12/24/2009 09:50:08 PM EST

How Progressives Can Move Obama to the Left

posted by Cenk

There are many debates among progressives now on the true nature of Barack Obama. Did he mean anything he said on the campaign trail? Is he really a progressive? Did he ever mean to challenge the status quo or was he using the word "change" as a campaign gimmick? Is he just a corporatist like most other politicians?

After talking about this with a great many progressives on our show, I've come to some conclusions. These are so self-evident that they will be viewed as obvious in hindsight.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don't be ridiculous. Of course, he means well. But in his own mind, George Bush thought he meant well, too (for the most part). I'm positive that Obama thinks that he is doing the best he can to bring about as much change as he can within the limits of this system.

Is he a true progressive or a corporatist sell out? Well, that depends on what you mean. Has he wound up helping corporate America tremendously through health care "reform," finance "reform," etc.? Well, Wall Street certainly seems to think so (and so do most progressives). Did he do that because he thought, "I can't wait to help corporate America and screw over the little guy"? No, I'm sure he thought he had to accommodate the powers that be in order to affect any change at all in this system. But the bottom line has been the same, either way - the system has been tweaked but corporate America chugs along with even more government largesse than before.

I'm sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could. But apparently he thinks he can't. He can only bring them a small amount of change because of what he thinks the system will allow.

You can criticize him for lack of imagination, duplicity during the campaign, lack of spine and political miscalculation. And you might be right about some or all of that, but all of those aren't the essence of Obama. The core of Obama is a man who is a cautious politician. That is what he is at his center. He can't help himself. Asking him to be something else is asking a rock to be a little less hard. He is what he is.

So, what Obama does by his nature is find the middle ground. As an excellent innate politician, he will find the political center of any field and rush to it. That's where elections are won - the center. So, that's why he sounded so progressive during the primaries, because that was the center of the left. And why he sounded like such a reformer during the general election because the great majority of Americans desperately wanted change.

So, what happened to that Obama? The country is the same, so why did Obama drop the progressive reformer angle and go toward the right and corporate America? Because his field changed. He went from campaigning all across the country to being in the middle of Washington, DC. The center of Washington is very different than the center of the country.

The Washington bubble leans far more to the right than the rest of the country (poll after poll indicates this). The corporate media in Washington are pros at protecting the status quo and view people who challenge the system as fringe players. A natural politician would naturally move right to accommodate this new environment. Obama can't help himself. Why does a scorpion sting, why does a horse gallop? Because they were made to. Hoping Obama snaps out of it is hoping against reason and nature.

So, what can we do? Well, showing him data on where the American people actually stand didn't help at all. Nearly a dozen polls showed overwhelming support for the public option across the country. That didn't budge him. There are now polls showing 40% of Democrats are not going to show up in the 2010 elections because they are so disenchanted. It hasn't even made a dent in Obama. The Washington force field is strong.

So, our only hope is to move the island. We have to move his center. If we can move what he perceives to be the center, he will naturally flow to it. In Lost, when they move the island they move across time. In our case, when we move the island we need to move across the political spectrum.

Right now, Obama perceives the center of the country to be somewhere between Dick Cheney and Harry Reid. Do you know where that leaves him? Joe Lieberman. That's why we're in the sorry shape we're in now.

The reality is that Howard Dean is a moderate. Progressives in Vermont were upset with him when he was governor because they thought he was too far right. I just heard from someone who was on a cruise that The Nation organized and that Howard Dean spoke at. The crowd on the cruise nearly booed him when he spoke because they thought he was far too moderate.

If you look at Dean's policies, they are right down the middle of the country. That's part of the reason his 50 state strategy worked so well. But the establishment media hate him. Why? Because he points out when they're doing something wrong - and he winds up being proven right in the end. There's nothing that irritates the establishment more than that.

As things stand, Howard Dean is perceived to be to the left of all of the Democratic senators in Washington (not because he's more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Harry Reid; it's because unlike them, he's willing to fight for his positions (sorry Bernie, at this point, it's true)). That's unconscionable. Washington has shifted so far right that Dean is considered some sort of wild-eyed liberal. We have to move it back if we are to have any hope that Obama will move further left (and much closer to the true center of the country).

