A Google search for the phrase "soul of the Democratic Party" yields thousands of hits, because the struggle for that soul has been a perennial subject of debate. I've probably used the phrase myself.
Irrespective of where the Democratic Party's soul previously resided, when the Clintons and others founded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985 the Party's soul became unequivocally GET MORE CORPORATE FUNDING THAN THE GOP.
The Party bosses' job description is to make sure that the party nominates only corporate money magnets.
Mr Eskow is too focused on what a Politician might SAY in the leadup to the election implying that if they SAY the right things then the public can be better informed as to whether that potential leader in fact progressive.
The problem is not what a given candidate SAYS. Anyone can cut and paste speeches made by Barack Obama in his first election and claim his values as "progressive". The problem is the Democratic party itself. It is a corrupt entity and is owned by the Corporate State.Any leader who heads that party will be co-opted by its inherent corruption.
The reason Ms Clinton is silent on those issues listed has nothing to do with whether are not she is adopting progressive values or considering them or not. She has no values outside self enrichment. Her silence is out of her concern that her Corporate funding might dry up if she says the wrong things.
The Democratic party , or more accurately the duopoly , is the problem and not the shade of lipstick it wears. Mr Eskow remains true to the duopoly and can offer no sound advice to true progressives.
The Democratic Party has to connect the dots for average citizens to understand that so long as our elections are funded by the 1%, their concerns will be ignored in Washington D.C. They have to convince the general public that if elected they will work to establish reforms in how our political process is funded. Provide factual evidence on how BIG money donations swayed how policy got voted on.
Once people realize they have no say because of how campaigns receive their funding and truly believe Democrats will fix the problem, they will gain the support of a majority of voters.
I believe those who seek the soul of Democratic Party search in vain.
The party has no soul.
Bill Clinton's presidential track record and Hillary's Senate voting record clearly depict where the Clintons stand on all issues economic. No need to ask any questions.
"The progressive victories are welcome. But as long as these disappointments continue, more Democratic soul-searching is presumably needed."
C'mon, Mr. Eskow... no candidate is going to pull in the necessary corporate funding if they say they oppose Fast Track or any change in banking or corporate tax policy.
Framing the issue as "Democratic party soul searching" is on a par with those media "savvy" discussions about Edward Snowden's alleged narcissism.
These types of frames place the limelight on the tangential, inconsequential, and personal so that the driving force behind the 1%'s power over foreign and domestic policy-setting--and that means via purchased (as in fully sold out) candidates can remain in place--neither challenged nor examined. The rest is peripheral storytelling.
It's obvious that Mrs. Clinton's campaign aids are telling her that she must SOUND populist. The woman, half of one "side" of what's propped up as "prime time dynastic families U.S.A" is so on the side of corporations that anyone with a living brain cell has to know that she'd be, at best, mirroring her husband's pathetic "I feel your pain" speechifying while cutting the programs needed by real people in order to make blood sacrifices for the Beast (MIC endless killing machine).
What is Clinton's position on an issue?
What do you want it to be?
That's her position.
The Dem Party doesn't dare "connect the dots" - if they did, they would be out on their keisters - they have had plenty of chances to "convince the general public" - and if it weren't for the pitiful success of the LOTE, and "3rd parties can't win" memes, they would have been gone long ago ...
Well that's where Bernie comes in - he will get folks "excited" about the prospects of "revitalizing" the party, and having sucked a lot of time, money and energy out of the progressive community - will turn around and endorse the D candidate, whoever that is ... meanwhile a real prog candidate will be left at the altar ....
Why was this post flagged?
Good grief - the "soul" of the party left a long time ago - it now resides elsewhere .... Looking for a soul in the DP is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost instead of where he dropped them ...
Thank you! My question precisely. I do not understand what I said that was so offensive. I
would appreciate an explanation. I found other comments about this article by Eskow to be
just as critical and even more so, in their own way. I suppose because I mentioned him personally,
I violated the rules? I think that's some heavy-duty censorship. Wow!
I think you are owed an explanation - and frankly, i think anonymous flags should not be allowed - you have the right to know who your "accuser" is - in a place that touts the virtues of openness and transparency! Rather Kafkaesque, if you ask me ... How can one be expected to "follow the rules" if they are so opaque ... Casts a "chilling effect" on commentary ....
Bernie Sanders is saying all the right things right now. But does he really mean them, or is he simply trying to herd the progressive Democrats back into the elite, established Democratic party. He already said that he would vote for Hillary if he does not win the primary.
"Casts a "chilling effect" on commentary ...."
And that may very well be the intent.
The idea that my post was hidden, and that I received a message telling me that it had been flagged, and that members of "the community" had deemed it offensive was really very creepy.
"Kafkaesque", to say the least.
Thank you again for your supportive remarks.
Any time! i suspect i myself may well wind up in your position ... In an era where being "PC" is considered PC, it seems we should all take pause ... - Seems to me there should be others questioning this as well, but the same argument as shrugging one's shoulders about NSA spying - "hey, if i'm not doing anything wrong, why should i care?" - seems to be applying here, as well - too bad ...
Is it possible someone clicked "fag comment" by mustake. I know I wonce did that in error when posting on a cell phone as it so easy to click the wrong button. I noticed it and took the flag off.
"Remember, Barack Obama was elected as an antiwar candidate." Slick oily use to talk about Iraq being the "BAD" war and Afghanistan as the "GOOD" war, So how can one paint Slick Oily as the antiwar candidate with statements such as that? Remember, Slick oily is the consummate snake oil salesman, says one thing to the people and does what the 1% wants.
Remember any of these Slick Oily campaign promises? 1)Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses. 2)Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs. 3)Require full disclosure of company pension investments to employees. 4)Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize. 5)End no-bid contracts above $25,000. 6)End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. 7)Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay. 8)Sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 9)Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year. 10)Reduce the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog. 11).Establish regulations to secure chemical plants. 12)Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations. Now, how many of these campaign promises did the Slick One fulfill? It is time to drive a stake through the heart of the one corrupt, corporate political party and start over again! Capitalism has had over two hundred years in this country, and what do we have to show for it? Perhaps it's time for something new, at long last?
"..i think anonymous flags should not be allowed "
I totally agree.
On edit: If it continues we could protest by flagging everything for a day each week until the policy is changed. They could certainly leave up flagged posts until they've been reviewed and then, if the post is removed, put the reason for its removal in its place.