You're viewing a single thread.
Did you see what happened in 2008?
A progressive won and if he hadn't ignored the DNC because they screwed him he could have changed leadership and made lasting change to the party!
The same people wouldn't be in charge and they wouldn't be grifting their cut off billionaire's bribes.
For the people running the DNC the only real loss would be a progressive winning, that's why they keep taking steps since then to ensure there's no chance of their pick losing again .
We ain't fighting the same fight as them. They're fine with a republican winning, hell, it drives up donations.
Calling Obama a progressive is rather laughable
He was in favor of civil unions instead of marriage for LGBT so... that's something I guess?
The DNC allowed Obama to be the nominee because they were assured he would back off on progressive policy and institute corporate friendly programs like the ACA. For the DNC him being the first black president was a suitable surrogate to progressive change.
ACA was watered down because of Lieberman.
Obama chose to oust Dean over the public option, which facilitated Lieberman's success in that endeavour, so yeah that is accurate to say.
Howard Dean was the hiccup in the DNC after 2004 when Kerry and Edwards went for the ticket. He got control of the DNC (being 3rd) and got the party to run on healthcare reform and a public option in all 50 states. The moment Obama took control Dean was removed and the signal was given the public option would not be fought for.
He was all in on the public option. They really were blindsided by him.
That's the thing that's hard to determine: if he gave up because of Lieberman or if Lieberman was the cover for backing off.
I didn't think so at the time, but given the track record and actions of the party since then? I kinda do feel Obama wasn't so all-in for it.
No, it was pretty clear. And if it was a cover then it was the party telling Obama he couldn't have it. He'd never have proposed it if he didn't want it on the table.