View Story | 920 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
for making the right choice--or at least not making the wrong one.
Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM PDT
just what you need, more infotainment
by jpfdeuce on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by thereisnospoon [Subscribe] Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EST
by jpfdeuce on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:59:02 PM EST
2 and a half minutes to read a spoon diary?
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807
by Patriot4peace on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM PDT
Dudehisattva...
by Dood Abides on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM PDT
Isn't this a straw poll kinda' thingie?
No matter what happens ... somebody will find a way to take it too seriously." Dave Barry
by Granny Doc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM PDT
I didn't quite catch the meaning of the title.
My position is clear -- I'm the commander guy.
by Mr Met on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM PDT
Never mind!
by Mr Met on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM PDT
by roadhaus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:52:05 PM PDT
tinfoil time = government planned 9/11
understanding that the clintons represent the establishment and dean represents the netroots in the struggle for power within the democratic party is hardly tinfoily...
by Hounds on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM PDT
and dean didn't. Otherwise they're on the same side. I was and continue to be a raging Dean supporter.
No way would Clinton alienate a large block of people.
This is another BS diary.
by roadhaus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:58:54 PM PDT
my instincts, however, tell me that a clinton presidency will stunt the netroots movement...
to your other point: ostensibly, republicans and democrats are also on the same side in wanting what's best for the US too, right? see where i'm going with this?
i'll vote for hillary semi-gladly if she's the nominee, but i would much rather see edwards or obama as president.
by Hounds on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:27:07 AM PDT
Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics?
And then after your mind is totally scrambled, You, too, can be a Republican.
", syrup ,..., shit ,..., hotcakes." Meteor BladesJohn McCain
by JugOPunch on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:38:29 PM PDT
Good catch...I think?
Or maybe the speed reading thing. Whatever...
You know we live in strange times when hearing something as simple as the truth almost seems shocking.
by redhaze on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM PDT
The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same." Carlos Castaneda
by FireCrow on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM PDT
timestamper are 2 different machines, which aren't necessarily synchronized. For a while, comments were being posted "before" the diary got published, but they fixed that, more or less.
by Leo in NJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM PDT
Dean is the point man... in the war for the soul of the party.
by Flint on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM PDT
Despite all of the constant praise for our great candidates, I think our internal fight is hardly different from that on the wing-nut side, though not as transparent. I’ll agree that our candidates don’t appear as bat-shit crazy as theirs, but under the surface there is a real ugly fight brewing that could be just as destructive to this party.
Maybe that is the fate of both parties, simply because they have tried to be too inclusive, rather than make a strong and persuasive argument for their core ideals. Since FDR and the rise of the Military Industrial Complex (maybe earlier, but the money element seems to me to be the tipping point), it seems they have made coalitions that work against their core ideals. You really can’t have a party that purports to be for workers rights funded by Corporatists. I don’t think you can have a party that supports peace and justice, and cater to Blue Dogs. The Republican side is now seeing that Dominionist theology and low-tax libertarianism were never a good fit; their shared hate does not include enough common ground.
Perhaps there will be many fractured parties in the future, not unlike what we’ve seen with religions in the past (Protestant denominations as one example.) I think the rate, at which this will happen, will be staggering with the simple speed of internetworking. If the Democratic Party can’t stick too it’s core principles and then effectively convey those to the average American (something we’ve done a poor job of for years) then eventually there will be many "Democratic" factions.
Perhaps entropy applies to politics as well.
"Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, all right?" - President Merkin Muffley
by MalachiConstant on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM PDT
Maybe that is the fate of both parties, simply because they have tried to be too inclusive
That's a bit kinder than I would put it. I think this is the fate of all organizations, because all organizations ultimately exist for the purpose of consolidating power. And we all know what power does.
In the end (and it doesn't even take very long), all organizations become more focused on consolidating power than on achieving whatever purpose they originally organized for. The parties became "inclusive" because they wanted as much power as possible...and the way the get it was to bring as many people as possible into their tent.
Today, the main lament about "catering" to the leftier wing of the Democratic Party is that then you will lose the center, and by catering to the center you will lose the left. I have no doubt both Parties would happily extend their political platforms across the entire political spectrum, if they could figure out a way to do it without losing anybody.
I think this is the reason that no one will touch the definition of "progressive" with a 10-foot pole. All political organizations on the left side of the spectrum, from the DLC to DFA, want be free to call themselves progressive without having to define what it means, because they want to bring in as much support as possible. If they settle on what they mean by "progressive," some folks are going to decide that the definition doesn't fit, and move on.
I have thought about the possibility a disintegration into lots of little parties, as well as the role that the internet could play in this grand drama. However, I think that, as long as people are inclined to party, they will be inclined to party big. My hope is that, ultimately, the internet will form a framework that will undermine that inclination entirely, and we will have no parties at all.
