Finally I think I can put into words what has disturbed me about attacks on "the left."

[madfloridian]

Not from the other side, but from our side. It's been uncomfortable recently to speak out or stand up for policies which Democrats have traditionally espoused.

I was reading tonight's post by Willy T about the bloggers named by Peter Daou as being problems for the Obama administration.

How a handful of liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency

If you read the whole thing and follow the links, he is really not as critical of them as the title indicates.

But it needs to be said that they should not have been singled out by name. That I think is the problem.

They are bloggers we may agree with or not. But they speak their minds on important issues. They are not out to get Obama, they are standing up for important issues that they believe in.

I see the same thing happening at Democratic forums, and that is what bothers me. We should not be trying to silence those with differing opinions. Trust me, it is happening.

From Willy's post, the words of Peter Daou:

With each passing day, I’m beginning to realize that the crux of the problem for Obama is a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, among them Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.

Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren’t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.

The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority – the mosque speech comes to mind – these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans. Some will dismiss them as minor players in the wider national discourse, but two things make them a thorn in the administration’s side:

a) they have a disproportionately large influence on the political debate, with numerous readers and followers — among them major media figures

b) they develop the frames and narratives that other progressive Obama critics adopt and disseminate

I’ve argued for some time that the story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him. And it eats him up. You know it from Robert Gibbs, you know it from Rahm Emanuel, you know it from Joe Biden and you know it from Obama himself.

I want to be careful how I say this, but these bloggers should not even be criticized by anyone in this administration. That is what our country is about, people can speak their minds on issues.

I have noticed that those of us who speak out here and at a couple of other blogs or forums are silenced in various ways. I feel strongly, very strongly, about the insanity of these new "reforms" in education. Because of that I feel like I am becoming a pariah, and that I must walk on eggshells.

When we judge the quality of peoples' writing by whether or not they are in accord with this administration, then we are losing a little of the heart and soul of what we should be as a party.

Some of those bloggers he mentioned are damaged goods here now, it is risky to post their words even if they are true.

You judge people and their writing on what they are saying, how they say it, not on whether they please Obama, Gibbs, Duncan, or Axlerod.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[JeffR]

2. You're missing one thing in your analysis, mad, and I think it's important.

Over the space of the Bush (T)Error, blogs and bloggers and discussion fora consolidated readership and participation, and now in however brief an era of nominal Democratic dominance in two branches of government, the ambition of the blogosphere has collided with its still-nascent but steadily increasingly importance in the national din. I suspect Hamsher and Greenwald are made of much sterner stuff than their cyberspace champions - and I don't mean you personally. They want to be opinion-shapers, voices that are heard and discussed.

The admin was ahead of this curve, having learned much from the cyber-pioneer types who were behind the Dean campaign before them. I don't see why Gibbs or anyone else in the West Wing should have any hesitation to say what they want to say about any media outlet, from the Moonie Times to Firedoglake. The intertubes have arrived, pretty much. Wanna blog, you're going to get blogged about. It's all fair game, both the administration and their critics. I don't see where one or the other should get immunity, however much both sides might squawk about it.

Another small bone to pick: What is oft alluded to here on DU, at least, but elsewhere too, is portrayed as some sort of death-match within the big tent. Anyone who lived through '68 and '80 knows that's astronomically hyperbolic.

I think you and also many who disagree with you, both, all, just need to take a breath.

Thanks.

[madfloridian]

5. I have no intention of "taking a break" unless forced to do so.

I don't think you really understood my post. I wrote it the best I could.

[mkultra]

7. maybe you could just "take a breath" instead

we promise not to make you.

[madfloridian]

11. No, because there is no reason to do so other than to make others comfortable...

so they don't have to be confronted with facts about education "reform"

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

34. Not really. I do not appreciate the words "raving fool".

But it is your right to call me that.

Both words indicate that a time out is needed. I disagree.

[Land Shark]

110. Clearly, expressly or impliedly calling blogger loyalty into question here is beyond the pale. nt

[Chan790]

198. It's okay, I know you're not a raving fool.

Also, I have great news if you did not hear it yet elsewhere:

Michelle Rhee quit this morning.:party:

[madfloridian]

220. Yes, she did. : ) But where is she going?

Teachers around the country are hoping she goes somewhere else. :evilgrin:

[JeffR]

13. "Breath" not "break"

I'm not suggesting you wrote this poorly. I just think you're eliding certain things while others are eluding you. I thought your post was thoughtful, as opposed to a lot of the threads that seem so prevalent here, and deserved a considered response, though it seems it was lost in the mix.

[madfloridian]

18. Breath or break, same idea. I don't go around attacking others.

And that is the difference.

But then this post is about many here, not just me. People who had to leave, chose to leave, or whatever in between.

When we need to take a breath or break from presenting facts when this administration is pushing Bush education policies, then our party problems and forum problems are deeper than I realized.

[JeffR]

25. Where "attacking others" comes into what I said will remain a mystery.

Though why is the idea - and by saying this, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - that someone disagrees with you such a thing to be dreaded and disdained?

Why does everything have to be cast in such apocalyptic terms?

Why can't we all calm down?

[madfloridian]

30. I did not say you were. Maybe you need to read my post again.

I am very very very calm tonight. Almost scarily so. I have been having the left out, useless to the party feelings we had after the Dean campaign ended. And after he was unceremoniously dumped from the chairmanship while he was in Samoa fulfilling his promise to visit every state and territory.

I am very calm, because tonight hubby and I decided to fill out our ballots in a way that we think is right. It was a thoughtful decision and hard one.

But we are not part of the party here, we were scorned. I stand up for what Democrats have traditionally believed in education, and I have become a target.

And it hurts.

[JeffR]

37. And that's unjust and you mustn't let it stop you from speaking your mind.

Your vote according to your conscience is what matters tonight. The electronic din matters much less than your vote.

[FredStembottom]

90. Something really is new and different here.....

I've been here quite awhile now, and freely speaking. But for the first time in all these years, messages in threads I started have been deleted by the Mods. Deleted because of the personal hatred expressed toward me for being disappointed in Obama (I enjoy crazy animosity but it's against the rules).

Or pointing out that I am disappointed not because Obama doesn't wear Nehru jackets or something "lefty".... but because more of my family members are falling off the America wagon. That they are sliding into poverty and health-care free "lifestyles" and then pointing out what (IMO) should have been done instead of what Obama did. *

Or simply wondering out loud why being seen as supportive of the Obama admin. trumps, well, everything else in the entire world for some here.

I just don't do "My Prez. Right or Wrong". Never have. I need my family members saved from poverty and degradation. And if the Obama admin. seems not fully engaged - holding back - working hidden agendas - I will say so.

(Mods: I grant you blanket authority leave the hatred expressed toward me in. It's interesting and instructive!)


Fred will be pounded again beginning in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1.... (give madflo a respite, however. She is one of our bedrock DU members and deserving of the greatest respect)

*this all lead to me using the flamey-faced angry guy:grr: at someone's line of thinking recently. That is also a DU first for me and I apologize. The poster took it personally. I meant hatred toward the concepts expressed only.

[Mimosa]

94. Well said, Fred! n/t

[laughingliberal]

149. +1000 nt

[axollot]

184. I just don't do "My Prez. Right or Wrong". Never have" - Same here..

That is one of my big pet peeves and something the RW does do that we do not do. Geez, look at how this place gets during primaries! But in the end we all, with all of our different opinions and voices work towards a similar goal.

Like fixing education, I have 2 kids in public school here in FL so I know it's nasty out there and I'm north of the I-4 corridor which is very conserv-atard. *sigh*

Cheers
Sandy

[FredStembottom]

215. That's soooo important, axollot.

We must pull together in the end.

[mntleo2]

216. Fred, you said it all

I am afraid to comment with any criticism of Obama and I have plenty I wish I could say, but don't because God forbid if I do! I still support him and think he is better than any Repug alternative, but ... I wish I could say more.

My grandfather, a WOBBLY, taught me that criticism and serious looking at our own flaws was the *only* way to improve ourselves. It is scary, it hurts, and it is necessary if you truly want change. I think most of we lefty's criticism is about wanting improvement, not about trashing anyone for the sake of trashing them. I am an avid fan of Jane Hampsher, Digby and anyone who want improvements, this is all. I will say Jan has some solutions that this administration refuse to consider. And quite frankly here is what I have to say to Rahm Emanuel who has done nothing but interfere with Progressive work:

PLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPL!!!!!!! DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YA WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YA!

Hang in there Fred, you are not alone and thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak about not being able to truly speak my mind to other Democrats.

Cat in Seattle

[FredStembottom]

236. Be free, CatSeattle!

My criticisms are from the loyalty I have for the Democratic Party and it's ideals.

I merely want Party leaders to espouse, promote and fight-for Democratic ideas.

You and I need to speak up really, really loudly (and continually) if the Party leaders do Republican things.

They work for us.

We aren't chattel or children who sit and hope for our dire needs to be addressed - especially when the solutions to those dire needs are traditional, Democratic solutions.

They. work. for. us.

Get out the vote for our Democratic employees - and then, after the election, give them their orders.

[CoffeeCat]

153. I feel the same way...

I just want our government to be a democracy.

I want the corrupt businesses to stop using our elected officials and our Congress as their personal playground.
The corporations buy influence in our government and our government has given them everything they want. Big
Pharma gets relaxed regulations and they get to dispense unsafe drugs to us. We The People lose. The banks
get Glass Stegal removed and are deregulated and are allowed to destroy our economy and the housing market. We
The People lose. The health insurance lobby and the hospitals decide they don't want a public option, and
that any healthcare bill must maximize their profits. We The People lose. Look at BP spilling Corexit into
the ocean after the EPA forbid it. BP is in bed with our politicians. They can do what they want. And
so they did...

