- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
While I think Mrs. Clinton's done an admirable job of patience with this section the fact is not only AREN'T they the Democratic majority, but they've been instrumental in Democratic losses for 30 years.
They held out because Hubert Humprhrey was just too damned typical a Democrat and gave us Nixon instead (and all of his rightwing appointments and creations not the least of which was HMO's).
Then they scared off our working and elderly populist vote by insisting the Democratic party grandstand for every unsavory divisive issue from abortion to flag burning and gay marriage.
Hence Ronald Reagan and George Bush the 1st for 12 years.
When the Clinton's/Gore finally got in they griped and bitched incessently he wasn't liberal enough all while ironically the right was doing the exact opposite. Meanwhile the important thing was the Administration brought the best economy of our lifetimes and closed the hemmoraghes of red ink that had been incurred for 30 years. We actually had a bright future in 1999.
But when that was up they decided Gore just was too much like George W. Bush. Or something, and fell for the GOP's trap of Nader.
And now it's this clown, the Obamateur, who is more ego than substance and obviously isn't what he claims.
Who 'needs em I say. The Dem Party is in fact better off without the "leftwing". It's definitely past time to tell moveon.org to moveon.OUT While it was once a useful organization during the Clinton Kangaroo Court Impeachment, since then it's become a liability in the form of letting a very small number of voters yield far too much influence on the Party direction which has consistently led to big losses.
