Home » Blog » Progressive Values Stories: Dotty LeMieux on Personal Liberties...
Blog for America
Progressive Values Stories: Dotty LeMieux on Personal Liberties and Collective Responsibility
Linked to groups: DFA Film Club
I am working on a documentary to answer the question, What are Progressive Values? So far, I have interviewed over 100 progressives and have placed over 350 video clips on YouTube with the various replies. I will begin to post some of the transcribed interviews along with direct links to the video taped interviews on blogforamerica
(BTW - I'll be at the California Democratic Party Convention in San Jose this weekend if anyone would like to be interviewed about their Progressive Values Stories.)
I interviewed Dotty LeMieux of Marin County, California. She was one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party.
What Are Progressive Values?
Dotty LeMieux: Being progressive, there are two things. Two threads. And one of them is really protecting personal liberties guaranteed under the constitution, like free speech, and freedom of assembly, and personal liberties generally, or gay marriage. All of those things.
(more)
And there is a collective responsibility, a collective working together, a cooperation other than competition. So, my idea of a progressive is someone who really believes a cooperative model from economics, protecting the environment, to working on political issues, rather than a competitive model of everybody for themselves.
I think that cooperative spirit is one of the most important – just looking at society as a whole, as a group of people who have a place on the planet, who should work together to both protect the planet for future generations and protect each other from, just to be able to express ourselves openly and to protect our personal liberties, and to work together for the common good.
So, the opposite of cooperation would be suspicion – hiding behind closed doors, being just in it for yourself. And I certainly think that everybody has a certain amount of self interest. And you have to, to survive. But the cooperative model would be that your self-interest is enhanced by the collective self interest, so that you work together with people, so that you all have something at the and, and are not just climbing over each other to get to the top of the pile.
EDWIN: Can you tell me what that cooperation feels like? The sensation?
Well, it’s hard work. For one thing, we are not used to that in our society. When you’re a little kid, you are taught ‘Share your toys’. But little kids often hit each other over the head and grab things from each other. So, there’s a certain human ‘keep it to yourself’ feeling.
So cooperation is a wanting to experience working with people. It can make you feel good if you are cooperating in a constructive way, because you see an outcome, so it can give you a good warm feeling. And a very frustrated feeling if you try to cooperative with people who have a very different opinion about what the outcome should be.
I’ve worked in a lot of different collective areas, including businesses that have been collectively run. So, I’ve seen the good and the bad of that style. But I think it’s a more productive way, running a society.
EDWIN: Do you remember any instances where you felt, where you had the best feeling out of cooperation?
Oh, let’s see. Well, specific instances, like putting together a progressive caucus, working together with a group of people who came from all over the state, and realizing that we could share many values. And even though we had some small differences, we put together a platform of issues that expressed our values. We were able to do that and then working together to get that platform accepted by the state party, which was a little skeptical of our efforts. So that felt really good.
And getting when we had our first meeting, getting hundreds of people come to our meeting, spilling out into the hallway, then we realized that our values were resonating with a lot of people. And it wasn’t just seven people any more; it was like we had the biggest caucus in the party.
EDWIN: Can you talk about your own experience at that point, what happened when you were there?
I was thrilled just to be sitting up there and looking at all the people, taking photographs. I had my blog, put stuff on my blog, pictures. It was gratifying feeling like your part of something big, that wasn’t just you. So that was good, that was a neat feeling.
We had all of the candidates who were running for whatever they were running for pass through. They knew that our group was where the action was, so they passed through. And they still do – to our meetings.
We had Phil Angelides who was running for governor at the time come up and sign his name on our progressive platform. So that was good, that we were being taken seriously by leaders who did not know exactly what they were signing on to. They just knew that these people are to be reckoned with. So, you feel like you’re a real force to be reckoned with. Yeah. That feels good.
Cross posted to:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_edwin_ru_080326_progressive_values_s.htm
Best
Edwin Rutsch
What Are Progressive Values? Documentary Project
http://ProgressiveSpirit.com and Study Grouphttp://www.dfalink.com/group.php?id=2285
Show: Expand All Reply
I'm watching Michelle on " Verdict" and frankly, I think she's a bit too militant for my tastes. Sounds to me like she's in line with Wright; whereas I think BO is not so much. Hard to know.