Habeas Corpus is still gone. Our government is no longer required to produce a "body of evidence" against you
if you are charged with a crime. Renditions are still happening. Torture is still happening. So are
warrantless wiretaps and the Telcos are immune from their criminal activity--so said our government. We are
still funding and expanding the neocon wars.

I'm supposed to ignore all of this and be a loyal Democrat? That's sick. That's what a ruthless dictator
hopes for. Pay no attention to what I'm doing....I just need you to vote for whatever it is I do!

Crazymaking. I'm of the opinion now (and I recently crossed this line) that the political system in this country
is no longer the solution. I used to think policy changes could help people to become more humane, caring
and to help our kids get a good education and women to have equality. Our system is broken. And apparently,
my own party leaders attack the good people who dare to speak out against the corporate malignancy that
controls all of it. The answers are within ourselves. Politics is dead and is merely a facade that
exists to provide eye candy as the greedmongers drain the pool of democracy dry.

This new whining and scapegoatting by the Obama administration is making it more clear that both parties
are completely corrupt. I guess now the Dems will vilify anyone who dares to suggest that we get back to what the
Founding Fathers originally created. In fact, if you don't like corporate control of your government then, by gosh,
you'll be painted as a petulant nome who is disloyal and a big troublemaker!

I'm done. I just so done.

(sorry for the rant...just tired of it all)

[MissDeeds]

167. Well said

I'm just about done, too.

[FredStembottom]

241. Don't be done, MissDeeds

Let's just aim better next time.

See above.

We don't have to fight the whole world - just 2 or 3 well placed Corrupt-o-crats.

[MissDeeds]

248. Thanks, Fred

I'm with you in fighting the Corrupt-o-crats, every time.

:hi:

[green917]

189. +1,000,000,000

couldn't agree more!

[FredStembottom]

238. Understandable and sound rant, CoffeeCat.

There is a solution.

Reform of the Democratic party.

Let's speak more of it after the election.

Right now..... vote the bastards in again - with enthusiasm. Then we primary away as many of the corrupt ones as we can in the next round.

Watch the Amazing Change of Direction in the rest of our Dems if we can pick off just 2 or 3 of the most solidly established Corrupt-o-crats.

Remember No Dollar has Ever Voted.

[msanthrope]

75. "I don't go around attacking others."

Except President Obama, Arne Duncan, anyone involved in school reform, anyone who dares to ask you a question on an education thread, anyone who suggests that your method of posting is not effective for education reforms...and heck, on this thread, you attacked a poster who wrote you a reasoned, empathetic response.

I dislike your OP, because I think it serves not as a vehicle for discussion, but as a vehicle to further justify your claims of victimization.

I find that intellectually dishonest.

[fascisthunter]

102. your problem is misinterpretation

you don't like criticism period of those you listed. Try being more honest yourself. We have all read your posts.

[EFerrari]

104. madfloridian hasn't attacked anyone on this thread

And she doesn't attack the president or Duncan, she argues against what they are doing and she does it very well.

Your psychologizing avoids the topic of this OP and leaves you in no position to argue honesty of any kind.

[chervilant]

105. hmm...

Let's look at intellectual dishonesty, shall we?

You apparently think enough of the following quote:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all. Mario Savio

to use it in your posts. Do you see the irony?

Now, let's look at what the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt asserted (oh, so long ago):

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

What say you about this erudite adjuration?

Characterizing madfloridian's posts as 'claims of victimization' is rather disingenous and somewnat patronizing, misanthrope (and, must I mention the irony of THAT nickname?!). You may disagree with her posts about the continuing assault on teachers and teachers unions (an assault couched in the rather unassailable guise of 'insuring' our children's access to a 'quality education'), but she has every right to address what many of us see as the misguided and dangerous effort du jour to 'save' public education, all the while ignoring the ongoing, systemic problems that have threatened public education for decades now.

I strongly encourage you to review this administration's stance on 'improving' public education. I hope that you will at least recognize that those of us who are questioning this president's policies on public education remain committed to insuring that our nation's children have equal access to an exceptional education.

[fascisthunter]

111. well said... and hello

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

151. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

150. Disagreeing with policies is not 'attacking.' Nor is presenting the ramifications of policies. nt

[alarimer]

209. Legitimate criticism is not an attack

And there is plenty of legitimate criticism to be aimed at that idiot Duncan and this Administrations worthless education policies. Madfloridian was a teacher and knows a hell of a lot more than any politician about the problems and solutions in the system.

Obama just does not get it. And you do not get it either. School "reform" is just a gimmick to privatize our public schools with bullshit testing and "charter" schools and busting the unions, which is priority number one from this administration.

[Diane R]

120. I take exception. Anyone who has a difference of opinion is absolutely attacked.

[JDPriestly]

145. I agree with you, madfloridian.

I am deeply disappointed with much that the Obama administration has and has not done, but I like Obama very much. I realize that he is a slight improvement over Bush.

Unfortunately, Obama has continued the policies of secrecy, hiring mercenaries, Guantanamo, protecting torturers, eavesdropping on innocent communications, harassing dissidents, influencing foreign elections, imperialism -- and has kept the same military advisers that Bush had. Our personal human rights have improved only slightly under Obama.

As for Obama's economic policies, Geithner and Summers -- two of the authors of our economic collapse were his closest economic advisers for the last couple of years. What a huge mistake.

Finally his policy on charter schools stinks. Reminds me of the corruption that built on the one hand the railroads and on the other the fortunes of several very aggressive, very greedy, very rich scoundrels of the 19th century who turned taxpayer money into their own just like Rapunzel spun her gold.

What's good? We have a start, although a slow one, toward health care reform. The freeway near my home is a little safer thanks to stimulus money so I can see that money at work as can many other Americans if they just look.

We have slowed our involvement in Iraq but we are not yet out. We are still in Okinawa. The Afghanistan involvement is probably necessary. While I have some ideas about why we are there, Obama has not explained to the American people why we are there.

So, I would give Obama a C for his performance thus far.

Fortunately, we are not voting on Obama in this election. Here in California the Democrats put up excellent candidates. I think we will do well in spite of Obama's disappointing performance thus far.

And Obama has two more years in which to show his stuff. He is extremely intelligent and very sincere. He loves America and is patient. I wish him well even though I am very disappointed in his performance thus far. I think that the bloggers that criticize him from the left probably share some of my sentiments.

[displacedvermoter]

244. You are saying mad is wrong, but you are using nice language,

and not using references to whining and poutrage.

Very good.

[HughMoran]

15. You reallly should have read his post before replying

[grantcart]

66. I agree with you. Take less breaths. Don't let them make you breathe.

[mmonk]

93. Some will not or cannot understand it and have no intention of trying.

[donheld]

212. Your voice is very important, in my opinon

I very much appreciate all the work and thought you put into the things you post. Take a break only if you want to, but know you are appreciated if by nobody but me.

[madfloridian]

10. And no they did not "learn much from cyber-pioneer types behind the Dean campaign before them"

They used the techniques, but they missed out on the soul and the spirit.

[HughMoran]

16. Yes, they should have emulated President Dean more closely

[JeffR]

19. That's Romantic, but doesn't signify much.

I thought Dean was the best candidate we had that cycle, though I voted Kucinich in the primary. But "soul" and "spirit" are found elsewhere than in politics. The techniques help get candidates elected, period. Hammers and screwdrivers, not grails.

[madfloridian]

24. Then it should be. Because lot of us really have both.

Still. That is the problem now I think.

[JeffR]

29. In a less dysfunctional state of the nation

it would be. Maybe, anyway. I have both too. That causes me some angst.

[Dappleganger]

54. I strongly disagree.

madfloridian says many things that I am thinking as well. She gets b-slapped for it daily, too.
We're screaming at the train about to cross the blown-up bridge in the distance.

[democracy1st]

64. what ?

[Me.]

3. I Consider The People On The Left To Be The Messengers

It's difficult to keep track of how many times they've been right in the last ten years and certainly in the last two with healthcare and financial reform. Stop shooting the messenger!

[madfloridian]

51. Well said. So do I.

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

55. Round of applause for all liberals/progressives .....

FEAR-BASED thinking and reasoning here really doesn't help do much

EXCEPT create unnecessary tension and animosity -- and ultimately nasty arguments

rather than debate on what to do next -- a la Plan B -- 2012!!

[The Uncola]

76. AND we will continue being correct...

.. and WON'T be silenced. Perhaps, just maybe, someone in power will listen to us and do something before it is too late. No less than the very essence and survival of this Nation is at stake. We stand, looking into the abyss, with a Party leadership too timid to speak the words, "don't jump" and an opposition party pushing us over the edge.

[FredStembottom]

99. Reply of the Year!

If I could get that onto a bumper sticker, I would, Uncola.

It's just that simple.

I often suspect that some folks just don't live in the same America I do. That they still have time and space to hope and wait and wait some more.

I don't need any particular person. I need the policies that do the most good for the most people. Yesterday. :patriot:

[The Uncola]

134. Thank you so much.

I am humbled.

[FredStembottom]

239. No need to be

...when you can distiill something down to it's essentials like that!

Do more.

[defendandprotect]

112. Corporate-wing of the party is attacking liberals/progressives in order to move them out --

to split the party --

Keep fighting back as we did in '06 and '08 and BLAST our way thru to the left --

Even Pelosi questioned what the hell the WH was doing in attacking liberals/progressive --

wondering if they were trying to cost Democrats the election in November. Pelosi went

to the WH twice on these issues where Democrats were being attacked by the administration.


It's not a small issue -- and there have been two or three attacks on the left since then.


Stick together -- and do the "hold your nose" vote -- vote against Republicans --

and later we can deal with corporate-Democrats.

[FredStembottom]

140. +1000

As I always say: We are divided at DU because the party leaders divide us.

Into worthies and non-worthies.

