..biting the hand that feeds.. or something like that.

In fact, the original PROGRESSIVE PARTY was an offshoot of the Republican Party. Of course, Republicans were much nicer back then, it was before the "Southern Strategy" started pushing them off the rails.

A lot of people here on DU would be shocked to learn that the "Third Way" is regarded by scholars as a subset of progressive movements. Don't tell them--it's more fun to read the boasts about progressive credentials juxtaposed with childish "Turd Way" jokes.

Of course, a large portion of DU aren't Democratic voters. I don't know what the number is.

Did they make sure bush did not steal the elections?

Did they stop the patriot act?

Did they stop the Iraqi invasion?

The list can go on and on. So, f'yeah, we are Democrats and we are pissed at the Democrats who don't represent us. No one should be even a tad bit surprised that some of us are not happy campers.

Of course many wish we would go away, but then DU would be useless.

We see the bone on the floor, and we could take it. But we all jump around barking at each other until we're worn out.

Then the GOP Doberman walks up and just takes the bone.

At one time ... this site did have lots and lots of great commentary and strategy about how to elect more Dems and push the GOP out.
All we had to do was get behind Obama, and stick with him.

The GOP will lose a fight, and still declare victory. When Dems win, we have to go on and on about why we really lost.

Why wasn't their a primary of Obama in 2012? Because it was a dumb idea. Yet here they were, same folks attacking Hillary now ... demanding that some savior appear to replace Obama.

Endless sniping does nothing to create new and better candidates. Quite the opposite really.

It was divisive and dismissive of many good Democrats' grave concerns about the direction of the country.

And it complains that we don't accept Hillary as president. Even before the first primary vote!! My gawd, it's like he is telling us to sit down and shut the fuck up like someone would tell a dog.

There are republicans who express more interest in democracy than what was dribbled out from that mean post.

just look how many people here have stated.. "I will never vote for Hillary..."

For me... it doesn't even matter who wins the Dem Primary, when I go into the voting booth I am just going down the entire column and voting "D".

I feel like many DUers don't know we have a GOP Party that really is the enemy.

I don't think any true democrat would not vote for the democratic ticket just because they don't like the one that won the primaries.

I hope these people are just shouting out knee jerk reactions and come to their senses by the next election. That would half remedy it considering all the negativity they already spread.

Please be detailed in your answer. If not complaining about the state of the Democratic Party will improve the Democratic Party, I surely want to know.

Because—and forgive me for sounding a negative note here—I think the Democratic Party could stand a lot of improving.

... days after Obama took office, the whining began.

He let some RW pastor give a 30 second invocation ... GASP.
He was never going to end DADT.
He was going to CUT/GUT/SLASH Social security.
He was never going to leave Iraq.
He was going to make the tax cuts for the wealth permanent.
The ACA was awful and going to kill us all.
During his first term, any down turn in the DOW signaled a Double Dip recession.
He was going to invade Egypt, Syria, Libya, just like Bush had invaded Iraq.
He was never going to support ending DOMA.
Every months we add jobs, UE down about 5 points, and apparently all those are meaningless jobs.
Housing market was going to continue to collapse.
And of course, a DU standard, every Dem in congress sucks. Except maybe two or three.

All of these at one time or another were common wisdom on DU. Threads screaming bloody murder, rec'ed to the Greatest page over and over. And all for the most part, totally wrong.

In 2011 ... a large part of this site started to call for a primary opponent for Obama. Ignore the fact there was no such potential candidate in sight. The screaming was endless. And useless.

None of this nonsense moves the party in a more progressive direction.

Back in 2011 I tried to tell the folks demanding a primary of Obama that they'd do better to spend their time trying to find and BUILD more progressive candidates for 2016. And if they did not ... then by 2015, they'd all be here whining about Hillary Clinton and how there was no one strong enough to challenge her from the left.

And where exactly are we?

Right where I said we'd be.

So please feel free to run around whining about Obama, Clinton or Dems like Kay Hagen. Is the US Senate better with her, or with the Tea Bagger that replaced her?

