Of course it does, those are both relatively minor things. The Iraq War total cost is only like one year of deficits under several of the schemes the far right are proposing at the moment, or Bernie’s crazy spending plans that will cost $18 trillion.
The Patriot Act was a big piece of legislation, and a lot of it wasn’t that bad. The Patriot Act is a liberal boogeyman but not really rightfully so, it contained mostly good reforms of how we conduct Federal law enforcement and counterterrorism. It also comes with time limits so Congress has to periodically renew it (and they’ve done so, but they’ve stripped some of its provisions out in subsequent reauthorizations.)
It’s actually a much more balanced and appropriate response than some of the security state expansions undertaken during prior times of crisis, like WWII or the Civil War.
Heck, let me take it a step further and turn it around.
There’s already a perception from the last two midterms and the various local and state votes since '09 that the “new voters” Obama mobilized did not seem to show up for the downticket candidates and local races. Tea Partiers kept partying on at the State Assembly, City Council, Congressional District and other such levels even while Barack cleanly won a second term over the GOP’s Mr. Establishment. Like Bridget Burke says it would behoove the progressives to try and focus on doing something about that and let the Presidential candidate tack to center if that’s the winning move.
I’d therefore be more worried about Obama’s failure to deliver on expectations and a Hillary knockout of Sanders, combining to demoralize the progressives to the point they say “oh what’s the use” and just stay home. Or *&^%$# vote Nader or whoever’s the current equivalent.
Progressives cannot depend on a single person at the top to lead a revolution that flips Congress. If Obama had Progressive proposal coming out of Congress he’d have signed them. So Sanders won’t lead millions to march and make demands. You do not need the Presidency to do that. Do it anyway!
Get Progressive candidates in the primaries and get the vote out every election. Win more influence in state governments, and in both Houses of Congress. Do that in the mid terms and you enable (or push if that is your take) a President Clinton to deliver on a Progressive agenda. And if it is President Sanders? Same thing.
Also. Lieberman left the Democratic Party and ran essentially as an independent. He wanted to peal off Republican votes. Hillary is less likely to pursue such a strategy to put it mildly. I suppose Bloomberg might.
Also. Lieberman’s strategy didn’t work. He ended up stepping down and not running for re-election.
So I guess the answer is still no.
Frankly as I perceive it, the divisions in the Democratic Party are pretty mild. Lots of us like Bernie, but don’t think he would do too well in November. Plenty of Dems don’t like Bernie too much, but would nonetheless prefer him over anyone from the Republican crazytown.
I think she was mistaken to do so but a lot of smart people were fooled. She was not voting to express her personal spite.
(You ignored the rest of my post. What local races are you following, in hopes of getting other progressives elected? One Vote For Bernie won’t change the world. )