The Duplicitous Roles of the OFA and the Daily Kos

When Markos Moulitsas informed members of the Daily Kos that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was “inevitable” the response from Democratic supporters was predictable. Traditional progressives -- understanding that anointed candidates are the antithesis of Democracy -- slammed their collective feet on the brakes. The last thing they wanted was another untrustworthy neo-liberal politician leading the Democratic Party.

As one Democratic Underground member noted:

The most that the supporters tell us is that she's better than any Republican.

That's like saying a broken leg is better than a heart attack. Sure it is, but nobody wants a broken leg either. -- savannahmann

The response from Obama’s entourage was even more predictable: the OFA’s "rapid response” team turned out in full force on the Daily Kos, predictably shouting down detractors and unleashing faux outrage at any member who had the temerity to challenge Markos’ assertion.

But even for a neo-liberal operation, this stunt was thinly disguised and in trouble from its onset. After six years of telling lies and routinely breaking campaign promises, Barack Obama’s credibility was circling the drain, and the Democratic Party could not afford another disingenuous PR stunt. But the dots were easy to connect if you compared the Hillary Clinton Is Inevitable PR stunt to Margaret Thatcher’s neo-liberal acronym TINA – There Is No Alternative.

Neo-liberal political stratagems are incredibly predictable, and their gimmicks are constantly repackaged and unveiled through slick PR campaigns that are so blatantly deceitful it’s amazing that any voter would accept them at face value.

And unfortunately for the Daily Kos, Markos’ surprise endorsement of Hillary’s candidacy created a different credibility problem. Most of us remember his damning Washington Post Op-Ed attacking Hillary Clinton’s credentials and questioning her viability as a presidential candidate:

Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?

By Markos Moulitsas Sunday, May 7, 2006 - Washington Post Op-Ed

Hillary Clinton has a few problems if she wants to secure the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She is a leader who fails to lead. She does not appear "electable." But most of all, Hillary has a Bill Clinton problem. (And no, it's not about that.)

Moving into 2008, Republicans will be fighting to shake off the legacy of the Bush years: the jobless recovery, the foreign misadventures, the nightmarish fiscal mismanagement, the Katrina mess, unimaginable corruption and an imperial presidency with little regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. Every Democratic contender will be offering change, but activists will be demanding the sort of change that can come only from outside the Beltway.

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

In those three paragraphs, Markos unwittingly identified four very good reasons Hillary Clinton’s candidacy should be rejected – reasons that progressives have repeatedly posited on the Daily Kos only to be shouted down by OFA activists; and his “failed Democratic Party establishment” statement illuminated the bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s presidency, especially when compared to his decision to insure the viability of unpopular Bush policies.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not, and have never been, progressive Democrats: they are both neo-liberals, and that reality presents an obstacle for Dkos writers. They simply cannot tell the truth about Hillary and Barack’s neo-liberal/free trade credentials because it would reveal the stealth role the site has played in advancing corporate friendly policies.

Like 2008 candidate Obama, 2016 candidate Clinton is using every trick in the book to conceal her true agenda. And that facade would crumble in the dust if the DNC would truthfully answer one simple question: are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton true progressive politicians – as they pretend to be – or are they neo-liberal corporatists who detest traditional Democratic values?

As Barack Obama nears the end of his presidency, it’s easy to see he deceived his way into the presidency; he only adopts a populist/progressive persona when he needs the base to support an unpopular corporate policy, such as the TPP, and now that Hillary Clinton has thrown her hat into the ring, she is following the same fraudulent blueprint.

And that scam will never come to fruition without the help of the OFA and the Daily Kos.

In reality, the OFA represents the antithesis of Democracy. It disseminates disinformation while claiming to set the record straight. It denies average Americans a voice at the table because OFA members take extreme measures to quash dissenting opinions.

But the OFA was not created to promote the truth, and despite the assertion posted on its website -- No fluff, just facts—that's the Truth Team way – it exists primarily to serve as Obama’s shadowy hit squad. In essence, they are the “goodfellas” of the Democratic Party. They are masters of ad hominem attacks, and their faux outrage campaigns are as nasty as anything Karl Rove could have designed.

And to truly understand neo-liberal tactics and the roles the OFA and the Daily Kos have played, it’s important to remember that neo-liberals do not defend their actions; they simply overwhelm detractors with massive amounts of money and disinformation.

To see a blatant example of Obama’s hypocrisy, look at his recent attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the Congressional Democratic critics of the TPP:

"I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this," Obama said. "When you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts, they are wrong."

Of course, Obama made that statement only after making certain Warren could not fully respond, essentially tying her hands by blocking her from discussing the specifics of the TPP.

But that is a classic neo-liberal tactic: Never use the truth when you can simply “rig the system” against those who oppose your corrupt corporate policies. And rigging the system is the primary role of the OFA -- and providing a platform for that type of duplicity is the responsibility of the Daily Kos.

