor fund raising?


We must take our party back. The majority are sick of Republicans, and that includes Republican-Lite.


I can tell you right now -- I will not vote for Casey.
Nor a Republican. Ever.

If I don't vote that race, well then I just don't vote it. It won't do much, admittedly;
but at least it won't help elect someone gain a seat who holds absolutely none of my --or my party's-- true values.

The hell if someone has a "D" after their name -- one can say they're anything at all, it's their actions that truly define them. Those are blind, ignorant, Repuke tactics, to support anyone at all if they have the desired letter after their name; and I won't play that game.


Just MHO.

[Skidmore]

76. Thank you. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

This election I will caucus for my candidate of choice. If Hillary--who is not progressive--is the candidate for the general election, I will write my original choice in on the ballot.

[rhett o rick]

86. I absolutely agree with what you said but ..............

It sounds easier than it is. I know I sound like i am being a wet blanket on your parade but, running a true Democrat against an Democratic incumbent appears to be impossible. I think that is why Cindy Sheehan won't run as a Democrat. The Democratic party organizations will not give any support to a challenger over an incumbent. If you can find a case, I would love to know about it. In my state some of us were so happy that Sen Cantwell, a Iraq War supporter, had a anti-war challenger in the primary race in 2004. Even though he was only polling about 10% (don't hold me to the accuracy) it was embarrassing Cantwell. Magically the challenger dropped out of the race and joined Cantwell's staff. What a system.

To get a good Democrat to challenge a Democratic incumbent you would have to buck the Democratic party organization, which means the challenger would be cutting their political throat to go against the party. Also, you would find it nearly impossible to get large large contributors as they prefer to give to incumbents.

I know this sounds negative but I feel that this problem isn't sufficiently acknowledged, and can't be fixed until it is.

[MsMagnificent]

90. Sounds easier than it is?

ABSOLUTELY!! LOL

No wet blanket -- just realistic. Yours are extremely valid concerns.

But I don't think impossible.
The problem is educating the populace as to how real their "Democratic" representative is; and with the "liberal media" :puke: one can be sure that, at least in newsprint and television, this information will be sparse.
But if we keep at it long enough, finally they must pay attention: Witness wexlerwantshearings.com

Sure, it took years; and the story is still far from over, or successful... but it IS working.

Thank God/dess for the Internets Tubes! :D


I feel terrible for Cindy Sheehan. I have sympathy for her, and empathy. I admire her, I can understand why she dumped the Democratic Party, given their treatment of her
...but I still feel it's more efficacious to change from within rather than without, but she took all she could, sadly.

Our party is so splintered within itself it is much more than disheartening but we must try. There is a huge gap between the "leaders" and the actual grassroots, which in the long run bodes badly for said leaders. The grassroots battling these corporate-beholden, ensconced traitors (yes, strong but deserved word) is the only answer, or our party is lost -- lost to us and lost to the good of all (non-wealthy) U.S. citizens -- indeed lost to all humanity.
To me, the first step is getting rid of the DLC -- but as for how to effect that, 'tis far beyond my ken.

Hey, miracles happen!


Still, one step at a time is all we can do... and not give up!


***slight edit, grammar, which still sux :/

[EstimatedProphet]

3. How is what he wrote the fault of the Democratic party?

[Enrique]

5. rants are overrated

imo, more truth lies in what you call mealy-mouthed platitudes and rationalizations than in "excellent rants."

"Excellent rants" are very difficult to evaluate critically, the more excellent the harder it is, and therefore can contain any number of untruths.

Mealy-mouthed rationalizations are highly structured with all of the reasoning spelled out clearly so that the reader can think about it and decide how much they believe it.

Mealy-mouthed rationalizations also acknowledge the complexities and uncertainties of the issue at hand. This is what makes them mealy-mouthed, in contrast to excellent rants which declare the Obvious Truth in extremely simple terms, which is what makes them excellent.

[Skidmore]

8. Mealy-mouthed rationalizations are parsed excuses for why someone

caved to a lobbyist or did not vote to support legislation that would protect the constitution or voted to support something untenable. Can we talk IWR, the Patriot Act, any number of judicial confirmations, the credit card legislation, etc., etc., etc.