So, how do we do this? It's not pretty, but it's necessary. We have to attack Obama relentlessly from the left. Right now he is a giant that is unmoved by anything in his left flank, he keeps looking to his right and ducking and worrying and moving to accommodate them. They are so loud and so visible. It's hard to miss them. We have to make him look left. We have to shake him off his foundation.

Rahm Emanuel gave a wonderfully condescending interview to the Wall Street Journal where he explained that the White House has nothing to worry about from the left. That's exactly what we have to change. Unfortunately, the only way to capture their attention and make them accommodate us rather than Fox News Channel is to hurt them. When we can put on the same kind of pain and pressure on the Obama White House as Fox does, that's when they'll have to move, at least to get out of the way.

You inflict political pain by voting things down. So far progressives have been completely unwilling to do this. They got rolled on healthcare because they had no intention of putting their foot down - and everyone knew it.

The next time Obama pushes a corporate agenda, progressives have to knock him upside the head. Deny him. Or as the kids would say, send his shit. And make a big stink out of it. Draw everyone's attention to how far right Obama is and how out of whack he is with the American people.

If that scares you and you start to worry about damaging a Democratic president, you're never going to win at this game. You're never going to get the policies you want. They don't listen to reason, they listen to power.

Let's get real, we already lost the health care fight. But luckily, something even more important is up next. Financial reform. That's where we know for a fact the American people have our back. We also already know that Obama's Treasury Department is a joke. Tim Geithner has fought reformers in the House every step of the way. It's time to take out a couple of lead pipes and a blow torch and go to work on his ass.

If Obama wants to fill the legislation full of loopholes, he should be called out at every turn. We vote no and we point out in no uncertain terms that Obama is pushing that agenda to help corporate interests so that he can fill Democratic coffers.

This has the advantage of being true. If you don't have the stomach for being this tough on Obama and the Democrats, well then you don't have the stomach for politics. And you will permanently be the Republican's bitches.

If you don't move the island, the rest is futile. You have to shift the ground underneath them. And the only way to do that is to create such a strong and aggressive progressive movement that they cannot help but notice it - and respond to it. Move the center and you'll move Obama. And he'll move the country. There is no other choice.

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Merry Christmas | Spare a thought for the poor line doggies >
 Display:
How Progressives Can Move Obama to the Left | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)
Ok, Cenk. How? (none / 0)

As you mentioned, the polls are already in our favor, and that doesn't do a thing.  When a Progressive with huge media exposure (like Dean) warns Obama, he doesn't listen--he dismisses the argument angrily.  Even if TYT gets super strong and is accepted by everyone as a media giant, there is no reason to believe it will affect Obama (he isn't affected by the primetime Liberals on MSNBC).  I cannot imagine that you feel that calls and letters to the White House are going to suddenly be treated with more weight than Obama's advisors and cabinet are.  Coming elections (and media analysis of them) are just as likely than not to send Obama the wrong message.  And if you are writing this to the politicians (hoping they will grow a spine), it certainly seems like every one of them who would listen to you has already seen you come out against this bill (you and a host of other Progressive pundits), has seen you make rational, detailed arguments against the bill, and has decided to vote "yes" on it anyway.

  So how do we move the island?  I wish I had a billion dollars to spend buying elections for Liberals in Red and Purple states, but I don't.   I wish I could have enough children that the balance would be tipped 18 years from now, but I can't, and it would be too late anyway.  I wish I could knock on doors in Kentucky and persuade people with facts, stats, reason, principle or historical context, but nobody on the other side of the island is coming to our side regardless of what we say. 

  I have already turned against Obama and the Democrats.  You don't need to convince me any further.  So, rather than goals, what is your advice for us to do _now_?
 

by Milltycoon on 12/24/2009 08:17:34 AM EST

Remember when we used to march in the streets? (none / 0)
I know it was a long time ago, but we also burned down a few buildings.  No, I'm not advocating violence.  Anyone who uses violence should lose this battle.

But a lot of that former violence was due to frustration that we weren't being listened to.  And that perception was correct.  The establishment is not willing to listen to us, and will do anything it can to ignore us.

In order to get their attention, we have to make a big stink.

