The Cult Responds

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

They got me. You see I wrote this:

I am sorry to continue to harp on the need for a Unity Ticket, but I feel it is important. . . . [I]s no one but me worried about needing a unified Democratic Party in November? I pray there are grownups in the Obama camp that will give him a reality check on this.

See what a concern troll I was? I wanted a Unity Ticket!! You see, I thought that was the surest (the Cult does not understand the concept of maximizing your chances) bet for winning in November. But the funny thing is they could have gone even further back. I wanted a Unity ticket after Super Tuesday. But I guess they missed my August 6, 2008 post explaining Why Obama Is A Shoo In And How He Can Win In a Landslide:

The latest CBS News poll (PDF) tells you all you need to know as to why Obama is a shoo in in this election and what he needs to do to win a landslide. The poll has Obama leading 45-39 over McCain, the same margin he has held now for 3 months. But Obama is not winning by wooing Independents or Republicans. Heck, he is not even dominating Dems as he should. He is winning, and is a shoo in, because the country hates Republicans. Starting with George Bush who has a 25% approval rating.

Obama wins because Dems lead Republicans in party ID by 7 to 10 points. McCain does better with Republicans, 78-11, than Obama does with Democrats, 74-10, while they split Independents 40-40. But there are more Democrats than Republicans now. That is why Obama is winning.

And how does Obama lock in the win in this election and achieve a landslide? By closing the deal with Clinton supporters. The polls shows that Obama only wins Clinton supporters 52-19 with 24% undecided. McCain leads among white women by 42-38 with 17% undecided.

Pick Hillary as his VP and Obama will win in a landslide - a 7 to 10 point win. Don't pick her and it will be a 2-5 point win. It is that simple, as it has been since June.

Obama won by 6.5 points (My exact prediction for those who care). What happened between August 6 and November 4? Anyone care to guess?

Finally, the Cult still will not discuss the issue at hand - John Brennan and his positions on domestic wiretapping and torture.

Update - What is the argument here? I am not sure what the quibble is?

Further Update - the Cult is still scanning my posts and adding to his post. He finally found one I got totally wrong. My mistake was this - like Mark Penn's actually - I did not realize that Obama would utterly dominate the caucuses. I think this held true in the primaries - "He can not win women, Latinos, older voters and lower income non-African Americans." He did not win women, Latinos older voters and lower income non-African American voters. but he ran up the score in the caucuses and one by a very thin margin. You got me on that one Cult.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Baucus For Health Care Mandates | Newsweek's "The Ruckus" Campaign Blog Ends >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Cult Responds | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think the hint for your question is (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST

"what happened to Joe Biden?" Moreover, who rallied in Florida, and why?

re: the unity ticket (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST

I read this in Newsweek a few days ago, and found it interesting.

-- Obama was never inclined to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. Still, as Hillary's name came up in veep discussions, and Obama's advisers gave all the reasons why she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, "Are we sure?" He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good. McCain, on the other hand, was relieved to face Biden as the veep choice, and not Hillary Clinton, whom the McCain camp had truly feared.

sorry if o/t

Makes Obama look like a whimp (4.00 / 3) (#25)
by nulee on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST

when the hand wringing over Bill comes out. If Obama isn't strong enough to incorporate a talent like Bill into his administration how is he going to deal with actual policy opponents he is going to have to work with?


If Hillary was the VP candidate (none / 0) (#5)
by cpa1 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST

McCain wouldn't have picked Palin and he might have won. A lot of Republicans who should be Democrats, like my Dr., thought Romney would have been a great choice.


The idea that McCain would have (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by tigercourse on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST

won with a VP other then Palin is just odd. McCain's numbers improved after Palin became the VP candidate and then cratered when the economy went to hell.


: agreed (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Lolis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST

Palin was probably a wash for McCain. She helped him before she hurt him. She motivated the base, which did turnout despite his abysmal ground game, but she definitely hurt him with moderates, women, and Independents. Palin also hurt herself in ways that she will never be able to recover. She has a big target on her back and will never survive a Republican primary, especially if Huckabee runs again and splits the fundie base.
No Republican was going to win this year. That's why the Clintons fought until the very end. They knew whoever won the primary won the election. Obama knew he had to run this year because the conditions created the environment that people would be open to a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.

McCain win 92% of the GOP (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:39:25 PM EST

as much as Bush.


Count Me In (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Pepe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:29:26 PM EST

I also predicted the point spread. Of course I followed the polls* to do so unlike... - Oh wait!