[Enrique]

10. yes, they are often explanations of something controversial

and the audience is free to accept or reject the explanation.

The more honest someone is, imo, the more respectful their explanation is toward their audience, and so the more reasoned and qualified their explanation is. They often acknowledge that the other side has merits, and that the decision they have come to was difficult to come to, and only after some thought and study. i.e. they are mealy-mouthed.

The more demagogic someone is, the more they appeal to emotion over reason, and the more they claim to own the One Truth, and heap scorn on anyone who might disagree. They rarely explain how they came into possession of that truth. These rants are sometimes very popular with people who just want to be angry and don't want to think too much, and want to know with certainty that they are RIGHT, without any of those annoying doubts.

[Joe Fields]

14. And many rants are the product of many years of hard work going

down the tubes. Many times rants are the product of placing your faith in people who are supposed to represent your interests, only to find out the hard way that you've been conned. If emotion shows, as a result of years of accumulated hope, followed by exasperation, and the chilling reality that there is no one going to bat for you, does that make the rant any less honest?

I think not. There is a groundswell of disappointment and frustration here and it is wholly justified. After spending too many years being whipsawed by an illegitimate president, much of America cheered the '06 elections. We just knew that things would change for the better. We know now that they didn't and they won't, as long as certain leaders remain in power, and behave as though they are beholden to the same corporate interests that this criminal administration serves.

You seem too hung up on the proprieties and niceties of communication, and not so much in the message being conveyed, or the motivation behind the message itself.

And to the OP: I know exactly how you feel. I just don't know what to say to you. I'm still trying to decide what to do myself.

[Swamp Rat]

16. yep

:hi:

[WillyT]

39. Double Yep !!!

:evilfrown:

[The Straight Story]

37. "a groundswell of disappointment and frustration here and it is wholly justified"

Pretty well nails it

[The Straight Story]

40. And that fits what I said How?

"The more demagogic someone is, the more they appeal to emotion over reason, and the more they claim to own the One Truth, and heap scorn on anyone who might disagree."

I claim nothing of the sort. Was just ranting about my own personal situation.

"These rants are sometimes very popular with people who just want to be angry and don't want to think too much, and want to know with certainty that they are RIGHT, without any of those annoying doubts."

I am angry, and I have thought a lot about it :) and I am not sure what 'doubts' you are referring to.

One could say what you posted was a rant ya know ;) but I respect and understand what you are trying to say, though I personally think it could have been said in a better manner.

I am angry, and with good reason. Not just for me mind you. But I can only speak of my own experiences in relation to the topic at hand and how they affect me (and thus, in some ways, project that out to what others are going through and allow them to relate).

We have a HUGE problem in this country, and it is one I marvel that we cannot overcome - when we have overcome so many larger ones.

[Enrique]

51. it fits the OP more than it does your own post

in fact it does not fit your post at all.

Imo the OP changes your post radically. First, as you say, you did not claim to own the One Truth. But you'll notice that the OP does claim that on your behalf.

Second, and more to my point, your post is not an attack on the democratic party. I don't know how you feel about the democratic party, but your post is not an attack on them. The OP of this thread is nothing but an attack on the democratic party.

That makes all the difference in the world, imo.

I'm angry too, but I'm aware that there are people that are trying to exploit my anger, which I resent.

[EFerrari]

12. Some times rationalizations are just rationalizations. n/t

[Enrique]

13. that's true

[rhett o rick]

25. Remember, rationalization is the key to happyness. nm

[Quantess]

47. Curious,

is that from the smoking head of Bob Dobbs?

[rhett o rick]

64. I'd like to know that myself. I got it from my friend. Maybe I should look it up. nm

[rhett o rick]

67. Per the Internets, I am given credit for the quote, but only because of my unique

spelling of "happyness". Best I could find with correct spelling was "Reading Seneca" by Brad Inwood, Chapt 9: "Reason, Rationalization and Happiness".