[laughingliberal]

152. Bravo! nt

[bobbolink]

194. Absolutely. Screaming at the canaries in the mines is not too logical.

[Rex]

4. This is the problem liberals always run into, the truth vs feeling warm and fuzzy.

Moderate Dems HATE hearing the truth about certain subjects that SHOULD be really sore ones (considering it took the DEMS in Congress to help Bush start his fake war) and SHOULD count more than they appear to. Torture, assassination, the suspension of the Rule of Law in favor of a unsolicited war, should all be sore subjects and could be seriously looked into, investigated and ultimately lead back to the GOPukers (which is why KKKarl is whining about the truth ie The US Chamber of Commerce taking money from Communist China). Moderates can only stand so much of the truth before they get just as whiny and project their feelings on the source of the truth - liberals.

It is the way of the world and since it cannot be changed, will always be a sore spot for moderates.

[stevenleser]

6. Truth is... you are wrong. More Dems voted against Iraq war Res. than for it...

.. we can go all the way down the line.

[Rex]

8. Sorry, but without their votes it wouldn't have happened.

They gave the green light for war based on false documents. Lets go there.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

31. The Democrats did NOT speak out against the Iraq invasion.

They did not take a stand.

And yes, that puts responsibility on them. They attacked the ones who did stand up against it. They called those of us who supported them fringe.

So go ahead, tell me I should be embarrassed as well. Go ahead.

[HughMoran]

35. Always blame the Democrats for what the Republicans initiate and pass

Is that so? :crazy:

[defendandprotect]

56. Opposite sides of the aisle are expected to have OPPOSITE opinions/votes ....

and NOT to cater to warmongers like Bush and warmakers like Rumsfeld/Cheney --

and saddest of all Colin Powell!!

Can only wonder how you stand in front of a shrouded masterpiece like Guernica by

Picasso and push faked evidence for a war on another nation!!!

[stevenleser]

38. Yes, you should be embarrassed. Many Democrats in fact did speak out and take a stand

I seem to remember this guy speaking out http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Obama+speech+against+Iraq+war&aq=f

Democratic legislators like Wellstone, Feingold, Kucinich, Grijalva among others spoke out at the time.

People like these, most of them Democrats spoke out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85FX1rgaxQk



Why are you trying to revise history?

[Rex]

41. That wasnt the point, try staying on the subject thanks.

You are distracting from the OPs point. NT.

[stevenleser]

43. I'm responding to someone else's comment specifically and completely. But thanks for trying... not

n/t

[Rex]

45. Have a good one.

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

46. I was here at DU when they took the vote.

I was calling everyone I could reach in Congress. Those of us who were here then were fighting a losing battle. There was fear in the air about speaking out very much.

Go back to the archives, read the frustrations.

I am backing off because I have seen too many uncomfortable confrontations. I can't afford them right now if I want to stay here. Trust me, I can't. Bye for now.

[Rex]

47. Sorry this all just brings up bad memories

of the past decade, moderates just can't come to grips with the truth.

[defendandprotect]

57. Yes ... and right now for any thinking liberal the attacks on public education are

so fundamentally fascist and harmful to children and parents that it makes

me sob inwardly. Can't imagine what Madfloridian is feeling as the reports of

betrayal of public education continue to pile up!!

[Rex]

65. That has affected me to the core and changed my opinion on a lot of moderates.

I guess I am somewhat biased on the subject from teaching in high school and seeing how NCLB has totally fucked up the school districts in Texas. I have kept quiet on the education subject as much as possible out of fear I will get banned.

I live in South Texas, a total hellhole for anyone involved with public education.

[defendandprotect]

92. Another one of those subjects which GOP has exploited, lied about and profited from ....

but the real heartbreak, I think, for so many here is Obama and Duncan taking this

privatization of public education on as their own pet project!



ugh!

[suzie]

199. Actually, Bob Graham was one of the most prominent voices in the Senate against

involvement in Iraq.

He worked to declassify the NIE and harangued his fellow senators to the point that they were shocked at this normally courteous, distinguished guy.

However, madfloridian chooses to omit his efforts because he wasn't, after all, Howard Dean.

If there was a candidate that Democrats should regret not getting behind in 2003 it was Graham, not Dean.

[madfloridian]

227. Stop it, Suzie. That is over the line. I know and admire Bob Graham

greatly. This post is not about Bob Graham, and it wasn't about Dean. That response I made about the nasty Gibbs ad was about Gibbs.

[suzie]

249. No, you specifically made a statement that "The Democrats did NOT speak out against the Iraq

invasion. They did not take a stand."

When in fact, your Democratic senator and mine, Bob Graham, did take a principled stand against the Iraq war.

But, not only did he vote against the Iraq invasion, he insisted that the intelligence information be declassified so that his colleagues in the Senate could read it.

If indeed you know Bob Graham, then you're aware what a cordial, courteous man he is and what a shock it must have been to his Senatorial counterparts to hear him raving on the floor of the Senate.

So, I find it distressing for you to speak one more time about how terrible it was about Howard Dean.

And then to talk about Democrats not standing up against Iraq when your own Senator, was also a candidate for President and was taking a far greater stand than Howard Dean ever had to take at the time.

Because Bob Graham was ACTUALLY VOTING AGAINST the Iraq invasion from his position as a Senate insider.

"Democrats did NOT speak out against the Iraq invasion". As someone who's also met and observed Senator Graham and the well-deserved regard in which he's held by Floridians, I consider that "over the line".

[saracat]

221. And those mentioned are the exception to the rule and not appreciated

by the PTB.

[fascisthunter]

106. and those who did, like Kucinich were ridiculed

[Rex]

40. Oh no just facts, you are proving my point all to well.

Thanks for doing that.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Rex]

49. There was no logic class in third grade.

Nice try again, go back to deluded land where you stay warm and fuzzy. :hi:

[stevenleser]

50. And you obviously failed second grade irony... n/t

[Rex]

53. And of course there was no such thing.

Do you ever tell the truth or is it foreign to your understanding? I see Mads point to a T now.

[liberation]

173. He figured the tangential false argument wasn't working, so he went for the direct ad hominem...

... funny how these "moderates" turn into full blown reactionary pricks the minute they encounter the slightest friction or when the facts are shown to not fit their narrative.

In the end they always come down to the same argumentation line: people should stop believing their lying ears, it is not that the musicians were tone deaf and the piece they just played sucked... the problem was simply that the people in the audience did not clap hard enough.

[Rex]

207. And that was just ONE, simple, well known fact!

True not all Dems did vote for the Iraqi war, but without SOME of their help it would have been a lot harder to go to war and the intel at the time was so fake any sane person should have known it was all over greed and MONEY.

Oh well, at least the majority of DUers know the truth. One thing nice about this place, you have questions and someone else has the answer.

[defendandprotect]

59. Think you're actually remember your class in third-grade insults ... !!

[FredStembottom]

103. 0 or 100%

On or off.

Black/white

There's no in-between.



:sarcasm:

[SeattleGirl]

32. Goodness, but did ALL the Republicans vote for the war?

One way or the other, Bush would have found a way to go to war, regardless of the vote, because he was hell bent on doing it.

Why you are heaping blame on the Democrats, and leaving the Republicans out of it, is quite beyond me.

[stevenleser]

39. Yes, that person wants to blame Democrats so they start with that result and work backwards to try

to justify that point. It's bizarre reasoning.

[SeattleGirl]

48. Pretzel logic.

It certainly not something I can follow.

[Rex]

44. I was talking about the moderates and Repukes are scum mostly.

We all know that or I guess some people don't know about GOPukers being warmongering scum. Did you miss the past decade? My goodness right back at you.

[Greyhound]

9. You are not becoming one, you are one.

As am I and as are many others that are still here. Although you and a couple others put far more effort into your posts than most of us (I gave that up years ago), we do share the hatred of the defenders of the status quo/authoritarians.

Do we welcome their hatred? I know it usually gives me a chuckle.

We should start a club. Maybe we could get jackets.
:rofl:

:kick: & R

[chervilant]

223. Jackets

and really funky hats! :)

[frazzled]

12. Peter Daou has gone whack

He's "beginning to realize" Obama is after a handful of prominent bloggers? Where's the proof of that? No one in this administration has specifically criticized these bloggers. From whence does this "realization" emanate? His posterior?

I daresay Obama has never even heard of some of these bloggers. And not all of them are such progressives, anyway. All are people I stopped reading years ago (and that pains me in the case of Digby, whom I knew from back as far as 2001; I stopped talking and participating back in 2006). Glenn Greenwald is a libertarian, has defended an infamous neo-Nazi (currently serving 40 years for soliciting the death of Judge Joan Lefkow here where I live; her husband and mother were killed), doesn't even live in this country most of the time, and by his own admission never even voted as of 2006 (and I seriously doubt has since). Jane Hamsher is, well, a failed movie producer who I see as kind of the equivalent of Ann Coulter: a drama queen publicity seeker. Why would anyone, except the already gullible, listen to political advice from either of these people? Your or my opinion on policy and politics is as valid as any of theirs.

But Peter Daou? He's jumped the shark.

[madfloridian]

14. We disagree strongly on those bloggers.

.

[frazzled]

17. That's your right to do so

As it is mine to hold my opinion.

But what is definitely true is that this entire argument is in Peter Daou's head.

[msanthrope]

69. Peter Daou's pissed he picked the wrong horse--as are a few of the other 'persecuted.'

Peter backed HRC, and the dreams of the heights he would have reached are a difficult thing to see squelched. There's a lot of old Hiliary backers out there who didn't take the reconciliation option, and are bitter as hell.


As for Janie dear, well, you nailed her personality well. I knew her when she thought that announcing she was a movie producer and had worked on Natural Born Killers was something to be proud of--within 20 seconds of meeting her at any function, she would breathlessly announce that. Of course, her pride in that film didn't endear her into the liberal circles she wished, and she's never forgotten it. She wants to be a mover and a shaker, not reforming the structure, but climbing it.