I also called for a Unity Ticket - Clinton/Obama which because Clinton would have taken Obama on in a heartbeat. Not so for Obama. So my unity ticket, although it never happened, was the more realistic of the two.

* (BTW Rasmussen was right on the money - Kos, Gallup not so much)

John Brennan (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST

and his positions on domestic wiretapping and torture are not mine, and I hope they are not Obama's, but you seem to be stuck in a Bush presidency mindset, where you believe the president will basically do whatever his advisors tell him to do. Obama is not Bush. He defines his own positions, and he does so by having intelligent people advise him from a wide variety of perspectives and expertise. If you believe that Brennan does not bring intelligence and expertise to the table, even if you don't agree with his views on some things, you haven't said so.

Cole's, and my, objection to your post is not that you have misgivings about Brennan, but rather that you assume a policy position based on speculation in a Wall Street Journal article and despite Obama's statements on the matter. I believe I will wait for Obama to change his position before I condemn him for it. And that is our objection to you: not that you are pushing for the right positions, but that you are condemning Obama for something he hasn't done and you don't have a compelling reason to believe he'll do.

Our secondary objection is that you call anyone who doesn't attack Obama for things he hasn't done and hasn't said he'll do, or who disagrees with you for doing so, as a part of a cult. We are not a cult. As I said in your earlier post, Cole criticized Obama just yesterday morning. He did so, however, based on an actual stance Obama has made (on auto-industry bailouts), not speculation in the WSJ. Make your criticisms about something real, and if all you want to do is push a cause or policy position, then do that, but don't frame it as a repudiation of something Obama hasn't done and hasn't said he will do.

Two responses (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST

You write "my objection to your post is not that you have misgivings about Brennan, but rather that you assume a policy position based on speculation in a Wall Street Journal article and despite Obama's statements on the matter. I believe I will wait for Obama to change his position before I condemn him for it."

Speculation is not what happened in the WSJ article and for you to pretend it is what bothers me. Brennnan is pushing his line and it needs to be pushed back against. As for "Obama's statements on the matter" - I distrust EVERY pols' statements on EVERYTHING and when it comes to Obama and intelligence issues, his vote on telecom immunity was a complete betrayal of what he said about it. your trust is naive and wrongheaded.

If you wait for the betrayal, then it will surely come. Better to warn about the potential betrayal and try to keep it from happening.


Not speculation? (none / 0) (#29)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST

"Speculation is not what happened in the WSJ article"

What do you call it then?

The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.

Sounds like unsourced speculation to me, but maybe you have other reasons to believe it. If so, state them.

"I distrust EVERY pols' statements on EVERYTHING and when it comes to Obama and intelligence issues, his vote on telecom immunity was a complete betrayal of what he said about it."

And the context of that compromise, and the difference between Obama's role as a senator and future role as president, makes me see things a bit differently than you. I may be wrong, but you are mistaking criticism of you and your attitude as undue deference to Obama. I don't think he's perfect and always truthful, and I don't think he's incapable of doing wrong. I just prefer to keep my powder dry until there is something to fire at. You seem to like shooting blindly at any noise you hear.


Reportring (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST

Just because the sources are not named does not mean they do not exist.

For example, there is a story today saying closing Gitmo will be a top priority for Obama. It is not speculation, it is reporting.


: I never said the source doesn't exist (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST

I'm saying it's totally unclear who that source is, or whether anything they say should be taken seriously. Someone in government who is "familiar with the transition?" That could be anyone. That could very well be someone from the Bush White House.

Again (none / 0) (#12)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST

The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.

Kind of a big deal? This extends beyond his role on the transition team.


Great (none / 0) (#20)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST

"is viewed"

Viewed by whom?

"as a potential candidate"

Ah. Sounds pretty final to me!

Anyway, as everyone here seems to forget, the president sets the policy. Even if he does decide to appoint Brennan, which at this point is just speculation, I have every reason to believe he will do so only because Brennan will be following the policy laid down by the new president.

If you don't like the idea of a Brennan appointment, I don't blame you. I don't like it either and I think there are a number of better choices. But the fact is that just because Brennan is on Obama's transition team does not mean Obama will authorize a policy of torture for the CIA. He's said he won't, and until he starts hedging on this, I'm not going to attack him. I already have disagreements with his stated positions, I'm not going to waste my time or make a fool of myself by criticizing him for positions he hasn't taken. That's a right-winger thing to do.


