What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives?


On the horizon is perhaps the single most important election of the past thirty years. Our economy, military, infrastructure, legal structure, and foreign alliances  are all literally falling apart. The nation that created the U.N. is now seen as a larger danger than Iran, Russia, and North Korea by a majority of the world, including Europe. In a nation of laws, those laws have been broken and openly ridiculed by those who are supposed to uphold them. Our neglected infrastructure already has a body-count that will likely grow. Our military is far past the breaking point, only held together by the sheer willpower of our men and women in uniform who are carrying ever-heavier burdens. Our economic future is bleak, with no signs of recovery for at least a year or more.
Our president is willing to ignore the Constitution, lie to suit his needs, invade foreign countries without cause, and ignore those in need. In the past eight years, the top 1% has grown exponentially wealthier, while the bottom 90% have struggled to stay even.

One of two men will be the new President in five months. There are two choices, and only two. Obama, or McCain.

McCain doesn't give a damn about the economy. His lead economic advisor believes that those of us struggling to stay afloat are a bunch of whiners. (The man was fired, but now is back with the campaign.) McCain thinks the housing crisis is our faults, and if we would just stop taking vacations or get a second job, then we would be fine. In effect, he believes that the millions threatened with the loss of their homes are just too lazy to do something about it. (He doesn't realize, apparently, that most of us haven't been able to afford a vacation in years, and many work 70 to 80 hours per week at their FIRST job.)

On our infrastructure, he has nothing to say, except that he would pull money from THAT fund to give a tax break to the oil companies in the hopes that they would give us a break at the pump out of the goodness of their hearts. He has repeatedly said, after thirty years in elected office, that he doesn't know much about the economy. You'd think in all that time that he might have . . . I don't know, overheard something at a party.

McCain loves the military, but only career military. Because he certainly isn't interested in helping our vets to get the same benefits offered to our men and women in uniform after WW2. His reason for opposing education for our troops . . . they might leave the military to pursue higher education. And heaven forbid giving our troops a future outside of the military.  

On legal issues, all you need to do is look to Bush. McCain has embraced Bush's lawbreaking, and he endorses the anti-constitutional measures Bush has taken over the past seven years. He promises to continue torture, warrantless-wiretapping, and domestic spying. This from a man who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution since his first day in Annapolis is both egregious and deeply dishonorable.

Obama's policies are progressive, even if some of his personal beliefs sometimes fall short. He is pro gay-rights, pro-choice, and for getting out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible. He has a progressive tax plan, he is for universal health care, he is aggressively for renewable energy, he is pro-union, he is for strong international alliances. Obama has led in the polls for months. He still leads today, although that lead has grown thin recently.

And yet, what do I see when I read progressive blogs? What do I see when I read progressive-leaning publications like the Huffington Post? I see diaries lambasting Obama for not being progressive enough. I see articles screaming about how he will lose without Hillary. I see diarists claiming that he has lost their support over THEIR pet cause, whether that be FISA, Gay Marriage, or any of a hundred hot-button issues. Not because he is opposed to their cause, but because he isn't for their cause ENOUGH.

I am not arguing that these issues are not important. EVERY issue is important, and I disagree with Obama on many of them. And if there was one chance in one million that John McCain were more progressive on ANY OF THEM, I might understand one's reticence to throw their full support behind Obama.

But that isn't the argument. I haven't heard ONE story on how McCain will throw his support behind gay marriage. I haven't heard ONE story on how McCain is going to end warrantless-wiretapping and reinstate the rule of law. I haven't heard ONE argument on how McCain is going to help unions or the poorest among us.

Because, for progressives, this battle isn't between Obama and McCain. This battle is between Obama and a magical super-progressive candidate that does not now, nor has ever existed. Obama is held to a simple standard, the standard of perfection. When he dares to be mortal, he is eviscerated by progressives for his failures.

And I, for one, am sick of it.

I'm sick of it because politics is a zero sum game. A no-vote for Obama in protest of his imperfections is a yes-vote for McCain and his active hostility of everything all of us hold dear. Im sick of the glee that some PUMA's get from every bit of bad news about Obama, willing to watch the nation burn under President McCain because of their hurt feelings. I'm sick of it because while we naval-gaze and write concern-diaries about how Obama isn't always 100% flawless in every way, the other side is gearing up to finish off their demolition of our nation. I'm sick of it because the only way we can lose this election is if progressives continue to do EXACTLY what we've been doing.

Because while we bitch and moan about OUR candidate, the folks on the other side are teaching themselves to LOVE theirs. They will do so with willful disregard of fact, with purposeful self-delusion. And if they can't quite make the leap to LOVE McCain, then they will certainly find a way to HATE Obama. And right now, we're helping them.

I don't suggest we make ourselves in the self-deluded-republican image. That's insane. But we can and we MUST take all things into context. We must stop looking for fault in Obama, and look to the positive. If he misspeaks, look for WHY he misspoke, rather than rail on him for doing so. And, when attacked, defend Obama  with every ounce of passion we can summon. When Obama falls short of perfection, it is up to US to shore him up and lend our support. Because, when given the choice between the two, Obama is THE progressive candidate. And, imperfect as he may be, he's the only one we've got.

Which makes him OUR candidate, and our only hope for a functioning country over the next four years.

EDIT: Holy crap, my angry little rant is on the rec list. Who'd a thunk it.

