It helps to understand them more ... but it doesn't make them any less insufferable.

to spread a lot of propaganda. It would be so much better for them to focus on the real right. This idea that all we need to do to fix the problem is nominate more "Progressive" candidates has certainly captured a good chunk of folks imagination. Well, we just tested it with Bernie and the other candidates he supports. Its not working. And we should be happy it did not. If a candidate runs in a primary from the left and loses, that is clear proof they would lose in a GE, at least in my view. And if they win the primary, there is no guarantee they would win the GE.

Bottom line is, these policy proposals need to be proven out in State and local races in battleground states.

It does little good and probably harm long term to liberal causes, to run a national candidate that is outside the norm as represented in Congress and the General electorate, just my opinion. But lets watch Trump and see how it works out for the other side.

But probably not as big of one. Imo this is a "Generic Democrat +7" election. Hillary should overperform that baseline, and imo Bernie should hold that baseline or slightly underperform or overperform. Sanders probably loses to any moderate-seeming Repub.

Imo you could pick a random DUer and probably at WORST squeak past 270 every time. Trump is that bad and right now the Dems have a massive structural EV advantage.

I wish people would look at how we got here as a country. Say what you want about the right wing crazies. They did the work. They did the work starting in the 50s. They never stopped doing the work. Alternatively, look at how urban POC became the beating heart of the party of Andrew Jackson and the Confederacy. Doing the work for decade after decade, to the point that FDR, Truman and LBJ started a slow process of rejecting the racist whites of the South for black people in mostly Northern cities.

I agree 100%.

The GOP has no real national talent. Trump beat a very weak field. And, he is that bad.

It is black people who are the heart and soul of the Party. It is they who are the real left.

It sounds crazy when you point this out but yeah, the faux left is quite a force on the internet. I noticed it in 04. The publications I assumed would be natural allies turned out to be part of the problem. The one that comes to mind is Nation, which spawned CounterPunch or at least was Alex Cockburn's perch before he launched that gem. When you start looking into his and and his publishers' bios it becomes a little clearer but without getting too I think it's fair to say that the VRWC finds it useful to attack from the left as well as the right and publishers and writers have to pay their rent and postal fees. And when long-running mastheads outlive their founders they are at the mercy of market forces like other media.

Have been running through my head more and more these days.

is a thing on both sides.

Just like some wingnuts think Fox News is too liberal, so some lefwingers think Rachel Maddow is a corporatist sellout.

As the catalyst.

Before that, let's just say Bernie would have been too establishment for me.

An excellent post and one I relate to personally, thank you.

Voted Nader in 96 and 2000, will never vote Green again.

You know, what you're speaking of with the propaganda machine you described, just points out the FACT that journalists need to start being journalists again. If they did that, I think much of this misinformation would die out much quicker than it does.

And welcome home.

Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2016, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

that site jane hamsher ran.. the one that hated on my President Obama? Case in point.

They're emprogs.. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Emo%20Progressive

Thank you, fjt

Jane Hamsher ran FireDogLake, until it all went bankrupt. FDL used to be quoted by posters here constantly, some of whom have "moved on" and some that are still here.

When she lost her own site, she and her followers made very concerted efforts to take over other Democratic blogs.

You are correct....they NEVER had a good thing to say about President Obama, using the excuse, "He told us to hold his feet to the fire". What a crock.

the hate they poured down on President Obama.

Guess what! Obama is strong @ 53% and they're on the junk pile of history.

WE are the Winners!

We ARE the Winners!

I love it!

Yes, FireDogLake was always quoting Greenwald, who never had a good thing to say about Obama or Hillary. Meanwhile, he's not even living in this country, which makes his hateful views pretty irrelevant!

Don't forget, Jane was also besties with none other than uber conservative Grover Norquist for awhile. What was up with that?

helping Millions of people now and a solid foundation for stronger healthcare for the American People.

none other than Palin!

Jane is a fake-liberal, an outright fraud. Her tendency to reach out to the likes of Grover and Sarah should've tipped everyone off how much of a mole she is in order to damage and divide the powerful Democratic Party to the benefit of Republicans. She couldn't wait to bash Obama and only allowed him a couple of weeks after his inauguration before she began to do just that.

and why I've turned my back on liberal blogs like Common Dreams, Truthout, the now defunct Firedoglake, Alternet, Buzzflash, and Counterpunch. I began to see that they went on full attack mode against President Obama without taking into account the unprecedented Republican and Teapublican obstructionism he had to face each and every time. When I saw their lack of mentioning this as the major reason he couldn't push through more liberal policies, it was time to leave those places.

I had wrongfully assumed that all Liberals would understand and see the same thing I did, but then I began seeing this almost visceral hatred toward President Obama on those blogs, criticizing him for what congressional Republicans were and were not doing. I also began to believe there was something more than "just" his center-left positions (which are still pretty darn liberal in a Teapublican Congress!) that had incited and fed that anger and hatefulness.

And all their articles are released cc-by-sa3, so the DU'ers gleefully cut n paste the entire flippin thing every time.

1968 was the high water mark for the "left". These were the years of the "New Left"; and Tom Hayden is virtually the last man standing of that group. It has never really been replaced.
It turned out that there was no "mass movement"; the new left never made a substantial connection with working class people and black people.
Both are basically true today.

I wish I knew what the solution is.