We could have made a big stink with a Sanders filibuster of the Senate's health care pseudo-reform legislation, but it's too late for that now.

We have to convince progressives in Congress that if they do the right thing then we've got their backs.  They have to know that they can count on us not merely with our letters and phone calls, but also with our dollars and with our bodies.  We've got to give them money, and we've got to get our pictures on TV.

Unfortunately, in order to accomplish that, we also need a unifying organization that we don't have now.  During Vietnam, there were three or five primary organizations, even if they were loosely formed, which diseminated information and around which people could rally.  Right now, all we have is MoveOn.org, and it's not much more than a marketing firm.  It's not built for action.

If I knew some others who were similarly inclined, I'd move to California, and hook up with some people who were willing to be poor for a while as they spent all of their time forming an organization around which progressives could rally for action.

I admit that motivating progressives in that way would be difficult.  We've become very comfortable in our Lazy-Boys and have forgotten what it's like to march in the streets.  But it's time that we thought about the welfare of our country again.  And, unlike during Vietnam, we have more to worry about than our lives.

We have to think about our children's futures.

It's time for action and organization.  And like you, Milltycoon, I'm willing to listen to ideas.

So far, there's you and me.  What ideas do you have?

I'm going to try to speak about this at the next meeting that our local leftie/progressive group has.  I want to see what kind of reaction I get.  The problem is that I'll only get two minutes to say what I've got to say, so I've got to make it good.

If we're going to change things, we've got to be out in the streets every day.  I suggest we start with that idea and go from there.

Rebuild The Dream!

by EveningStarNM on 12/24/2009 08:59:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When the Media is against you (none / 0)
The People are Powerless

As Churchill said. "There is no Public opinion. Only Published opinion".

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."Yeats

by kkdragonlord on 12/02/2010 09:18:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
nice quotation (none / 0)

"There is no Public opinion. Only Published opinion"

 I couldn't agree more with this statement.

John,
silver sandals guide.

by johngiaccardi on 09/27/2011 08:31:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfect (none / 0)
Progressives lose on their issues because they haven't been willing to fight.  Having been beaten back by the demagogues of the right wing time and time again, on every issue from the Red Scare to unions to health care reform, they're afraid to push too hard because getting beaten up hurts so much.

They're afraid to get hit.

The reason that they lost on those issues was not because the right was so strong, it was because the left didn't fight back.  Too many lefties simply can't believe that the right wing is controlled by a large number of people who respect no morality and who will stop at nothing to gain power.  They are thieves and liars, and if the left is to beat them, they must be treated that way.

But too many progressives want to believe that all people are fundamentally decent, even when the evidence contradicts them, and can't muster the will to fight back against an enemy who cheats.

Giving in to the right, therefore, becomes the easiest path.

Unlike Cenk, I am not willing to cut Obama nearly as much slack.  I am convinced that he is, at his heart, a corporatist schill.  Having won the election, the first thing he did was to dump all of the progressives on his staff and hire establishment corporatists, and he did it almost overnight.  You don't make 180-degree turns on so many issues so easily and quickly as Obama has unless it's what you really wanted to do in the first place.

But I agree with Cenk when he says that in order to force Obama to the left, we have to hurt him.  Obama has to lose when he tries to increase the power of the finance industry over the country.  He must be defeated, and it must be clear to him that it was the left that defeated him.

And if an active campaign against corporatist Democrats in the upcoming elections results in Democratic losses in Congress, then we can't say that anything has truly been lost.  If a corporatist Democrat is replaced by a corporatist Republican, nothing has really changed.

The left must get as loud and vociferous as the right has been, and we can't back down any more.  We're fighting a vicious, unethical, and deadly enemy, and we must never forget what they will do to us if they win.

Rebuild The Dream!

by EveningStarNM on 12/24/2009 08:32:48 AM EST

Bring change to Washington - literally! (none / 0)

Cenk, I think you're exactly right. Barack Obama is a centrist more than anything else, his biggest fear is to look in anyway radical, and the only way to move him is to move the center.

You call on progressive politicians to vote things down, but as things are now, I don't think that will happen often enough. In the U.S. House and Senate, the problem is not only that progressives aren't forceful enough, but also that there are too few real progressives to begin with. On the other hand, there are numerous conservative Democrats and the very large group of those who, like Obama, always gravitate to the "center".