Recently, while discussing Obama and the TPP, Gaius Publius described the OFA this way:

His robotic OFA forces (that's not an unfair characterization on this issue, unfortunately) are out in number, throwing up Obama's disingenuous defense of this treaty in many progressive forums. (For a prime instance, see comment threads like this at Daily Kos. There are many such examples of OFA pushback in progressive discussion spaces.)

A question for OFA defenders of TPP: You've shown your loyalty — it's to Obama and his future earnings, not your own as progressives in the "Warren wing" of the Democratic Party. What will you do when Obama is off living his future, and you're left behind to seek your own among the progressives you're now disingenuously attacking?

But that is another neo-liberal tactic; they know to win, they need only manipulate vulnerable voters into acting against their own best interests.

In its simplest definition, neo-liberalism is an evil, monolithic global philosophy that exists solely for the purpose of generating massive amounts of wealth through mergers and free trade deals. Judicial, legal, and political processes do not govern it, nor is it constrained by loyalty to a national identity. Outside the immensely wealthy cabal at the top, every practitioner of neo-liberalism is simply a cog in a giant wheel that serves the top 1%. And thanks to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic Party now serves the same purpose.

But despite the massive neo-liberal campaign to prevent Democrats – and all Americans -- from learning the true nature of their global pursuits, the “truth” about their duplicity is beginning to resonate at the grass roots level.

Consider this article posted two days ago by Taegan Goddard at Political Wire:

Big Doubts About Clinton’s Honesty
May 1, 2015 - By Taegan Goddard

“Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Clinton’s honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy,” according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

“Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring and likable? Only a minority think so.”

“Clinton’s struggles to explain her email practices while in government, along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism of her openness, wealth and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in the public’s perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016 campaign. In the survey, 61% said ‘honest’ describes her only slightly well or not at all. Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that “honest” was not the best word for her.”

The truth is the Democratic Party has backed itself into a very dark corner. No matter which way they turn, they lose. If they tell the truth, then they will expose their own duplicity; if they continue to lie, then they will lose all credibility.

Each time Obama has faced media cameras and blatantly lied to the American public, the Democratic Party didn’t flinch, and they never repudiated his lies; and now that Hillary’s true agenda represents a threat to their political plans, the DNC, the OFA, and the Daily Kos are leading a campaign to redefine Hillary as a populist, one of the most shameless deceptions in our party’s political history.

As Bill Curry recently wrote in Salon magazine: “As it is now organized and led, the Democratic Party is a corrupt and empty husk of an institution.”

It is simply drowning in its own duplicity.

And the current faux progressive effort to “push Hillary to the left” reveals how far the Democratic Party has gone astray. Think about it: if she needs to be pushed to the left, then she is not a true liberal and the populist claim that she is a fake is reinforced; but if she is a true liberal, then why isn’t she leading the fight against the TPP? Why hasn’t she called out Obama for protecting Wall Street criminals? Why isn’t she condemning the president for killing innocent children with drones? Where has she been when we were pleading with the president to protect people on Main Street, not the criminals on Wall Street? What was her position regarding the U.S. military’s use of torture to gather information? Where does she stand on NSA spying? What position did she take when Obama’s HAMP allowed banks to unfairly foreclose on million of American homeowners?

Unfortunately, we know the answer to those questions: like the Democratic Party – Hillary has been on the wrong side of every issue, and she has either blatantly or tacitly supported many neo-liberal policies that exploited middle class Americans and the needy. And the only way she can deny her true agenda is to lie.

But that is the new Democratic way.

And the OFA and the Daily Kos just can’t wait to tell the truth…except when the truth supports reality, and then they will metaphorically "break all the knees" it takes to keep the truth from reaching the American public.

Give them hell, Bernie.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

mimi's picture

I am in the middle of reading Chris Hegdes book "Death of the Liberal Class" and your essay touches a lot of issues he is writing about. I am so glad I finally got to read it. An eye-opener par excellence and he really expressed and put facts into some feelings of unease I have had a long time about Hillary Clinton on certain issues (though I am always kind of soft on many humans taking paths that lead them to situations they probably never intended to go into, but that stops when political power comes into play. I think one has to be tough on those humans, who hold those powers. So, I won't hold back.)

One of the issues that irked me was the argument that the US war in Afghanistan is (aside from other reasons) to help Afghan women to gain their rightful civil and equal rights.
Just to give an example:
From http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/alyssa-figueroa/leaning-iraq-womens-rights-and-war (from 2013)

Hillary finishes up her stint as Secretary of State and is lauded as one of the best, ever. She is acclaimed for her "women's rights" foreign policy agenda and the gratitude of women worldwide. Little is said about the imperial stance of her framing, or the gender violence that US policy has triggered and continues for women across the globe under her watch. Women in Iraq, and Afghanistan and Egypt are standing up.