Display:


Tips for my frustrated rant? (2.00 / 18)


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27:51 PM EST

Re: Tips for my frustrated rant? (2.00 / 1)

Give 'em hell, Ash!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BOY do I agree with you. (none / 0)

And did they have it coming. If you hadn't put this together, I was getting my flame thrower ready for a rant of my own. Glad you got to it first, though!


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BOY do I agree with you. (none / 0)

Sure, let me take all the flak. :)


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips for my frustrated rant? (none / 0)

i really enjoyed thid thread. thanks for posting.


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips for my frustrated rant? (none / 0)

oops! "this"- (typing in the dark)


"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"
by epiphany on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips for my frustrated rant? (none / 0)

You're quite welcome. I kind of opened a great big can of snakes on this one. But, aside from a few troublemakers, it's been remarkably civil.


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

did your parents say no more puter time? (none / 0)

(why ARE you in the dark?? It's bad for your eyes!)


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

My two cents: we've spent eight years watching Bush go hard right with no compromise whatsoever, and now we think it should be our turn. The problem is, that doesn't work if you're a progressive. It only works if you're a criminal.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:31:36 PM EST

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 5)

I see that a lot. A lot of arguments between supporters of Obama and Hillary orbited that thought.
The problem with the 'screw-em, it's our turn now' is that it dooms the nation to a perpetual back-and forth, each side wiping out whatever the other had done, resulting in perpetual gridlock. Frankly, the past eight years have been too destructive for this approach.
We need to be doing what's best for the whole country, rather than looking for revenge.  
by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's short lived gratification (2.00 / 1)

the problem too is that the gratification is short lived.

Govern like Bush did and we'll find ourselves in four to eight years sitting in the same place the GOP is now. Perhaps worse since Democrats can't get away with half of what the GOP does.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pandering to the religious right (2.00 / 0)

is NOT good for the country in my view.

Trying to turn democrats into republican lite is NOT good for the country in my view.

What's good for the country is to elect someone who does not need to be a rock star or does not get elected because a bunch of people think he's cool.
I swore I would vote for whomever the dems nominated.  Now for the first time, I may not. Saddleback made me scared.  The notion he would pick someone like Kaine or Selibus when the best choice for VP is the woman who got half the votes is insane.

What's wrong with progressives?  There aren't as many as I thought.  We are dealing with the tabloid mentality, the cult of personality and that is damn scary.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're saying that you prefer McCain. (2.00 / 3)

Because if progressives like yourself decide to abstain, that's what we'll have. President McCain. And in four years after a few thousand more of our troops are dead, we're possibly at war with Iran and Russia, nothing has been done on health care, the economy is still in a hole, and health care is still a mess . . . THAT's good for the country?

On another note, I find it deeply offensive when people imply that I am voting for Obama because I think he's cool, or because he's a rock star. It's a direct insult to my intelligence and I don't appreciate it.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And it's a direct insult to me (2.00 / 1)

to be told that "if I don't give my vote to whom you deem" I am the cause of death and destruction.  Life is not that simplistic.  

But I have become quite bitter about people who rant about my vote and tell me how awful I am because I don't play "my party, right or wrong."  I never played my country, right or wrong and I sure as hell am not going to play it for the party.

Show me where I said I prefer McCain.  At this point, I prefer moving to Canada or the Netherlands.  I prefer a smart woman who I know cared about HEALTH CARE long before progressives were opening their eyes to what the insurance companies were doing.

And if you think electing Obama, or for that matter ANY progressive whether Hillary or Gravel, can magically fix the mess that has been decades in the making, you need a class in realism.

Why have so many progressives turn into absolutists these days?  That is why I have come to abhor the word progressive.  I am a liberal.  I have been a liberal voter for over four decades.  I did not vote for Nixon, or Reagan or the Bushes. I voted for every democrat, including the ones like Kerry who I thought was not a good choice.

But this time I have been insulted, pushed aside and ignored by the party I worked for for over four decades. I have been called a racist and a war monger because I supported Hillary.

Unlike nuprogressive, I do not see the world simplistically. To say Obama elected will prevent the Russians or the Georgians or the American corporations from waging war for oil, is at best naive and at worst ridiculous.  
You insult my intelligence with your simplistic threats.  Either you are very young or very naive.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And it's a direct insult to me (2.00 / 5)

It is not 'whom I deem', it is the democratic party nominee.
And the choice, at this point, is simple. The president will either be Obama or McCain. I don't believe that Obama will magically fix anything, I believe that what progress he DOES make as president will be reliant upon both a willing congress and passionate activists.
I understand that you prefer Hillary, and I respect that, but she is no longer one of the options on the table. And we have ALL been called names, regardless of whom we supported. Just a moment ago. By you, in fact.
If you believe for one second that McCain would be better for this country than Obama, or even if you believe they would be about the same, then your decision to drop your support for the democratic nominee is reasonable.
I don't believe that is the case. I believe McCain is fully willing to follow up on his bombastic threats. I believe he is willing to sell our nation to the highest bidder.
I'm very sorry you feel pushed aside by the party you have worked for. But while we're in personal biography mode, I feel pushed aside by the nation I fought for. The nation many of my friends died for.
This election is very personal for me. It's personal because, unlike me, many of my friends are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like me, many of them joined in the weeks and months after 9/11.  I was not stop-lossed and got out, but many of my friends were not so lucky.
McCain is full steam ahead, endless war. I can not and will not do anything that will help that man get elected.
This election is bigger than you, me, Clinton, AND Obama. If Clinton had won the primaries, I would be saying the same thing about her. That regardless of my personal distrust of her, regardless of whatever she said or did during the campaign that bothered me, regardless of what her supporters said or did, that she must be elected.