[Missy Vixen]

128. Considering the fact that Bill Clinton was courting these same bloggers during the election

>I daresay Obama has never even heard of some of these bloggers.<

It's hard to imagine he's never heard of them.

I might also mention that KOS and FDL were fundraising for the Obama campaign as well. They've also been involved with candidate sourcing and fundraising for local races as well. FDL just raised a significant amount of money for Finegold. Should he return it? After all, they're just not "influential" and deferential enough to belong to the party, are they? Their money's still, evidently, good.

[leftstreet]

21. Naming them tends to marginalize them somehow

Just my opinion...makes them seem less professional

It's like the occasional jabs they've made at at Fox News, or Limbaugh, whatever. It makes them instantly comical. No one in the Admin is going to call out a NYT or LA Times opinion writer. No way

But then I'm not really surprised. The Obama campaign ruled the internetz in terms of organization and the Admin may have ended up with some 'ownership' issues.


K&R
Good post

[boppers]

22. "...these bloggers should not even be criticized...."

No.

Freedom of speech is not a free pass to avoid criticism.

If you throw shit at people, expect shit to be thrown back at you.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. MadFloridian, I wish I could recommend your post a thousand times.

[defendandprotect]

60. +1 ... as always, from the heart, MadFloridian!!

:)

[Starry Messenger]

26. That's the odd thing...

People like us are *pushed* more left. Then we are marginalized. Honestly, up until two years ago I thought of myself as a moderate. But after the abuse of two years here, I'm looking at history and the relationship that the Democratic party has had with the left. I think we are seeing a repeat of history.

[pnwmom]

28. I think the problem is the tone they sometimes take.

Pushing the Dems to follow Democratic ideals is great. But some of these people engage in personal attacks on Obama and Democrats in Congress -- and that's where they step over the line, in my opinion. At that point their words are hurting their goals more than helping them.

[defendandprotect]

117. And Rahm and Gibbs haven't "stepped over the line" .... ?

Even Speaker Pelosi went to the White House to complain about WH attacks

on Democatic candidates as we moved towards the elections!

The corporate interests which control the Repubs have also infiltrated the

Democratic Party -- they're working to move the party to the right -- and

working to use DLC corporate wing to spliy the rest of the party.

[pnwmom]

136. When have Obama or other administration people suggested that

liberal bloggers, or Democratic candidates, lack integrity or are acting in bad faith?

But, in various ways, liberal bloggers often accuse Obama of that.

[defendandprotect]

205. Are you asking what was said that moved Pelosi to complain to WH TWICE?

Don't recall the specifics -- they can probably be found on internet --

HOWEVER, it certainly had to do with WH representatives making undermining

comments about Democrats. Again, because of this Pelosi protested to the

White House TWICE now -- in fact, I think she visited the White House to protest.

What Pelosi was saying was that it looked like a purposeful effort to undermine

Democratic candidates with elections approaching!



When have Obama or other administration people suggested that

liberal bloggers, or Democratic candidates, lack integrity or are acting in bad faith?

But, in various ways, liberal bloggers often accuse Obama of that.

I think "retarded" is a fair enough comparison -- and other comments made by the WH

intended to try to demoralize and trash liberals/progressives.


NOW ... do you really want to discuss Obama's "integrity" -- ????

or his holding "in good faith" with his promises for CHANGE -- ????


You don't suggest you are going to CHANGE things and then elope into the White House

with the corporate-DLC -- and with the Wall Street gang who created the mess we're in.


You can't be one of the politicians, as Obama and Baucus are, who are the most heavily

sponsored by the Health Care Industry -- and then suggest your backroom deals with

health care industry to get rid of "public option" and your promise to Big Pharma to

ward off efforts for drug price deals -- are simply operating in "good faith."!!

:eyes:

Maybe you missed those articles? If so, I'm sure some of us still have them.


Meanwhile, here's Rahm "crowing" about all he and Obama have done for big business and why

"business leaders hould be grateful" -- !!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and

education reform open markets despite union skepticism;

his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that

billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts,

and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...

That was posted on DU 8/12/10 by another poster.


Meanwhile, if that doesn't make you ill, you can't read!

[Missy Vixen]

130. Just a question

>But some of these people engage in personal attacks on Obama and Democrats in Congress<

What about the "personal attacks" by this administration on anyone who votes to the left of Mary Landrieu?

Should I remind some of those here what Rahm Emanuel called "liberals"? It's not fit for printing in the newspaper, that's for sure.

[pnwmom]

135. I haven't seen Obama question the integrity of those who disagree with him.

But I have heard some of those bloggers suggest that Obama is in the pocket of the corporations, or that that he's deliberately misled people about his intentions, etc.

It's possible to criticize someone strongly without suggesting that that person is acting in bad faith -- as those bloggers often do.

[Missy Vixen]

170. No, he just sends out his attack dogs, Emanuel and Gibbs

What would you call his comments at the recent fundraising dinner, for instance?

[pnwmom]

172. Did he question someone's integrity or suggest they acted in bad faith?

I'm not sure what remarks you're referring to?

[laughingliberal]

183. Gibbs suggested those who disagree need drug testing. I think that counts for questioning integrity.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

154. I've seen on DU that any criticism of any policy of the President's is labeled 'personal attack' nt

[defendandprotect]

206. Actually, one DU poster suggested it was "disemboweling" the president .... which should

give you an idea of the insane degree of resistance to any criticism of Obama policies!!

[defendandprotect]

33. Blaming the messenger is a distraction from reality ...it's the policy and direction ....

of the administration we have to look at --

not the bathing suit view -- but what the elected officials are actually doing!

Not what they say -- but what they do!!

[madfloridian]

36. I have already been called a "raving fool" in this thread.

That is the kind of thing I mean.

Tonight I realized that what is happening is inevitable, and hubby and I will have to find our little space in a world we don't really understand anymore.

[defendandprotect]

52. That is hilarious ... if anyone is familiar with your writings .... !!!

Excuse me -- I know you're taking this seriously --

and I certainly don't like saying this but there's a lot of childishness

displayed at DU -- usually among those claiming that liberals are "whiners" -- !!

I think liberals/progressives have been very gentle in chiding them in return --

we could have been much sharper, much nastier -- but I'm proud that in general we weren't!


What I have observed is that people with limited vision display the most FEAR --

see the fewest options and usually rarely mention challenging authority.


I also see that people with the most vision usually skip the fear because they understand

how desperate the reality of our times really are. Ever wonder why you're here just at

this particular time? I do? I wonder what I did in the past that I'm here now as things

seem to be ending. Granted the future of our planet has a lot to do with with the next

election -- and maybe not. Maybe it's too late. But, I think we're all going to hold our

noses and keep pushing to the left! Aren't we?

I think a lot of us are looking for places where we wouldn't be victims of US foreign policy.

Most of all, since I have children, that is where my distress is mainly placed.

You did a good job with this thread -- probably would have been more helpful if you were

a child psychologist!

:evilgrin:

[imaginary girl]

58. Hey Mad

I have lurked here for ten years, and I know exactly what you're talking about. A lot of things shifted during the primary, it seemed.

It is important to find your neutral and loving space ... then come to places like this for information and ideas ... but not necessarily emotional arguments.

My best to you and hubby ~

[TBF]

74. Agree with that -

I come here for news. Sometimes I post something from a leftist perspective but that is largely ignored or derided so I don't often bother.

[defendandprotect]

95. You're pretty much saying that this board is now no value to liberals/progressives ....

IMO, the board is still overwhelmingly liberal -- and the nation, as well --

Keep in mind the right wing never gives up -- so neither can we!


Right wing myths are very fragile because they're based on lies.

That's why the right wing has to control everything and prevent truth from surfacing.

Truth is like a pebble hitting a mirror -- it shatters it.

Keep tossing those pebbles!!


And, keep also in mind that a lot of what you're looking at is illusion --

as Cheney has said, "the right wing creates our reality" and the rest of us live it!

And, unbelievable as that seems, yes, they do only rise via political violence and

stolen elections. The GOP gave start up funding for the Christian Coalition.

Richard Scaife financed Dobson's organization -- and other wealthy Repugs financed Bauer's.

Everything the right wing has is bought and paid for.

Not unlike the GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote counting in Miami-Dade County in

2000.


When Bill Buckley died we learned that the CIA -- which has taken money from anyone on

the right including the KKK and Nazis -- had financially supported the political careers

of right wing members of Congress -- two that were mentioned were Sen. Strom Thurmond and

Rep. Gerald Ford. They also gave money to Pat Buchanan.

On and on -- there's more.

[Mimosa]

122. DefendandProtect, can you pls recommend a book or site for me?

You posted:

"When Bill Buckley died we learned that the CIA -- which has taken money from anyone on

the right including the KKK and Nazis -- had financially supported the political careers

of right wing members of Congress -- two that were mentioned were Sen. Strom Thurmond and

Rep. Gerald Ford. They also gave money to Pat Buchanan.

On and on -- there's more."

Where can I learn more about this?

[defendandprotect]

132. Well, in the specifics of the CIA ...

and where they got money and who they supported --

I don't have the two books at hand to tell you -- but think your library will

have it --

One is Jim Marrs/The Rise of the Fourth Reich

the other is "The Beat Reawakens" by Lee Martin or Martin Lee ... can never keep that straight.


The info about the memos flopping out after Wm. Buckley died .... is fairly current.

Don't know if that was in an article afterwards? But, CIA was supporting right wing Senators/

Reps in Congress -- certainly more than the TWO I'm aware of. And, trust that as time goes

on we might hear more about this as papers are declassified? Buckley was CIA, of course.