Then this paragrpah in Chris Hedges book "Death of the Liberal Class" (page 44 in hardcover edition) quoting Malalai Joya, who was expelled from the Afghan parliament for denouncing government corruption and the Western occupation:

Hedges: Support for war has allied the liberals with venal warlords in Afghanistan, who are as opposed to the rights of women and basic democratic freedoms, and as heavily involved in opium trafficking, as the Taliban. The supposed moral lines between the liberal class and our adversaries are fictional. The uplifting narratives used to justify the war in Afghanistan are pathetic attempts by the liberal class to redeem acts of senseless brutality. War cannot be waged to instill any virtue, including democracy or the liberation of women.

Malalai Joya:They used the mask of democracy to take power. They continue this deception. The warlords are mentally the same as the Taliban. The only change is physical. The warlords during the civil war in Afghanistan fro, 1992 to 1996 killed sixty-five thousand innocent people. They have committed human rights violations, like the Taliban, against women and many others.

We believe that this is not war on terror. This is war on innocent civilians. Look at the massacres carried out by NATO forces in Afghanistan. .... they used white phosphorous and cluster bombs... The United States and NATO eight years ago occupied our country under the banner of women's rights and democracy. But they have only pushed us from the frying pan into the fire. They put into power men, who are photocopies of the Taliban.

I always felt that HRC's mission to liberate women in foreign countries from their oppressions is dangerous (as in endanger many women in these countries instead of helping them as the end result) and used for political purposes to appeal to the female voters in the US elections. This is just one of the things that lingered in my head. I didn't like it. Chris Hedges did an excellent job to formulate convincingly what was only foggy but persistantly in my mind.

When I logged into the gos the morning the first thing that greets you is a petition to support HRC's campaign. Well, I think, that's just a bit too much of a propaganda mouth piece for my taste.

End of venting and back to reading.

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

Everything HRC does has an agenda; she is cold and caluculating and I doubt very seriously she even understands that truth is important in a Democracy.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

which smuggled out the Taliban execution videos shown us as the US ramped up to boots on the ground? I haven't been at their website in a couple of years, but then again, it's been unrelieved injustice and misery for women there. Except now it's US-enabled. Can't imagine that's changed since last I looked.

This supporting of cretins we do, being the attempt to apply the manly and tough 'Realpolitik,' a thing moral imbeciles like our political/military elites take as their guiding star.

Real 'Realpolitic' + a basic understanding of humanity -- available to all non-pathological people -- would show that, well, actually, the people of the world don't tend to lay down in terror when threatened. At least enough of them to screw up your plans big time.

Like all of human history doesn't show that people fight threats.

As to DKos: It's where liberalism goes to be neutered. Always has been. Try and point out that the Party's big "raise the minimum wage" plan is so fucking brilliant, when double minimum-wage means the Robots get cheap enough in half the time. Not against the raise here. Just saying "where's the strategy to entrench a living wage for everyone?"

As to Hillary:
how about a new ad hominem to use at DKos? "The Hill Party."

The only argument with any weight at all for voting for her is "The Supreme Court." But then you know she'll just pick a Corporatist from a poll-selected identity group. Meanwhile, the 1% -- and this next part is important -- who should routinely be called the 'lunatic fringe' will be serviced by her, and "The Long War, Which War We Are Losing and Nobody Will Say So In Public" will continue spreading murder, mayhem, terror, and destitution through large parts of the world. With the evil of that seeping back into the {pause to retch} Homeland.

up
0 users have voted.

Orwell: Where's the omelette?

As to DKos: It's where liberalism goes to be neutered.

Thanks for the interesting comment.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

LapsedLawyer's picture

a few months ago about how the Roberts Court was so pro-corporate. And I looked up the decisions on Google to see the votes for these. There were, I think, two that were 5-4, and those were both the campaign finance decisions. Most were 6-3, 7-2, or 8- or 9-0. So, no thanks for the corporate sphere.

As to the women's rights sphere, which all seems to come down to abortion (not an insubstantial right, mind you), the cons have a majority capable of overturning Roe, but even if they don't, they can operate under Casey and uphold the laws as not imposing an "undue burden" on a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

And when you look at it, the only retirement I see anytime soon is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So, at best, we'd be getting a liberal justice for a liberal justice.

The Supreme Court argument is pretty weak beer. A fail. And it deserves to be hammered whenever it's brought up.

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

It would effectively counter the misleading claims made by the "don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect"crowd...

Thanks for sharing this info.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Big Al's picture

Presidential campaign. So how does this mesh, the narrative that the Dem party is completely corrupted and
part of the ruling class establishment system along with Bernie running as a Dem. Some are saying Bernie is a
traitor to the left for running as a Dem. I don't know about that but if people are going to vote for Bernie, they
will be voting for the Democratic party. Is this just all a ploy to pacify the left and get them to vote democrat?

So is the expectation that Bernie will save the Dem party, or move it to the left or help end it's corruption?
Isn't that about the same thing people expected of Obama, and we know how that worked out.