Because John 'Bomb em all' McCain must not be President of the United States.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's be clear here (2.00 / 0)

Neither of us are going to guilt the other into doing what we think is against our beliefs.
I am sorry you lost friends in battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am sorry I lost friends in Vietnam.  

But I repeat.  It is not simplistic.  

Wars do not start or stop because of one person.  You felt compelled to do something after 9/11.  That's is fine.  Obviously  at the time you thought military action was the answer and now you don't.  Should I judge you the way others judged Senator Clinton for her actions, giving the president the right to take actions IF and ONLY IF the inspectors would come out.  She was condemned for the mistake of believing that Bush would not lie to them.
You made the choice to believe military action was an answer.  I happen to be against war but at the same time I understand there are no absolutes.

You were too young to know in the 80s how we, America, armed Bin Laden and friends so they could get rid of Russia for American.  Then we left them, with weapons, with power.  Do you know how many women and children were beaten and murdered during the 80s while Americans got rich.  While I marched to try to get Americans to care about what we did in Afghanistan, and DO SOMETHING to help the women and children, the anti war left was silent.  Again, it's never simple or clear or black and white.

Equating not voting for Obama to being a war monger makes me angry.  There are no guarantees that either Obama or McCain can stop this mess in either country.  The mess in Afghanistan started a long time ago.  The mess in Iran started in the 1950s when America set up a puppet regime that maimed and tortured families.  The mess there is called BLOW BACK and it started when the Iranians revolted against what we did to them.......and it is still not over.

I am sorry you or your friends went to war. I am sorry anyone went to war ever.  But electing Obama will not guarantee the end to that mess and if you think it will, you really are naive.

I was a Hillary supporter and I said this about ALL Of the dem candidates a long time ago.  Whomever gets elected better be ready to live the hellish nightmare of trying to undo the mess Reagan, Bush I and W made, and to be trashed for not being able to perform a miracle.

I don't think that Iraq or Afghanistan will be ended easily by either Obama or McCain or Hillary or anyone.  It is not going to happen.
But I do know this.  Hillary could start us on the road to improving domestic issues and quite frankly unless things improve for families who can barely feed their kids, let alone get them healthcare.....or fill their gas tanks...they won't care about the middle east.

I have lived this before.  We the people put pressure on the government, dem and republican, to end the war  in Vietnam because en masse we had time to demonstrate, write letters, do it all.  We did not worry about the next meal or healthcare or being able to buy enough gas to get to work.  But now, most people can't do that..the ones not worried about food and health care are the rich republicans and I guarantee they do not give a damn about how many young people die in wars as long as it is not their kid.  

Once again, this is not just about Obama and Hillary. Or Obama and McCain.  It is about our country......and all the issues.  And making the democratic party, including Obama, accountable.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's be clear here (2.00 / 4)

I agree with everything you said. Except . . . how does withholding support from Obama forward ANY of your goals?

I am all for holding President Obama accountable and I will do everything in my power to put pressure on him and every other elected representative to do what is necessary.
But withdrawing support from Nominee Obama weakens you, me, and the rest of us.
Because McCain doesn't give a damn what we think. And congress will not end this war on its own. That, I'm sure of.

Of course geopolitics is not simple, and I'm all too aware of the U.S. arming the mujahadeen in the '80s in order to get rid of the Soviets, and propping up Saddam as a bulwark against Iran, who were once, again, a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

You listed many goals in your post. McCain is either indifferent or actively hostile on all of them. International politics aren't simple, but right now, the choices are. Obama or McCain.

Oh, and on a personal note, in 2001 I was pissed. Because as I heard word of the towers coming down while I was at work, and then the Pentagon, I saw Armageddon. In my mind, aircraft were already on their way to the Sears Tower, LA, Houston, Miami, Nuclear plants, the Hoover Dam. It took the rest of the day for me to stop holding my breath, and that feeling didn't go away. I wanted to do something. And of course, our commander in chief told me to go shopping. Instead, I went to a recruiter. I agreed and still do agree with Afghanistan, because there are still people there who have attacked this country and will do so again given the chance. But as I watched Bush declare war all on his own in 2003, a cold chill went down my spine because I knew that I would likely be going to war for no reason whatsoever.

Again, I was lucky. I spent almost all of my time in Kuwait as well as a couple of interdiction cruises. Most of my Seabee and Corpsman friends weren't so lucky.  


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jjc, EvilAsh . . . (none / 0)

. . . very nice thread.  Civil and thoughtful comments by all.

Wish there were more of this.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

just read more closely and saw this line

You insult my intelligence with your simplistic threats.  Either you are very young or very naive.

but still, mostly civil, and that's better than most threads.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

I do my best. Unfortunately, that often results in being called names. Like naive, or elsewhere in this  diary, dishonest. Actually, I got called that a LOT in these threads.


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

don't worry (none / 0)

getting your ankles bit by ZSG or some such other midget is just part of the game.  I was impressed how long you kept trying to engage him civilly.

Good diary.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can guarantee one thing (none / 0)

Obama wants to end the war and keep us out of any other wars...whether or not he's successful is not a guarantee, but it is certain that's his plan.

McCain thinks more wars is ok.

So yeah, anything you do to bring McCain to power makes you an accomplice to a warmonger. You have the choice this November to keep a war-loving trigger-happy military nut out of command and elect someone who's goal isn't to get us all killed.

This, btw, was the same argument I tried to remind people over on kos who threatened to not vote for Hillary should she have won.