You want to fix the party? First get as many Dems elected to office as possible. Even some of the Blue dogs where that is necessary given a states ACTUAL voter base. Then, build new candidates at the local level. People who will, overtime, move up and into positions of greater influence.

Or ... come to DU and scream about how awful the Democrats are. Because that somehow magically creates more progressive alternative candidates.

Oh ... when you watch the news shows ... watc the pundits. The one on the RW, angers that base, to get them to vote. And the one who is nominally positioned as the "liberal", listen to them all but tell Democrats that their candidates suck and they might as well stay home.

Get the angry RW base to vote a little more, get even a small amount of the perpetually disgruntled left to stay home, throw in some good old fashioned GOP voter suppression of minorities, and the youth vote ... and a party that should be DEAD, gets a shot at winning elections they should never win.

Enough details for you?

This is the best synopsis of the situation I have ever seen. Thank you JoePhilly!

If you add things ... SEND THEM TO ME

I get so sick of the folks on this site who have been wrong over and over and over demanding that we accept their pronouncements.

I am so sick of it - nothing the president has done is good enough for them. And the goal post moving!

How many times have we read "why doesn't Obama use the bully pulpit?" The bully pulpit, the bully pulpit.

Then he gives an amazing speech about their pet issue and they sniff "talk is cheap."

Meaning that sniping—complaining verbally— creates worse candidates than if no one had sniped. I still cannot see how verbal complaints do that.

Your response was lengthy, but in the end it didn't show what practical, real-world, detrimental effect complaining has. For example, if people on this board really were complaining that "the ACA was going to kill us all"—to such an extent that you called it common wisdom on DU—then what was the real-world effect of that? What actually happened?

If you are saying that politically-involved people complaining about their party on a political board depresses general voter turnout, I'm sorry, that's hooey. That's an unsupported supposition. The real actual things that DO affect elections are the GOP tactics you acknowledge—throwing red meat to their base, constantly devising real-life ways of discouraging minorities & the young from voting—not to mention their gradual and very nearly complete annexing of the media.

The GOP gives its base what it wants. Democrats have Sister Souljah moments and call their base retards and insult liberals by calling them ignorant on trade policy. Oh, but we shouldn't complain.

But clearly, that approach is not getting you better candidates. And I'm not sure it counts as being "politically active" in any meaningful sense.

Endless whining does not generate more progressive candidates. And it probably keeps some good folks from running because they know that the INSTANT they compromise in anyway, you will turn on them. Its not worth it.

The other thing that doesn't help your cause is the use of endless over the top hyperbole, when one's own skin no thicker than that of a grape.

You mentioned the TPP ... oddly, the folks who screamed loudest about the items from my earlier list, are the ones screaming loudest now ... maybe this time they will be right, but their record isn't so hot.

BTW ... what is with some of you folks and the false use of terms of endearment like "honey"? Obviously you did not mean it that way.

And then you whine about insults.

You'll have to ask the person who called you honey. Which was not me. I'm the one who asked you to explain something you said.

The endless whining does not generate better candidates.

If it did, DU would have created THOUSANDS by now.

What it does is turn people off.

Does NOT mean that person is a Democrat! Attacking Democrats is a pretty good sign that they are not what they say they are.

And, with some.. the "hate" is more than that.. it's vitriolic and ugly.

I've voted democratic my whole life, I'm no republican. I will vote for the Green Party's Jill Stein this year.

"Democratic" can mean more than one thing.

The thrust of this post seems to be we must support whatever the democrats do. Does than seem rational?

There are still progressive democrats, just not enough of them.

This site is filled with more progressive democrats, apparently, than neo democrats.

The bottom line is most of us have no use for republicans so we have an issue when democrats start acting like them.

If the purpose is to defend whatever path the democrats take that that really doesn't sound right.

That seems almost demonstrably true. The vast majority, however, are insufficiently doctrinaire to be considered "progressive" by a very small, very loud claque of posters.