And she appears to me to be a stronger personality who is not all that interested in compromise.
So who wears the pants in that family or are they co-equals?
Michelle is giving McC lotsa vid clips.
U.S. Government Fallen From Grace
Government in the United States has fallen from grace considerably, let's see, we've had a Clinton that's a ho, or at least a meretricious character and Spitzer that's also a meretricious character that even pimped prostitutes, plus all the assorted RIGHT Wing REPUBLICAN crimes, incompetence and corruption. It is time for the United States to rise above the criminal and animal kingdom in government and the WHITE HOUSE and restore HOPE to the people of the greater majority common population. With the demagogery of the greedy and corrupt DLC Republicans-Lite and the REPUBLICAN Bush administration, HOPE has been lost.
When race is a deciding factor, God is not leading. Hope IS Jesus. When one checks out all the references for HOPE in the Holy Bible, HOPE ends up to be Jesus. Therefore; Obama's is placing his HOPE for our nation in his wisdom and knowledge relying on God through Jesus. What more can one ask of a leader? When our leaders truly have their HOPE firmly planted on Jesus and His WORD, they can truly give the nation HOPE, as apparently Obama has done. Bush, perhaps thought he gave the nation hope, but Bush has been a puppet used by the RIGHT EXTREME to take away hope.
A note to the SUPER DELEGATES, Obama is the better of the two --- please do not allow the indiscretions of Bill Clinton's character back into the WHITE HOUSE. Also, NAFTA wasn't to help the people that put Clinton in the WHITE HOUSE, but was to help the super rich the Clintons pant after. Eight years of Clinton's DLC cooperation and going along to get along was too much.
DLC Hillary Clinton has requested the SUPER DELEGATES decide the primary election instead of the peoples' vote, which in and of itself is already against the people of the MAJORITY common population.
Let's not do the same thing all over, because the REPUBLICANS really enjoy wasting the country's money on sexual indiscretions. REPUBLICANS didn't have any problem with impeaching a president in the media and all over the world, and taking the time to work Clinton's indiscretion into whatever would be useful to them politically, even though it wasn't high crimes and misdemeanors against the country, like what the Bush administration has done, impeachment still got REPUBLICANS back into office.
There are way too many DLC Republicans-Lite in the LEFT; if not, the United States would have immediately impeached George W. Bush as president, at least real Democrats would give impeachment of President Bush as much of a chance as the REPUBLICANS did Clinton's sexual indiscretions.
Because the DLC Republican-Lite Democrats pretense to be unable to impeach a severely corrupt REPUBLICAN president, doesn't mean the REPUBLICANS won't gleefully impeach a Democrat; again, for whatever reason, REPUBLICANS will just do it, only this time the impeachment will be of Hillary Clinton, even though Hillary gets placed as President of the United States through some sort of quid pro quo agreements between the corporate DLC Republicans-Lite and the REPUBLICANS to give whatever's left of the 70% MAJORITY'S common populations rights away to further satisfy the REPUBLICAN EXTREME.
This kind of placement is not a fair election in any form of the word, but if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination by the DLC's preordained SUPER DELEGATES ---- as Obama is doing way better with voters; Hillary Clinton will probably be placed as president after the General Election, because McCain won't have any quid pro quo 70% MAJORITY Common Population give aways, like the DLC Republicans-Lite do.
Since 1980 the United States has had corruption on the LEFT and the RIGHT from the merger of the Common Class' Professional NEW Class with the Republicans in a scheme to dupe the rest of the country of the country's wealth. Bill and Hillary are in for the wealth for them, not good government, as is any DLC member. I understand Barack Obama is not attached to the DLC. I hope this is true.
The U.S. Govt. has fallen totally away from the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION --- Check out this url about Welfare on Wall Street:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon03262008.html
Howard Dean is first. and no one who does not acknowledge our special relationship with Israel will ever get the Democratic nomination, simple as that, not a problem
Congressman Dan Lipinski is backing U.S. Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.
Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/8...