This isn't a hard choice.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said (none / 0)

An abstention is as good as a vote for McCain, for more cowboy government, more death and destruction.  All you Hillary people need to get over losing the primary.  You've had a couple of months to cry, now buck up, for Christ's sake.
Grab the rope and pull or get the hell out of the way.
by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said (none / 0)

Just to straighten out the facts a little:

Abstention is not the same as a vote for McCain. A vote for McCain requires TWO votes to make it up, one for the lost Dem vote and one for the gained Rethug one.

Say four people each vote for Obama and McCain. Then one person switches from O to M and we now have 3 to 5. Needs two Dem votes to make it equal. Now, if we just have, say, and M staying home, it's 4 to 3, and the Rethugs just need one Rethug vote to make it equal again.

An abstention only requires one vote to replace it. So while I would rather people voted Obama, if they can't, I'd much prefer they stay home than vote McCain.


by SuGeAtARC on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said (none / 0)

You're making the same mistake of thinking Obama's waning support is because Clinton voters can't "get over" losing the primary.  The problem is that the candidate, Obama, was always going to be a nearly impossible candidate to sell to middle America.  You need to step back and look at this choice --Obama or McCain-- from the perspective of people (voters) who are far less "progressive" than you are in politics and temperament.  I continue to be amazed that the Democratic party got itself in this situation to begin with.  If we, as a party, are that clueless... well, some would say we deserve to lose.  But in any case, if there is a problem (and there is) look to the candidate, don't waste time on unproductive analysis of other voters' psyches and loyalties.  Your candidate has to win it on his own, just like any other candidate.

As for you youthful ultimatum, I chose 'get out of the way' quite some time ago.  Although that doesn't mean I won't comment on a blog from time to time.


by Susan in Oregon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said (none / 0)

What I don't understand regarding people like yourself is that you don't see this election as a choice between Obama and McCain. You say that Obama is a bad candidate, then isn't it up to US, the progressive left, to work HARDER to get him elected?

The notion that if the best candidate, in your view, doesn't win the primary, then you'll take your marbles and go home is deeply selfish.

Is there any doubt in your mind that McCain will continue the Iraq war? Is there any doubt that he is hostile to women? Is there any doubt that he is hostile to gay rights? Is there any doubt that he will continue with Bush's economic non-policy?

But of course, that doesn't matter. What matters is that Obama isn't good enough.

Some of us don't have that luxury. For some of us, the last seven years has been a constant fight for survival, either through constant layoffs or literally in our armed forces. We can't just hole up and hunker down for another four to eight years like the last eight.  


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said (none / 0)

First, I am sure I have seen the losing side of more elections than you have seen elections in total.  I have voted for loser after loser.  As a result of that I have some perspective on what sort of candidate can win in America.  Obama is not and never was even remotely close to that kind of candidate.  He was a lost cause from the outset.  His early flush of popularity was based almost entirely on being a fresh face and a pretty voice in a dismal time.  But what happens when the face isn't so fresh anymore?  You need to consider what wears well over time to middle Americans... and it's not not a perceived progressive (who really is not so progressive) with virtually no experience at all, with an automatic appeal to yuppies.  It was a doomed exercise from the beginning.  You know what kind of Democrats can get elected in this country?  Populist, perceived centrists (even when their actual policies are more progressive than Obama's, such as Hillary Clinton), who appeal to the middle and working class.

It's not that I prefer to see McCain win.  What I prefer is irrelavant.  He will win, and it's going to be a sorry, sorry day for the Democratic Party.


by Susan in Oregon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said (none / 0)

Reading the last two posts, I am filled with a profound sadness for both of these posters. How depressing must it be to live a life in which ONE person, and one person ONLY can save the country.
It is astonishing to me that those who have seen many presidents come and go can believe the world can only rest on the shoulders of someone named 'Clinton', and anyone else is both a loser and a disaster.
More than two months before the election and both of these posters are already lamenting the death of democratic chances at the presidency. I'm not sure 'defeatist' is a strong enough word.
I don't suppose there is anything I or anyone else can say to convince either of you that such an attitude is precisely what leads to defeat. Instead, I'm going to contribute a hundred to Obama in your honor, and go back for a few more hours of phonebanking.

by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're going to win this thing (none / 0)

without you, and that's just fine. Oregon will go massively for Obama despite your false concern, as well as any number of battleground states.  You simply fail to see the genius of Obama's ground organization.  Rather like Hillary in Iowa.  
As to my "youthful" ultimatum, I'll take that as a compliment, although I'm sure it was meant to be condescending.  Your perception is as flawed in this regard as elsewhere.  
by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:13:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Insulted, pushed aside, and ignored" (2.00 / 5)

Your response came across as intelligent and well-reasoned, until this surfaced:

I have been called a racist and a war monger because I supported Hillary.

Did Obama or his campaign staff call you a racist and a warmonger? Was there a memo circulated among you lot, calling you names? Or is this another of those convenient grudges based on hearsay attributed to some unknown, unnamed, irrelevant bloggers?

I'm neither very young nor very naive. And I don't for a second believe that you truly subscribe to that bit of reasoning you've tried to pass off in defense. No, what I believe is that like many others that are not "very young and very naive", you're holding on to your bitterness simply because you can.

You have the luxury of indulging your spiteful non-participation in this election. Clearly, you have the means to bail out, to move to Canada or the Netherlands if this country goes further down the toilet. You can afford to sit back and watch, comfortable and smug - unlike EvilAsh, unlike his colleagues still stuck in the hellhole that is Iraq that your "preferred smart woman" did little to prevent.