A right winger thing to do? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST

See, that is where you step into the BS. What you are doing is a RWer thing to do. Shouting down disagreement.


Shouting down disagreement? (none / 0) (#30)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST

How so? By disagreeing myself? Hardly.

All I've heard from the right-wing blogosphere over the last week is all the horrible things Obama is going to do based on out-of-context quotes and wild speculation. Just because you're doing it in defense of a position I agree with doesn't make it any better.


: When you call (4.00 / 2) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:14:33 PM EST

taking an approach you disagree with "a right winger thing to do" it is absolutely shouting someone down.
It is the argument I am having with the Cult as we speak.

How are people responding to your posts (none / 0) (#31)
by Lolis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST

trying to shout you down? I do not get that at all. From what I see a healthy dialogue does not begin by rehashing the primary wars which is what you seem to draw people into with your posts. Aren't we all Democrats who want our Democratic candidate to succeed?

Who could Obama have chosen who would be better than Brennan? In my limited knowledge most of the CIA types seem to be conservatives who follow a certain philosophy that is not preferred by any of us. Yet experience is vital. Obama has to use the knowledge base present. If y'all have a suggestion of someone who has the knowledge and progressive values to fill a top cabinet post I would be glad to do something productive and write the Obama transition team about this person. Does anyone have a name?


Reading is important (4.00 / 3) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:13:39 PM EST

My subject line gave you a clue:

He wrote " I'm not going to waste my time or make a fool of myself by criticizing him for positions he hasn't taken. That's a right-winger thing to do."

so disagreeing with HIS approach is a "right winger thing to do." That is shouting someone down. I hate that kind of crap. the Cult engages it in all the time.


No you engage in it constantly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST

By calling anyone who disagrees with you part of a cult. This is in essence saying they are mindless automatons (e.g. "Obamabot").

In any case, you craft a strawman there by changing what I said into "disagreeing with HIS approach." It's not disagreeing with his approach, it's attacking him for supporting torture when there is no indication, except for unsourced speculation, that he will do any such thing. That's the rightwinger MO.


Except (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST

many of us disagree with BTD constantly and have yet to be called a cultist.

BTD consistently makes the distinction between those who disagree thoughtfully and those who disagree reflexively. Here's a good litmus test, if you called Paul Krugman a clueless hack because he thought Hillary had a better health care plan during the primary, you might be one of the Kool-Aid drinkers.


And right on cue... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST

the right wingers are picking up on your crap about cults and Obamabots. See how Duclos puts it?

Evidently, a Democrat who dares point out a position of Obama's they do not agree with is considered a "wanker" by Cole from Balloon Juice, who sends them a message, via his blog, saying:

You are now touted as the moderate Democrat opposing Obama's position in support of torture, despite the fact that no such position exists. But the real point is you are fighting against the evil cult of Obama who just won't let you engage in reasonable criticism of Obama's positions, even though you have no reason to believe they are his positions.

You are a rightwing BS enabler/contributor. Good work.


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:17:49 PM EST

It is my fault John Cole attacked me.


No, it is your fault (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST

that you attacked Obama for a position he has never held, based on anonymous rumors in the Wall Street Journal. Push your policy positions all you want, but don't pretend Obama holds positions when there is no convincing reasons he does, and much more evidence that he doesn't. You still don't get that the criticism of you is not that you dare to support a position, but that you actively distort the position of the president-elect based on very, very shaky reports in a right-wing newspaper. You should be ridiculed for that, as it is ridiculous.


: I criticized Obama for naming (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST

a man whose positions we know are abhorrent.
But interestingly enough, my original post was not picked up by the RW blogs. Only when Cole attacked me did they notice.
So, sorrry, the fault is Cole's.

Actually no (4.40 / 5) (#60)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST

it is quite clearly John Cole who is feeding the poster you linked with his conduct. If he hadn't freaked out over the fact that BTD criticized Obama, there would have been no post.


: Yep (none / 0) (#68)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 09:14:37 PM EST

And all these cries of "you gave the RW material!!!" really grow thin. After all, if you read that quote, it says that BTD disagrees with one of Obama's positions. There is no "position" involved here. We are talking about personnel and the implications/influence their work might have down the line. That's not a "position" it's a personnel decision.
They take you out of context for their own ends either way. So I'm not going to STFU for their sake.