So interesting that PBS foisted him on the public for decades! Who watched that creep?

But that was all part of Operation MOCKINGBIRD which you can look up on internet.

Even that wasn't enough for them to put a thousand and more CIA agents into TV/newspapers

as "journalists" -- a practice the Congress never stopped -- they've now pretty much put

Pentagon under contract as "journalists" -- !!!


People often ask me about info -- I have 40 journals I'm still waiting to re-read and

review and use for posts here -- but they're yearly, not organized as to subject!

A lot of info from books, C-span programming, watching Congress.


I'm way behind in my reading for various personal reasons -- but I do plan to be at the

library today or tomorrow and to be taking out those two books again.

*I found years ago that owning books doesn't really work -- so I just take notes!

If I think of it and find the info, I'll PM you ... OK?

:)

[Mimosa]

133. Thanks!!!

I read Marrs' Crossfire long ago. Very well written. The best book I'd read early this year was James Douglass "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." And tbefore that the book "Family of Secrets." Poppy Bush was CIA to the core.

[defendandprotect]

137. OK -- and . . .

Crossfire is still on my bookshelf --

that book and Livingstone's two -- High Treason I and High Treason II

are, IMO, two of the timeliest and most long lasting of the private investigations.

They're both great -- and those two books formed part of the basis for Stone's "JFK" --


As I mentioned I'm way behind on reading -- and haven't yet caught up with JFK/Unspeakable.

Nor Family of Secrets --

There's been a little info on both books posted here at DU, as I recall, however --


There are times -- like now -- when I find I have to go back to certain books because they

have so much info in them that can't be absorbed at one time. That's why I always try,

as well, to take notes on important books.

The book by ... can't think of his name at the moment ... a few years ago, the guy who

was a right winger and friend of Anne Coulter -- wrote a book I need to look up again --

think it was the "Republican Noise Machine" -- something like that.

Very worthwhile in understanding how the right wing BUYS everything and how much of the

right wing is simply illusion!

Maybe David Brock -- ? Have to look it up.

[Mimosa]

121. Madfloridian, you are not alone.

*hug*

[Hannah Bell]

61. You know what bothers me? Traditional Democratic positions supporting labor,

Social Security, Medicare, public schools & the social safety net being framed as -- "the left".

i.e. a controlling faction of *our* party adopting the framing of the RIGHT --

not of "the Republicans," who used to support Social Security, for example -- but the framing of the far-right fundie goons who've taken over the Republican party -- *that* is the framing being used to DELEGITIMATE those who support traditional Democratic values.

[madfloridian]

62. And it is happening.

The party "moderates" are sounding ready to negotiate those things away.

[TBF]

71. Yes, it is obvious the transfer of power, so to speak, has moved

from traditional labor to the DLC within the party. This has been going on awhile, but was accomplished with the Obama administration winning. Centrists control this board now as well as the party.

We can't advocate for third parties on this board, but eventually traditional democrats will see the writing on the wall and will know they can still band together but maybe not here.

PS Mad, your work is so important, please do not lose faith or focus. Many of us have finally seen through the smoke & mirrors and support you completely.

[boston bean]

72. Sure you can advocate for third parties. You can advocate for Crist the Indy all you want. nt

[mmonk]

96. You nailed it. The party changed and when we complain when no longer heard,

we're told we're the problem.

[defendandprotect]

107. Corporate-infiltration of Dem Party is trying to split the party .... we're easier

to fight that way --

IMO, liberals/progressives should stick together and BLAST our way thru as

many Repugs as possible in November -- and then deal with our own corporate

problems in the Democratic Party after that --

We began fighting back in '06 -- and think we should continue on together.

No reason to let the Repugs take more ground -- we have enough problems on

our hands fighting with corporate interests in our own party!

[mmonk]

168. I don't think the party has a problem with vocal disappointed activists.

The problem will be with the new voters that came on board.

[defendandprotect]

208. There are dual interests now in the Democratic party .... corporations vs people ....

Corporations are now represented in the Democratic Party by the DLC-corporate wing --

Are you in favor of that?

Did you vote for Obama so that he could spend his time trying to placate and make

deals with Republicans?

Did you vote for Obama so that he would put Republicans in charge of government?

[mmonk]

210. Nope.

[defendandprotect]

213. Neither did I ... !!

[FredStembottom]

240. Yes!

That's it exactly, Defend and protect.

We are divided because a corrupt Democratic Party divides us.

But that fact shows the way forward.

We don't have to re-fight the American Revolution, the entire political system or the entire economic system.

We just have to fight corruption inside our beloved Party!

We do that by: keeping the traditional Dems as well as the blowin' in the wind Dems and even the dirt-bag corrupt Dems all in power this election cycle.

Then we primary out a couple of the most (supposedly) secured-by-corporate-money corrupt Democrats in the 2012 round (or whenever the right targets come up for re-election).

Just a couple would bring a startling change of heart to dozens of other Democrats. They would learn the simple lesson: No Dollar Has Ever Voted.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[defendandprotect]

98. Very true -- infiltration of Democratic party by corporate interests has done that . . .

DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party is working to split the party --

that's what we see going on in the administration attacking the very programs

you've mentioned.

I'm looking for a new liberal/progressive Democrat in 2012 -- one who will support

and not attack labor, unions, Social Security, Medicare for all, Public education

and the social safety net --

Unfortunately, we are fighting not only the far-right fundie goons, but those in

our own party trying to move us to the corporate-right.



However, IMO, understanding what DLC/corporates are trying to do is another argument

for liberals/progressives to stick together as we did beginning in '06 and BLAST our

way thru to the left -- get rid of as many Repugs as we can and then double back and

deal with our own corporate problems in the Democratic Party.

[EFerrari]

100. Go placidly amid the noise and waste.

And remember what comfort there may be
In owning a piece thereof.

. .

Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
And heed well their advice,
Even though they be turkeys.

Know what to kiss... and when!

Consider that two wrongs never make a right
But that THREE... do.

[SteveM]

171. Kudos! You summed up the truth:

The "left" is anything to the left of Jimmy Carter, no one (not the President, not the Democratic Party) wants anything to do with the "left." Further, the country is not polarized: it is just shades of the Right and Far Right with no credible opposition.

This is a very dangerous situation, and in my nearly 50 years of political activism, I have never seen anything as bad.

[Radical Activist]

63. No, issues don't come first with some of those names.

Some of those writers are issue based but others have made it clear that bashing Obama comes first. They make that very obvious by engaging in ridiculous hyperbole and by misleading their readers in their attempts to attack Obama unfairly.

Responding to their misleading statements and hyperbole is not "silencing" someone. People who attack others for a living are not victims simply because someone responds to them. The victimization ploy is used by people who can't/won't defend their argument against critique.
The truth is that there are some people who criticize Obama from the left who also happen to be full of shit.

[msanthrope]

78. "The victimization ploy is used by people who can't/won't defend their argument against critique."

I think that sentence goes to the heart of the OP.

[liberation]

176. LOL....

[Radical Activist]

195. And many other OPs

on a similar topic.

[NJmaverick]

67. BULLSHIT! These people have destroyed their reputation not by

criticizing the President, but rather they destroyed their reputation by demonstrating an alarming lack of intellectual honesty.

[MadHound]

68. Destroyed their reputation? Really?

I see that they're still publishing, writing, and making money doing so. You only wish their reputation was destroyed:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

77. Actually in Jane's case she funnels her money she gets from her PAC

into website

[SteveM]

174. "Destroyed reputations?" In these days? How can you do it? nt

[boston bean]

70. HA! Laught Out Loud!

you definitely need one of these:

[NJmaverick]

79. You might not be aware of standard web convention

but most people use the abbreviation LOL instead of spelling out all the words.

here you might find this website very educational

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp

As for your frying pan picture, that makes no sense. What's the meaning of a frying pan?

[laughingliberal]

156. Frying pan? Looks like a hand mirror to me. nt

[liberation]

177. He shoots.... he fails!

Again...


How does one exactly fry an egg with a hand mirror? LOL

[Lost4words]

80. fail

[sabrina 1]

73. Daou is vastly over-rating the influence of these

bloggers. He underestimates the ability of the average reader of blogs to think independently.

They do NOT influence the thinking of anyone I know, or have known online.

Having said that, I agree with you regarding his decision to name them. Otoh, I think they love being named. Even if it's a negative mention.

His naming them gets them attention, then they name him and he gets attention.

As one blogger who shall remain nameless, once said, 'linking is the currency of the internet, and controversy gets hits'. Obviously his interests were not in line with those of the average person who comments on blogs. For him it is a business.

It's interesting though, that during the Bush administration, the bloggers he named were heroes to the 'left'. So many people have been tossed under the bus since Obama got elected.

Maybe Daou would like to hand out loyalty oaths??

And to say that Obama's problems are being caused by bloggers is simply ridiculous.

On the one hand, we are constantly told that those who disagree with some of Obama's policies 'are not the base' and are so small in number that they don't count.

Now HE'S saying they are so powerful they could bring down the whole party!!

Which is it?

Madfloridian you are one of the most valuable posters on DU. A few disgruntled right of center party loyalists who don't want to hear facts, may have negative things to say about you or anyone who speaks the truth. They want lock-step loyalty which they are not going to get.

Bestto ignore them. Many, many more people appreciate what you are doing to shine a light on what is happening to our schools.

I do wish the Party loyalists would make up their minds though, about how powerful or not we are.

And I really think Daou needs to get out in the real world if he thinks bloggers that no one outside their small online audiences ever heard of, are Obama's real problem. :eyes:

I guess it's 'message discipline' time. And if they keep this up I can see a real actual split occurring in the Democratic Party, perhaps another party even.