Well, BULLY FOR YOU. No, I'm not calling you a warmonger. No, this is not a "simplistic threat". But yes, I will call this behavior incredibly selfish and self-centered, and certainly not liberal or progressive. And I honestly don't give a damn if your intelligence or any other attribute is insulted by it.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoooo! (none / 0)

That one is heading out of the stadium altogether!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's ok (none / 0)

I've been called a sexist pig, traitor, and snot-nozed brat for supporting Obama.

I'd like to think had he lost, I would've gotten over it.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:44:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's ok (none / 0)

I got sexist pig, as well. I've also been called a clone, a drone, a mindless sycophant, a cultist (of course) a mental defective, walking white guilt, Obamaton (I like that one) and an latte-sipping waste of oxygen. All by Clinton supporters.  


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pandering to the religious right (2.00 / 1)

1. It might if you're either not religious or not in the actual act of conversion generation. Actively engaged religious people address the world a little differently. The actual convert generation addresses more of it because of the extreme life change which happens with a conversion. You don't see those often in politics, and here it had to be shown because of the muslim garbage.  Of course, most self-identified religious people there out of custom and family habit  are not that engaged and think going to the church on Sunday and to sunday school about says it. But the convert may spend his whole life demonstrating again and again that he is genuinely what he converted to, because they cannot imagine a day when they did not believe whatever they believe, as if it were as settled  as part of the right and only proper construction of the world as the fact that the sun rises in the East. the ability to imagine it in a convert is patent, since he was once not one, and they always distrust the convert and make him be more than they demand of themselves because of that.

There's a saying that religious fights are the bitterest because there's no money involved, an Episcopalian saying which I agree with. It's a miracle that the Republs could get the religious right marching in the same direction at all.

At the same time, the convert may well be more aggressive in various spots because he or she has not taught himself to ignore the parts that are inconvenient or difficult or which 'nobody has ever understood.' The convert had to understand it all to change over, and may be a bit more zealous about some of it than the born believer who may never in life have worked the whole thing through with his or her forebrain.

If Obama did not think you could be both a good Christian and a politician, he would not be among us progressives. But the blend is not the mostly secular one most on these sites use to get along. See second point below.

2. What's with progressives? A need for unanimity on everything, or the demand for perfection in all things progressive for 'progressive' candidates.  Given a progressive with one or two issues we don't agree on or a right wingnut who agrees with us on nothing, we will almost invariable unite to kill off the progressive guy. We don't think it through because as one of 'us', our candidate is thought required to agree with us in all things and under all circumstances. I have been watching progressives since the Sixties, and they would rather eat their friends because that one does not agree with them on this little thing over here than their enemies who want them dead and demonized. Ugly but true and occasionally truly funny to watch, although I am not yet laughing this year.


by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 3)

Too much fiber is my guess.

We need to grow more constipated...ya' know...like Republicans.

More meat and cheese is the ticket...lot's of cheese...and maybe bananas.

EvilAsh - I'd rec it if I could, but I'm completely new here.

;-)


"Can We Build It? Yes We Can!" - Bob the Builder
by Stipes on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:35:18 PM EST

stipes!!!! (none / 0)

wanna rumble?  betcha you have smelly socks?!?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"what do I see when I read progressive (2.00 / 1)

blogs?"
People who don't agree with ME !!!!
People who aren't in lock step with ME !!!!
How DARE they - - don't they know that progressive is defined as being 100% in agreement with every other progressive 100% of the time without any room for difference or dissent!
(snark)
Seriously, he has my vote, because as usual I will vote for the least odious candidate.  But, don't tell me Obama / Biden or Bayh or Hagel or Nunn is a "progressive" ticket.  Just don't even try.  It would be a center right, Washington insider, corporate-friendly, don't rock no apple cart, establishment ticket at best.
Again, I'll vote for it.  But don't try to convince me I wasn't sold a bill of goods under the "progressive" label.  It was bait and switch.
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (2.00 / 2)

Well, rattle off a list of progressive goals, and tell me why Obama is so opposed to all of them.

And, in your view, who WAS the progressive candidate?


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (1.00 / 0)

Why, Hillary, of course, LOL!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (none / 0)

FISA and taking insurance companies out of deciding health care. 2 just off the top of my head. can he nuance those issues and still get my vote? yes, I will be voting for him (unlike psychodrew and spiff if he chooses the wrong VP) but to even pretend he is a solid progressive is disingenuous at best


by zerosumgame on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (2.00 / 4)

Neither one of those are progressive goals. Rather, they are both individual policies and votes that we believe forwards progressive goals.
For example, one progressive goal is restoring the rule of law and the constitution. (It's absurd that I've got to list that as a progressive goal, but that's where we are.)
Opposing FISA is an individual policy designed to assist in that goal.
Ditto for taking insurance companies out of health care decisions. The goal is free (or near free) health care for all. If we had good, cheap health care, nobody would give a damn about insurance companies.
A lot of times we miss the forest for the trees in getting hung up on individual battles. I'm the first one to disagree with Obama on FISA, I think it was worth a full court press and a no vote and a fillibuster. He didn't agree. However, does that mean he 'caved' to pressure? Or does it mean that he doubted it would affect the outcome in a real sense? Is it likely that anything would change before January? Is there a liklihood of a presidental pardon that would have the same result?
Ditto for insurance companies involved in health care. Obama has repeatedly said that he'd prefer a single-payer system, but it's just not workable. So, he's looking to create a system that will either force the insurance industry to get better, or die trying. But the overall goal is still the same, universally available health care at a reasonable cost.

