davidinmanhattan @ 221

Thanks so much!

You should’ve introduced yourself, would’ve been nice to meet you.

Jane,

Yes, I wanted to, but it was a bit too crowded and they wanted us to leave quickly! Any chance you’re back in NYC soon?

RBG @ 171

You ask some good questions at your place.

Thanks so much!

You should’ve introduced yourself, would’ve been nice to meet you.

I dunno know, Jane. Is this really “opposition”? (The fact that you have to defend this begs the very question…) What has really been accomplished other than abdication of personal responsibility? WE DIDN’T STOP THEM. We kept buying houses, driving our cars, and hoping our personal comfort zones weren’t violated as we congratulated ourselves on how passionate and committed we were. And we’re still running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to find someone else (i.e. the proper kind of Democrats) to stop them FOR us.

I remain of the weird and no doubt unpopular opinion that all of this alleged activisim is a monumental metaphysical/logical trap into which the blogosphere has fallen. By working within the corrupt political system, the power of digital networking has been hijacked for the ultimate benefit of the very establishment one wishes to change. The real revolutionaries, it seems to me, are those willing to do the kind of inner exploration that results in individual behavorial change.

I totally believe that the opportunity presented by the current state of impasse and broken institutions lies in precisely that area, and it doesn’t take a movement to get there.

(1) What percentage of attacks are done by Al Qaeda in Iraq?
(2) Which militia groups are aligned with political parties in the Iraqi parliament?
(3) How many Americans have been killed by the Sunni Anbar sheiks we now are in bed with?
(4) Did anyone warn the President that if he met (and had a photo taken with) the Sunni sheik who was subsequently assasinated and if so, what was his response?
(5) What is the plan if the Sunni sheiks stab us in the back and use weapons we’ve given them against us?
(6) If the Iraqi parliament does not reconcile on key issues like oil distribution law what will the strategy be?
(7) What is the long-term strategy be beyond the next 6 months?

To many on the left, the desire to withdraw trumps the need for these considerations. I have been against the war since before it started. I believe the left must engage our opponents on these types of questions to expose the inananity of leaving our troops in a civil war with no end in sight. Merely to call the other side names and speak only of the need to withdraw without cogently exposing the flaws of the right-wing approach is not constructive. Moveon.org can be a very effective group because it is broad-based and grass roots. Unfortunately, the Petraeus ad provokes a response which limits, not enhances, its effectiveness in attaining its worthy objectives.

Some of us are mixing it up over at The Group News Blog, over the issue of one of the staff members telling posters there to stop talking about the fact that we think Hillary Clinton simply can’t be elected.

(He’s caught some flack, from some of the regulars, as well as some support, and has since said that he wasn’t trying to shut off debate, but you won’t get that from his opening-thread post.:o) )

But he’s a good guy, and I think, just brainfarted there, which we all do, from time to time.

My point is, that we should all be prepared for some intramural friction. Push is coming to shove, where the events in Iraq will become totally unspinnable as anything but the humongous fuckup that it is.

When that happens, the zit will be popped, and what comes out, won’t be pretty.

And the “unity” that the Clintonistas are calling for, three months before the FIRST primary, for Christ’s sake, is going to, temporarily at least, take a diving header into an empty swimming pool.

I’m sorry, but I think that’s appropriate.

Especially, when the people currently starting to shreik it, are doing it on behalf of a candidate who doesn’t think, or at least, won’t state, that invading Iraq was a mistake!

That kind of “unity”, is what got us INTO this misery.

And for any progressive blog worthy of the name, to try to stifle honest, reasonable dissent, is nothing but bushism on their part.

As the candidate-eating reality chickens start flapping their way home, we need to keep in mind that a good, truth-based, debate; even one that isn’t “unified”, is part and parcel of what we’re doing, as we try to pull the country back from the brink of the corporate 4th Reich that bush and his war supporters (and I DEFINITELY include Hillary Clinton among them) have dragged us to.

Put on your hard hats, people…we’ve got a president to elect; it’s just that it needs to be a president who is clear on whether or not supporting the clusterfuck was, and is, a mistake.

The Democrats clearly aren’t concerned with what their constituents want. Both parties are (and have been for some time) beholden to the very same deep-pocketed interests. No big donors, no election victories. No help from the corpomegamedia complex, no chance at “appearing” legitimate.

We are a Reichstag fire away from open military dictatorship. I am not encouraged by the utter failure of the Democrats to reign in this administration and end the warmaking/mongering/profiteering. They are of a piece and too much damage has been done.

Can we be redeemed as a nation?

I’m rather late reading this, so may be EPU’d, but . .

I think the Dems are taking advantage of voters, thinking “the Repubs are SO horrible, no one would EVER vote for them, so we can move as far to the right as we want. Our voters won’t desert us for the Repub crap.”

I think a third party effort at this point would hand another election to the Republicans, but I think a good start towards changing the situation [and taking back the party] is NOT funding the Bush Dogs who are now “incumbents” thanks to our $$$, and challenging as many of them as feasible.

However, I think we should marshal our resources towards eliminating the REALLY horrible Senators like Cornyn as well.

Jane is right. There is a struggle going on for the soul of the Democratic party.

I agree completely. And, it will take a lot of money to breach that fortress.

Normally what happens in presidential cycles is that a two-term president (as Clinton was) is deemed “successful” and, since s/he cannot get elected to another term, their brand becomes the Party formula for success. So, after two terms of Bill, the DLC (which Bill had taken over) became the party brand.

Except that under their leadership, we somehow lost the presidency in 2000, and again in 2004. They want us to think that those losses were “stolen,” because that justifies the meme that the DLC is the right way to go, if only we can keep those Dam* Republicans from stealing the next election. But if you argue that Gore and Kerry were dragged down each time by bad advice from the DLC, you realize that the DLC brand is a losing brand.

Bob Shrum, ’nuff said?

The Progressive brand was the dominant winner in 2006, but the DLC has been busy ever since trying to keep the public from realizing that.

Rahm “wrong” wrote about “The Thumpin’” as if he had much to do with it. We know the truth and if we keep working at it we can dominate the House even more (the Speakership isn’t enough).

In 2006, Howard Dean became chair of the DNC, pushed the 50 state strategy that the DLC opposed, and won big (except the DLC tried to steal the credit.)

Let there be no doubt. There is a contest for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Bob in HI

I think we need “More and better Democrats” and we can work on likely winners to get Progressives in where it’s cheapest and we can primary DLC Dems when that’s got a chance and we can look to specific reps who have been funded in large part by Hoyer’s or Emanuel’s (or other DLC) PACs as a way of undermining their ability to get elected to senior leadership positions.

As we build our numbers in the House we can outvote the DLCers on anything and at minimum limit the damage done by triangulators working with Republicans in the Senate or WH.

House control gives spending control and authorization for war and impeachment control. It’s fundamental power. So, we need good House leaders we Progressives can expect will uphold those minimum things our Republic requires.

Taking on the Senate will/would take a lot more money since those critters are only up for election once every six years and they can accumulate a lot of cash in 6 years.

For the upcoming election I hope to avoid having a Republican (including Hillary) elected president and I’d like to see more Progressives go into the House. Those are doable.

Ideally Obama supporters will realize it isn’t going to happen for him and they will drift over to Edwards. That might give him enough support to take the race.

I’m also living up to my omniscience.

Except you can’t make the edit function work.