This is most interesting as Lipinski is a right leaning Democrat who we were hoping to replace with the progressive Mark Pera in the 3rd Congressional District.
seashell wrote "I'm watching Michelle on 'Verdict' and frankly, I think she's a bit too militant for my tastes."
Watch something else.
Phil.....
It's not the special relationship we have with Israel, it's that they have a bunch of right wing whackos leading it, just iike ours.
Tom and Karen - the same kind of *put head in sand the way we do* humor!
seashell wrote "Tom and Karen - the same kind of *put head in sand the way we do* humor!"
I'd say don't vote for her, but she's not even running for anything.
First of all, the relationship doesn't have to be so "special." It's sounds exclusive, which it is, and makes neighbors angry.
To say that this *relationship* must remain as it is in order for people to be elected prez is to say that we will be in the ME 100 years or until someone starts reining nukes. It also says that RW Zionists there and here are running our own country right into the ground "to protect our special friend."
Hogwash!
It's all fear...fear of not being elected and not getting POWER.
Tom and Karen - the same kind of *put head in sand the way we do* humor!
You might want to lighten up a little; it's less stressful and more fun. :o)
If BO is the nominee, she'll be trashed by McC for her rather *outspoken* remarks.
There's something about her.....
Tom, they would come as a package and she campaigns for him. She'll be a target.
seashell wrote "First of all, the relationship doesn't have to be so 'special.'"
Now that Obama's campaign has the American friends of Israel hopping mad for advocating that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders, you must have yourself a candidate.
seashell wrote "Tom, they would come as a package and she campaigns for him. She'll be a target."
Unlike Bill Clinton you mean.
I'd have to darken down to vote for Hillary.
IF John McCain started going after Michelle, I am highly confident she'll have no problem with him - cuz she's a highly confident woman. Refreshing.
I missed this article somehow
Another Obama Advisor with Anti-Israeli Views Ed LaskyEarlier in the year, American Thinker published an article "Barack Obama and Israel" which wondered why Barack Obama seemingly had a proclivity to tie himself to people who have very problematic attitudes towards Israel.
These included early supporter George Soros; billionaire foe of close ties between America and Israel; Zbigniew Brzezinski-who has an antipathy towards Israel that is well known and who has publicly supported the views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (as has George Soros) who feel America's Middle East policy is too influenced by what they disparagingly call the "Israel Lobby.
Then there's "foreign policy expert" Robert Malley who has had a long history of anti-Israel advocacy; top foreign policy adviser, close personal friend and former employee Samantha Power whose views towards Israel include a call for halting all aid to Israel and transferring it to "Palestine:. She also has had a litany of anti-Israel policy proposals over the years .
Power also was recently on a book tour where she complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often revolved around "what is good for the Jews". Power also alluded to Americans who have vast financial power and criticized the role of these ominous people in the foreign policy debate (her defenders say she was referring to the oil industry but certainly other images can be evoked by many readers). Power recently resigned from the foreign policy staff in the wake of comments she made depicting Hillary Clinton as a "monster". However, some feel this "break" might be for show -- after all, she was a volunteer on his foreign policy staff and their relationship was a very strong one (including text messsaging at all hours of the day and night).
Maybe the spouses should also debate.
Yea, Denise, I feel the same way.
I still am thinking that having both on the ticket would be a winner. It's way too close to steal right now.
Unless HC can somehow win, I think she could be a very good VP, working for women, children and health care. Had she not had Bill and a terrible campaign staff, I think she'd be winning. She's getting poor advice. Michelle is a credit to BO, Bill is not good for HC. JMO
no one will likely have to vote for Hillary
the judge has cleared the way for caucus allocation in Michigan if they want to be seated, the way is clear
If it were Judy Dean being attacked, would we be parroting right wing talking points about her too?
Pennsylvania is one of the 50 states.
Sea I'm glad you feel the same way but I'm not sure about which point you mean :)
Jennie I don't understand your post.
Maybe I need dinner
seashell wrote "I still am thinking that having both on the ticket would be a winner."
You used to apprise us that that was some kind of pre-primary plot and the fix was in.
