Attention All Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives

Filed in National by on February 10, 2016

It’s no secret that I can’t get 100% behind a candidate. Whatever. I’m a mess. Yep, it’s me, not you.

Here’s what we can do…

Given the fact (yes, fact) that neither one of our candidates will get their agenda through Congress, we will need to stay focused and supportive. Some (some, not all) of the most vocal supporters on both sides were also vocal Obama supporters. They (some, not all) were also the first to throw in the towel when the Obama Presidency didn’t deliver exactly what was promised, or had to compromise. Yes we can! might have been a sincere campaign slogan, but today it’s never been more important. We dropped the “we” pretty fast last time, and, yes, that hurt us.

That cannot happen again. If you’re signing on to your candidate’s agenda, then no bailing when things get rough – and they will get rough.

I have always been fine with moving towards a goal, by taking steps. Everyone had better be on board with that reality, because if we win then we can’t go from cheerleader to complainer. And if you feel it’s not fair for me to call for you to hold your fire then you aren’t acknowledging the political landscape. This ain’t 2008. We know what’s coming. We didn’t then, but we do now.

If you think criticism will get you what you want once our candidate is President, you’re kidding yourself. Previous criticism turned into Republican and MSM talking points… unless you believe when the negative numbers for “Obamacare” were presented anyone took the time to discuss that a portion of those numbers were because it didn’t go far enough. Yeah, that sure as hell wasn’t the talking point.

So, if you’re on board today, then you have to be on board for the duration. If a Dem becomes President the goal will be to change hearts and minds, not getting the agenda enacted – because that ain’t happening any time soon.

I will support our chosen candidate. I will continue to support them through their term. If you can’t sign onto that… that’s a big problem. It’s also a familiar problem. So maybe it’s not me… it’s us?

So, who’s with me? Are we ready to go the distance?

Tags:

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason330 says:

    “They (some, not all) were also the first to throw in the towel when the Obama Presidency didn’t deliver exactly what was promised, or had to compromise.”

    I understand now that I was pissed off at Obama for not being the President I IMAGINED/HOPED he’d be. Not the President he said he’d be. I think he was very clear about the kind of President he said he’d be. I just didn’t listen. And I don’t think I’d have the same problem with either of our candidates this year. I’m a grown up now.

  2. pandora says:

    I’m so proud of you! 😉

    And Obama was quite clearly a centrist. I did point that out in 2008, but does anyone listen to me? Noooooo

  3. puck says:

    I think you misunderstand where the criticism of Obama from the left comes from. Don’t underestimate the enormous sense of betrayal left-of-center Obama voters (aka “the base”) felt over Obama’s unforced errors on the right side, namely: Failing to fight for the healthcare public option, extending the Bush tax cuts, and putting the Catfood Commission proposals on the table. He wasn’t defeated on those issues – he gave in. In his second term he apparently had an epiphany, and got back on the left side of the road after nearly losing the base altogether. This was after bitter criticism from the base, mocked by the Dem establishment as “purist.” But Obama quickly responded to the purists’s criticism. So no, I don’t pledge to keep my mouth shut.

    I don’t think Bernie is going to get single payer or a stock transaction tax enacted. But the fact that he says he WANTS to and thinks that is the right thing, makes me prefer him over the candidate who DOESN’T believe those things.

    Of course there will be withering Republican opposition. But when the time comes to compromise, who do you want doing the compromising?

  4. pandora says:

    And if Bernie compromises? If he doesn’t “try hard enough”? Yeah, I’m worried. Democrats cut their own throats so often.

  5. pandora says:

    And I’ll remind you one more time – Obama never ran on the public option. Not even a teeny bit. Does that even matter?

  6. Geezer says:

    What you are advocating is exchanging political engagement for a job as a cheerleader. I am not interested in empowering Democrats unless they are going to push forward positions I agree with. In fact, I prefer that people with those policies run as Republicans, so when everything goes to shit the correct people get the blame.

    If Carper, Coons and Carney were Republicans liberals would be able to run against them more effectively. They hurt my interests more as Democrats than they would as Republicans.

  7. puck says:

    “Obama never ran on the public option. Not even a teeny bit. Does that even matter?”

    That old canard? Come on Pandora:

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

  8. pandora says:

    Campaign/ran on is different than push for in 2009. If you voted for Obama you weren’t voting for the public option. Once elected he tried to expand his promise into the public option and it didn’t fly, or, in your words, “didn’t try hard enough”. You hold going for more than he ran on against him. I don’t.

  9. Geezer says:

    I voted for Obama because he wasn’t Hillary, and that worked out pretty well for me, as he continues to not be Hillary.

  10. Jim C says:

    He also campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA; he said he was going to call the leaders of Canada and Mexico and fix the “treaty” to help American workers.
    Didn’t do it.

  11. Mikem2784 says:

    I just can’t wait until Trump calls Mexico to have them get started on the wall. 🙂 Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  12. Andy says:

    He ran on enacting Union Card Check also and that withered on the vine

  13. puck says:

    I don’t hold Obama accountable for promises he fought for but was defeated – only his unforced errors. But those unforced errors demoralized the base and damaged the Democratic Party’s relationship with the working class. Remember the “enthusiasm gap?” Right now, Bernie’s got the enthusiasm.