You'll see them all over - usually tarred with labels like "Third Way", "DLC", "Corporatist" or "Neoliberal" (which, I assume, is the equivalent of your clumsy "neo democrats&quot .

Bernie Sanders doesn't want that, has said he will do nothing to allow that to happen. Hillary Clinton didn't want that, which is why she got behind Obama in 2008 and supported him.

Applying slurs to those still working and making things happen for the good, calling us 'neo democrats,' does not play well with everyone. I support New Deal programs in my state, ones that still exist and save lives, against the schemes of the state's GOPs and Libertarians.

Those lives will be lost with a GOP in office, slashing SS, etc. and that is who I'm concerned about, not ideological divides in the Democratic Party. You are free to leave the party and go to work for the Green Party, no one is stopping you here.

This is the BOG, under the heading of 'Democrats.' I think you might get a lot of Recs if you make an OP with your case for not voting Democratic and voting for Stein in that forum.

This is not a forum.

at real Democrats.

Oh, and you're in the Barack Obama Group on Democratic Underground. The Admin, Skinner.. got it right.

Have you checked out the TOS here, at all, ever?

This is a site with a goal of electing more DEMOCRATS--not GREENS--to public office.

Pursue paths to victory. Support our candidates. Enlighten minds! Be a beacon for like-minded!

The dismissive certitude and contempt is disconcerting.

It gets my hackles up!

Now, GD is very fast. It can take no time at all and the OP is gone. I see posts with one or two comments, and they inspire! I see posts with 400, 450 comments, I would never even look at.

I don't think what you do is a waste of time. If it matters to you, it matters...

Many good posters have left, many who visited and joined and then saw nothing but negativity and infighting, were turned off the Democratic Party as represented here on DU. Some were actually sucessful locally with campaigns but were not willing to play the sniping games that go on here. Sniping at Democrats, that is.

It's always in the back of the mind of posters, trying to not offend those who alert stalk and throw invectives at posters for what are mild posts, but they get attacked.

This is not the place for people to be creative and help getting more Democrats in office. It's more like a shooting gallery. I've been emailed by people who were long time posters who no longer post because it makes them physically ill.

But your words are very kind and helpful, and I stay more to the groups like this one. Or AA, where intelligent discourse and open mindedness is celebrated. Because they know what really matters, it's not a game to them.

Most of us vote on the issues rather than by party affiliation, so we are reticent about voting for someone who is not with us on all the issues.

Would you prefer a party full of drones who would vote for Reagan reincarnated if you put a D after his name?

Just curious, thank you.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Your post is pretty antithetical to both that explanation and the OP to which it's a response.

Thanks, though.

I agree/disagree with that statement. My post is definitely antithetical to the OP, as I reject the OP's assumption that party infighting is a bad thing. I think, if not quite a strength in electoral terms, is a sign of the strength of our positions, because they are arrived at by vigorous debate, rather than by a bunch of yes men saying "yes".

This brings me to where I disagree with you. My post is not at all antithetical to it being about Republicans and Democrats. It has been, and should be, a matter of pride that our party's policies are built from the ground up, out of the plurality of opinions of its members. On the other hand, the Republican policy comes from the top down, and their ability (somewhat undermined by the Tea Party) to enforce party unity is the envy of some (in my opinion, shortsighted) Democrats. I submit to you the Iowa Caucuses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

Look at the difference between how Republicans and Democrats select a winner. Our processes is built around debate, because through vigorous and open debate(and a few hurt feelings), we will arrive at policies that are more correct than we would arrive at through groupthink. If given equal footing, correct ideas will defeat incorrect ideas in time, but incorrect ideas, if sheltered from debate, can stand in perpetuity.

My point is that though our voters may not "fall in line" for the general election, because our party is made up of a plurality of deeply held ideals, which, in the big picture is a strength. If we want to improve our standing, we need to teach our base that it is their duty to view in every election, and to view the entire length of the ballot. Do that, and we will win, and we will win without taking the democracy (messy, as democracy always is) out of the Democratic Party.

