Damning with Faint Praise

TPM is in full defend Obama mode but they misfired here - reminding us that Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the GOP was the party of ideas. If that is a comparison that is supposed to convince us of Obama's Democratic bona fides, then all I can say is you got to be kidding me. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was certainly not MY IDEA of the kind of Dem I would want. But I speak for me only there. Your mileage may vary.

< 15 Inmates Freed Due to Drug Informant's Lies | GOP Ideas Revisited: Context >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nope. Not even close. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    Take some time off before the train goes off the rails completely...meanwhile, a little coffee (high test), a little chocolate, a little Irish...

    I know...it's early...but it's five o'clock SOMEWHERE.

    The Ebeneezer Baptist speech (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    was absolutely one of the most brilliant speeches that I've ever heard, and very well delivered, but it said absolutely NOTHING.  This is my problem with Mr Obama's hope and change message: he doesn't tell us how to get there.  Tell me how Fred Phelps is going to be persuaded into defending a woman's right to choose.  Tell me how the republicans are going to be persuaded to embrace stem cell research.  Tell me how we are going to convince McCain republicans we need to get out of Iraq.  Tell me details, not hopes.

    And, speaking as a life-long dem, I don't want republicans in my party.  That's why I'm a dem.

    I don't give a damn about Fred Phelps (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    and neither should you.

    The other day, there was a post over at Kos about how a number of locals dealt with the Phelpsites across the street from a funeral home where a soldier's funeral was scheduled to take place: pulling over between the protestors and the funeral home, playing serious, hardcore punk (Minor Threat) on the car stereo turned up to 11, and then having a couple other vehicles spontaneously join the blockade.  Lots of support from the other traffic, too.

    Clowns like the Phelps crew don't deserve your consideration and won't get mine.  Any attempt to "bring them into the tent" requires the people trying to bring them in to give up everything inconsistent with the Phelps dogma.  Which, it is clear, is no different from the faux-bipartisanship preached by the Rethugs and swallowed whole by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the other capitulators.  You (plural) rightly criticize them for capitulating, but then turn around and demand more of it.  Get a clue.


    Can we take this as (none / 0) (#41)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    a vote against Obama unity for all?

    Seems like unity has conditions (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    There are many folks who feel as Fred Phelps does (lots of them behind pulpits, some of them doing double-duty as gospel singers).  I used Phelps as an example because he more vocally reflects what these people are more subtle about in their speech.

    I ask you again: how is Obama going to unite anti-abortion, anti-tax, anti-middle class, anti-gay marriage, anti-everything democratic folk WITH the democratic party?  How does he bring them in?  Magic?  How does he tell the men who fought tooth and nail for Terry Schiavo one minute then allowed the horrors of Katrina to continue the next?

    Answer that question-without making exceptions for folks like Trent Lott and DeLay and all those other jerks who are still alive and kicking and raising money for the republican party-and then I will find Obama's "change" and "unity" valid.


    Krugman gets this right as well, I think (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by chrisvee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    How does this help Obama?  Moynihan and Obama were talking about two different time periods and I hardly think that because Clinton admired Moynihan that means she tacitly endorsed every comment that he ever made.

    Sorry I didn't provide a link to Krugman -- this is my first comment and I'm nervous about formatting a link correctly!

    tech support (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    Highlight the word you want to use for the hot link. Press the button that looks like a chain link between the U and Envelope. That will open a dialogue box. Past the URL in the box click enter.

    You can also do the old bracket url link name close bracket trick.

    [   URL link name   ]

    leave out the spaces. This works on any scoop site- Dailykos, MyDD etc.


    I'm Sure That McCain Will Provide You (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    with all the things that you feel are important. He will also provide all of us with a fair and unbiased SCOTUS and judicial system for the next 3 decades.

    Bye now.

    politics is for skillful leaders (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    Hilary has every right to call Obama out on this and anything else that can benefit her. Obama would do the same, this is politics.

    I saw Obama's speech and the context of it is clearly positive about Ronald Reagan and the party of ideas. In that same sentence he managed to discount everything Bill Clinton did as president.

    Obama does give beautiful speeches, but someone else is writing those for him. When he is on his own he misspeaks and Hilary has an obligation to call him on it.

    I want a fighter to take on the republican machine.