Bernie Sanders supports Israel and supports U.S. imperialism and the war OF Terror. Anyone who supports
the Zionist government in Israel, imperialism and war is not even close to the left in my book of definitions.
His stances on domestic issues can't offset his stances on geopolitical issues, in fact they clash with each other.

The Dem party is dead to the real left, just like Daily Kos. It's controlled by conservative neoliberal imperialists.
Voting for the Dem party is voting for neoliberalism and imperialism. Even if it's Bernie Sanders. It seems clear to
me that to move forward we have to change the system so third parties can compete. At the very least.

But what will happen is we'll go through 18 fucking months of this election bullshit, again, then the ruling class will
do what they want to do anyway. Spending time and money on Bernie Sanders is a waste of time.

And I'm just going to keep saying it - Hillary Clinton is a war criminal, she should be tried in court
and sent to prison. So discussing the merits of her candidacy ignores that fact.
She should not even be allowed to run for any office.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

I think it doesn't lead to anything productive.

It seems clear to me that to move forward we have to change the system so third parties can compete. At the very least.

I definitely agree with that, but who do you think can make these changes other than the legislators, who you vote into office?
Bernie Sanders has NOT declared in how far he is willing to push for system changes (Electoral and Congressional rules) and if it's even
imaginable that he could fight for them successfully. It looks as if system changes are not anymore possible in the US, as it's completely in control of for profit corporate interests. (As I just now read Chris Hedges book "Death of the Liberal Class" I am just amazed about how deeply the war in Afganistan is a for profit endeavour for corporate contractors and with it the military.) It looks to me almost impossible to break the grip of corporate power over the US government.

In that sense I don't even think it's productive to call out single politicians as "war criminals". The government system has become more or less a "criminal enterprise". I just don't think to personalize the whole thing will help to solve any of the problems the system creates.

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

Big Al's picture

that, whether calling out Clinton, Obama, Kerry, etc., as war criminals is a good thing or not. I think it is because
it's the truth. If we avoid the truth, if we allow a different standard for the politicians, then what does that mean for
humanity? To me, murder is murder. If a kid dies in an illegal drone strike authorized by Obama, then that's
murder. A kid died and what Obama and the U.S. is doing is illegal., and immoral We can't ignore that, we can't give our politicians
a different set of rules than what the rest of us play by.
I don't think we can say it any other way.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

we are just coming from different backgrounds. For me it's not a matter of political correctness to not single out a certain person (at least not now) as war criminal, because I think the situation is similar to the end of the Weimar Republic. People are part of a system, Obama, Sander, Clinton are all part of your system right now. If you want call out the commander in chief, because he has the ultimate responsibility when ordering drone strikes or invasions of the troops, that I think is alright.

But the same way it's hard to call all Germans, who were part of the system and didn't know better to get out their own created and definitely misery with regards to their involvement of Nazi atrocities or enabling Hitler or bystanding watching him do what he ordered, to call them all war criminals and then make a decision, who is a war criminal or not, it is hard to know, who is a war criminal in the current situation in the US. The de-nazification program of the US was not really a success, they missed quite a bit some war criminals, they also didn't want to call every German a war criminal, so they decided to call us "Good Germans" as in by-standing war criminals I guess.

Who are the current bystanders? Who are the "war criminals"? Just the ones who have voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan authorizations? How many war criminals are then in Congress? Are the soldiers, the generals and officers, who execute the orders of the commander in chief, all personally war criminals? Do you expect each and everyone to resign from their positions? You would see that they would be replaced within days with "hired guns" "corporate for profit militias" to take over.

So, where does it bring us?

I had yesterday an exchange about the Good Germans and the Good Democrats and it made me bitterly sarcastic. In the end I come up with shutting up my mouth, because "I am a guest in this country". I think if you asked me to call out a German politician and accomplice in war crime activities, I had no problem.

But then how am I better than others just by saying "you are a war criminal", if I were not able to prevent that "war criminal" from engaging in the criminal behaviour?

Actually I don't have a clear answer in my head. I don't know anymore what to think. May be the guys could just stop producing, delivering and using their weapons to kill us. Would be nice, wouldn't it?

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

mimi's picture

I just learned about that expression and who has coined it.

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

shaharazade's picture

individually or en mass they are what they are. To not call them what they are seems to let them hide behind their political cover of better then Attila the Hun. Bipartisan war criminals who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity should not be given a pass because they are all complicit individually and collectively. They are not 'patriotic' tortures or killers they are stone killers and war criminals.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

doesn't equate to stopping them from doing what they are doing. The questions is how are you stopping them from being "patriotic, democracy loving, civil rights supporting war criminals"? Words are going only that far... I know we are all desperate right now.

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

Pluto's Republic's picture

…with living in a terrorist nation like the United States, where so-called citizens do not even have basic human rights — such as the human right to food, shelter, health care, privacy, self-determination, or even the right to vote or the right to not be murdered by the state as a form of punishment. (It's like living amongst Orcs.) Americans have no idea that all of these are human rights that have been enjoyed by all of the developed world since at least 1948 — and enjoyed by much of the developing world, as well. All nations have modern constitutions that confer these rights upon the people.