How do you change this? There is no easy way. If the Democrats lose the next election, they will probably draw the wrong conclusions, plus the Republicans get another opportunity to practice their lunacy. The only real answer is: Good old protests. Progressives and populists must somehow unite, move their asses to Washington and show the establishment what the people really want. Do it like the teabaggers, with real grassroots instead of astroturf.

Like candidate Obama said many times: Change never comes from Washington, change comes to Washington. He said "I will need your help." I think he meant it. Polls aren't enough to convince the establishment the people are serious about something; neither are letters or emails to congressmen and -women. Like the teabaggers, you'll have to yell into their faces and their cameras to capture their attention. Show them how pissed you really are! That makes for good "news". And it forces the media and thus the politicians to acknowledge that the center is not where Joe Lieberman is.

by OldGerman on 12/24/2009 08:57:07 AM EST

Exactly (none / 0)
"...you'll have to yell into their faces and their cameras to capture their attention."

Rebuild The Dream!

by EveningStarNM on 12/24/2009 09:01:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
only one way to 'move' fauxbamaco. (none / 0)
While all true you have yet to ennuciate something concretely doable that will ACTUALLY and EFFECTIVELY accomplish that task. Rahmbama and the DLC aren't concerned with the progressives, no matter how intelligent, perceptive, reasoned and unfoolable they are, for the simple reason they currently lack sufficient organization and numbers to mount a challenge the dlc doesn't think is a joke in practice.

But thanks to the democratic parties recent sweep in the elections and their record since that sweep a newly emerged opportunity that didn't exist before DOES exist NOW, an opportunity to start an actual viable, very fast growing and, soon, VERY powerful progressive party. That 40% of democrats that currently plan to sit out the next election ... the similar numbers of 'independents' that are turning away from Obamaco ... the rapidly disillusioning youth ... ALL looking for precisely what an authentic progressive party and movement provides ... SANITY, INTEGRITY and FAIRNESS.

And that's where YOU can really make a difference, Cenk, because you, through your hard work, internet savvy and presence, true authenticity and even-handedness, and ever growing reach and highly enthusicastic audience, are perfectly positioned to take advantage of this newly born opportunity and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Obama effectively kindled HOPE FOR REAL CHANGE in tens of millions of americans and then, after winning the election, immediately kicked them and that hope into the gutter to die a slow painful death, but now, after the health care debacle, the dems have destroyed any remnant of their 'cry wolf' credibility and when they do their 'ralph nader' scthick ... 'if you start a new party you are destroying our chances to bring real change to this country' who will take them seriously.

And there those people and that hope lay in the gutter, fading embers, but NOT yet extinguished, and just waiting for someone authentic and enterprising to pick it up out of that gutter, blow those fading embers into new fiercely burning life and MAKE IT HAPPEN.

What do you think would happen if you were to announce on your show you were going start a fund to create a new progressive party and movement? Are not the possibilities endless?

In this internet age, and done right, I see no reason why there couldn't be a Progressive Party 10 million plus strong (and growing fast) marching on the november elections with a hundred million dollar warchest in hand. Where do you think that 'Washington center' would be moving then?

And since the progressives really ARE in the mainstream, why not position themselves as the party in the center?

Put a thought ot two behind it.





 

by spigzone on 12/24/2009 10:52:33 AM EST

Point and set, but not the match. (none / 0)
"Rahmbama and the DLC aren't concerned with the progressives...for the simple reason they currently lack sufficient organization and numbers to mount a challenge..."

I agree about the organization, but I disagree about the numbers.

Every issue-oriented poll shows that Americans favor progressive policies.  That means that most Americans are progressive, doesn't it?

So why do they vote for Reagan and Bush?  It's because they think Reagan and Bush are nice guys.  It's because the left doesn't speak out.  It's because progressives aren't organized for action.  It's because Republicans are always in our faces but we're never in theirs.

You're right about the lack of organizaiton and action.  But most Americans are progressives.  They just don't know it yet because no one has told them.