Shots rule the day.

Nothing wrong with valid criticism but we're talking about Hate and lack of Respect.

And, thank you for respecting that you're in the Barack Obama Group.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life.
Democrats stand for what I stand for.
Winning is good. Winning is important!

And "would you vote for Reagan... blah blah blah.. that would never happen"


Just ask Russ Feingold.

"The New Deal isn't going far enough!!!!1!!!!!!" etc.

Obama is easily one of the best presidents of my lifetime, and arguably in the Top 5 in the past 100 years. But you'd only have to glance at DU to learn how absolutely terrible he really is. Just awful.

You could also learn "facts" like that Hillary Clinton is NOT really popular among Democrats, and how middle America is really interested in electing more socialist candidates. Even though you can count the number of elected socialists on one hand.

DU seems to specialize in "rage bait" posts. It's why I rarely post here (mostly scan the Greatest topics to see what people are talking about). I'd rather read pundits like Kos and Digby, for informed commentary.

escaped their wrath.

A D by the name does not a Democrat make. Today there are many false Democrats. Their goal is to undermine the party and push it to the right.

This guy, he is a Democrat.

Can you give us a quickie definition?

TIA.

I agree completely.

there would still be the usual whining about him. "Japanese Internment Camps" comes to mind. He had to deal with shite on the "left", too. Some just want what they can't have. Good ol nostalgia.

FDR didn't have one of those, either....and there was that little business at Port Chicago, where servicemembers of color were forced to work in slave-like, dangerous conditions under the direction of white supervisors who were assholes. But hey, those were the "good old days!"

a lot of racism involved back then.

Racist Southern Dems..

"The Navy asked Congress to give each victim's family $5,000. Representative John E. Rankin (D-Mississippi) insisted the amount be reduced to $2,000 when he learned most of the dead were black men.[44] Congress settled on $3,000 in compensation, and interred what little remained of the victims in a local cemetery with tombstones reading "Unknown, US Navy, 17 July 1944".[42] Years later, on March 4, 1949, the heirs of eighteen merchant seamen killed in the explosion were granted a total of $390,000 after gaining approval of their consent decrees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California".[45]

Mahalo MADem for enlightening me.

and "Unrecommend" threads.. with your whining about what a "real Dem" is.

We have a "real Dem" who is President now. We're living in the present.

reminded me that no one is perfect.

It's like some sort of romanticized idea about the past.
Roosevelt had many other imperfections.

Right after his announcement aired. I got some some simple posts among allied So Cal Progressives I work with, and we were noting how pleased we were to hear Bernie announcement. Challenges Hillary and corporatist Dems. Well, that bland interlude was short.

Big stream of ranters soon jumped in deriding him like he was Dick Cheney. Main issues: his ties to AIPAC, voiced support for Israel and rejection of electoral politics in favor of direct action. Folks urging many of us not to donate to his campaign.

It will be an interesting campaign season.

rest of the Board to state why they hate on Dems.

Excellent OP.. Mahalo for Skinner's POV.. and the link to your thread, Steve.

It needed to be said.

BTW great response to cali.

I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary, and in the 2008 and 2012 general elections. Also donated in 2008. But the relentless, obsessive hatred for progressive Dems at DU over the last six years has been astonishing. Maybe it's just a minority-- all indications suggest so-- but it has been horribly demoralizing, and for many years now.

Anybody who is attacking members from the left is, by definition, aiming their vitriol at progressives.

"Obsessive hatred for progressive Dems" is plentiful. You'll find it throughout the board from purists and, though you're correct that they are a minority, they are very loud, disruptive, and unwelcome.

It's the pretend "Democrats" on this site who are doing the lion's share of the "hating".

I was here for the 2008 DU primary wars - and the blood-letting was copious.

However, despite who was an Obama supporter, an Edwards supporter, a Hillary supporter - no one's (D) bona fides were questioned as a result of who they supported.