I am providing this information for free and guarantee it being worth every cent.

NFGU

[bobbolink]

17. Rants are NOT leading this country right off the cliff.

Amazing that someone can criticize the heartfelt anguish of a patriot who loves this country, while defending those who stand with the corporate billions that are ruining this country.

Think. It only hurts for a little while.


ps... you might want to reread my sig line. It pertains.

[OzarkDem]

38. Your doctor disagrees

There's plenty of empirical and scientific evidence to back it up

Go to PubMed and search

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

5,518 articles and studies about why being uninsured is bad news for your health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

572 studies about how low income affects survival of illness

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

194 studies regarding health care disparities and disease

Read up and get back to me later.

[elifino]

6. Vent from AJC

Politicans and diapers both need to be changed often and for the same reasons

[shireen]

9. that was a damned good rant by straight story nt

[lateo]

11. I am with you.

This is my last election cycle as a Democrat if any member or ex member of the DLC gets the nod for the presidential election. I want a real progressive candidate, someone who will take care of the people who voted for them. The corporate whore Democrats and their supporters can go fuck themselves.

[bobbolink]

21. All those people panting for Al Gore would be really ticked with you...

:evilgrin:

[bobbolink]

18. Right after the elections of '04, there was a very thoughtful DUer who

posted, quite eloquently, about the schism between the DLCers and the progressives (or liberals or leftists or whatchamacallits), trying to get people to recognize the divide happening in the party, and to talk coherently about where to go from there.

He was roundly criticised and left DU.

Now, here we are.

[brentspeak]

19. Hold on. Where did you get the idea that Straight Story's was an anti-DEMOCRATIC PARTY rant?

You're misrepresenting his OP to mean something that it doesn't.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Correct. Anger is the Democratic Party's greatest weapon. It mobilizes our voters the way that fear

mobilizes Republicans.

Now, show me a post in which the author preaches apathy, despair, Hillary is the same as Bush is the same as Gore and then I will show you an anti-Democratic thread.

Any self respecting rant is Democratic all the way. Vote Pelosi Out of Office in Her Next Primary is about as Democratic as you can get. It is a message that reaffirms that the Democratic Party belongs to its members.

:dem:

[Yuugal]

22. K&R nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. In my view, there is a GREAT war in the making, something akin to the forefathers' war against,...

,...economic tyranny. Those with all the money and resources tyrannize all else, human and earth alike.

That war against the "haves" has been battlin' for centuries before and are doing so to this very day.

It's an EQUITY VS GREED WAR.

I doubt it will ever end.

[Skidmore]

26. I fear you are correct And damn those who sold us into

back into the Dark Ages again.

[rhett o rick]

28. I fear that full revolution will be necessary to correct if even possible.

Those with control of all the resources have the upper hand. But things will have to get a whole lot worse before the general public wakes up. We were at peace for many years with the corporations because they needed us. They needed our labor and our money. Now they don't. Global economics have made the middle class in the US obsolete.

I do not recommend revolution, but see it as the only solution. The corporations own the republicans to the man (and woman). Now that we are kicking out the corrupt repubs the corporations are buying up the Democratic leaders. Sorry folks, nothing personal, it's just business.

[MilesColtrane]

70. That was Ralph Nader's reasoning for not dropping out of the race in 2000,

and throwing his support to Gore when polls showed a virtual dead heat.

I think he believes that the system is so corrupt that there is no chance for change.

Reminds me of the neocon's philosophy of "creative destruction", and the military's comment on a Vietnamese village, "we had to destroy it to save it."

If you really see revolution as the only solution you'll hasten it not by voting third party, or sitting out elections, but by voting Republican.

[rhett o rick]

80. I so totally agree. But I am in a quandary, not yet ready to totally give up.

I will fight thru the system as long as I can. The public hasn't seen enough infrastructure collapse yet to bring on a revolution. Also, I am afraid that our corporitized government will get help from an outside source like China, if the people rebel. Corporations owe no allegiance.

By the way, I saw Miles Davis in person at the first annual Portland State College jazz festival in the late '60's. Just sayin'.