If I can elaborate a little on what Cenk said, we have to be on the streets every day, in their faces and in their cameras.  We have to let the progressives in Congress know that we've got their backs, not just with our letters and phone calls, but also with our money and with our bodies.

That is how we can change things.

Rebuild The Dream!

by EveningStarNM on 12/24/2009 11:11:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the4 progressvies need a HOME (none / 0)
You're right about the numbers. My wording in that sentence was poor. What I had in my mind as I wrote that is the progressive blogs and their readers. Sizeable in aggregate, but ... homeless really ... what is needed is a STRUCTURE that they and the like minded multitudes can call HOME politically. Something they can help build and contribute to and work for. Something that can wax POWERFUL and EFFECTIVE. That role was historically fulfilled by the democratic party, but the last year has put the final nails into that possibility.  

A political party would provide a FOCUS for the progressives, something for them to pour their hearts, minds, souls and energies into so they and their children and their grandchildren have a shot at building a future that doesn't have armageddon written all over it.  

Another part of the equation is the necessity for a single WORD that LABELS and DEFINES the financial/corporate elites for what they are and what they are doing. A single word that becomes associated with the insatiably greedy asshats that are trying to own this country lock, stock and barrel. I suggest 'eliticon'. Right now there is no one word that defines these pricks. One is NEEDED.

by spigzone on 12/24/2009 01:27:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right (none / 0)
We need a simple marketing slogan that doesn't take up too much time in a sound bite.

It should personalize our battle with the ultra-rich elite and bring home the fact that this really is a class war.  It should be a pejorative but uncensorable name for the bankers and CEOs.

And it should fit into a three-word or, at most, four-word slogan.

Unfortunately, I haven't had enough sleep to be able to brainstorm right now.

I'm going to start a new article that hopefully will help generate some ideas about this.

Rebuild The Dream!

by EveningStarNM on 12/24/2009 06:21:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the system (none / 0)

What would a new progressive party have to offer, other than "hope" and "change"? People have heard that before, and they are disillusioned enough to know that change cannot be achieved by electing a certain person or party into office. Change means that a lot of people stand up for what they believe in. The fundamentals of the political system need to be changed: Without campaign fincance reform, a real progressive, non-corporate party will never succeed! People will have to "coerce" the Democratic Party to do this, and they will need the media in order to win. Otherwise, there's no legal way to get it done.

The corruption of politics in Washington and its servitude to corporate interests need to be addressed on the largest scale possible. If the people's voice is not heard then, there's nothing else to hope for.

by OldGerman on 12/24/2009 11:32:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)
The people will need to coerce the Democratic Party to fundamentally change the system. That will NOT be easy, in fact, it'll be nearly impossible. Same case with starting a new progressive party. Too many progressives are disillusioned for it to have widespread support, which leaves us back with the democrats. I'm sad to say that I'm not sure there's any way out of the current situation for the left in this country, at least not for a while.

by polyglot on 12/24/2009 12:09:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
do you BELLIEEEEEEVE ......... ? (none / 0)
I would say progressives are disillusioned because they don't HAVE a party. I think they would rally in a massive way behind the formation of a new party of their own, founded on authentic progressive principles, IF they trusted the leadership behind the formation and organization of the party. That's where people like Cenk come in.  

 



by spigzone on 12/24/2009 01:37:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk re: "Being the Republican's Bitch" (none / 0)

This post is spot on. I am glad you used that expression because I believe that congress is being the Republican's bitch but we the people are being the Democrats Bitch.

We keep doing the right thing strategically as part of the Democratic party... joining it, working the pavement for it, holding our nose and losing friends over 3rd party defections that we know are a worthy gesture  —but still a stupid move in the current field.

WE have to deny Obama as well... but how? As you say he is looking right. What can we the people do to cause an irritant on the left? A naggy itchy problem that can't be ignored?

I think we have to hit them with an actual feet on the ground action... no not a protest. Protests aren't doing it.

Feet on the ground, marching to the town office to un-enroll from the Democratic party. That they will notice. You go, you do it, you get a copy of the registration, you put a statement and video on youtube.

I would not do it if I had a primary coming up or I lived in a state that did not have an easy registration process. In Maine we have same day registration so I am not getting out of the game. This is a gesture.