Their strategy to get people on board is probably the worst I've ever seen. They are driving people away from the party. Don't they realize that? THEY are the problem. They thought they didn't need the base, they didn't have to 'cater to them'. NOW, they are in trouble and all of a sudden, the people they ignored, the ones they didn't need, are the cause of all their problems. How absolutely incredibly stupid of them.

Fortunately, most of us think for ourselves and will not be influenced by any of them. But some will and that's a shame because every vote counts.

[DCBob]

81. What disturbs me is when the hard left doesnt know when they have gone too far...

Constructive criticism is one thing, endless non-productive bashing is another.

[NJmaverick]

82. but being a critic is fun

it's great for one's ego. Why would these people care about the consequences of their actions?

[DCBob]

83. yeah.. well they may have a legitimate gripe but at some point they need to realize..

what they are doing is counter-productive what they are ulitmately trying to accomplish. I guess they dont think it through that far.

[madfloridian]

85. By whose standards have they gone too far?

[defendandprotect]

115. Too far for corporate interests in the Democatic Party ....

[frylock]

155. by the standards of the nu-lib centrists..

what once used to be democratic priniples are now only espoused by those of us on the "hard left."

[SteveM]

175. Yeah, LBJ is a Left Bank Maoist by now. nt

[EFerrari]

91. Yeah, we should stop calling people retarded drug addicts.

LOL

[defendandprotect]

114. And presumably you don't think that Rahm or Gibbs -- the corporate right in the Dem Party ...

have gone too far?

They've been working their asses off to split the party -- and to move it to

the right.

In fact, Speaker Pelosi has gone to the White House TWICE now to complain about

these attacks on Democratic candidates by the WH/staff -- and since then we've

had a few more attacks. What was Pelosi asking? Why it looked like they were

trying to make Democratic candidates look bad as we approached elections.



Here's something more for you to think about ....

Ramh .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


If that doesn't make you ill, you can't read!

[girl gone mad]

159. Meh.

Get over yourself.

[treestar]

84. Unrec for the crap about being "silenced"

No one is "silenced" and certainly not on the internet. The ultimate victim whine. Anybody who argues with me is "silencing" me. Bullshit.

[madfloridian]

86. I think you know better than that.

[defendandprotect]

118. What's the "unrec" about except to silence others?

[treestar]

165. Who is silenced by an unrec?

That is ridiculous.

[defendandprotect]

204. You don't understand that limiting the exposure of the article is a way

of silencing it -- ?

[Senator]

214. Rec for the far worse crap about ...

...

[Bluenorthwest]

The tactics of personal destruction we see at play

are not tactics I like no matter what it is being used to advance. I've been called all kinds of things here on DU lately, often by those who are advocating against a Democrat openly.
Teachers are the current heroes of this household, we praise them daily. You are a great Democrat. Speak freely.

Edited because of being a bad student and lousy speller!

[chervilant]

87. OMG!

We humans are manifesting a level of mental disease that is both frightening and corrosive. Far too many of us are in react mode, driven by inchoate fears and resentments. Far too many of us are willing to pollute our spirits with negativity, eagerly engaging in name-calling and other forms of vilification. Far too many of us are willing to glorify violence or resort to violence, often just for entertainment or personal gratification!

Right now, it seems obvious that our species is in its adolescence--obsessed with sex, drugs, and all other forms of self-gratification, especially as regards our economic behaviors. Our mental and spiritual 'dis-ease' is writ large by our increasingly sophisticated, increasingly corroded socio-cultural and technological constructs.

Bearing this in mind, I occasionally feel overwhelmed with disappointment about the choices we (as a collective) have been making, because we seem to be moving inexorably back into 'balance' on a planetary scale and the consequences of our hedonism and denial of personal responsibility promise to be extreme.

Thus, when I hear our contemporary politicians (et tu, Mr. Obama?) griping and groaning and saying 'compare us to the alternative,' I say "I am NOT impressed with this vapid excuse!"

I say, "embrace the criticisms you hear and use them to inform your efforts to effect change."

I say, "stop insulting the citizens who are actively involved in our political system, and find ways to partner with ALL of us to effect change!"

Can we--as a collective--slap our Fear Dragon on its scaly nose, and say "No More!"? I choose to believe that we can. And, that eternal optimism--mine and so many other's--is part and parcel of the kind of thinking that gave us the bright star of hope we call democracy. It is because--like the courageous and commendable madfloridian, and so many others--I see what humanity CAN become that our species' persistent wallowing in the muck and mire of fear and hate is frustrating.

(BTW, mad, I agree with the DUers upthread who have posted words of encouragement to you: please, please continue your work here. Those who disagree with you--and I know you recognize their right to disagree--may at some point come away with an appreciation of what you're saying.)

[sulphurdunn]

88. You go ahead and give "education reform"

both barrels every chance you get. That includes both political parties for selling out to the moneyed interests that push it. Otherwise, the policy debates will forever remain between "right" and "far right" positions. Political parties are policy instruments. We owe no loyalty to them if all we ever get for that loyalty is being pissed on in return. The arguments for voting the lesser of two evils are rationale for accepting two party pay to play government that moves inexorably further right over time. No thanks. Urine is urine.

[chervilant]

108. And,

El Toro PooPoo is El Toro PooPoo.

(Again, thanks for your incredibly important work, madfloridian.)

[Better Believe It]

89. K & R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Attacking and blaming the Left has become a political panacea for the Democrats.

The Democrats didn't lose the 2000/2004 elections because they couldn't attract the voters - the left did.

The Democrats didn't lose the confidence of the voters after the 2008 election because of the timidity of the party - the left "whined" too much.

The voters aren't excited because the Democrats continually water-down, sell-out, or refuse to act on legislation - the left doesn't give enough support to the sell-outs, watered-down bills, or "whine" about the lack of action.

So, now, as usual, they slap the left around and blame them for their own failures.

It's all rather pathetic.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

101. For you and the work you do here:

:applause: :toast:

[liberalboys]

109. A new disturbing video surfaced today, where Gibbs attacks Howard Dean

in 2003 utilizing a photo of Osama bin Laden, scaring voters into believing Dean would make us unsafe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1DqOwP3Xzc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/13/gibbs/index.html

[madfloridian]

113. Here you go. From August....it was sickening. I remember 2003 well.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6564

[chervilant]

116. hmm...

A quick perusal, and misanthrope's name is nowhere to be found on that thread. I guess he doesn't denigrate ALL of your activism...

[Mimosa]

125. I saw that commercial back in NOLA

It scared me.

[suzie]

147. That's what political operatives are paid to do, madfloridian, find the weakness of

the other candidates and exploit it.

If you don't like that about politics, perhaps you should step away from being involved in or even commenting on it.

Howard Dean was a nice guy, whom I supported, but he was losing support before Iowa and might not have been a great candidate in the general election.

John Kerry is an honorable man who has fought for the American people for a good many years now and is a very decent public servant.

It does him a great disservice for some to constantly act as if he were somehow far inferior in every possible way to Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

162. Geez Suzie, you got all that from my post?????

You are amazing.

[liberation]

178. So what's the issue?

I guess it is perfectly OK to find the weakness of this administration and exploit it too, right?

Because that is what "political operatives do." What's good for the goose should be, after all, be good for the gander too.

[EFerrari]

126. Wow. That's disgusting. n/t

[defendandprotect]

138. Not only is it disgusting re the attack on Howard Dean... but selling the GOP's

9/11 garbage along with it -- !!

Obviously, THESE are the people I want to keep out of office and out of

the White House. Unfortunately, Obama felt quite differently!!


Bleech!!

[cate94]

119. K & R

I notice that the question of the day has not been answered yet: If the left is powerful enough to bring down this President, why are they ignoring the left and continually berating the left? It makes no sense politically.

The other question is why instruct people to hold your feet to the fire, if you are going to complain about the heat?

If anyone is "bringing down" the Obama presidency, it is Obama himself. It appears that he values the people across the aisle more than members of his own team. And then he complains when we object...

[Missy Vixen]

123. I'm a blogger.

I hope to make that list. When the President espouses a policy that is against everything I believe as a lifelong, voting member of the Democratic Party, you bet your ass I'm going to speak up. We all should. I've spoken up when President Obama has made decisions I agree with as well.

It's hilarious that those bloggers mentioned are "not influential" or "professional Left," according to the White House, but they use their soapboxes to afflict the powerful. This is what they SHOULD be doing.

The vast majority of the RW mouthpieces and spineless that occupy seats in the White House correspondents' room aren't doing their jobs. Bloggers are.

[defendandprotect]

139. Thank you -- we should be applauding our left wing bloggers ....

There's a lot going on -- happening very quickly -- and they help us all to stop a

moment and really look at a subject -- PLUS, they also help us express our anguish

when so much has been going wrong -- too often in decisions by the Obama administration!


I haven't really seen any left wing bloggers attacking the right-wing in the Democratic

Party, though that is exactly what the DLC-corportes are doing in trying to split the

Democratic Party.

I think we've been far too patient and kind with this poison in the Democratic Party!!

[Dappleganger]

237. Well said.

[zenprole]

124. "they place principle above party"

I stopped reading after this. We should be lucky enough to have more such people.

[beforeyoureyes]

127. People do not know what to do. They defend or overlook indefensible policies...

because they are terrified the wack job right will gain power.

If you buy into the false two choice modality of thinking, criticizing Obama becomes about empowering the right.

Many of the policies that Obama has instituted would be universally decried on this board if a Republican politician instituted them. In most cases, I see little substantative criticism for the bloggers actual content and concerns.

This will not end until the left stops this ridiculous game of voting for the lesser of two evils and DEMAND in action, deed, and word, real representation.

Capitulation is not compromise. Abadoning core principles to 'compromise' is selling out. Sorry, it's the truth.

The two party system is utterly broken. And, it is my belief that it those who refuse to address the reality of the system and the modern democratic party that hold us back. As much as the Republicans.

There, I said it.