Jennie the light just came on, never mind :) Had to read it again. I thought I read "Judy for Dean" one of our beloved bloggers.
You mean Howard's wife - and I agree.
So, new poll out and Hill's approval rating is down to Bushian levels, 38%.
Obama lost only one point over the Rev. Wright flap, but Hill lost a ton over the oft-repeated Bosnian sniper fire story that is a total lie.
Numbers are back to Obama narrowly beating McCain and McCain narrowly beating Hillary.
And yet she now vows to stay in until June.
sigh
-- volney
Jennie I don't understand your post.
Sorry. Instead of saying "we", I should have said "seashell".
Ronald wrote "Pennsylvania is one of the 50 states."
Thanks for clearing that up. I read at myDD that Obama's pastor advocated having Pennsylvania removed from the union and then Obama lied about hearing him do it.
Howard Dean, having already saved the Dem. Party once with his successful 50 state plan, will probably have to do it again since there are no others.
It's not politically worth it for Gore, Kerry or Edwards to get their hands dirty to save a Party that has nothing to offer. Reid and Pelosi will vaguely suggest that the Primary problems will solve themselves by June. The Super Dels don't want a SD primary, especially a transparent one for obvious political reasons.
So, there is no Dem leadership who values the Party, the Gen. Elect. more than their own image among their constituencies, or more plainly their own backsides.
A closed primary that shut out the candidate that had the most votes and pledged delegates would be disastrous.
But, there is Howard Dean, who will probably just handle it, like he always does. If he is going to be the one to do the deed of telling the Clintons to pack up, (not saying it
wouldn't be enjoyable and justice served), he needs to be assured of the VP. The rest of the gutless wonders need to "deal" if they expect to slough off all of the dirty work, and the VP should be the price, besides being the best choice they could make in any even, and Obama gets to start his campaign against Mc whole and strong.
a delegate from PA is as good as one from Texas or North Carolina, no better, no worse, and Obama will get a fair share you can be sure Ronald, I'm not buying the argument that the "winner" of the popular vote there is deserving of more respect than the winner of Missouri or Mississippi
pledged delegates is how the nominees get to have their say at the nominating convention
We all have our opinions but I agree with the pundits that Barack and Hill will not be on the same ticket.
By the way, Phil, I wouldn't be in a hurry to get the primaries over with if someone could get Tonya Harding to behave herself.
Here is a link to a transcript of a call to the Rush Limbaugh show today, from a caller in Austin, Texas. He marched to the orders of Operation Chaos and was selected as a delegate to the county convention in the Texas caucus, where he'll find out if he's going to be selected to go to the Democratic convention in Denver as a Clinton delegate.
I supported Bush1 and Dole over Bubba because Bubba was a well known skirt chaser, lacked discipline, and was a well-known liar. However, the 92 and 96 Clinton campaigns were hallmarks of discipline. Whatever the flap or bimboe of the day, the campaign stuck on message. The Clinton campaign was never mean or devious. When we tried to get the Dems off balance, the campaign would center on the attack. Both Repub nominies were dour and lacked any kind of vision for the future. Bubba seemed to know what he wanted to do and how to get there. The Repubs played the mean game and lost.
The New Clinton campaign resembles the 92 and 96 Repub campaigns with their decision to stay negative. If Obama can stay on message and answer the attacks he will do fine against McCain. The Clinton campaign is spring training for Obama.
I supported Bush1 and Dole over Bubba
That's why you're pretty much viewed as a joke around here.
I don't want to see Howard in the WH. He is doing fine with the 50 state campaign. The VP has to be a legislative mechanic. The VP has to shepherd the president's laws thru Congress.
It very well could be Dashle except he is a lobbiest. Edwards? Bob Kerry? Bill Bradley? Feingold? Dennis? Boxer?
I prefer to not reduce the Senate margin anymore. Maybe Murthra from Penn? He gets a lot of pork money.
Dog wrote,
...the 92 and 96 Clinton campaigns were hallmarks of discipline. Whatever the flap or bimboe of the day, the campaign stuck on message. The Clinton campaign was never mean or devious. When we tried to get the Dems off balance, the campaign would center on the attack. Both Repub nominies were dour and lacked any kind of vision for the future. Bubba seemed to know what he wanted to do and how to get there. The Repubs played the mean game and lost.