How do you characterize yourself? (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST

: Who, (none / 0) (#59)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST

me? If so, in what way (politically, personally, professionally, etc.)?

I call people who disagree with me (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST

stupid, not right wingers.


: I thought you called them (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM EST

Larry.

: I'm referring to tactics (none / 0) (#48)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM EST

not ideology, btw.

Again (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST

I think the word "unsourced" does not mean what you think it means.


: Ok fine (none / 0) (#49)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST

anonymously sourced is what I meant. I stand corrected.

Also, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST

what do you do to trial balloons you don't like? You shoot them down.


Who is "mantis"? (4.00 / 1) (#44)
by DFLer on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST

btw, I loathe comments like: as everyone here seems to [forget...etc]

Who are you to judge so indiscriminately?


: You're right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST

That was far too wide a net. Should have written "Many here".

Check out Digby's post (none / 0) (#34)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST

on the CIA and the CIA under Obama. Post here.

If Brennan is a candidate for the job, then it should be our job on the left blogs to vet him. In the case of the CIA, I don't think the President "setting the policy" is always clear-cut (esp. if it's filled with people who completely disagree with the President - and it may be). The CIA right now is following rules that are way, way out to the right. Brennan has said enough to make me wonder whether he is right for the job, and to wonder why he is a candidate. I would prefer to ask questions about Brennan, and understand Obama's view of national security leadership as it stands right now, than rely on campaign promises about national security from a while ago.


: Digby's post (none / 0) (#53)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST

is an example of how you push a policy position you want to see, instead of attacking someone for a position they haven't advocated. To wit,
The CIA needs to know up front that Obama will not have their back if they engage in torture --- and that the torture legal framework under Bush is no longer operative in any way. There really is no other choice on this and I expect that he will do it. He knows very well that his foreign policy will be in complete shambles the minute it is leaked --- and it will be --- that the Obama administration has sanctioned torture, either through commission or omission. His great opportunity across the world to prove that America has changed will be lost.
Exactly.

All these posts... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST

are giving The Cult a bad name. I mean I kind of liked Fire Woman.

: Great song (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST

Great album, really. A classic of the era.

The bottom line (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by s5 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST

Even if you tepidly supported Obama, the advice you gave him was irrelevant to his ability to win. You based your electability argument purely on national horserace polling, rather than on the fundamentals of the race and his ability to execute a campaign strategy. I liked Hillary, but I could see the makings of a "try to win Ohio or Florida" strategy, while Obama would run in states where Democrats supposedly can't win. In the end, Obama vindicated the "expand the map" strategy by fundraising and campaigning hard in other states, providing him with multiple paths to victory, while squeezing McCain into a single map. Obama could have lost Ohio and Florida and still won the election.

I'll take your word for it that you truly supported Obama (rather than just giving lip service to supporting him), but I believed at the time and I still believe that your read on his campaign strategy turned to be wrong. And I don't see how it's "cultish" to offer criticism of what you wrote at the time. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.

Ultimately, Obama won so it's a moot discussion. But I feel lucky that he didn't listen to any of the bellyaching about how he would most certainly lose Latinos and women, and simply executed his strategy. It worked.

: BTW (3.00 / 2) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST

I think it is clear that you along with the Cult never understood my arguments on electability.
Did you not understand that I thought Obama the more electable? did you not understand that I thought clinton as his running mate would lock up the election? Now if you hated Clinton, as the Cult did, then that is not what you want to hear.
But please do not pretend to be addressing my arguments about Brennan or the election.

: I did not bring it up (1.00 / 1) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST

the Cult did.
I want to talk about Brennnan.

Yawn (4.75 / 4) (#6)
by kaleidescope on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST

You and the Cult ought to get a room.

Ah (3.66 / 3) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST

You noticed that too ;-).

The "tension", and the Cult's(tm) juvenile rewriting of history makes this very amusing. Keep it going, please, Cult!! I need more fun in my life.


Heh (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST

Good one (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by mantis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:43:26 PM EST

Such compelling arguments....I am overwhelmed.


: I did not respond to you (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:45:15 PM EST

BTW, the notion that your comment is any way related to what Cole wrote is an insult to you.
I give you much more credit than that.

Does this mean I get a pony? (4.50 / 2) (#13)
by lambert on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST

John Cole got a pony. Do I get one?

The Obama bloggers ... (4.20 / 5) (#41)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST

don't understand political power.

Political activists don't gain power by supporting candidates, but by supporting a set of issues.

