Nobody's pure in politics, especially in the US. But if you don't think these three have largely pursued the needs of the American people, then show the evidence, the legislative record. All else is fluff.
That doesn't answer my question, Steve. Pelosi is the biggest fundraiser in Congress, which is why she's minority leader. Are these donations just gifts, no strings attached? Most Americans want Medicare For All, even Republican voters. Donors from Big Pharma and Big Insurance definitely don't want that (nothing personal, they are under the obligation of maximizing profits). Whose interests does Pelosi and other Corporate Democrats serve when push comes to shove? Do you really think they'll do what the people want?
Well, you didn't answer my question, either. How can you keep making sweeping generalizations about how the Dems are screwing the people without addressing the legislative record? It doesn't support what you've been saying here, at all.
I think you're view of campaign finance is simplistic, on multiple levels. Big donors have some influence, yes. Some legislators are more abjectly beholden than others. But virtually none have the luxury of ignoring donors' interests and still being able to hold a seat in Congress.
Another point is that great concentrations of wealth, while bad, are not nearly as bad as an economic system that tends to drive greater and greater concentrations.
Some wealthy individuals, and even wealthy corporations, actually want to live in a sane, just, humane, and environmentally sustainable world. Some of them give money to Democrats in interests of having a better nation and better world. Thumbing our noses at them simply makes Democrats even more out-gunned in elections.
Many donations go to whoever the giver thinks will win, in the hopes of later having influence among those in power.
But it's crystal clear that the intelligent expenditure of money sways opinion and sways elections. It'a a crazy, perverse, and stupid way to run elections, but nobody running for office made it that way. It's an intrinsically corrupt system, and the pure have no chance in this kind of knife fight.
Progressives need all the donations they can get, from virtually anyone. The alternative is one-party rule. If big donors can be persuaded to give, without giving away the whole farm, we need them.
It's bad. It didn't used to be this bad. You can thank
Citizens United at the Supreme Court for making politics ten times worse than before Obama's election.
And the same goes for free college, ending the wars, minimum wage. These are all pie in the sky ideas, for the richest country in the world, while most of the rest of the world has these things.
Why doesn't the Democratic Party run with these ideas, get all those young people and disillusioned left-behinds to the ballot box? What other possible answer can there be than that the donors don't want it?
Democrats *have* been trying to raise the minimum wage, and worker protections. And promoting the idea of free community college. And making debts less burdensome for students. And supporting significant steps towards renewable energy and environmental protections.
But it only takes 41 votes against in the Senate to kill a bill. And executive orders by a progressive president can be immediately undone by a regressive one.
I posted a link to Pelosi's voting record, and asked what was so bad about it. No response from any of the Dem-haters. Her record is, I think, a good proxy for the House Dems overall. I'd cite Harry Reid's record as being most representative for the Senate. Take a look at these votes and the bills they passed, and tell me what, exactly, was so "neoliberal" about them.
I'm looking at the current system, not just in the US, but around the world. At this irrational addiction to GDP growth, so that the piles of concentrated wealth can keep growing bigger (regardless if their owners want it or not). At the consequences, like AGW, resource wars, financial bubbles, the increase in chronic diseases, ocean acidification, consumer/addiction culture, and so on.
Yes, the GOP consists mostly of maniacs and criminals, but have Democratic leaders ever acknowledged their failures so far? Because they were part of that, part of the deregulations, part of the endless wars, part of the Wall Street bail-outs, part of the opioid crisis, part of depriving of millions of Americans of medical care.
Have they said something along the lines of: "I wanted to do more, but couldn't, my hands were tied. I'm sorry I couldn't do all the things I promised"? No, they think they're fantastic. Where's my book deal? Which equity firm wants a speech? On what talk show can I crack some jokes this week?
Instead of things getting better, they've gone incrementally worse, culminating (for now) in a bald clown in the White House. Don't tell me the Democrats were simply powerless in the last 30 years. If this is all the GOP's handiwork, then we must talk about the Democratic Party's failure to prevent it. And they're not stupid, so what happened? Simple: Money in politics.
Well, yes, money in politics is a bad thing. We have a bad system here. It may take, God forbid, a constitutional amendment to fix.
But it's still more complicated than you describe. Who are these "Democratic leaders" you speak of who are responsible for your list of (exaggerated) sins, who need to confess and atone? THERE ARE NONE. Hillary and Obama are permanently essentially irrelevant since the last election. The DNC doesn't control what bills come up in Congress. They don't whip votes. They don't even control who can get on the ballot and run.
The DNC exists almost wholly as a conduit for some campaign funds. They don't control votes in Congress or any of the State legislatures. Considering all the PACs, Super-PACs, and "dark money" floating around, the DNC doesn't even control much of campaign funding. The DNC isn't entirely irrelevant, but closer to that than most seem to think.
Party heads in Congress have some limited influence. But even when Dems have a majority, the majority leaders don't dictate votes of their caucus.
By and large, "the Democrats" are the individual voters, and individual candidates, with their individual campaign donors. There isn't anyone in particular to beat their chests about the last election cycle. Except Hillary, but she's now permanently nearly irrelevant, so it doesn't matter if she does or doesn't.
Despite the influence of money in campaigns, the Dems have largely stuck to a hearteningly progressive legislative record. This is true regardless of the personal wealth of specific legislators, and regardless of how much in donations they've accepted. They've done remarkably well in a horrid electoral system that is stacked against them.