    This Is Obama's Problem (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    This TPM advice is emblematic of why Obama continues to have a problem with his Reagan/Republican ideas comments.  This is a pathetic defense.  First, Moynihan's comments took place at a different time, one not covered by Obama's "for the last 10, 15 years."  Second, Moynihan is not actually Hillary Clinton and it's awfully difficult to impeach one person with the testimony of another.  Third, Moynihan was a fricking conservative democrat, not someone you would trot out to prove your progressive bona fides.  Fourth, even if all that weren't true and Moynihan was a stellar reference, nobody knows who the frick he was.  It's the ultimate insider's defense.  

    Besides which, it's a defense that basically admits the attack is right.  Hey, the Republicans really were the party of ideas for the last decade and I'm not the only one who thinks so!  That is not how he wins this argument.  He'll be reduced to fighting over whether the Republican party is the party of ideas and taking the position that they are in a democratic primary.  How is that a good thing for Obama?

    When the Reagan thing broke, I thought it would be a talking point for a couple of days.  Clinton would hit him for it, he'd say something that cleaned it all up, and it would be over.  The fact that it isn't is more worrisome, frankly, than the original remarks.  Why weren't he or his campaign able to cut this thing off a week ago?  It is unbelievable to me that he's still getting hit over this.

    Honestly, I don't know which is worse, the inability of the Obama campaign to put to rest this entire discussion or the lame advice he's getting from progressive writers like Greg Sargent.  Because when I read stuff like the Moynihan post, I know why the Republicans have been able to paint the Democrats as whiny weak losers - Democrats fight it with lame crap like this.  

    Notice how Clinton didn't even discuss Walmart at the debate.  Instead she threw Rezko back at him - changing the topic and raising the stakes.  That's how you win.    

    Honestly, are the only Democrats who know how to win politically named Clinton?  Because that's just sad.

    More spot-on points made. . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    in this one comment than I read in the average week of blog-addiction.

    I am sorry but (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    all of these rabid Obama supporters are starting to use the GOP talking points......I find that offensive as I lived thru all of that history...the 60's were a dangerous place to be for a liberal protester....You put your butt on the line many times for your ideals...To see this now boiled down to a flippant remark, I just don't like it....If everyone is truly a democrat, we will start to try to come together as a party...sooner rather than later...

    TPM & Obama & Reagan (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Camorrista on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    Anybody who hasn't noticed that TPM has become a shrine to Obama either hasn't been paying attention or has joined the acolytes.

    What's happened there is similar to what's happened at KOS and Huffington: the Obama acolytes so dominate the comment threads--and spew so much anti-Clinton venom--that eventually (if not necessarily eagerly) the blog-masters, start to resemble certain politicians:  they forswear any tempatation to lead and simply reflect their constituents.

    In the past few weeks, all three of those blogs have repeatedly front-paged items that encourage the trashing of Senator Clinton and the glorification of Senator Obama.   That's fine, it's a free country, but let's not pretend that it isn't happening.

    As to the dispute you've been discussing here-Obama's remarks about Reagan and the Republican Party--for the clearest (and briefest) analysis, you might try the Daily Howler of 1/23/2008:


    Senator Obama is very clever; sometimes--more often than his admirers can admit--he's too clever by half.  This was one of those times.


    I thought that post was very silly. (none / 0) (#1)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    I mean, first of all, there's what you mention.

    Then, secondly, they suggest that Obama could "use this".

    Ok, so rebutt the Clinton charge that Obama called the Republicans the party of ideas (in the 90s) by saying that "well, but your predecessor said that too, in 1981". Additionally, most voters (not from NY) will go "Moynihan? Whose that?"

    I mean.. what's Greg Sargent smoking? That'll never work.

    another paper starts up (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    on the Obama wagon of criticism

    Wondered when the investigative journalism instincts would start to itch for them.....

    I guess those reporters don't read (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    Talk Left.

    Ironic, though, that (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    Moynihan was a big fan of HRC, and she of him.  Moreso, its ironic it is his old seat she now occupies (with his blessings).

    Opposite of What I've Read (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    Indicated that Moynihan was not a fan of HRC (and it was mutual).  She spent quite a bit of time sucking up to him to get his endorsement.  It was Charlie Rangel who pushed Clinton to run for Moynihan's senate seat.