I'm post national. My people were recent immigrants to the US. Staying in the US would bring horrific shame upon the sacrifices they made to get here. Individuals with a moral compass keep moving. They don't throw their lives away for nothing but the dirt under their feet — which happens to be the blood-soaked soil of a very recent continent-wide, gun-based, genocide. It cannot be changed. It's cursed.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

Pluto's Republic's picture

Thank god for a generous world where Americans are generally well liked as people, and not condemned for their terrorist government.

I am no more that 14 hours from anywhere in the world — a snooze and couple of meals. Americans can get residence visas to just about anywhere. A number of countries give Americans fantastic discounts and supplements to help them settle in. If you like a place, you hire a lawyer and get a residence visa. Or, renew your tourist visa every six months.

Millions upon millions of Americans live and raise their families outside the US. In 2014, an historic number of Americans renounced their citizenship. Many European nations offer Americans a "right of return" just like Israel does. I took that path. White people are not indigenous to North America. All races in the US can find a way to return to their indigenous countries and reclaim their citizenship, even after many generations.

If you can dream it, you can do it.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

Bernie is a rare person because he is basically an honest politician...

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Unabashed Liberal's picture

for this essay.

(Essay does sound classier!)

I tried, probably unsuccessfully, to convey the idea that it's not always just a matter of a government employee's/official's, and maybe even a politician's own personal integrity--because the system that they must function within, is sometimes so corrupt.

I am thinking about expounding on this topic later, by writing about the so-called Arizona VA scandal. Mostly, that was forced from the highest civilian levels of the federal government, on hapless and fearful government employees and the MIC (at all levels), and then 'used' to discredit the VA system, so that they could privatize it.

This happens to be one of the few difference that I have with Senator Sanders. After all, the military system of medical care--VA and active duty--happen to be the closest thing to the British NHS that the US has ever had. Or at least, it was.

(Also, I can speak from personal experience on the quality of this care--it was the best that we've ever received. And, now, it has been/will be greatly diminished for us and millions of others.)

Hey, thanks for all that you do, praenomen! Glad to see you, and that nothing 'happened to you'--since I hadn't seen you in a while. I was beginning to wonder. Wink

BTW, you'll get no argument from me that Senator Sanders is amongst the most honest of our public servants. My main concern (about him) is that he will forcefully stand up to Former Secretary Clinton. Perhaps, with enough support, he will do so. I hope so, for all of our sakes.

I look forward to reading your future essays, since you put so much time into research and accuracy.

Mollie

Visit Us At Caucus99Percent.Com

Yahoo

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

It's always great to hear from you; everytime I read one of your comments my day gets a lot brighter...sorry about the absence -- I lost my focus for a few weeks, but I'm okay now, so thanks for your concern.

Bernie is an enigma at times; and it's hard to tell how much impact he will have on the 2016 presidential race, but there is a reason I'm willing to support him at this time...he is cut from the same cloth as Kshama Sawant, and by that I mean they are both basically empathetic people who feel a burden to help others and that is a quality I admire...

As I've said before, you're the greatest...

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

We as a nation.....we as dailykos... (1+ / 0-)
What "we"? Nobody asked me squat. Funny how "we" always get all of the blame but none of the money or power.

In fact, opposition to the very things "they" were doing to perpetuate inequality pretty damn near got every party critic banned from DailyKos for not being loyal enough to Obama and the Wall Street goons he gave the car keys right back to. 11th dimensional chess and all that.

Some constructive criticism: If dailykos is going to continue to write about injustice, it might want to consider cleaning up its own double standards first. Blind partisan loyalty and cheerleading are an injustice to anyone who cares about correcting inequality in the courts, schools, labor markets, and Main Streets of USA. The color of a politicians jersey, or the fact that it's their mating season, shouldn't matter more than speaking truth to power. A front page full of how the GOP sucks accompanied by donut pile-ons and jeers of white privilege, e.g. Snowden, is no way to address or correct injustice and/or inequality. Just being a Democrat is not enough of a principle for the blog acclaimed as the largest "progressive" blog around. Either correct the misrepresentation or the editorial policy because the two together make dkos hard to take seriously.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
#38067 @99percent
by dkmich on Sun May 03, 2015 at 10:35:12 AM EDT

What I object to mostly is its claim to the biggest "progressive" blog around. It isn't. It is the biggest propaganda tool of the Democratic Party pretending to be a progressive blog. If it wants to call itself DNCII, it can knock itself out.

Another example of bullshit was BBB post on Bernie Sanders.