Yes, Obama does things differently, and we don't always agree on where he picks his battles. But each fundamental goal he is working towards is absolutely progressive. However, his methods are relentlessly pragmatic. Some see that as an idealogical cave. However, it's the approach that has the best chance of working.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (2.00 / 1)

so wanting the Constitution enforce is not one of your ideals (readers please note that this person is equating his/her opinion with "real" progressive thought. just a bit of an ego problem here)? Funnily enough I am not shocked at that. And it is pretty plain that no matter the issues detailed you will dismiss them as not being a progressive goal(s), as defined by you and only by you. So the bottom line is it is impossible to hold any kind of honest discussion with you.


by zerosumgame on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously (2.00 / 2)

FISA will be settled by the courts, as long as we have a President who will appoint good judges.

Remember too that it is completely Constitutional, unfortunately, to spy without a warrant on an American citizen calling a foreign number (United States v. Brown). The biggest problem with the FISA bill as is was the telecom immunity provision, which granted sucked, but there was an argument in favor of it, namely the class action lawsuits the companies would face could bankrupt them.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but I think FISA was more about planning ahead politically than giving away the farm to the telecoms. Imagine what would've happened if the Democrats held up FISA and a bomb went off a train somewhere in the country?

Obama may very well be fighting for Vermont.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (none / 0)

the only relevant question is whether or not fisa represent an issue regarding progressive values. the rest is just political calculus. i dont understand why progressives feel the need to do the political calculus for politicians. conservatives certainly dont feel this need. there is a defensive posturing to it that prevents us from getting more of what we want.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (2.00 / 1)

No, conservatives just say, "He's a good man and I trust him."
When you ask why, their response is usually something like,
"He's a good Christian." or "He's a war hero." or "He won't raise taxes."
The republican rank and file aren't known for their complex political reasoning.
by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (1.00 / 1)

so how is it different when you just say "He's a good man and I trust him."? Just curious since you don't seem to want to engage honestly...


by zerosumgame on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they don't nitpick (none / 0)

is what he's saying. They don't seem to have a problem with McCain and he hasn't exactly screamed conservative values over the years.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they don't nitpick (none / 0)

really? in what way hasn't he been hardcore conservative? for that matter- what has he been doing during the primary and general with regard to his base?


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From what I've seen (none / 0)

I don't see him running to the right. I see him running on "change" not the last eight years, which the base thinks has been just dainty.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (2.00 / 4)

I'm really enjoying how you call me dishonest in every post.
Keep it up.
by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously (none / 0)

You're in excellent company.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't (2.00 / 1)

really? They seem to be doing it right now.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "what do I see when I read progressive (2.00 / 2)

That's not what I said, and not what I meant. I'm not even sure I know what 'real' progressive thought is.

What I was pointing out is the difference between ideals and legislation. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Yes, FISA certainly affects the ideal of, you know, obeying the constitution (which I can not BELIEVE is limited to a progressive ideal these days. I thought it was a little more universal than that. Silly me.) But FISA is legislation.
Upholding the constitution and due process is an ideal.
And I was arguing that we shouldn't confuse the two.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There you go again, (none / 0)

bein' all logical and stuff!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK. I'll say it. (none / 0)

This poster is a TROLL. He's popping up everywhere, stirring up shit, throwing flames and TR rating everything regardless of content.


Saxby Chambliss: Asshat
by mikeinsf on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why center right? (2.00 / 3)

Obama votes 80% with the ACLU, roughly equivalent to John Kerry. That's not Russ Feingold (100%), but "center right" is a bit much. Lieberman is "center right".


by Neef on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why center right? (none / 0)

Poor logic: I only murdered one of the 10 children, and thus I have a 90 percent record of not killing children.

The core issue is whether he did or did not use a center right perspective on the issue in question, and thus was the criticism from a progressive perspective warranted. not whether or not you can use a punch card to rationalize  the choice. "I only killed one of ten, and thus , I shouldn't be criticized for the one."


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok (2.00 / 2)

murder and political issues are not very good comparisons.

Killing one person out of ten makes you a murderer, but disagreeing with one issue out of ten makes you a Republican?

No wonder they always win. They have a monopoly.

Criticize, yes, but if we're going to hold our votes because of one issue out of ten, then why bother even running a candidate.

Even Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts. Does that make him not progressive?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok (none / 0)

i can't argue with someone who pretends they don't understand that they are being provided an analogy as to flawed logical construction. if you want to pretend by being a literalist that the analogy doesn't work thats your issue, not my logic.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your logic is ridiculous (2.00 / 2)

you shouldn't vote for anyone then. Who's perfect out there? Who scores a 100%?

Feingold doesn't get a strike against him for voting for Roberts?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your logic is ridiculous (none / 0)

my logic captures the flaw of justifying an act by pointing out other acts. no one is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, they are simply trying to clean up the water.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your logic is ridiculous (none / 0)

Well, to stretch an already strained analogy, it seems that some people are trying to clean up the bathwater by beating up the baby. Not only won't it work, but you bruise the baby.
(Yes, I know it makes no sense, but it's getting late and I'm starting to get loopy.)
by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:38:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

odds are you won't get any of them (none / 0)

Obama needs our energy.