Free at last, free at last...
by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM PDT
a parliament where we can yell at the president. I'm ready.
We need IRV as well.
Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace
by SarahLee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:42:56 PM PDT
Which side are you on?
Its the same battle
On Being A John Edwards Democrat
by Redstateresident on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM PDT
Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers
by groggy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM PDT
Obama will keep Dean on. Has he pledged to do that?
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:57:27 PM PDT
there is no guarantee, but as both were centrally about restoring Democracy, I think Obama will probably beg Howard to stay. With a grassroots organizer as the head of the party though, Dean may feel the party is in good hands and go home. He and his family have sacrificed their private lives for the country for the last 4-5 years. He should be lauded and allowed to exit, or rewarded with an offer of VP, but I don't think that will happen. I can still dream I guess, especially as Howard would make a great heir of the Obama legacy, because he is an amazing administrator. Just the kind of guy you want to really flesh out a vision.
Obama is the Dean campaign part II, with an awakened populas, and a messenger who can move the masses. And he has a way of saying "We need to get those guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks to vote for us" in a way that goes down a lot easier.
by PLS on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:59:01 PM PDT
Sister Soulja is fooling themselves. Her move "back" to the middle will include playing her moderate credentials off against those crazy left-wing liberal bloggers.
The playground is open -- Philosophers' Playground: One part sandbox, one part soapbox
by SteveG on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM PDT
And that was while she was looking for votes.
If she's elected the netroots will be a DLC whipping boy.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM PDT
I'm no longer a Democrat. I'll be shopping for another party, if not another country.
www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!
by chuckvw on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:19:32 PM PDT
What if the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party in Congress were to all leave the party, form a new one, and then present Pelosi, Hoyer, Enamuel and the rest of the DLC a choice: end the Iraq war, impeach the criminal regime now in power, and push progressive legislation -- or else the new party will not caucus with anyone, thereby throwing control back to the GOP?
And please, no accusations of naïveté on my part; I know this is ridiculously unlikely to happen. It's just pursuing a train of thought (one of many that go through my head at any given moment). I just wonder what would happen if it did. Would the DLCers cave in, afraid of losing their tenuous hold on power, or would they be stupid again and reject the terms put forth? My money would bet on the latter, with the result being that the new party would follow through on its promise not to caucus with anyone.
More to the point, if the progressive wing of the party were to break away, what might some other consequences be? They'd already have a sizable number in Congress, with a lot of constituents potentially following them in terms of party affiliation.
Like I said, it won't happen. But it would be interesting to see what would be the result if it did.
Gravel2008.us | Re-Elect Dennis!
by Archangel M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:58:39 PM PDT
Unfortunately, if I'm not mistaken.
Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM PDT
But a Republican/DLC-Democrat coalition government.
It would become obvious that there's no significant difference between to two parties - especially the reduced Democratic party.
Sort of like the NFL, everyone has the same goals, the difference is in organization and personnel.
Bush Administration: Proving the saying, "You can fool most of the people some of the time, and 30% 24% 19% all the time."
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:52:25 PM PDT
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM PDT
But I agree about the likelihood, alas...
by chuckvw on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM PDT
Vermont's Progressive Party has been growing steadily, and at this point they have the strongest challenger to neocon Jim Douglas in the governor's race - Anthony Pollina.
State by state is the only way, and that takes time. But without the progressives we wouldn't have had an impeachment debate on the State House floor, and a resolution passed by the Senate. They strongly influence the debate and agenda, though as yet without a major administrative electoral win. It's unrealistic for any party to appear on the national scene all at once - the scale is far too big.
Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.
by kamarvt on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:15:59 AM PDT
I'm not donating any money. Period. I'm a strong supporrter of the 50 state strategy.
by sjgman9 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM PDT
......in setting a progressive course than the general election will be. Although there is not as much diversity in the positions of the Democratic candidates as I would like we still have a variety of methodologies from which to chose.
Hillary definitely espouses the old guard status quo which is beholden to corporate interests.
Obama naively believes that the mega-corporations and the right-wing extremeists will happily make efforts work with the progressives and the environmentalists for the common good.
That leaves us with Edwards who is committed to take on those invested interests that are plundering our country's wealth and resources in the name of more and more profits into the pockets of this country's billionaires.
by calibpatriot on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM PDT
by Lawdog on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM PDT
Donate to the DNC. It's the only Democratic group that's losing to the Repugs in the cash race right now.
The more money they get, the better Dean looks.
I'm running for office! Click here to support me!
by djtyg on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:22:04 PM PDT
I see a long continuum.
Extreme Left Wing ______________Extreme Right Wing
And I see us at different places on that continuum.