    But I guess these things are always to be taken with a grain of salt since the source for stories about politicians who like and dislike each other usually have their own agenda.  


    I was ready to jump in (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    defending TPM, but then I saw this Moynihan headline.

    It's odd because early in the process I thought some of the writers there were pretty pro-Clinton.  Now, clearly, it's rag on Clinton there 24/7.

    Daniel Patrick was a very mixed bag. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Worked for Nixon was enough to make me plenty wary.  Then, social security and privatization raised its ugly head...sigh...

    one of my favorite quotes of his (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    is -

    <<You are entitled to your own opinions.  You are not entitled to your own facts.>>

    It never fails.


    Yes. A classic...and (none / 0) (#42)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:06:30 PM EST
    the beauty is, it's all purpose!  No matter what the topic...it fits!  Use sparingly, though.  Like all great lines, overuse destroys its effectiveness.

    always pull it out for (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST
    extremists and people who get their history from the movies.

    Mixed bag indeed (none / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    I was Moynahan and Greenspan that proposed the increase in Social Security taxes without a lockbox.

    You forgot Bob Kerrey. n/t (none / 0) (#43)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    We miss your comments here. All of them (1) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    I intend to support whoever wins the nomination. Unless you want 4 more years of the same, I suggest you do so as well.

    Apparently you haven't had enough of the GOP yet.

    McCain? He says he is Ok with staying in Iraq for 100 more years. I gather you approve of that position.

    Eva (none / 0) (#13)
    by Eva on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    I have to say I really don't think TPM has a pro-Obama agenda. JMM has said a number of critical things about Obama, including that he's worrisomely inarticulate in defending himself and not enough of an attacker to survive in the general, and that's just in the past couple of days. Scroll back a bit.

    It was hard enough to see the Democrats rip each other to shreds in the debate, I am dismayed to see so much TL real estate given up to ripping other lefty blogs, especially when so much seems to be colored by perceptions . Can we go back to ripping on Bush now?

    Just heard (none / 0) (#18)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh saying he likes Obama and giving him advice how to beat Hillary....All you Obama supporters, that alone should give you pause about supporting a candidate that Rush likes....they view the clintons as unbeatable....and I think they are right...at least I sure hope so....

    See my comment about Phelps, above. (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    And, when did we start listening to concern trolls like The LardLad?  (Other than to keep a finger on where the opposition was going?)

    Acouple weeks ago Rush was chortling (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:47:26 PM EST
    over a revision of Puff the Magic Dragon applied to Obama in a most racist fashion.

    Rush and Hillary (none / 0) (#57)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    Anyone who actually has listened to Rush over the last fifteen years would know that his first wish is to defeat Hillary.

    Fortunately my exposure to Rush is (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:27:36 AM EST
    pretty much limited to what I read on the blogs or in the NYT.  I was checking out the right wing airwaves for a "fix" on politics in am land.

    Stop the lies! (none / 0) (#17)
    by scootboot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    This is such BS.  Obama didn't praise Regan or his policies and anyone who has half a brain (and can read the WHOLE transcript) knows it.  More lies and distortions from Billary.  Just for good measure here's some comments that they made about Regan:

       Hillary Clinton (in Brokaw book): When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.

        Bill Clinton (May 5, 1998): The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.

    I'll reiterate what the commenter above who said they'll never vote for Hillary - we are not alone.  Billary's devisive campaigning might min them the nomination, but it will loose them the election.  And Billary boosters, when that happens, don't blame anyone but yourselves...

    Ok I will reiterate my response (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST
     I intend to support whoever wins the nomination. Unless you want 4 more years of the same, I suggest you do so as well.
    Apparently you haven't had enough of the GOP yet.  

    And I will blame those selfish enough to say, if my preferred candidate isn't nominated I am going home. Any of the Democrats are better than their GOP counterparts.


    The Maturity Of Your Writing Style (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    is astonishing and is best illustrated by the final paragraph of your comment.

    Be sure to drop by every year or two so that we can enjoy your great wisdom.

    P.S. It would be nice if you got the "H" on your keyboard fixed before you return.


    Watch the video (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    Watch the video, the transcript misses a lot.  