I will be embedding peoples' home made videos at: GoodbyeDemocratsImNotYourBi tch.com

I think numbers are the only thing we peasants have at this point. 

Thank you Cenk for using that expression which caught my eye this morning and gave me the courage to get this action going once more. (It made the upper left corner of the front page at DU and was purged as being inflamatory)

I was kind of ashamed as a middle aged woman to title my video "goodbye democrats I'm not your bitch" —when I have scolded my son and his friends for using that expression— but boy when an expression fits, it just does.

It was one of your shows that inspired me to do this in the first place, and I have finally become a member...

Keep up the good work!

 

by mirrera on 12/24/2009 12:49:39 PM EST

Some got the memo beforehand (none / 0)


During the campaign, ex-senator and former presidential candidate Mike Gravel had some really harsh words to say about the three then remaining Democratic candidates, with the hardest swings aimed for Obama. I’ve been really hoping that time would prove Gravel overly pessimistic. Today I’d like to rehash his remarks and give him my personal award for best cautionary prediction:

JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?

GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous... ...he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics.

I don’t think we’ll see Gravel backpedalling on that statement any time soon. Not running for president again, either. As a citizen of a multi party parliamentary country, I get frustrated sometimes when I hear progressive American voters discouraged by the perceived lack of options. It’s not the whole truth. To be fair, the options are there, they’re just waiting for the popular support. When so many agree that both Democrats and Republicans represent their campaign donors more than their voters, but still dismiss the alternatives, it looks like a systemic irrationality of a sort.
 
A first on my political tweaks wishing list for America: Multi-turn presidential elections, like France etc. For example, most Nader voters of 2008 would have joined Al Gore on a second turn. Nader would have boosted his vote share but wouldn’t have been assigned any scapegoat or traitor to the higher cause of getting the lesser of two so-so’s – ironically for providing the choice many progressives ask for. Meanwhile everybody could have made an uncompromised voting statement in the first turn. And what more powerful poll than a presidential election anyway?

 

by oxus72 on 12/24/2009 07:14:10 PM EST

Cenk is ABSOLUTELY right! (none / 0)
I can no longer support Obama or the Democratic party if this Senate Health Care Bill is the kind of treachery they are going to perpetrate on the public. Obama has been a tremendous disappointment. Broken promises, lies, lack of any kind of conscience, that's Obama. He is surrounded by the worst type of pro-corporate, pro-oligarchy advisors and aides. Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, Clinton, Gates, Emmanuel--this type of person IS the problem in the government: unscrupulous, unprincipled, amoral, dishonest, self interested--these folks deserve every one of these epithets and more.
Barack Obama, you are a weak-kneed sell-out to corporate interests and you deserve the failed presidency that history will judge your administration to be.
I hope Progressives will take off their rose-coloured glasses and see this administration for what it is. What is needed is a constant attack on these people. Maybe then they may start to understand that they must serve the people and not the big vested interests.
Damn all the so-called progressives in the Senate for spineless cowards. I have to include Bernie Sanders in that group, to my great regret. But not a single one of them, not EVEN Feingold, went against this monstrosity.
The Democratic party is going to reap what it deserves: This bill will be seen by voters for what it is, a massive give-away to the insurance industry (those mandated customers and subsidies are making the insurance companies salivate already), and the Democratic party will once again be revealed to be unprotective of the very citizens it constantly claims are its most important constituents. Voters will finally see through the Obama mystique and past the soaring rhetoric to the lies and lack of leadership he really offers. The voters will stay away from the polls in 2010, the Dems will get their heads handed to them, and Obama will go into the 2012 election cycle severely damaged and unlikely to withstand a serious primary challenge, much less win reelection. Young people who bought into the Obama bait and switch scheme will become cynical and disillusioned and will turn away from politics. The Republicans will regain the presidency and continue their destruction of a once proud country, turning it into a corporate fascist state where the citizen’s rights are the least of anyone’s concerns.
I was a big Obama supporter. I don't have much money, but I sent him $750.00 of my hard-earned cash, and I voted for him. I'm NOT going to be fooled twice!
Every progressive should turn against the traitors who have sold us out on this bill and on so many other issues in the recent past.
Congress won't learn to respect progressives and liberals until it is MADE to do so, until it begins to fear repercussions from the left. Until that day, you can kiss off all hopes of reform in Washington D.C.

by Red Eric on 12/25/2009 08:23:26 PM EST

Challenging the Status Quo (none / 0)
  1. It is enough to campaign on Hope and Change if the majority of the people are not willing to challenge exactly what is "Hope and Change".  The opportunity to challenge Obama and the Democrats who refused any questioning of his platform was lost during the primaries and general election.  It is sad to see so many Democrats mimic the worst of the Republicans when they defend Obama like W was defended - with blinders on. 