The New Clinton campaign resembles the 92 and 96 Repub campaigns with their decision to stay negative. If Obama can stay on message and answer the attacks he will do fine against McCain. The Clinton campaign is spring training for Obama.
To which I respond, you are totally hip there, Dog.
Unless HC can somehow win, I think she could be a very good VP
There are other women with as good or better credentials who would attract those who just want to vote for any woman -- and wouldn't have a knife at the ready to stick in Obamas back.
By the way, Phil, I wouldn't be in a hurry to get the primaries over with if someone could get Tonya Harding to behave herself.
When Phil decides to close his eyes you can't pry them open with a crowbar.
gotta run...early day tomorrow
November is what counts.
Second place in the states equals zero then.
The "hit them where they ain't", proportional delegation, road to the Democratic Nomination doesn't run to Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC
Just an opinion, of course. This is a place for such things.
It would be ideal if BFA were a showcase of what we are outside this blog. A lot of people would like to let their friends know about DFA, but hesitate to tell anyone to come here because of the less than flattering picture that is presented.
I haven't heard Tom Hartman tell anyone to go to DFA in a very long time.
This gives me the chills and it's brilliant.
Major Movement for Obama in PA. A march on 20 April.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3...
11:11 PM EDT
not bad for 25 George Washingtons:
http://www.wishtv.com/global/story.asp?s=8075836
Rushville woman chosen for dinner with Barack Obama
Posted: March 26, 2008 10:45 PM EST
Bonnie Locchetta of Rushville says a lot of people from the small Indiana farming community where she lives will be surprised to learn she's having dinner with presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
Obama's campaign selected the 44-year-old single mother after she made a $25 donation. She's 1 of 4 donors chosen to eat with Obama.
Locchetta, who manages a church in Rushville, about 40 miles southeast of Indianapolis, says she'll use the dinner as an opportunity to bend Obama's ear about the problems facing average Americans.
...
11:16 PM EST
...
March 26, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
...
When asked which candidate could unite the country if elected, 60 percent said Obama, 58 percent said McCain and 46 percent said Clinton.
...
Edward Rendell is on with Charlie Rose (PBS) blowing Clinton smoke up my skirt.
Stop that, Ed!
Nice smile? Mmm, not really, but he tries hard.
Dude, is old school and doesn't have a clue.
Ed admires Joe Scarborrough. Ed has jomentum. Yawn.
Sitka.....
I don't agree with Sea about Hillary, but Sea has an open mind, is inquisitive, searches, and asks questions and is able to change her mind when it suits.
Gee, I supported Perot, I guess that makes me a bigger joke. sitka, please be a little more open. I have had a good bit of political experience and responsibiity, and I have to say, you are not always right.
Here is a bit of informal polling from the street out my ways...
Hillary is turning off the base
little by little
more and more
to her detriment.
11:27 PM EDT
47.Imn2Paine
Wed, 03/26/08
Reply to this
Here is a bit of informal polling from the street out my ways...
Hillary is turning off the base
little by little
more and more
to her detriment.
+++
Paine -
Indeed.
It's called karma.
Clinton needs $$$ to stay in until June.
Ain't gonna happen.
Howard is DNC Chair until Jan., 2009. What part of that isn't sinking in?
mainefem is going to make Howard stay at his job until Jan '09 even if the DNC supports an early departure to accept the VP, and don't argue that they wouldn't support him.
mainefem
when it is indeed mathematically impossible we can agree
PA voters could end this if they want
-
By Tom Bearse on Mar 26, 2008 8:52 PMDean is first.
John has linked to Joe Mowrey's article at Counterpunch to advise us that Obama is the lesser of two evils in so far as U.S. Israel policy is concerned, and Jennie has provided Marc Ambinder's link to Robert Goldberg's American Spectator's article detailing the Israel problem Obama has, due to criticisms of Israel by Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chair, Merrill McPeak, a former Dean supporter. I guess that settles it. Obama is a critic of Israel's policy, complaining from inside its pocket. Talk about a losing proposition.