A Reality Check in the Progressive Civil War

I wrote about a familiar topic in yesterday’s column. Here we go…

There’s a “cold” civil war among progressives that’s always existed, but it’s been rapidly heating up since the earliest days of the 2008 campaign. The most visible front of this feud is taking place between prominent bloggers, on Twitter and, well, right here on The Daily Banter.

I’ve written about this topic extensively over the years, and on more than one occasion I’ve been caught up in the middle of it all. First, during the 2008 campaign, I endorsed President Obama quite early in the process and subsequently engaged in the contentious primary battle between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. It baffled me how progressives could support Hillary Clinton given some of her tactics (a bit of fear-mongering and the like), her moderate third-way DLC politics and well as her early support for the Iraq War. And I made my opinions about her abundantly clear. If you’d like a solid retelling of the progressives in-fighting during the primaries, check out Eric Boehlert’s wonderful Bloggers On The Bus. Continued here…

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Democratic Party and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • mattlewis66

    The feud continues — just take a look every so often at DailyKos, where the purges continue.

    • missliberties

      No thank you.

      There is a core group there that never get banned that are such purity trolls. Why are they still there? Beats me.

      Do these folks get that you can be right on the values, ie: Wisconsin and wrong on the tactics and the strategy. Who in their right mind thinks you can beat Koch money with a candidate that has been running for exactly one month. *sigh*

  • trgahan

    I think a bigger reality check is that progressives have been getting their asses kicked on Election Day since 2008. President Obama had maybe two years to do anything truly progressive. Since then his administration has been fighting a hostile Congress, a partisan Supreme Court, and a majority of states threatening succession and suing the federal government over every law passed prior to the 2010 mid-terms. Unfortunately, if he is re-elected, I don’t think he’s going to be able to do much else but keep the right wing crazies in check ahead of the seemingly inevitable Republican landslide in 2016.

    • stacib23

      President Obama had maybe two years to do anything truly progressive.

      I disagree – Obama never had the team players he would have needed to push through any progressive legislation. That 60 in the Senate was an illusion. Remember Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman. At best, I believe Obama had maybe 53 or 54 votes in the Senate that would have helped push things through, but with the Republicans requiring 60 votes just to talk about issues, there was no chance at all for more progressiveness. How many bills the Nancy P’s House pass that collected dust in the Senate?

      • Brutlyhonest

        He had a slightly better chance to get things done the first two years, but you are correct that the “liberal majority” was a paper tiger. First and best example: Day 1 the President orders the prison at Gitmo closed and is immediately shut down by both democratic-controlled houses.

        And the endless filibustering is insane.

  • http://twitter.com/D_v_E Dave

    Great post, Bob.

  • missliberties

    Can we learn anything from our mistakes?

    Liberal gnashing of teeth over Obama care, and not voting in 2010 has been the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. The do it my way or else crowd ended up costing this country dearly.

    • http://ifthethunderdontgetya.blogspot.com/ ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

      Might help the learning process if you bothered to figure out who did and did not vote in 2010.
      ~