  14. pandora says:

    I 100% see the enthusiasm gap. I just didn’t realize (given by comments here) it was tied to strong disappointment/anger at Obama for not getting things done. I find that interesting. So when Hillary says she wants to build on Obama’s platform/achievements, Sanders’ supporters see that as a negative?

  15. puck says:

    “I just didn’t realize (given by comments here) it was tied to strong disappointment/anger at Obama for not getting things done.”

    I suspect Democrats who have a secure and sufficient income are very pleased with Obama and can’t understand why other Democrats are disappointed. When evaluating politicians, the Establishment left has given far too much weight to social issues.

    Having said that, i think Obama heard the criticism from the base and made the necessary changes to his attitude in his second term.

  16. puck says:

    In answer to your question: Yes, I think it is necessary to build on Obama achievements including Obamacare. Medicare for All is not incompatible with that process, in fact it is a next step in building. Do you think Sanders would sign a Republican Repeal Obamacare bill? Hillary’s incrementalism sounds to me like two steps forward, three steps back.

  17. pandora says:

    Hmmm… yes, I’m financially secure – for now – but it isn’t something I take for granted. And this is the second time (recently) you have pointed this out to me. Last time I believe you said it was my luxury. I have always acknowledged my privilege. Go check my past comments and posts. I’ve been quite clear about how fortunate I’ve been.

    I would like you to flesh out this comment: “When evaluating politicians, the Establishment left has given far too much weight to social issues.” Can you explain this to me?

  18. puck says:

    The comment wasn’t about you, it was about the Establishment. Go check the age demographics on Hillary vs. Sanders supporters.

  19. puck says:

    “When evaluating politicians, the Establishment left has given far too much weight to social issues.” Can you explain this to me?”

    Sure. It is an opinion. We on the left have been too quick to give our blessing to corporatist Dems as long as they were for LBGT rights and pro-choice/Planned Parenthood, for example. I’m for those things too and wouldn’t vote for someone who opposes them. But in doing so, we have failed to insist on Democrats who are not corporatists. That is how Democrats are losing the working class.

    There was a time at the peak of the conservative movement when it was defensible to support any Democrat where control of Congress was at stake. But now conservatives are in disarray and vulnerable – this is the time to vigorously push back, not to triangulate with them and their corporate masters.

  20. mouse says:

    Good point Puck, I agree. I’m much more concerned about being able to collect my social security and not having it go to feed tax cuts for the 1% than I am social issues.

  21. pandora says:

    I would hope Bernie disagrees with mouse and puck’s comments about social issues.

  22. anonymous says:

    puck and mouse are correct.

  23. pandora says:

    That’s a lot of luxury on display. Just sayin’

    And you do Bernie a disservice.

  24. anonymous says:

    luxury? i’m for bernie because he wants to redistrubute the wealth. as for the “luxury” of not focusing on social issues like gender or even feel-good black lives matter stuff (not talking about the specific, urgent goal of keeping cops from killing unarmed blacks), that focus will turn off many potential bernie voters and put the presidency in the hands of people who are corporatist and, in the case of the republicans, eager to roll back significant social changes that have been made in recent years. it’s that thing about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  25. pandora says:

    “Social issues like gender” and “Feel-good black lives matter stuff?” will “turn off many potential Bernie voters?”

    Yep, you guys keep talking, or should I say… digging.

  26. Dave says:

    I think Puck has a valid point. The meme “Social Justice Warrior” speaks volumes. Don’t you wish there was a “Economic Justice Warrior” meme? Of course someone will offer that social justice includes economic justice or that they are one and the same, but perception is perception and regardless of the technical definition, social issues took a back seat to economic issues. Politicians being politicians paid attention to that which you told them to pay attention to. The GA pushes an apology; Markell signs it and everyone is happy!

    Jason has a good point as well. Democrats supporting Democrats, during the campaign and during their term in office. Of course one could ask – when will that start? You all gonna support the Democrat? The Congressional Black Caucus made a significant point of that this morning.

  27. anonymous says:

    pandora: the potential bernie voters i’m talking about are those more in the center who are not necessarily social justice warriors. sorry if contemplating this makes you feel morally sullied. you don’t want them? hello president trump.

  28. pandora says:

    And now we’ve tossed in the term “Social Justice Warriors.” You guys do know that term is used as an insult, right? Bernie would be ashamed of you.

  29. Geezer says:

    “We on the left have been too quick to give our blessing to corporatist Dems as long as they were for LBGT rights and pro-choice/Planned Parenthood, for example.”

    He is describing our governor and congressional delegation. Do you disagree?

    “Yep, you guys keep talking, or should I say… digging.”

    Digging how? Gay marriage is now a reality. As nice as that is for gays, it does nothing for the other 90% of the population — nor does it do much for the economic security of those now-married couples. Would it be unfair of me to point out that the chief tangible benefits of gay marriage are economic in nature?