[TBF]

129. You said it really well -

and I agree.

[defendandprotect]

142. Completely agree with you, HOWEVER .... right now given only "lesser of evil" choices ....

we have to recognize that the DLC-corporate wing has been working very hard to

SPLIT the Democratic Party. Easier to deal with us all that way!

Pelosi has TWICE had to complain to the White House about comments which attacked

Democratic candidates prior to the election. Even after that, these disruptive

comments have continued .... not by accident!


At this point, it would be foolish to give up the push to the left we began in '06

and '08 -- IMO, we have to "hold our noses" again and vote to get rid of as many

more Repugs as we can --

and then double back and deal with corporate-Democrats after that --

It would be foolish as far as I can see to give up anything we've gained and fought

for since '06!!

[beforeyoureyes]

242. I disagree. That strategy has never worked and the extremism and the capitulatin to the right

It has only increased as a result.

We need a radically different strategy. This one doesn't work.

[FredStembottom]

144. We make progress today.

Thanks to you, beforeyuroueyes.

I didn't have it as clear as that in my own mind.

Thank you.

[laughingliberal]

157. I'm glad you said it. Very well put. nt

[tnlefty]

246. Welcome to DU beforeyoureyes!

:hi: :toast:

[keepCAblue]

131. "...story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him."

It's not that the left "turned on" Obama. It's that Obama turned on the left. So many promises made during his campaign evaporated once he took office. The fact that Obama's first official act upon winning the presidential election was to name Rahm Emanuel as C.O.S. From that moment on, Obama abandoned the left.

[defendandprotect]

141. Mad -- just want to make an additional comment that LEFT has to fight back ...

and despite what you might think, I feel it is the DISILLUSIONMENT the Obama

administration has caused on the left which you are seeing reflected here.

It has worked to SPLIT the Democratic Party and drive eager and willing Democrats

away from this board -- so that you are left with a handful of very aggressive

posters who do feel it should be "party over principles."

This is a liberal nation, Mad --

and in general this is a liberal website --

We have to continue to gather up the liberals/progressives and get them back on their

feet as a voting bloc to continue what we began in '06 and '08 -- A HUGE PUSH TO THE LEFT!!!


Remember that Speaker Pelosi had to contact the White House TWICE to complain about the

comments coming from the White House which she felt were trying to make Democratic candidates

look bad prior to the elections!! Even after that, we saw more of these comments.

We have to understand that they are intended to SPLIT the Democratic Party!!


That's what the DLC-corporate wing is here to do -- and they are doing it!!


Let's make sure we get out the "hold your nose" and vote Democrats -- so that we can BLAST

THRU TO THE LEFT.

We can double back later and deal with the DLC-corporates.

[madrchsod]

143. if i wanted a purity party i`d joined the fucking zombie republicans.

we sure in the hell ain`t going to back down when we see something wrong.



amazing how many are willing to drink what ever flavor of kool- aide is put in front of them.

[PurgedVoter]

146. +1 Madfloridian

The arguments in this thread are pretty amazing. It is interesting how few actually managed to understand what you are saying here. The strongest responses and arguments are almost if not completely off topic.

What is interesting to me, is the White House's ambiguous, generic, Ad hominem attack on 'liberal bloggers.' I take this attack as an attack on me. While I am not one of these important bloggers, I appreciate their stances.

While the GLBT issues are not mine, it is apparent that the White House has not danced with the one who brought them. To attack a blogger generically in this manner like winking at me and saying 'Women, what can you do?' It shows a very uncultured and two faced nature. It shows a lack of sensitivity.

Education issues are my issues, and in this area, this single area, I cannot say the current White House is any better than the previous.

Torture, imprisonment without impending trial or proper evidence, war escalation, drone attacks, all of these are the acts of a pariah nation and the current White House has not managed to resolve what it could do, just by exerting the authority of the Commander in Chief.

The GLBT issues are real, threaten our nation and need resolution. Don't ask don't tell places people in secure positions in a position where they can be easily blackmailed just for being who they are. The education issues are directly destructive to our nation. The other issues strike at the very ethic and constitutional basis of our laws. If the only prominent people who are speaking out on these issues are 'professional bloggers,' then an attack on them is an attack on me.

I do support Obama, despite his DLC clay feet. I wish he was the great statesman of our age. I will continue to support Obama, but if I have to choose sides between him and Dean, I know who I will choose. The occasions where I feel I must choose make me very uncomfortable.

[laughingliberal]

148. Big K & R! nt

[Marnie]

158. Hurray for putting principle above party.

Good for them. Maybe that is why they are popular and respected.

Personally, I don't wany anybody in public office whose principles are below the base line standards of a political party.

[closeupready]

160. K&R - it is totally insane to me that bloggers are considered so powerful

that they are thought to be helping to bring down an American administration. I mean, that notion is just full-on bizarre. :wtf:

The internet makes it possible to have a more honest assessment of how things operate, and yes, thoughtful assessments from just about anybody can be read by major media players and even the president, with the click of a button. No middlemen to filter messages.

[txlibdem]

161. You wanna know how to avoid being criticized by the leftie bloggers?

Be an effective leader and forcefully fight for Liberal and Progressive legislation. And never NEVER cave to the same idiots who destroyed the economy and the country!

[liberation]

179. Yeah, but that is like "hard work" and stuff.

Jeez, what's up with lefties requesting deeds to go along the pretty speeches? Why can't they just sit there quiet until the next time this administration needs support? People should work for the administration, not the other way around. That is why the call them public servants... oh, wait....

[bobburgster]

163. I certainly do not judge based on adherence to the Obama administration.

When the content is blatant misinformation....I judge.

[valerief]

164. Only foreign corporations have freedom of speech in this country now. nt

[liberation]

187. "foreign?" Yeah, because American corporations are never ever wrong...

... or would ever ever do anything "bad."

It's always the "furigners" fault...

[2critical]

166. Isn't the purpose of the DU to critique the Dems from the left?

I don't quite get what this thread is about. I thought the purpose of the DU and other loyal liberals, was to critique the Democrats and the Republicans from the LEFT. In the MSM, all critique comes from the right. We have a different job here. If we critique the Prez, we're doing our job. That is not "attacking" him or his Cabinet. Greenwald, Hamsher, et al. are doing their jobs. If Obama and Co. want praise, they need to see Barney the Dinosaur, not political activists.

[MissDeeds]

169. K&R n/t

[axollot]

180. k&r!!

[liberation]

181. Also the problem is that the so-called moderates want to have it all both ways.

Especially, the members of this administration.

See, the supposed "center" (even though they would be really considered to be the "moderate right" almost anywhere else in the industrialized democratic world) in the Dem party feels entitled to have everything both ways: They want to govern under the guise of bipartisan "pragmatism," which really is a nice way of saying that they don't want to be constrained by being held accountable under any ideological expectations or metrics. Yet they expect their base to support them through thick and thin and to act in a purely partisan manner.


This is, when Obama governs he is not expected to be held to any specific ideology, yet when a liberal voter goes to the booth he is not allowed the same "free range" of options as he or she is expected to toe in the line and vote straight Dem ticket no matter what. Which explains why at the end of the day, many of the so-called "moderates" in this site even, have to recourse to what basically amounts to bullying in order to squash the dissent that may showcase the bankrupt nature of their electoral "value" proposition.

[eleny]

182. Agreed - and I see David Sirota getting it in the neck here, locally

He has a morning radio program here in the Denver area now. He's a real treasure who calls it like he sees it and he's taking lumps for it from callers. But he has big shoulders and a strong moral compass.

Thx, madfloridian. :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

196. Treasure?

Yeah, for the Latte Liberals.

He jumped the shark having that idiot on he AGREED with, saying that the US has the lowest food prices, as a real slap in the face to poor people.

The fact that many are malnourished and even STARVING in this country is of no concern to him, and neither are ANY of the other issues of poverty.

He is very superficial... his biggest issue is WEED.

Some "treasure".

[eleny]

245. I disagree

His biggest issue is hypocrisy. And he takes it in the neck because he doesn't shill for Democrats.

So, yes - to me he's a treasure since to the left and right of him on the dial are nothing but right wingers on the radio.

[bobbolink]

250. I understand your point. I hope you can understand mine.... when you are poor, and there is NOTHING

about poverty by so-called "progressives", you get to the point of feeling totally hopeless.

I certainly hope you can understand my dismay that he agreed with the guest that food is too cheap in this country, with so many people malnourished, children going hungry, and, yes, starvation.

If that is alright with you, then everything is totally fucked.

I'm going to add... as far as hypocrisy is concerned, *I* think its hypocritical for talk show hosts to call themselves "progressive", but to be so ignorant of poverty issues.

[USArmyParatrooper]

185. "They are not out to get Obama"

Except for the ones who want him to lose. The ones who say he's no different from Bush, a corporate sell out, that sort of thing. They're the same ones who scour the net for negative editorials about President Obama and that's ALL they post. I'm not speaking specifically about posters on DU, you can find them everywhere.

[democrank]

186. If you can get your hands on a copy of

The Nation, October 18th issue, read the article, "Herding Donkeys" by Ari Berman. It will really help explain what is happening between the Democratic Party`s activist base and the Beltway Insiders. Berman claims it`s a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. I agree. Pay particular attention to Berman`s critique of the treatment of Howard Dean.


I`m going to continue to speak out and not worry about those eggshells because I`ll be damned if I`m going to now support the same policies I was against under George Bush.

In my view, the White House does lack a moral compass. A historic opportunity was squandered in favor of pacifying the machine.

[madfloridian]

191. I am reading the book now. Started a few days ago.

Looks interesting, kind of depressing to see how thoroughly they made us irrelevant.

[chervilant]

224. Well,

even if the historic opportunity was squandered in FEAR of what the machine could (AND would) do, it's a sad state of affairs when one considers that our forebears risked their lives and fortunes to create this nation.