[mnhtnbb]

71. When the economy tanks--and it will--there will be anarchy in this country.

People will hit the streets. There will be martial law--all set up and ready to go--thanks to Bushie boy.
The detention centers are built.

It's going to be very ugly. Personally, I hope to get out in time. It's coming, whether Hillary garners
the nomination and wins or loses to a Repub.

I am not optimistic. Yet I'm still here and making donations to Edwards, even though my gut tells me
the powers that be will never let him take office--or complete his term--should he win the nomination
and the election. They'll do to him what they did to JFK, and MLK, and Bobby, and now Bhutto.

I really fear for the future of this country.

[surfermaw]

35. loyalty has kelp a republican in office for 8 years

[RiverStone]

36. The SCOTUS keeps me on board

I share your rant, with the only difference being I probably would vote for Hillary - though I dearly hope Ms. rethug-lite is NOT our nominee.

The lines between parties has blurred more in the past 6 years then I can recall for the last 20. Both parties are beholden to the corporates and they are locked in a death spiral. What little difference remains may still entice many to vote Dem, simply to ensure that we are not stuck with a radically right SCOTUS for the next generation.

Even with that, I would assume Hillary would at least appoint someone of not the sam,e ilk as BushCo.

I'm deeply worried that the M$M will wag the dog as Nov 2008 approaches to shape public opinion. John Q. being the dumbass that he is does believe reality TV is real. I hope Skidmore that when the dust settles after our convention next August, that our nominee will be someone not beholden to the status quo. Otherwise, the slim thread that keeps you connected to the Dems may be cut - and we would lose you and many others who have grown sick of compromising our soul for the almighty dollar.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Ah yes the SCOTUS

the one for which the Democratic Congress didn't block Bush's nominees.

[Skidmore]

46. Excellent example! Yes, at a time when something could have been

effectively undertaken, it wasn't, and then all we have gotten since are rationalizations and platitudes for why no one could stand up to a man that is destroying our constitution and institutions. SCOTUS, Patriot Act, no impeachment, funding an illegitimate war...the list goes on.

[bbgrunt]

45. I'm with you.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

48. I'm on the same outbound train and I have voted Dem since JFK, no to corp control, no to Hillary

[PATRICK]

52. Ugly truths vs. simple answers

So the first casualty of truth will be capitulation on progress. I totally sympathize with your position and was ready to ditch this party years ago until I saw what was going on in 2000. In retrospect I had been had totally in my pessimism- not in my hopes. I saw how all the people had been misled in a total culture poisoning for which reasons and actors began to appear. The big simple blanket assumptions disappeared along with earlier assumptions that Americans might muddle through what was going wrong and the fall back law merely assert itself.

We are not faced with an election this fall, perhaps not even an ideal example of democracy in the primaries. We are faced with a hidden plebiscite on fascism or rather RW corporate dominance by a cannibal elite exploiting, trashing, EVERY ideology for personal gain. In your darkest views you could be driven mad by realizing that the election of Hillary(or anyone initially) will simply not be allowed to be even recognized as a simple victory for democracy. The other side will hide its victory as well, couched in democratic illusions with nearly full media support. The great falsity of this being an election is not just something we cling to, but part of the grand illusion overall, beneath which misdirected, murky discontent of the sane victims- the vast majority- simmers helplessly. IT will be a small, falsity enforcing, vulnerable, compromised step under Clinton. Our own grass roots will be intimately fought by the presidential establishment in ways that Bush could never hope to do. Raw concessions on election and campaign finance reform will not be quickly or easily granted by any President's efforts. That would be the first major hope.

We are simply mired in the evil of the power system. The chief players are still entrenched. The party has entrenched itself with losers from the era of lies and fraud, abandoning its nascent strengths in the LBJ election when hope was spoiled simply by having the WRONG MAN at the head of the ticket. So yes, I can well understand your decision. It has sound basis in experience. The sea-change Kenndyesque liberals began to vanish and fail and the primary drawbacks become fatal in losing influence to check the evils from Reagan on. The struggle for FDR models and coalitions staggered on with the strength of sheer sanity and value under cultural assault. Our politically stupid party establishment abuses that automatic gasping for air and weighs down the electorate with topdown concessions to sheer absurdity and evil. Have to have center left Southerners or establishment picks, screw democracy and McGovern style reforms. Retreat from the language of FDR while holding out the programs like so much residual candy hoping for appreciation in the long dark cold of corporate media dominance.