I choose any Democrat over a Republican.
I will never NOT vote. I'll vote for the candidate who is MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN THE OTHER.
Brokaw to Matthews -- Wait for voters to make their judgments...don't stampede and try to effect the process.
by Pink Lady on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM PDT
Then your vote will be taken for granted as the candidates centralize their fight and forget all about progressive causes.
by JoelNH on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM PDT
Change may take a long time. Patience is sometimes better and incremental change in the right direction is better than going the wrong direction.
It took the Republicans more than 20 years to get us were we are now.
by Pink Lady on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:50:21 PM PDT
progressives and the corporatists, who have taken over all of the repthug party and most of the demo party. There is little actual conflict between the two parties, have you noticed?
The brain is not a computer, it is a gland. "Holy Fire"
by rubine on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:22:42 PM PDT
on November 3, 2004 because I had absolutely had it.
The corporate media are destroying progressive Democrats. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party.
by lecsmith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:23:58 PM PDT
by nc 11th cd on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM PDT
officially part of the Neo-con, Rovian cabal?
Yeah, that's why Howard Dean and the DNC just joined the Culinary Workers union against the Clinton's voter suppression lawsuit in Nevada, a suit Bil was supporting publicly today.
Hard to believe we have people supposedly in this party who will openly attempt voter suppression. They used to be a little more subtle.
Well if they dump Howard Dean, it might just be time to organize a Progressive Party and identify the Republican/Democratic party for what it is - a giant monolith that wants to maintain the status quo in DC.
Maybe it's time for the PPPP - People Powered Progressive Party.
importer
by importer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM PDT
If Dean gets thrown out and the establishment takes over I'll have a hard decision to make: Stay a Dem and, with other progressive Dems, try to change the party, or become an independent until a new progressive party is created.
Obama/Richardson's Beard '08!
by Kyle the Mainer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:41:44 AM PDT
within itself.
Not an actual, formal split, but an internal fissure that will be a tug-of-war for the soul of the party.
There will be two wings: the DLC wing and the DFA wing. Howard will go back to DFA, and he and his brother Jim will continue to build their movement from there.
This is going to be a long-term battle folks. I am working for a non-Clinton candidate for precisely that reason. But one thing I learned since I got sucked into all this four years ago, is that you gotta look long-term sometimes. If Clinton gets the nomination and McAuliffe/Ford are installed, it's a setback, but we're just going to have work harder to move our people into the lower levels of the party infrastructure and send our dollars to DFA instead of the DNC.
And if the DLC crowd thinks that they can run a party without us, they've got another thing coming.
Tikkun Olam...Obama '08
by tethys on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM PDT
and look what happened. Going from being best known for their fiscal conservative philosophy to one that is evangelical through and through.
I don't believe something along those religious lines would happen to the Democrats. But, look what happened after Christian Conservatives were considered the base of the Republican Party. Very bad things occurred and still are.
I hope the same doesn't happen to the Democrats or we're in for a long 4 years of Republicans occupying the White House.
Get it together, Democrats, or we're sunk.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
by Casey on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:41:27 PM PDT
The Democratic Party as we know it probably won't exist past 2009 no matter who wins or from which party.
If the GOP wins, and watching the primaries suggests this as a real possibility, I think progressives will walk out on the Democrats on the basis of irrelevance. If Democrats can't win when everyone except the Bush 22%ers knows that the GOP has screwed America up, perhaps terminally, when can Democrats win?
In the event of Democratic victory, elected Democrats have the choice of governing for America or for Hillary's "real people reptesented by K Street", which non-Hillbots recognize as meaning Fortune 1000 C-level people. People weren't noticing that much when the political pork awarded to connected corporations came out of our hides. The next stage is pork taken from our internal organs, and even the low-information voter is going to notice.
If it's late 2009 and
I expect the Democratic Party to go on the rocks Real Soon Now, and it's time for us to start looking at building us a lifeboat... to start looking seriously at the mechanics of building a new progressive party. (somewhere else... thinking small working groupa at the moment)
The time to design and build a lifeboat is before the ship is sinking.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM PDT
:(
by shiobhan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM PDT
I wrote this using the assumption that it is not already too late and that the possibility even exists that the progressive movement can get its collective shit together.
by alizard on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM PDT
Two equations rule politics: $$$ = power and influence 0.1% of the richest == 42% of the poorest.
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:03:51 PM PDT
As a senior citizen who has butted their head for 4 years, I'll find other things to do until that new progressive party is created.
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:56:42 PM PDT
proposition. It is better to fight for the soul of the Democratic Party and win it back. Don't give up hope and go thru centuries with no power...that's what a third party would give you.