If there is anything Bernie Sanders is NOT, its a centrist Democrat. Hell he's not even a Democrat! He's an honest and committed socialist. He's even to the left of most progressive-leaning Democrats. Which is probably why he isn't one. He's got integrity. But as Nate Cohn pointed out, he's far to the left of the rank and file Democratic voter, especially working class women and people of color. Yes, affluent white liberals will love him and support him, but they arent even close to a majority of Democrats. A key element of our coalition for sure, but not enough for a majority.

To the left of most progressive-leaning????wtf does that mean? Is a left-leaning progressive like being almost pregnant? Which minorities don't want police brutality ended? Which middleclass white and minority people don't want income and opportunity inequality addressed? Which middle class and union people don't want TPP dead? Unless BBB is calling all of the people of Vermont pinko commies, this is just more neoliberal propaganda.

DailyKos is NOT a progressive blog, and it needs to quit co-opting that title.

[ Reply to This ]

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

First one of the children, and then the front pager.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

IdealistCynic's picture

That one child that responded to you gave me an ad hominem too, without backing up their argument with a single fact. Their response is no different than a blind follower of the right wing Republicans.

Like the economic policies, the blind followers of each of America's 2 right wings exhibit not a dimes worth of difference.

up
0 users have voted.
IdealistCynic's picture

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

Not when it would include me with the likes of Daily Kos. Same goes with the liberal label.
The Dem party needs to be exposed for what it is, especially at the national leadership levels. And that
should include exposing it's tentacles such as Daily Kos.

Of course we need to go farther and expose the entire system for what it is. I thought we did that with
Occupy but here we go again talking about which politicians to elect.

up
0 users have voted.

I have really nailed down my beliefs entirely. Anarcho-syndicalist? Maybe. Socialist is a good catch-all.

But if someone calls me a liberal I will be offended. The only time that liberals are useful is in good times. When push comes to shove liberals will fold and side with conservatives 99% of the time.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

Love Me, I'm a Liberal
by Phil Ochs

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine

But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star

But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. board

I love Puerto Ricans and Negroes
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter, don't they watch Les Crain?

But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Yes, I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew

But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs

And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Sure, once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns

Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Most of the topical references are now dated and meaningless to most Gen-Xers and Millennials.

But the character type is still all too recognizable.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

That's all. I just didn't realize these ideas were expressed before.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

Big Al's picture

that's going a little bit too far".

Instead let's talk about whether a guy named Bernie can win, just like the guy before him named Obama.

Perfect. And another example of how we knew the deal long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

up
0 users have voted.

It may be time to do it again.

up
0 users have voted.

They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore

lotlizard's picture

I cheered when Obama was chosen
My faith in the system reborn…

Never heard the Jello Biafra / Mojo Nixon version before. That's really "sick" (meaning "great", as I hear kids say nowadays).

up
0 users have voted.

but it might be worth the time to read the responses to your article...you nailed it; good job.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

The place is vapid. If anyone dares to think beyond the end of their nose, the children of the corn show up to haul them away. All it does is raise my blood pressure and wreck my day.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

That was great...

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

I googled it and only came up with "one fine ass". I'm guessing that isn't what you meant.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

shaharazade's picture

Obama for America. It was his electoral organization and I think his logo in 2008. It is now a non partisan organization headed by Pouffle and is basically another Third Way org. OFA refused to give the Democratic Party their gigantic list of supporters from 2008 which caused a minor in fight amongst the various factions in the Dem party machine.

I worked for Obama's primary campaign in Portland. It had great community of local good people until the DC OFA stepped in and took it over. They were basically thugs really creepy.. The first thing they did was assemble all of us a at headquarters and tell us not to 'talk policy, just tell your personal story'. Get up and testify how you came to Jesus and saw the light.. Do not criticize Hillary or her policy stances was another instruction.

This took place right before Senator Obama voted for FISA. I quit working for the campaign the next day. My boss a liberal local young woman said a lot of volunteers had quit. She told me that Obama was not important but the movement he engendered was. I often think of her, I like to think she was active here in OWS. I registered a lot of first time voters mostly women minorities and young people.

I often feel I should go back to where they live in my district and apologize. Like the household of young skate borders I registered. One of them refused to register or vote and said 'I vote for pizza'. I kind of wish I had voted for pizza. So sad that so many young people got so burned by the OFA and Obama. My granddaughter a huge supporter even though she was too young to vote says the system is rigged so why vote? She did register as an Indie and votes on local issues especially funding higher education and student loan relief and of course legalizing pot in Oregon. That got out the votes here way more then the crooked bent pols running the now disgraced and gone Dem. Gov.Kitz.

up
0 users have voted.