Then the candidate knows that in order to get the votes (or support) of that group they have to support those issues.

If you simply support a candidate, you have zero influence or leverage.

You should have left this tar baby alone (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Exeter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST

How can you prove you are a real Obama supporter? You can't -- by nature, a cult, always attacks critism through "you're just not one of us" / "no real Scotsman" argument.

There's quite a ... (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:46:30 PM EST

Tiger Beat quality to much of the Obama cult. Evidenced recently by two diaries at the orange place about some very nice photos of Obama.

Additionally, there is a diary against UHC mandates. A few defending Obama against some minor attacks. A bunch attacking Leiberman. One showing media positive "reviews" of Obama's victories.

Not one single diary that I could find on cabinet positions. And almost nothing on a progressive policy push.

It's still the fansite it became during the primaries.

: Yep. Tiger Beat is a good analogy for DK (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by kempis on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST

Or a football stadium filled with people who paint themselves in their team's colors....Maybe it's turning into the Obamablog equivalent of Cleveland's Dawg Pound....

My take (3.00 / 2) (#66)
by Lacy on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:58:59 PM EST

I posted this over in their comments:

I checked BTD's quote and it was made in May 2008. By my calendar, that was long before McCain selected Sarah Palin as VP, even longer before the GWB economy and markets collapsed in September, and well prior to most of McCain's gaffes and poor debate performances...All of which combined to reverse the McCain leads and allow Obama to win.

In fact, an objective observer would look at this election and conclude that those factors, developing after the BTD statement that you mock, should have changed the vote spread by at least 10-15 points away from McCain. But Barack won by only 6 or 7%. So the correct assessment then becomes that BTD's comment is confirmed. In fact, in May 2008, only those who were warning of a possible Obama loss were contemporaneously correct, and only the reality challenged claiming to be able to predict the future would ex post facto claim otherwise.

Joe Biden was right when he said that HRC was probably a better selection than he was. And it is probable that those unforeseen intervening factors mentioned earlier saved the election for us.

Why are you quoting a post.... (3.00 / 2) (#67)
by Abbey on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST

...that demonstrates you were entirely wrong about what Obama should or should not do, and confirms you are a notorious second-guesser and armchair quarterback??

pathetic (2.50 / 2) (#63)
by dws3665 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST

If the folks at Drexeldems (who?) are incapable of distinguishing between TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, and Alegre, for God's sake, that tells me everything I need to know about them right there.

What is wrong with you? (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by JohhnyCee on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:39:06 PM EST

Constantly writing "the cult! the cult! they are the cult!!" "the cult this" and the cult that" is the most juvenile, asinine thing I'm reading on this blog.

From Jeralyn I got well thought out, brilliant posts - from you, speaking for you only all I get is "the cult, the cult, mean old cult".

This is getting beyond bizarre. It doesn't make sense. And it's flat out stupid at this point.
And stop triangulating for the love of god.
You were accused of something.
You denied it.
But then evidence was found to show that the "Something" was true.
Now you present "some" of the evidence, and further insult the person who rightly accused you of something that you now admit is true.
This is just too bizarre.

This cult garbage is something I would expect to see at some Puma site.

Hey wow, you are a "fringe Republican" (none / 0) (#14)
by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:48:33 PM EST

now, BTD. And yet you support mandates for UHC.
The middle really HAS been redefined!

Am I? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:49:40 PM EST

Is that according to the guy who voted for bush twice?


It's in the comments. (none / 0) (#17)
by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST

: Ah well (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST

I think if Cole actually has to write about Brennan it will be a victory. But I am losing that battle.
He won't.

It's amazing to me that the Obama Blogging (3.00 / 2) (#19)
by Joelarama on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EST

Syndicate is now redefining mandated health care coverage as anti-progressive.

Next on the OBS agenda: the Social Security "mandate."


They did that when Clinton came out in (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by tigercourse on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:00:53 PM EST

support of mandates.


: Of course. What's amazing to me is that they (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Joelarama on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST

are still doing it, even after slaying the dragon lady.
Where have I seen this before? Oh, yes. 2001. If it's my enemy's policy it must be bad.

Just to be clear (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:03:52 PM EST

I wrote a post about John Brennan and was attacked by the Cult. I am defending myself.

As long as you are keeping score.

: the raw nerve with (none / 0) (#37)
by Salo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM EST

obama crew
is intel gathering which I find fascinating, absolutely fascinating