[crim son]

188. There is such a thing as a disproportionately large

influence of private and corporate funding on the debate, but absent that influlence it's disingenuous to claim that the same can be said of prolific bloggers. If democrats just left of center have a point to make they are as free as any blogger to make it. If it resonates with voters, more power to them. It is alarming however to see how concerted an effort there appears to be to squelch truly progressive expression, by fellow dems of all people. It's alarming but not surprising; the nature of American politics has changed for the worse and we can no longer pretend that we are not part of the problem. IMHO, of course.

[creon]

190. common ground

It has to do with common ground; and, the willingness to search for it and find it. I mean within the Democratic Party; not with the GOP. The GOP is opposed, on principle, to common ground.

I happen to think that Democrats, amoung themselves, can and should find common ground.

There comes a time when you have made your point; and, your colleagues in the Party have made theirs. You have to govern and write and pass effective legislation. Instead of argue and dither.

This gives an unnecessary opportunity to the opposition.

I think that everyone knows all that; and, I am preaching to the choir.

[madfloridian]

193. But...

the party powers are finding common ground all too often with the other side, not us.

That's a problem.

[defendandprotect]

201. There was NO common ground with slavery ... NO common ground on female equality ....

you are using the term "common ground" as a euphemism for compromise --

Founders compromised with the wealthy who enslaved Africans here --

got us nothing but a Civil War from which we still haven't recovered!!

PRINCIPLES are important -- and Democrats used to stand for them ...

What we have now is a corporate-DLC wing standing against principles --

and standing with big corporations!




But, when campaigning, suggesting that they are for CHANGE!!!

:evilgrin:

[creon]

230. well

People do not compromise except from dire necessity; the issue is in doubt even then.

The failure of Democrats to work together means that we will have gridlock after this election. We have had gridlock before and survived. The country will survive this time round.

[defendandprotect]

231. Obviously, Founders did not compromise with SLAVERY out of "dire necessity" ...!!!

Rather as I see it, we have an Obama administration which campaigned in a populist

style and then reversed themselves after the election --

Had Obama told anyone he was going to elope into the WH with DLC-corporate wing/Rahm

or appoint Republicans to run government, he wouldn't have gotten elected.

We can survive weak governments and governments which bankrupt the Treasury and government

which lies -- but we can't survive all of that over and again --

We have a non-functioning government now taken over by elites/corporates -- who are

basically suicidal as we see from their destruction of nature and creation of Global Warming.

Either we straighten all of this out with the "vote" -- or we'll be moving to dissolve this

government -- as recommended by our founders!

[creon]

233. dysfunctional

The Democratic Party is, basically, dysfunctional.
The progressives have no use for the DLC/blue dogs; and, the DLC/bluedogs have no use for them.
Common ground could have been found, if the factions had wanted to do find it. And, neither faction has the capacity to work with the other.

The party will have to live with the consequences as best it can. The country will survive.

[defendandprotect]

234. Where would you find "common ground" with pro-corporates in Dem Party?

The Democratic Party is, basically, dysfunctional.
The progressives have no use for the DLC/blue dogs; and, the DLC/bluedogs have no use for them.
Common ground could have been found, if the factions had wanted to do find it. And, neither faction has the capacity to work with the other.


?????????????????????????????

Certainly it would be naive to think that the DLC-corporate wing is going to make any kind

of peace with the liberals/progressives they are trying to wrest the party from.

The DLC-corporates are here to SPLIT the party and move it to the right.

And certainly it would be naive to think that liberals/progressives are going to compromise

with a pro-corporate takeover of the party!

Liberals/progressives are here to argue for the basic principles of the party and move it

back to the left.


?????????????????????????????



The party will have to live with the consequences as best it can. The country will survive

We have the threat of Global Warming which raises many questions in regard to "survival."

[creon]

235. exactly

That is my point: the two factions hate each other.

The result: what needed to be done was not done.

[defendandprotect]

247. Where would YOU have found common ground in all of that ....

Please explain --

We have a corporate takeover of the party -- are you in favor of that?

They don't have the numbers, they have leadership and control --

Are you in favor of that?

Or are you recommending that liberals/progressives should just surrender to

a corporate takeover?


As I pointed out before "commond ground" is BS for compromise --

And you're not a JUDGE presiding over this -- you're presumably a Democrat

who is either DLC or a liberal -- which compromise are you looking for -- right or left?

[DeSwiss]

192. K&R - It only eats them up becauae they know it's true. n/t

[Generic Other]

197. kudos for bringing the importnt issues forward in spite of the naysayers

I have yet to see a single post you've made that I don't endorse 100%.

You speak volumes for many of us!!

[Dinger]

200. K & R MadFlo

Out of the park!

[chill_wind]

202. K & R Judge the merits of the facts and the arguments.

Way, way too much prohibitive thinking and blindly reactive source bashing these days.

[geckosfeet]

203. 'they place principle above party' - and the party takes offense at playing second fiddle

to some high minded ideals. Not agreeing with it, but the party expects everyone to fall in line.

Some say this is a weakness of liberals, clinging to principles. It makes for splinter groups and fragmentation, but also provides diversity and rich fertile environments for free thought, new ideas and good old fashioned freedom.

[defendandprotect]

232. The "fall in line" idea is rather Republican, IMO --

And rather agree with you on diversity -- and it would ordinarily be quite fruitful --

save for the fact that elites/corporations have made our government non-functioning

except in their own interests.

When that dawn breaks on us -- either we straighten all of this out with the "vote" --

or the eventual dissolution of this government -- ???

[Mimosa]

211. Bumping great thread for the late night crowd. Enjoy! n/t

[clyrc]

217. I always enjoy your posts, Madfloridian

I enjoyed this one, too. :thumbsup:

[Riley133]

218. Do people really give them that much credence?

Most I know are busy with their lives and barely have time to catch up on email, let alone anything else. It seems to me that voting is often based on how a voter is personally doing at the time of any given election.

[Chulanowa]

219. There's the left, and then there's "the left"

There are two different varieties.

The first actually espouses and supports liberal / leftist / progressive agendas. They support left-leaning candidates and work to get such politicians elected.

The second does nothing. Oh, they bitch and moan about how nothing is "left enough," wave their litmus strips, and basically raise a ruckus, but they are by and large more concerned with destroying any chances of liberals / leftists / progressives from getting elected, generally preferring the tea party right-wingers simply because the folks on the left that "the left" is attacking simply aren't ideologically "pure" enough.

The first group realizes that actual effort is needed to get anywhere, and that even small steps forward are still steps forward.

The second group is convinced that all one needs to do to be "progressive" is to hurl invective and produce.

I have no interest in sharing time with the left-leaning variety of the dumbfucks on the other side who would gun down their reps for being "RINOS". And I can't find it anywhere in my body to defend such clueless fundamentalists, no matter their politcal affiliation.

[Jack Sprat]

222. An even larger problem

There are independants who may be straddling the fence, not certain whether to cast a vote at all or in our direction. What does the criticism of the President, Chief of Staff, or White House press secretary about their own base say to them? It says that maybe the Left is kooky and voting with them in this midterm isn't the thing to do after all. I mean if the White House staff thinks the Left is whacky, then the Independent leaners who were key in 2008 might have an inclination to lean back to the Repug right based on the rather dim view the WH staff has expressed of their own base of voters. Now, how's that for a kick in the keester?

[The Doctor.]

225. We are in a very difficult place. FWIW; i agree more with MF than not.

This President does not have the corporate media on his side quite the way the last one did.

He knows this.

This President is a position to do great things, but would have to sacrifice too many good things in the process of seeing those great efforts likely fail.

He knows this.

This President cannot afford to make himself a one-term President, no matter what expedient meaures might bring temporary good but result in full corporate control of the nation.

He knows this.

This President must move stealthily in his first four years to set the stage for bold action in his second.

He knows this.

This President is up against forces that have never been as strong, resourceful, and pernicious as they are now.

He is particularly aware of this.

If you look into every choice, every move, and every word, you can see that he knows where he is, what he faces, and the very real challenges he has to deal with. I've done so. It was hard, because I said to myself; "Well I would do this...", and then I'd think it through.

Think of the scrutiny and subsequent attack all of Obama's pro-equality actions would suffer if he put himself in the crosshairs of having to defend equal marriage rights in the hostile media.

Imagine the eruption and dissection of the nation had Obama's justice department pursued th war crimes of the Bush Administration.

I don't even want to think of what might happen if he stood up directly to the military-media-corporate-machine. Given how easily the media has proven it can recruit home-grown assassins, it's no great stretch to suggest he's thought of that too.

I don't disagree with his detractors. I'd like to think I'd fearlessly stand for all of the principles I knew in my heart were absolutely American... but then I might realize that doing so costs my beloved America those very values.

Maybe there's another way.

[madfloridian]

226. In many ways I agree with you.

One thing that has bothered me so much is those with whom he chose to surround himself from the start. They are political operatives who never liked those left of center.

I think that has contributed a lot to the difficulties.

It is a time in our history where firm hard stands had to be taken, and you may be right about what would have happened if he took them against corporate wishes.

A few concessions would make a huge difference in feelings, especially in the realm of equality for gays and in the field of education.

[EFerrari]

229. Pernicious is the right word for it. n/t

[tavalon]

228. You're still here and you're still saying what you feel needs to be said

and more times than not, you are right, even if a hundred posters try to silence you, you are still here.

I'm not sure why teachers became the new scapegoat but if teachers can be scapegoated, so can we all. It is a morality lesson taught in, of all places, the show Lost. Live together - die alone (I actually know that there is a much earlier history to this quote but hey, not everyone had an education before it was all about those damn standardized tests. I was lucky to be in school when some of the goal was teaching and the SAT was the only test looming).

[Time for change]

243. I agree absolutely