    Enough of freaking Ronald Reagan already. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    This election is about the future, not who said overly nice things about a dead guy.

    Tapped into Deeper Concerns (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    I think the reason the Reagan/Republican ideas comments have continued to linger is twofold:

    1) The Obama campaign hasn't handled it well. I think early on they underestimated how much damage could be caused by the remarks, how they would be read by Democrats (especially older Democrats who remember Reagan very differently than his mainstream press myth).  As a result, they were, IMO, slow to react.  By the time they did react, it had taken on a life of its own, making it more difficult to shut down.

    2)The remarks tap into liberals' biggest fears about Obama - that his unity and post-partisan talk isn't just talk.  Obama has invited this by positioning himself as someone who can win over independents, by running at times to the right of Clinton and Edwards on domestic issues in terms of talking points, if not policy.

    Now a lot of folks think Obama is just trying to fool moderates and independents to push through a progressive agenda.  That might very well be true, but given the language he uses, it requires a leap of faith.

    And that's where the Reagan/Republican ideas thing comes in - it makes people question that leap.  


    Except that his record is very much one (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    of opposing Reagan-style policies.

    This Reagan stuff is for people who get really hung up on words.

    People act like that statement is akin to Bill's doing what Reagan didn't--drastically gutting welfare programs.


    Yes and No (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    His record is fairly progressive, but not entirely so.  Frankly, his Senate record is almost exactly the same as Hillary Clinton.  Some of his votes are better and some worse (the Energy Bill?), but mostly the same.  

    He and Clinton are essentially two moderate-left politicians with conservative - meaning risk-averse - political instincts.  Which is why this is getting so nasty - there isn't a dime's worth of difference on policy between them.  Virtually everything Obama has accused Clinton of doing, he's guilty of and vice versa.

    I don't for a second believe Obama's Reagan comments mean he loved Reagan's policies.  I do believe it shows a dangerous tendency to repeat Republican mythology as if it's true and not push back against the media narrative of the last 20 years.  Now, I can see politically why he might choose to do that.  But that's not going to appeal to me.  

    And I'd cite the Welfare Reform Act as exhibit A.  Framing and media narratives matter.  The political pressure on Clinton to enact welfare reform stemmed from some of those same BS narratives about Reagan that Obama is parroting.  Clinton didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to reform welfare.  It came after years of Republican framing using welfare queens and other repugnant symbols to fight the "excesses of the 1960s and 70s."  So forgive me if I don't like hearing Democratic candidates spout that same framing so easily, even if I don't believe they agree with it as a policy matter.  


    Do you know how Bill talked in 1992? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST
    The indie dance (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    Don't you think they played to the indies?  Makes us Dems look like the dividers and here he was being fair and balanced.  

    Not faint praise? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Eva on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    Also, you know, Hillary has listed Reagan as one of her favorite presidents:


    I mean, I think it's absolutely idiotic for any Dem to try to grab hold of the Reagan thing. Obama was clearly trying to put down the Clinton years, and that was incredibly stupid I think. And it's stupid for Hillary to have listed him as one of her favorite presidents.

    Misquote (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    The editor of the paper has clarified that Clinton did not name Reagan as one of her favorite Presidents, the paper misquoted her.  Instead, she praised Reagan's communication skills.

    yep (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    Ah! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Eva on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    Good, I'm so glad.

    Though I'm not sure if her praise is that much more innocuous than Obama's was. But his was stupider--I know he's trying to put down the Clinton years, but that's not the way to do it.


    The comments about Reagan (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:22:36 PM EST
    are not comparable for this reason:  the Clintons' comments were made in response to appropriate questions/situations while Obama's were offered up voluntarily and 'off topic' in a Democratic primary battle.  Anyone implying that Reagan and the Rs had 'ideas' while, conversly, the Dems didn't, is in for a fight from most Democrats.

    In addition, Reagan wasn't the issue in the 2nd comment that Obama made re 'the last 10 or 15 years.  That timeframe included the Clinton presidency and was a direct attack re 'ideas/no ideas.'  It made me mad and it sure as Hell piqued Hillary as it should have, for their big ideas (universal healthcare, gays in the military, etc.) got shot down by Rs and Ds alike.