I understand the sentiment of wishing you could apologize for having led others to vote for Obama...but, I've read your comments and like your message, so you're doing a lot of good now.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

joe shikspack's picture

i think that as the primaries heat up, we may see an interesting cleavage at daily kos. i am wondering if being presented with the options of a candidate that credibly stands for at least some significant part of a progressive agenda versus a corrupt, devious party hack with endless cash from wall street bankers - will finally demonstrate to the folks that populate the place that they are on radically different "teams" with nothing in common but a name.

anybody that supports hillary and calls themselves a progressive, or for that matter in favor of "better" democrats is either deranged or a liar.

the difference is large enough that i wonder how if the "inevitable" occurs, the supporters of sanders will fall in line behind the "democrat," though surely there will be enormous pressure to do so.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

counter pressure. By default. No way that people can just pressure you to comply. If people lie, they lie and that can be reacted to. I already hate now to see it happen in the future. I will learn Hedges book by heart and smash them with proofs how much the Good Democrats are involved with the "powerful technique to appeal to emotions, of creating pseudo-events that the public could confuse with reality, of constantly taking the pulse of the public through surveys and opinion polls to appear to give people what they desire, and being the handlers of the enemies of truth."

Liars.

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

Unabashed Liberal's picture

is a good one,

. . . i wonder how if the "inevitable" occurs, the supporters of sanders will fall in line behind the "democrat," though surely there will be enormous pressure to do so.

From what I've read in the MSM, the decision to run as a Democratic Party candidate, versus as an Independent, is at least partly due to wanting to avoid becoming a spoiler, by siphoning off votes from the Dem Party nominee.

That is what concerns me. I would love to see him pledge "to not throw his support behind a corporatist neoliberal like Clinton," at some point in the campaign.

(If, for instance, Sherrod Brown was running, I would have no problem with him throwing his support to another Democratic Party candidate, if he loses.)

If he would do this, I think that he would immediately have the unqualified support of most of those who are on the very left of the ideological spectrum.

(I wouldn't expect him to do this early on, but I'd love to see him do this closer to the primary election.)

Mollie

Visit Us At Caucus99Percent.Com

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

will happen if Bernie loses...but I have hope the corruption in our country has run its course and a real era of hope will replace the cynicism caused by Obama's betrayal...there certainly seems to be change in the air...

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

gulfgal98's picture

the difference is large enough that i wonder how if the "inevitable" occurs, the supporters of sanders will fall in line behind the "democrat," though surely there will be enormous pressure to do so.

While I am supporting Bernie and plan to vote for him at this time, I truly understand why so many here are opposed to his candidacy, especially since he is running as a Democrat. I figured that by running as a Democrat, it gives Bernie a ticket into the door for debates and getting on the ballot. However, if he is already compromised and starts treating Clinton's positions with kid gloves, then I might join Al on the sidelines. We desperately need these economic issues aired in public, not with platitudes as Clinton with do, but with real policy positions which Bernie has already outlined. I honestly do not know of any other way to get widespread public airing of the economic issues. And yes, Bernie's stance on Israel is bothersome too. At least he has voted against the AUMF and the Patriot Act. He appears to be basically anti-war with the exception of Israel.

I do think that the Democratic party will use him to bring the big tent back together if Clinton gets the nomination, but I will not be one of those and I believe there quite a few of us like me out there.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

would vote for a feral cat before they would support Hillary. But Joe is right; intense pressure will be applied to the Bernie supporters once the nomination process has ended.

The only way to counter that pressure is for populists to move away from the fringes and form a powerful voting bloc...but, I don't see that happening yet...in typical liberal fashion, most would prefer expending energy finding fault with those who make any attempt to unite.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

Unabashed Liberal's picture

on ABC's This Week with George S.

Here it is from the ABC transcript, May 3, 2014:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You are the longest serving independent in Congress, as I said, and when you announced Thursday, you said you'd remain an independent. But now you are prepared to file as a Democrat?

SANDERS: No. In my heart, I am an independent. I have been an independent for 30 years.

But I am seeking the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. And obviously I'm going to follow all of the rules and regulations to get on the ballot as a Democrat.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you lose in this nomination fight, will you support the Democratic nominee?

SANDERS: Yes. I have in the past.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not going to run as an independent.

SANDERS: No, absolutely not. I've been very clear about that.

That has been a concern of mine, since I heard that he was running as a Democrat. He has been quite complimentary of Former Secretary Clinton--even deferential, at times--in interviews.

He must be worried that he'll be conceived as a 'spoiler' by some in the Dem Party Base.

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

JayRaye's picture

I will never vote for Hillary.

As a working class woman, I might just as well cut my own throat as vote for a war mongering neoliberal like HRC.

up
0 users have voted.

Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons

joe shikspack's picture

there is no chance in hell that i would ever vote for hillary. i really don't care if she is running against satan himself. it ain't gonna happen.

the way that the pressure will work is on progressives that believe in the system, or more accurately believe that change can really come from inside the system. the other way that the pressure will work is to keep people like you and i from criticizing hillary on daily kos between the time of the inevitable party coronation and the election. at that point of the coronation, i will undoubtedly take a "hillary hiatus" from the site.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

Hillary = The Devil Wears Prada.

Some day I'll tell the story of what really happened in Benghazi. And, why.

up
0 users have voted.