*&=4eva
by BlogSurrogate57 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They smell (none / 0)

that's my main problem with 'em.


by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:59:57 PM EST

My ADD (2.00 / 3)

Most Americans, let's face it, have short attention spans.  Asking people to base their votes on something which occurred more than three months ago is often a losing enterprise.

Yes, a Democratic candidate should not even have to make the argument to progressives that a Republican in the White House would just continue with the same old same old.

Last year I thought the various scandals at the Justice Department would be the point of no return, the moment would say, in Popeye-esque fashion, that's all I can stands cuz I can't stands no more.

But nope.  Guess it doesn't work that way.  


by IncognitoErgoSum on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:02:57 PM EST

Re: My ADD (2.00 / 2)

No kidding, I think Obama's next ad should just be a running list of criminal, moral, and ethical violations over the 7.5 years by Republicans and the Bush Administration.

Maybe end with tying McCain to Iraq again ("and said he still would've invaded Iraq knowing what we know now, no wmd and no al-queda/Saddam linkie" [btw, wtf?]).

We need to keep reminding people how the republicans fucked our country up so bad, over and over, and shove the fact that we are where we are specifically because of repub/bush policy and no one else.
This country cannot sustain another Republican president without serious consequences


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My ADD (none / 0)

Sounds more like a moveon.org ad to me.


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend that people watch the Santos/Vinick debate from Season 7 of The West Wing. It's a good reminder that things aren't quite as black and white as we'd like them to be, plus it's some damn fine television.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:03:35 PM EST

Does anyone else (2.00 / 2)

feel like we're living in a real life Santos/Vinick election?

You know Santos was based on Obama and Vinick on McCain


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does anyone else (2.00 / 2)

They were amazingly prescient in predicting that, though Vinick conducted himself far better than McCain. Hopefully they weren't too prescient; they were originally going to have Vinick win before the actor who played Leo McGarry died.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but he didn't win (2.00 / 1)

and it was a close election with a long drawn out Democratic primary, while the GOP candidate sailed through. The convention united the party.

and notice the map. I am always intrigued to wonder what went through the minds of the writers who made that map.

Santos won South Carolina and Missouri, but lost Vermont and Maine? Seriously? And even though Santos was able to score a big victory in South Carolina, Nevada was close?

I could've made a more realistic Electoral map and still got the same result.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but he didn't win (none / 0)

It is possible that the writers of the West Wing are in fact clairvoyant.


by Cincinnatus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does anyone else (2.00 / 2)

True, but Vinick was based on 2000 McCain. The Vinick in the show wouldn't let 2008 McCain polish his shoes.
Neither would 2000 McCain, for that matter.
by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (none / 0)

You are confused. You are pegging beliefs against whom you support rather than having a set of principles that you hold even as you support a candidate who may differ with the beliefs. We have a reactionary pary and a center right party in this country at this point. If you think either is 'progressive' you don't understand what progressivism really looks like. Bill Moyers had an interview this past week with a guy who discussed how Americans can't look in the mirror at ourselves, and indeed, we can't even allow our politicians whether Democrats or Republicans to tell the truth. This is on display in this diary.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM EST

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

My point in this diary isn't to crush discussion or even to peg my beliefs to Obama. It is a call to, at this point, to not hold our votes hostage unless Obama meets an imaginary ideal that falls 100% in line with our positions.
You can do that sort of 'disqualifying issue' during the primaries because there are a lot of options. But during the general it's suicide.

 


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (none / 0)

If you are going to try to quash criticism at least be mature enough to admit that is what you are doing. You provide no philosophy, values or underpinning ideas that define progressivism or liberalism. Instead, we get to talk once again about a particular candidate in a particular race. On a blog about politics that's fine, but don't try to couch the discussion as one about progressivism when it's clear you are uninterested in the subject. You speak of FISA above for example as not a centralized progressive idea- I laughed because you are rationalizing. Due process (which is what fisa is about) and rights of privacy are fundamental to anyone claiming to be progressive. You can have good government that's not progressive- it's called a dictatorship.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

FISA is not an ideal, it is legislation. Just as the Civil Rights Act was not an ideal. Or Affirmative Action.
There is a difference between the two, and I was pointing that out.

And I'm a little disturbed at the notion that due process has somehow become a progressive ideal. I kind of thought that it was a constitutional ideal.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 1)

I am pretty sure the 4th amendment isn't  a partisan ideal in geberal, rather it has been politicized by this administrations GWOT and fear mongering of the masses.  Ask an educated libertarian if they think the 4th amendment is a solely a progressive ideal.  Ask an educated conservative is the 4th amendment is a progressive ideal.  I doubt many share with you the idea that the constitution and bill of rights is solely owned by progressives;

  Now, were you to say that republicans/neo-cons have been using these documents as toilet paper since Nixon, we'll that's a different story


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 1)

the 4th amendment is a progressive ideal because it deals with concepts of fairness. this isn't  a discussion general had with conservatives in the traditional sense. whether conservatives adopt a progressive idea or not is irrelevant to whether that idea is progressive. you also confuse partisan with idealogical perspective. but thats another discussion.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (none / 0)

No I wasn't confusing it, that is my whole point that progressive ideology doesn't belong to the "progressive niche of the democratic party", that it why I laid out those examples, to show it was "above" partisan lines, so methinks we are 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (1.00 / 2)

oh, i see. in that case your point is idiotic since it's irrelevant to the question which was why progressives are criticizing obama. methinks that like many peop online you lack critical thinking skills. good luck getting through life with that.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

Oh I can critically think, it has already helped me in my profession.  I also don't see any evidence of you "outwitting" me by any means.  Since you rejected my conciliatory tone, I can now safely assume that you are a repugnant asshole; that will certainly not help you in life.  So enjoy your hand as you lie alone tonight.


by KLRinLA on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (2.00 / 2)

Then enlighten me, what does progressivism really look like? What are some core progressive goals?