Maybe because of cultural and race issues, alliances with groups from each demographic is the most that we can hope for in the present climate.

In the not-so-distant-future when we become a majority-minority society and, let's face it, white privilege has faded — being not so prevalent because of the being-in-the-same-shat-upon-by-the-haves-boat-reality — we will all be able to work in the same organizations without the "entitled because I'm white so I know what's best for you and thus I should lead" attitude that manifests itself so often in such groups.

That attitude is fractious and fails, as we've seen here on DU with some Sanders supporters. The banned "Stockholm Syndrome" poster being one of its most prominent practitioners.

I think that AAs POCs are already in the left. It is the working class whites who have to join the left. The whites on the left - those in the echo chambers - don't really recognize that non whites are the true leaders of the left.
You have to get beyond white privilege and recognize the real drivers of the process. They are non whites, gays etc.

The white working class is hard to reach; and, many of them vote GOP.

That is a source of the failure of Sanders; he is from the 1968 era of the New left ; he appealed to white working and lower middle class younger people. I think that he was just being blind to reality.

the left ( socialists, etc) has always had a problem with pragmatic reformers such as PBO and Clinton. They have a doctrinal problem; and, a practical problem. if liberal reforms work and people are satisfied, the left will have its' ground cut out from under them.

Socialsim, by emphasizing class conflict, gives other conflicts short shrift.

I remember early in Sanders' campaign there was the economic equality v racial equality issues.

Though intertwined, Sanders and his people didn't seem to understand that the high-tide-raises-all-boats approach of his brand of socialism wouldn't also solve the racial equality issue.

Your statement on Blacks and POCS and gays already being part of the left is so true and goes unstated and unacknowledged all the time.

The left has to build on the fact that blacks, latinos, POC, etc are an important part of the left.
I have real doubts about the importance of the people who go the sites that the OP mentions.
I have participated in Democratic Party organizations. I never encountered anyone who would fit into those sites; except perhaps, Daily Kos. The party activists that I knew were very practical.

but not much lately. There's something about "Democratic Underground" that keeps me coming back, despite this recent battle between the Clinton v Sanders camps.

I guess it the give and take in the comments section.

Daily Kos is a slightly different animal than the others. They called it for Clinton after Super Tuesday and they've been consistent about it so I give them credit for some pragmatism.

The left has not had very much power or influence in the USA; basically, twice. One was FDR and the other, for a time, was LBJ. With FDR, ww2 stopped the New Deal and LBJ ruined it with Vietnam. That was a real blunder.
So, one thing then is that the left has been very frustrated for years. Thus, they are very angry and lash out a lot. That makes it very hard to work with them.
And, there are elements of the left that is quite illiberal.

If we can get a Dem Congress ( both houses) and a Dem president, I think that we can get some work done.

Sanders is in many ways emblematic of the split between the Socialist Party of Debs which saw black liberation as something of an afterthough, and the CPUSA which went very, very all in on organizing black workers (as well as offering heavy pragmatic grassroots support for mainstream labor movements and Roosevelt's New Deal).

Debs did see black liberation as playing a lesser role.
The CPUSA saw blacks in a much better light.
I am not at all sure how well Sanders sees blacks and others on his radar.

he has that old white guy know-it-all attitude where just because he's been a socialist for so long he knows everything there is to know about class struggle.

Starry told me about a guy who went to a Trayvon Martin rally who was like one of those old activists and instead of talking about police brutality and racism, he talked about capitalism. Yes, you can crack open a book and say "capitalism helped create the social conditions that led to Trayvon's death" but that isn't going to resonate with black parents scared their children will be shot by racist white guys.

The distinction does continue today btw, CPUSA strongly endorsed Obama both times and will likely strongly endorse Hillary.

I think that Sanders does "care" in a very abstract sense; and, viewed through the prism of his doctrine. But, at the end of the day. I do not think that he gets it.
In 1968, there were a lot of "leftists" in the "movement". By 1976, they are nowhere to be found. They were not active in the Democratic Party. I followed Tom Heyden; he stayed with it, trying to get stuff done. The rest? I think that they went walkabout.

I think that many of the left will do what many ( Most?) of the left did after 68/72 - go walkabout.

...I also used to rely on 'news' sources like that.

I go now by this simple rule: If I can detect the author's emotion in the words of the article I don't trust it. Trigger words are words like "stooge", "shill", "warmonger", "commie", "bleeding-heart". Is it yellow journalism?

Edit: Although I did trust Anderson Cooper's emotion when he was listing the names of the Orlando victims. I was choking on tears along with him.

http://theamericangadfly.com/2015/01/28/the-rise-of-sensationalism-in-the-internet-age/

Sensationalism is a major feature of the internet. You get the traffic ( clicks) which brings the ad dollars. And, the internet is anonymous. The websites are run by people who are unknown and virtually unknowable.
Quality standards scarcely exist; a site can put up almost anything and few question it.

Not really a Bernie guy either. He was a Ron/Rand Paul guy first! Big difference huh?

From what I have seen, the online left tends to take a very negative view of Clinton. very frequently it does not really get beyond insults, rumors and gossip.
But, that is not new; that sort of thing goes back to Marx and earlier.

And, I am not sure how many 'leftists' there actually are. The Democratic Socialists of America have 10,000 members or less.

+++