    Ideas aren't the problem...getting good ones enacted into legislation and enforced & paid for (what a concept) is the problem.


    Health Care (none / 0) (#23)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    Moynihan took the wind out of the sails of Health Care Reform back in the day, saying there was "no health care crisis".  Made it easy for the Republicans to torpedo the whole thing.

    Blaming Hillary's fiasco on Moynihan? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    That's rich.

    THIS IS AN EXAMPLE (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    of what the republicans are getting ready to do for all of your Kumbaya folks out there...We need a real street fighter....They are ruthless and will only get worse

    Moynihan was one of the killers (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    of health care reform in 1994.

    You do not seriously dispute that do you?


    I remember very well when (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    Moynihan, as chair of the finance cmte, took part in killing health care reform.  I hated it then and still think it was a horrible move, but it kept power for the old bull cmte chairs.

    It sure contributed to the '94 debacle when lots of the democrats who wouldn't support Clinton lost their seats and the republicans took over.


    Everything Is the Clintons' Fault (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:58:52 PM EST
    You forget BTD that Democrats have agreed to rewrite history so that all of the 1990s failures are the personal failures of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  DADT was not because Sam Nunn and other Democrats undermined the Democratic President or the gay baiting of honorable men like John McCain and John Warner and Colin Powell.  Healthcare reform did not fail because Democrats in Congress couldn't get their act together and/or actively undermined it with their love of rules and their own perogatives, ala Senators Moynihan and Byrd.  Or because Republicans in Congress decided to block it at all costs.  The loss of the House in 1994 was also entirely Clinton's fault, it had nothing to do with the failings of the members themselves.  Nevermind that some had been in Congress for decades and Clinton had only been president for less than two years.  Such is the destructive power of Bill Clinton!

    Don't get me wrong, the Clintons made plenty of mistakes, politically and on policy matters.  But the self-serving way Congressional Democrats seek to escape any responsibility for their own failures is ridiculous.  And it's just weak and pathetic that they don't seek to hold Republicans accountable.  Hell, Congressional Democrats would've gone along with impeachment - they love bipartisan cooperation, you know - had it not been for the public outcry.

    And you can bet it will happen again the minute a Democrat is president.  As Digby pointed out a couple of days ago after reading reports about Rham and Kennedy admonishing Clinton to back off Obama:

    I know, it's great fun to think about Rahm and Teddy telling Bill to STFU. But everybody ought to take a deep breath and remind themselves that this is also exactly the kind of thing Democrats do to their sitting presidents, whether named Clinton or, I dare say, Obama. They run to the press with the news that they scolded them so they can make sure everyone knows they are the ones running things


    Oh, and don't worry about congressional prerogatives. They'll rediscover them with a vengeance when there's a Democratic president. They'll investigate his or her every move, calling for special prosecutors and generally behaving like asses, at the smallest provocation by the press if it gives them a chance to pontificate grandly on Tim Russert about their own superiority. They don't have the guts to do it when the Republicans are institutionalizing torture or lying the nation into an illegal invasion of another country, because well, Republicans are mean. But they'll find plenty of things about which to get righteously indignant with the executive when its a Democrat.

    It's easy to forget in the midst of a primary battle that the success of a progressive agenda depends much more on controlling self-destructive Congressional Democrats than it does on nominating any particular person for President.  And I admit I'm as apt to forget that as anyone else (mostly because when I think about the Democratic Congress it depresses me).


    Strange (none / 0) (#28)
    by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM EST
    I have been reading TalkLeft more recently as I have found it to be one of the few sites where there is reasoned discourse on the candidates.  There has been constructive criticism of each candidate while including fair disclosure of any tendency to lean toward one candidate for a personal vote.  

    Here's what I'd like to know (since (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:32:02 PM EST
    I can't view the video yet):  Is Bill Clinton testy?

    Oops. Strike that. Wrong thread. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:33:22 PM EST
    by northcoaster on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    TPM should have gone to the ultimate source - Big Dog  himself -

    "And in 2002, after the Democrats lost the midterm elections, William Jefferson Clinton said, "The Democrats have to have ideas to win. We are MIA, missing ..."  when it comes to being perceived as the party of new ideas.  

    TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITES !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hiliary was even talking in similar terms in New Hampshire just a few weeks ago.