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:03:55 PM EST

Re: What the Hell is Wrong with Progressives? (none / 0)

We aren't here to enlighten you. You wrote a diary attacking others- then it's up to you to demonstrate you understand the concepts you are using and can provide a concrete basis other than "this is how I feel." I can certainly go into due process and concepts of fairness, but I feel that would be a waste of time. This was a plese dont criticize Obama diary, plain and simple.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is code (none / 0)

for well, I cant actually tell you what a "progressive" believes in because Obama would fall right in line with that thus destroying my argument.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is code (none / 0)

if this is concerning me- I already provided one. namely fairness and due process which comes out of progressive/liberal thought. what i am not willing to do is to waste my time with someone who can't provide me with their theory


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HA! (none / 0)

If you don't want to 'waste your time' then why have  you posted more than ten times in this diary?


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

waste my time providing you with definitions that you then claim aren't. for instance, people say well it think the 4 freedoms are a foundation of progressivism. you would then exclude it. i am not wasting my time with that. i am however here to call out what you are really doing whether you admit it or not- which is quashing dissent.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

Wow, are you psychic? Not only psychic, but you can see the future, as well. Because apparently you know what I'm thinking and what my arguments will be before even entering the conversation, and so you refuse to engage.

And actually, the four freedoms are an excellent place to start when defining the ideals of progressivism.


by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

if you wanted to discuss progressivism you should have started from progressive values rather than trying to call out people for supporting those values.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

by the way pscyhic would be knowing you wanted to discuss progressive values by attacking those who seek to defend those values where ever they arise and whomever attacks them. psychic is not pointing out what your diary actually says  and does progressivism isn't situation based on candidate support.


by bruh3 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

Well, I have yet to see or hear Obama attack progressive values, in any forum, at any point, ever in his life.
And if he DID, then it makes sense that progressives would call him on it.
But that's not what has been happening, and it's not what I was railing against.
Progressives have been attacking Obama for not being  being supportive ENOUGH. And while progressives attack Obama, the right attacks Obama, and Mr. McCain, who actually IS attacking progressive values, gets a free pass.  
by EvilAsh on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

I have no idea what you are saying other than you don't like dissent. And to that I am going to simply say tough. You want to blame progressives because Obama is being attacked by the right. How about blaming Obama for not fighting hard enough to redefine the debate. That would be expecting him to lead . The buck stops with him. And not one person gives McCain a free pass. You are setting up strawmen and then ignoring Obama's own behavior for creating this situation such as when you things like you don't see where Obama has attacked prgressives. When he voted for FISA he attacked progressives, and this is only one example. Look believe what you want, all I am saying is stop trying to squash those who disagree with you. We aren't the reason Obama is slipping slightly (and its only slightly in the polls). It's because Obama hasn't defined McCain and has been busy since the primary trying to run a safe campaign. He can't afford to that. Even with his advantages he's a black guy running (and I say that as a black guy) and he's a democrat. We have more advantages this year, but it still doesn't allow for this kind of caution. He needs to be negatively branding Mccain with simple to understand sound bites like "vote for McCain, then you are voting for Bush." etc. He needs to be attacking McCain on his perceived strengths etc. Instead, he seems determined to go mlktoast because his campaign believes its safe. If you will notice- none of what I am saying is about policy or idealogy. It's about campaign strategies that have hurt democrats in the past. It seems too many o fhis advisors are repeating those failed mistakes. I mean - seriously- look at who he is considering for the VP role. He needs someone who compliments his needs to be a concilator from his community coaliton background. Somtimes you really do need a pit bull- or a bad cop, to play off Obama's good cop. If you want to undertand his numbers- this i the bsis for them. It's why I supported people like a biden or a webb or clark. Not becuse I agreed idealogically, but because they would fight aggressively against Mccain. In short, stop blaming progressives for Obama's situation. He's the one who is making these decisons, and at the end of the day, progressives don't have that kind of clout to do what you are claiming we are doing. In fact, that's why we are often choosen as the fall guy - its easy to attack someone whom yo uthink can't come back to fight you.


by bruh3 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (2.00 / 2)

We have a somewhat different definition of an 'attack' on progressive ideals. A compromise vote on a bill that one finds important, after a 'yes' vote on a provision that would have stripped telcom immunity from the bill, I do not see as an attack. I see it as a difficult compromise.
Was it the right way to vote? I believe it wasn't. Was it an attack by Obama on progressive ideals? No, it was one vote. Which he explained. Extensively. He knew we were pissed and went on Huffington post to explain himself. Which, again, I'm fine with because at least FISA was a REAL issue and an actual bill.

But when you and me and everyone else logs on to MYDD, or DKos, or anywhere else, we have a choice. We can bitch about the latest way Obama isn't the perfect candidate, or we can do something half-way constructive.
Does doing our best to hold Obama's feet to the fire make the country more progressive? Does it make this country better in any way?
Or does it just hurt our chances for November.

McCain knows this. That's why he sends trolls here to screw with us. Little did he know that it was hardly necessary, we're more than able to self-destruct all on our own.


by EvilAsh on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HA! (none / 0)

saying things like it was a vote isn't a response to why it wasn't an attack on progresive ideas regardles of the p