____________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire

Unabashed Liberal's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

IdealistCynic's picture

And I won't vote for Hillary even if Bernie drops out and endorses her. I have had enough of zombie Reagan, and to hell with anyone who had any kind of positive relationship with or took money from the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers, or collaborated in any shape or form with the Bush crime family. Anybody with that kind of baggage is not going to push policy beneficial to the bottom 90 percent. I refuse to vote for Reagan's 10th term. I saw the problems with Bill Clinton way back in 1996; I voted for Ralph Nader as I was sick of Republican policies being enacted by a Democrat.

Interestingly the only halfway sane thing about Bill Clinton was that his military budgets were 20 to 25 percent lower in real dollars than Obama's. At least there was a bit of a peace dividend. Not so with Obama, the endless wars being one of the worst bait and switch scams he perpetrated.

As for Hillary, there is an excellent capsule history and argument for not voting for her l, ever, courtesy of Doug Henwood:

http://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/?single=1

up
0 users have voted.
IdealistCynic's picture

Hillary would be zombie Reagan's 10th term.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

the needs of the ruling class during those times. If he was President during the same period as Obama you can bet
he would be doing the same things as Obama.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

message/agenda, but to warn others about FSC.

At least, that's how I look at it.

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Big Al's picture

but homie ain't playing those games. He's a democrat, that's enough in my book at this point in time.
He's the opposition to me, that's the way I have to look at it.
I have to.
And I might as well be honest about it.

up
0 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

bernie would be the best democrat in years. i don't know if that's enough.

i am troubled by some of his foreign policy stances and at the moment have no reason to believe that he would put a stop to our military madness.

the green candidate might make a more compelling argument for my vote. on the other hand, a write-in vote for none of the above would also be a possibility.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

I'm the black sheep of the blog.

up
0 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

we all pretty much want the same outcomes, it's good to have people thinking about different ways to reach the objective.

you make a lot of great arguments and they certainly enrich everybody's understanding of the issues and thinking about strategy.

keep on keepin' on.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

Trusting leaders who keep trying to pull the wool over our eyes would be shear lunacy. At least we can count on ewe to speak up.

up
0 users have voted.

Come on, a guy who actually refers to himself as a socialist running for president of the Democrats?!?
We will never see this again in our lifetimes.

Even if he isn't much more than a progressive Democrat, that's still an enormous improvement over the other choices.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

will shift their allegiance to FSC!

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

I think Bernie is one of the honest guys, but I wouldn't jump off a bridge just because he told me to. His downfall is that he isn't ruthless enough to take Hillary out.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Unabashed Liberal's picture

of this conversation (maybe 2-3 sentences) in the main body of DKos be a "bannable" offense?

This is to anyone who wants to take a guess. (if anyone does) I thought about posting it (not at EB, since I don't want anyone to 'get the eyeball'), but I'm not sure how risky it is.

Now, if Everyone knew what you Guys here know, it'd be no big deal.

What worries me, is two groups: 1) the lesser of two evilers (not a word, I'm sure);
2) and flat-out low information Democratic Party voters.

I'm almost sick with worry that millions of them will go right along with the endorsement, when Senator Sanders gives one.

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

joe shikspack's picture

i'm personally not inclined to find out. i hate the whining.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

most folks there, are here.

I'll just address the issue at the main blog, if a situation/assertion gets ridiculous, and warrants it.

Truly, I don't make a habit of participating in contentious threads. When the mud slinging starts--I'm outta there.

I'm going to try to start posting a 'Tweet,' or a wildlife photo several times a week, which is quicker than commenting.

Wink

Mollie

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

lotlizard's picture

I'm a little dense when reading & posting in insomniac mode (5 to 7 a.m Central European Summer Time).

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

lotlizard's picture

Evening Blues, which for me has been the real front page on DK for quite a while now.

Ready to go back to sleep now. Was supposed to go into the city, but the locomotive engineers are on strike this week. Many suburban and regional trains are not running.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

up
0 users have voted.

mimi

lotlizard's picture

I've discovered it's possible to be
(1) too American and Asian-Pacific for Europeans,
(2) too Asian-Pacific and European for Americans, and
(3) too European and American for Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Unknw

Oh well, when I was little, I thought there was going to be interstellar trade and travel. I imagined learning everything one would need to represent the whole of Earth fairly in the councils of the Galaxy.

up
0 users have voted.

I was raised in a small town in Oklahoma; not much opportunity for understanding the human experience in its larger context...that is why I made the decision to travel extensively once I was free to make my own choices, and I've never regretted that decision.

Instead of being snubbed for being different, you should have been embraced for the greater vision your heritage and travels offered.

And, you're not "too much" of anything for this group...we're all very glad you are here.

up
0 users have voted.

praenomen

mimi's picture

thanks, lotlizard, I think I have a distinct feeling now from where you are coming from. Aren't you often amazed of what is possible?
That's the greatest comment I ever read about self-identification. Smile Wouldn't it be nice if we could never grow up?

up
0 users have voted.

mimi