    What you’re demonstrating is that you’re perfectly happy with social issues being addressed and economic ones back-burnered — possibly for the simple reason that the economic issues aren’t immediate for you.

    Let’s try it this way: Gaining power is a zero-sum game; we can’t both have it. So what motivation does a white man of upper-middle-class status have to vote for someone intent on fixing problems for non-whites and women? Much as I care about those issues, they don’t actually affect me — and most people vote out of self-interest.

    If you don’t understand the difference between an issue that unites progressives and one that divides them, I don’t really see where that’s my, or other Bernie supporters’, problem.

  30. Geezer says:

    Your tender feelings are no credit to your candidate’s position. You sound like a crybaby.

  31. pandora says:

    Oh, I have a candidate now? Please show me where I’ve endorsed a candidate. You really, really, really need to stop making crap up. But it seems like the only way you can debate me is by setting up strawmen.

    I have also said (many times, but which you ignore so you can make up something else I’ve “said”) that I agree 100% with Sanders’ economic platform but would like him to expand it. That’s obviously a bridge too far.

    And there aren’t enough words for this: “Let’s try it this way: Gaining power is a zero-sum game; we can’t both have it. So what motivation does a white man of upper-middle-class status have to vote for someone intent on fixing problems for non-whites and women? Much as I care about those issues, they don’t actually affect me — and most people vote out of self-interest.”

    Believe me, I get that you guys are coming from the white guy perspective. That’s glaringly obvious. What’s interesting is how you understand voting in your self-interest (the default citizen position?), but don’t afford the same courtesy to non-white, non-hetero, non-male citizens.

    This thread has been extremely enlightening. Keep on typing, guys.

  32. Geezer says:

    Oh, right. You just hate the people who support Bernie, you don’t support Hillary. Got it.

    Of course we understand that others vote in their self-interest. We’re trying to get you to understand that if your goal is overthrowing the patriarchy, you lose us with it. I’m not going to vote for my own demise, and that’s how it plays to white men when you claim the most important issues are something besides the economics, which affect us all.

    In short, you’re just wrong, and so are those who agree with you. I don’t know any other way to put it. Bernie’s positions help everyone below a certain wealth level. Helping women and minorities doesn’t.

  33. Dave says:

    “social issues took a back seat to economic issues”

    I meant to say that economic issues took a back seat to social issues

    “Social Justice Warriors.” You guys do know that term is used as an insult,

    Yep, but without the insult, the shoe fits. And as Geezer pointed out, it does nothing for the other 90% of the population. Those corporatists played to the social base with social progress and to the corporate interests with things that met their needs. Sanders is a populist. So is Trump. They both are speaking to a large part of the population who have felt ignored because they do not fit into a special interest category. They both are selling dreams.

  34. pandora says:

    Whatever, Geezer. I hate Bernie supporters? Care to show me where I’ve said that one. I don’t know how to stop you from making up things and contributing them to me.

  35. Geezer says:

    OK, pretend I’m addressing it to the greater “you” of Hillary supporters. The points stand. You’ve heard all the same things I have, and you know exactly the points I’m talking about. Who, specifically, espouses them is immaterial.

    The point about being a crybaby stands no matter who you back for president. You have repeatedly said, as have others, that they want to hear Bernie specifically reference their special interests.

  36. pandora says:

    Sorry, but when you keep making up things I’ve said you aren’t interested in an honest discussion.

    My points have been very clear. I’ll flippin’ say it again – I 100% support Bernie’s economic positions, I just wish he’d expand it. That has to be the 20th time I’ve said this over the past week. What I get back (on this thread) is a willingness to throw social issues out. I’ve repeatedly said Bernie wouldn’t support that and that he’d be very concerned by these comments.

    But you guys should probably buckle up. Now that we’re leaving white states my bet is that both candidates focus on social issues. I trust you guys will be calling this out – wouldn’t want to lose those voters turned off by all this talk, right. This would be classified as pandering?

  37. Geezer says:

    Sorry, you’re too sensitive to bother with at this point. Grow some thicker skin.

    So I’ll just provide this link to Camille Paglia’s take on all this:

    http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/sexism_has_nothing_to_do_with_it_camille_paglia_on_hillary_clinton_gloria_steinem_and_why_new_hampshire_women_broke_for_bernie_sanders/

    It’s not just the bros, sista.

  38. pandora says:

    What does that link have to do with anything we’re discussing? What does it have to do with you making up things I’ve said or positions I hold?

  39. Geezer says:

    As I said before, I’m not interested in these things because YOU hold those positions, or whether you hold them or not. Are you now denying that these issues have been brought up by Hillary supporters, if not by you? Do you now want to pretend that your “concern” about Bernie supporters was real concern? Do you want to pretend that this is about something other than the tender feelings of people who are upset because we don’t prioritize their issues?

    If you don’t understand the point of the link, don’t read it. I think it says a lot about why various people dislike Hillary Clinton.

  40. pandora says:

    These issues being social issues? I don’t think people citing them just brought them up now or they’re some sort of pro Hillary tactic.

    Not sure what this discussion has to do with Hillary either.

    I am not concern trolling. Geez, you are all over the place.