Yet, despite the party leadership, always despite it recently, we HAVE injected more progressives into the network and into Congress and fostered actual movement. How long have members in the labor caucus and black caucus suffered the same things intimately that drive us to despair? Decades of declining, in your face, influence to check the party itself from destroying itself and the Constitution. We do have new members joining that club despite that lack of unity and top leadership. The appalling reality is that the new wave of Dems about to be swept in in in 2008 has been repressed in what it could and must be. The top of the ticket may be another LBJ horror show in the making, perhaps worse on the corporate angle.

I balance this only with hope that truth and the people are pushing back, not just resigning themselves to personal retreat. The choices are: another party with the odds of a Kucinich looking good in comparison, local activism and ignoring the national, national engagement with an undisguised string attached, getting like people together to start something from scratch and ignoring the whole false political scene. How many in the Black Caucus resigned when abandoned in their right and proper judgment for us all in 2000? They know how bad things were, are and will be. How worse they are without
a fight and where they came from in this nation. The same seemingly hopeless resistance is exemplified by Israel whose people have learned the hard way for millennia and still no lasting relief in sight. AFter 100 years of brutal RW dictatorship and horrors beyond the imagining of any past generation those future ghosts who will be will be rattling your windows imploring you to DO something, because whatever the case may be, it is in our hands alone to try to fight or accomplish the possibilities of hope.

No candidate can accomplish all that and send us back comfortably to our private life niches. If that was the case, trust me, that person would die swiftly. The core of our choice must not reside in a primary contest but in ourselves. The Democratic party gives power to the people available no where else. The cold cynicism of the sane begins there. When the Religious Right insanely sold its soul to the Mammon worshiping GOP elites they KNEW the principles of party power. Corruption rewarded them and the moral path down matched the power path up. Sell out Third Way loons are even more insidiously corrupted- and betrayed in their choices. In this corrupted balance the daunting choice of "liberals" is to work up through this mess accepting no corrupting awards(which will be meager or none) and giving no gushing fantasy support for garbage. The moral path up is as difficult as the power path will be, unlike anything offered to all the other teeming players who comprise such a minority in this country that fewer and fewer people bother to vote.

In 2008 a non-vote, suppressed vote or tampered vote is to the advantage of the GOP. A depressed activist, a drop out, a vocal critic who can used by an eager GOP media, is to the advantage of the GOP. A speaker of truth who creates cynicism or an atmosphere of discord and anger can be more easily twisted to support the GOP and at the least weaken the ruling party. The same disappointing leadership will take a huge mandate as their own self-entitlement and vindication. Conversely, a defeated or struggling establishment leadership will retreat to its own lines of established bad conduct and appreciate gridlock and compromise as cover for its philosophical error and cowardice. The current nascent engagement in public internet forums will still be threatened rather than spreading inexorably to liberate the world's collective mind. If the party splits it can used to the advantage of the GOP. That is not even getting to the raw lies and power of the owned GOP itself. That is why their despicable stooges can have the temerity to be taken seriously- and have a good chance of "winning". All this and more- and there is no place to go but over the top.

Pitt would have you slug it out in the fearless optimism of getting something from the abyss of nothing. Screw fear itself. We WILL get a lot done. He is as correct as you are. Facing the actual situation is too much to expect from the people who are kept forever in the dark. We have an absolute, more absolute than faith itself, duty to do something and do it together with as many others as possible. And make that known on every field of struggle. Or our children and grandchildren will have the truly brutalized options springing from lives of total misery and oppression, too much to admire their forebears who couldn't get their act together.