There was no such thing as "leftier than thou", or labeling those who supported a different candidate as Third Wayers, authoritarians, DINOs, ConservaDems, etc.

We were ALL Democrats here - separated only by the idea that some of us supported one (D) candidate over another.

I originally joined this site because it self-identified as "a sanctuary from the anti-Democratic rhetoric" that was persistent in the wake of the "election" of a Republican administration.

We were family then. Now we Dems are just a warring faction against those who pretend to be one of us.

What bothers me the most are the posts that are spiteful. Imo, there is no place in the democratic party for such pettiness. We are not going to agree on every issue, but we should be able to disagree respectfully and without childish name calling.

The power of our party comes from our "big tent." Empathy among our diverse groups and acceptance of their separate priorities gives us our strength, and sets us miles apart from the republicans.

PBO as well as Hillary and Bernie, have served our country honorably, with grace and dignity. Basic respect for their service isn't much to expect from a democratic site.

Thanks for the post, steve. K&R

Its the price of having a moral code.

If the person in question can't meet the standard, that what happens, no matter what they call themselves.

Group as it clearly states in the OP.. where we celebrate the Accomplishments of our Dem President.

Recommendations for your thread, that is.
I've been busy lately, so I don't have as much of a chance to post at DU as often anymore.
Or to read what is being said here as much as I used to.
Life got in the way.

I don't think it was actually a waste of time to start that thread.
I'm sure that somebody will link to that thread 10 months from now and say, "see, this is why we should ALL vote for the Democratic presidential nominee".
That's always how it seems to work here at the DU, with members linking to other member's old threads.
Sometimes, they'll even dredge up something really old that was said years ago on the old DU forum.



I'm not so sure that Skinner is correct when he said " . . . so many Democrats hated Democrats.", however.
A lot of the anger that was displayed here back in the early years of the DU was not directed at Democrats -- the elected Democratic officials they were talking about at that time -- as much as it was the particular DU member's perception of those elected Democrats appearing to be willing to compromise with Bush when Dubya was in the White House.

It really pissed some people off when Democrats like Ted Kennedy or John Kerry said anything that somehow seemed to help President Bush at all.
A lot of threads were started here in the early 2000's that developed into huge discussions back then about how the agenda of the Democratic party should change since we were no longer in control of the White House.
Since we were not in control of any of the 3 branches of federal government in 2001, many DU members felt that we should start acting as the opposition party . . . that our elected Democratic representatives in Washington should oppose Dubya as much as they possibly could, in fact, every single chance they got.

Some members of DU were disgusted whenever one of our Democratic representatives seemed to be willing to work with George W. Bush.
The truth is, we hated Bush, not those Democratic officials that were serving in Congress in Washington.
However, after some time had passed with Dubya as the President, some of that anger got misdirected.
And it was aimed directly at those elected Democratic officials because they didn't always have an immediate knee-jerk reaction opposing whatever Bush wanted to do next.

And that's because they were Democrats.
They wanted to think through the proposals that Dubya had made to see if they were good for Americans, or not.

Democrats do not march in lockstep fashion like the Republicans do.
And it is true that for a lot of those Democratic representatives, they did what they could to slow down or stop Dubya Bush from screwing up America even more.

However, sometimes it wasn't possible for them to do very much after September 11th.
Because of the feelings voters had back home for Dubya.

People can opine that those feelings of the voters shouldn't have mattered much to those Democratic officials, but those people simply don't understand the intricate nature of politics.
"All politics is local" ~ Tip O'Neill.

Which means that anything they did in Washington had an effect on them back home.
It affected their chances of being re-elected.
And every single Democratic representative in Washington realized they couldn't do a damned thing to try and stop or slow down Dubya if they weren't still serving in Washington.
They couldn't slow Dubya down while he began his agenda of destruction of the social safety nets that the Democrats had spent the past 65 years building and refining, if they weren't there to vote against Dubya's policies.

And that's what caused the gridlock in Washington after 2001 to become so partisan here at DU.