-4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
by sunbro on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:26:54 PM PDT
managing a disease - there's no cure, only a treatment and the disease is always trying to come back, and in any moment of weakness, it will put the nation on life support to the point it eventually, like any other parasitic disease, kills the host.
We need some stem cell research for democracy!
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." ~ Barack Obama
by Reality Bites Back on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM PDT
I like your analogy. We can help to prevent the disease by for starters getting rid of corporate money in elections and changing the status of corporate personhood.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. James Madison
by ScienceMom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:45:11 PM PDT
My ideas:
by Helpless on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM PDT
A few more years of "centrist" government, whether delivered by the GOP or the DLC, and America will become a failed theocratic police state ravaged by freak weather which will have become the norm, with an infrastructure decayed beyond use, and a government no longer capable of delivering services. Imagine an America that looks like post-Katrina NOLA.
America's wealth in terms of intellectual property will be expropriated one way or another. Our sub-prime McMansions will be rented to us as they fall apart by foriegn owners who don't care about court orders to maintain their property.
That's simply a linear projection of what current trends look like if nobody stops them. Centrist in this context means "nobody cares, we're here to help the real people represented by K Street".
The concept of generational struggle for the soul of America is completely meaningless. We've got a handful of years to get it right at best. It may already be too late.
No country in history has had the option of staying stupid forever.
by alizard on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM PDT
Which went through the same period of stagnation, decline and collapse America is now going through. While the Eastern half survived another thousand years as what we call today the Byzantine Empire, it too fell into stagnation, decay and eventual ruin.
by Archangel M on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM PDT
better. There are Roman-built highways that are still in use after 2000 years.
If America goes down the tubes, I doubt any of our roads will still be usable in a generation. Our roads were generally built by the lowest bidder.
by alizard on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM PDT
Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.
by Simplify on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:05:58 PM PDT
by Reality Bites Back on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM PDT
The Democratic party suffers from the same malaise that's afflicting the Republicans: lack of vision, group think, rigidity, venality, and an apparent inability to change with the exigencies of a new century...a time of massive transformation in all institutions, it seems, but the federal government. Dean gets that, so does Obama and Feingold and pitifully few others. It's astonishing that Bill Clinton, the sharpest bulb in the dusty chandelier, has become like one of the old white guys who persecuted him. A split in the party makes all kinds of sense...but not this year when so much is at stake. Maybe you're right... 2012.
by cas2 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM PDT
Some people apparently haven't learned anything during the last 7 years. 7 years ago there were a lot of people who blamed the Democrats for everything wrong in America. Some of them felt so strongly about this that they voted for Nader (and encouraged others to do so), providing enough votes to tip the scales from a person who would have been a damn good president to a sociopathic fundamentalist who has trashed our nation.
Now, there are a bunch of people (often the same people) claiming that ... the Democrats aren't good enough. I don't know if they are concern trolls or delusional idealists, but every time we start to show signs of unity on dKos, they come out with diaries telling us that we are fools for being unified against the Republican Party, and we should really be fighting members of our own party.
To hell with independents... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.
by dianem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM PDT
We HAVE to take the nation away from the Republicans ANY way we can.
by Pink Lady on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:24:21 PM PDT
You do realize it was Hillary's supporters who managed to eff up the primary in Michigan so badly, yes? To the benefit of one candidate alone?
We most certainly do have people who would suppress voters. They've gotten away with it already.
As for the PPPP -- way back in November 2004, three scant weeks after the so-called election, Howard flew around the country to meet with Deaniac-DFA'rs and asked which of these was the best step:
-- run again for POTUS in 2008 -- launch a 3rd party to run in 2008 -- remake the party and return it to its roots
The first would have found us running headlong into the same problems we'd already seen in 2004.
The second would not gain the critical mass necessary to effect real change, might only be a Nader-like spoiler.
The third was the best option because we were already inside the party in many cases, and it would take less time to build the critical mass needed if we took this step than if we tried the previous two.
We've given it a shot, and in many cases, we've been extremely successful on a local basis. But we are still not done; it will take a generational shift before the house cleaning is done, and it will be messy if the generation that must yield is the same one to which the Clintons and the Dean brothers belong.
I think we openly launch the PPPP right inside the rank-and-file of the Dem Party; we've been a shadow inside party, a sleeper cell outside the party in DFA. It's time we hollow it out completely.
As Eli Pariser of MoveOn said after November 2004, "We bought it, we own it, it's ours."
The DLC and the machine can either lead, follow, or get the f*ck out of the way.
by Rayne on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:26:25 PM PDT
From the bottom up.
George W. Bush - the Percy Wetmore of presidents.
by rmx2630 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM PDT
for a different point of view. Howard Dean had a lot to do with getting the netroots involved and building the progressive movement. He is certainly a threat to the "centrists".
by CA Nana on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM PDT