I sympathize heartily and urge you to do the opposite of what the real crap on top expects. Not to go along and submit. Not to opt out. Not to tear each other apart. Not to accept activism this fall as a deal to compromise with current bad party leadership. Not to disappear or grow silent after November.

The Edwards are giving the last of their short time together for this, but life is not an automatic fairy tale, not when things have come to be so bad. Sen. Church would say we HAVE already crossed the abyss based on only a few things the leadership caved to. So, we do what we must anyway, what difference does success make? We will teach the "powerful" the true meaning of fear and desire. Some will keep the torch lit and held high. Any party that has such people has hope.

[Skidmore]

55. Thank you for your post.

It is so disheartening to come to these boards and see day after day the hard sell of the corporate candidates and those who are actively participate in the entrenchment of this corruption. To hear the apologists time after time berate people for criticizing the policies and actions that create very real problems in people's lives. Besides Hillary, I will not support Biden. He talks a good talk but I've watched him give passes to very destructive political appointments because he considered them "honorable." The time when he could have acted, he didn't. Acts of commission and omission by key people have gotten us here. I will not support more of this insanity. I dissent. I resist.

[PATRICK]

56. Search among past Dems

like Frank Church and HHH and any others. What I am most ashamed of are attitudes and judgments I made, media fed all, concerning these heros, the "tarnish" that did some of them in, the "compromises"(Church's authorization of the war), the gullibility, the failures that in today's terms are absolutely nothing- or instructive in context. Nothing is worse than allowing the mere choice of candidates to become even more distant by the mere pressure of election structuring and campaign finance and media influence. What has changed is our eyesight beyond the extremely poisoned mainstream cultural forum. It takes courage to just look. It takes greater courage to deal with the hardship of trying to accomplish ANYTHING.

[Le Taz Hot]

53. 2004 was my last tango.

Kerry being chosen for us was the last straw and it's only gone downhill from there. We need to start looking around (including amongst ourselves) for progressive, anti-war candidates and support them.

[loudsue]

73. "Kerry being chosen for us...." Thanks Le Tax Hot. Many seem to have forgotten.

Just one more coup that now goes under the radar.

And we saw how royally he stood up for our democracy when he knew full well & good that the election had been stolen.

[Perry Logan]

57. Another victim of the corporate media. They exist to weaken and demoralize the left.

[Skidmore]

58. Hi, Perry. That statement doesn't even make sense. It contradicts itself.

Don't you have some snake oil to peddle somewhere?

[Perry Logan]

59. It's a zen thing.

[fascisthunter]

60. The Democratic Party is Going Through a Schism Right Now

From the Grassroots upward. Wall Street should be very nervous or if they were smart, they'd butt out and truly let the people decide. But as the corporate elite strangle the message (MSM) to sell their hand picked candidates, they forfeit their future as well. Hubris and greed make smart people stupid and very dangerous.

[Twist_U_Up]

61. Its who counts the votes. Not who casts them.

as soon as people realize the last to elections have been stolen and do something about it, we will continue to get who "they" want not who we want.

[sallyseven]

77. Don't leave with the feeling

that you will be missed.

[Skidmore]

79. When enough people get fed up and quit supporting the DLC candidates

the party machine keeps throwing our way, where do ya'll think you're going to get voters? Republicans, perhaps? If you are going after Republicans on their terms, then you might as well be Republican. You've sold your soul.

[bobbolink]

78. You are NOT ALONE, by any means! And the predictable flaming response is why

many more may be joining you.

Rather than listen to disaffected people, and including them in discussions, they have the door slammed in their faces, and rude shit said to them.

If we, as a nation, had our diplomats treat other countries in this way, we'd have constant wars.

Oh, wait....

[smalll]

84. So this is your "last tango" with the Dems, unless Hillary takes the nom, in which case

you're already permanently off the Democratic dance floor.

Well, as nicely as I can possibly say it, don't permit a hinged portal to transmit force to you where a benevolent deity effectuated a schism upon your person. :shrug:

[Skidmore]

85. What the heck did you write? Either you did not read what I said closely

enough or you mistyped. I did not say that I wanted Hillary as the candidate.

Best wishes to you too.