    I never thought that changing the status quo meant giving up many of the rights women fought for in the 70's.  At least when the Republicans do it they are at least honest about it both publicly and privately.  When the Democrats do it they speak well publically and then destroy it privately. 

    Many voters have short memories - Bush will not be a part of the 2012 election but the Special Deals of the Health Care bill will be and it won't be pretty.

by SueTexas on 12/25/2009 09:58:16 PM EST

whishy washy obama (none / 0)
At worst, perhaps one could say that Obama is disingenuous. Lofty rhetoric, somewhere between King and Kennedy, appealing to black and white. What an actor would do. But to gummy up the faith liberals and progressives had in him on the public option-after repeating its mantra over and over on the campaign trail-has given we on the left a new motivation to re-evaluate support for him. Cracks have already opened up; we should start laying down some heavy duty pipe to the administrations cranium every time they run counter to our agenda because it also seems to me that the WH is ignoring the left. Ignore the left while you cozy up to Joe Lieberman,Nelson and whittle down an already deeply flawed medical bill.

by LordGarthSutekh on 12/26/2009 11:01:54 AM EST

The facts on the ground.. (none / 0)
...indicate that Obama is nothing short of a political anti-chirst. Let's start with the Telecom Act which was a backdoor way to prevent citizens from using existing law to pursue civil and criminal action against telecom companies for domestic spying.  The mainstream excuse was he needed that to get elected. As soon as he takes office, he dismisses the conviction against Ted Stevens, who actually is a criminal, but leaves Don Siegelman twisting in the wind. For fucks sake, he still has not replaced the cabal of Bush DA’s that used federal authority to illegally prosecute political agendas. Now he is throwing in the towel on John Hughes and the torture memos. How much more do you need to know?
To add insult to injury, Obama just appointed Dana Perino to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). You want to talk about DFC’s, my god this woman isn’t qualified to be anything other than the next DC Madam and she would certainly need to work her way up. Oh wait, apparently she has….
Do I need to talk about the banks and how the Bankruptcy reform bill is causing a death spiral in the housing market after being the catalyst for the worst of the worst loans from 2005-2007? I have at length, and apparently no one gets it. That takes me to my last point. As much as I agree with the assessment of a corporate strangle hold on the government, the progressives are as guilty for the failures of their own ideas or lack thereof.
The progressive movement needs a synchronized coherent message that tells people and their politicians what they want and why. Instead what they have is a bunch of individuals trying to get their own slice of the pie. As an example Van Jones was supposed to be our national green energy spokesperson, instead he took that theme and turned it into an inner city jobs program.
The green energy program was our ticket out of this mess. It could have solved everything from the housing crises to our trade deficit, creating millions of jobs along the way. Instead, we are now promoting crack spackle and caulk.
It's all about the message and holistic approach.

by sisco66 on 12/26/2009 03:07:09 PM EST

Something I recently learned (none / 0)
Hi Cenk, I recently came across something interesting that I think helps explain what is going on here. Not only is it useful, but it has a really cool sounding name... The Iron Law of Institutions (from wikipedia): People who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution. The iron law of oligarchy is also worth reading... Not sure if this is poli-sci 101 or not... I'm just a humble marketing student =P

by JustBusiness on 12/28/2009 05:13:34 PM EST

Tie power to success (none / 0)
That people care for themselves before they care for others is psychology 101... In a working political system, a politician cares for himself by caring for people/his institution. Unfortunately, political systems tend to be dysfunctional.

by OldGerman on 12/29/2009 01:07:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How Progressives Can Move Obama to the Left | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: