The Primary Wars

I'll reignite them right now:

It remains the most prescient statement of the primaries.

Speaking for me only

< The Impotent Political Party | From The Hindsight Is 20/20 File . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Watching Arianna Huffington today (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:25:34 AM EST
    as she virulently attacks President Obama for being too soft, it is instructive to see her web site's coverage of this very event at that time:

    Hillary Clinton's campaign is on its last legs after suffering a string of defeats to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton made the decision to go negative in an effort to halt Obama's rising momentum. On Saturday, she also accused Obama's campaign of using negative tactics "right out of Karl Rove's playbook" in mailers that misrepresent her positions on NAFTA and healthcare. Obama called the mailings accurate.

    Today, Clinton was at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, and she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

    Watch the video from CNN below, and tell HuffPost whether you think Clinton's line of attack against Obama will help or hurt her campaign.

    HuffPo endlessly attacked Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kempis on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:48:00 AM EST
    and praised Obama as the new RFK/MLK/JFK.

    Now, Arianna seems to be a bit disappointed, doesn't she?


    Theatrical and over the top (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:49:54 AM EST
    is another way of describing Arianna these days.

    Other than being a prominent blog (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    proprietess, why is she a "go to" person for TV analysis of important issues?

    Because she's (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    a) rich
    b) connected
    c) talks very well on television or radio.

    She is certainly smart, with an MA from Cambridge. Also, she was liberal, then conservative, now progressive, and, the clincher, she has Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which fits perfectly with the Village and most cable news. doesn't matter whether CDS plays a role in the debate, just having it is enough to open doors (I'd say the CDS part is snark, but i'm not sure).


    She gives (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    good talking head, as the saying goes.

    She has a lot of money (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    What is the definistion of 'negative'? (4.75 / 16) (#45)
    by goldberry on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:45:11 AM EST
    Come to think of it, there are a lot of words that got redefined last year.  Like racist.  Racist had a fluid definition.  It meant whatever Obama's campaign said it meant regardless of history or personal character or what was said. EVERYTHING said of Obama was either 'negative' or 'racist' or racist because it was negative.  
    In fact, Hillary wasn't allowed to even contrast herself as a candidate.  She wasn't allowed to say she was more experienced because that was portrayed as negative.  Taking her right to differentiate herself from Obama was grossly unfair to her as a candidate and something we did not see happen to any other candidate who was facing Obama.  
    It would be too facile to say that people lost their minds during the primaries.  They knew what they were doing and I think they only marvelled that no one, not the party, the media or the candidate Obama himself, called them on it.  
    This is what happens when all the restraints of civilization are removed.  It was the worst in us brought to the surface, writhing and lashing out in all its primordial ugliness.  
    The reluctance of Obama to call it in and force the genie back into the bottle was one of the reasons I didn't vote for him.  He saw that it was working for him, all that meanness and ugliness.  What kind of person allows that to happen?  He could have won many more people to his side by truly being bipartisan and fair.  Instead, he took the low road and that was all I needed to know about him and the way he would govern.  

    There you go getting all bitter and uneducated (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    and Appalachian again.


    I'm with you on the many of these folks knew EXACTLY what they were doing up to and including the head honcho. I hope the scorched Earth policy launched scorches the backsides of the lot of them.


    Not enough (none / 0) (#126)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:34:27 PM EST
    And we need some place to go. Not either of the legacy parties.

    That (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    pretty much sums it up.



    That hurts my head and my heart. (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:31:47 AM EST
    Almost one year gone in the Obama presidency, and Obama still seems removed to the point of being uninterested; I've begun to feel that there is  such a tremendous lack of leadership that it's almost like, instead of having a president, we just have this articulate guy who comes out and makes a speech every so often to quell the unease - and on the really hard issues, he is just doing a variation of his primary schtick: "what (s)he said" - with the "he" being George Bush on policies people thought they were electing him to reject and reverse.

    Where's the energy, the urgency, the drive?

    "Hey, man, I'm cool," does not seem like much of a legacy, but it might be the best of the things for which he could end up being remembered.

    He keeps the riot quiet (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:40:34 AM EST
    Let's face it. That was his real brief.  It's plain to see he's only there to kelp a lid on the pressure cooker of social ills. He's doing very well so far in that limited sense.

    That's they theory (none / 0) (#123)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    in Black Agenda Report. I agree with it.

    Barack Antoinette (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jeffhas on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    "Let them eat fake"

    George W. Bush lowered the bar (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    and Barack Obama happily stepped over it, with help from the DNC and Lehman Brothers. What we get? A a more presentable, more articulate Wall Street-beholden figurehead.

    Sigh. (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by jeniferea on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:34:30 AM EST
    What we are observing now from Obama and the Democrats is exactly why I was a Hillary supporter.  It still stings.

    I was for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:36:16 AM EST
    because I foolishly believed it was a schitck, not a "nongoverning" philosophy.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:39:36 AM EST
    This is where that "experience" thing comes in handy.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:44:13 AM EST
    I never governed. I knew the PPUS AS A GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY was nonsense.

    Nothing to do with experience.


    Maybe you did (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:50:15 AM EST
    But a whole lotta people bought into the theme that "Experience doesn't matter" and ""He's going to change Washington because he can get along with Republicans" bs.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:53:03 AM EST
    Experience is not the issue. Being WRONG is the issue.

    Obama is not wrong because he is inexperienced. He is wrong because he is wrong.


    But (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:02:02 AM EST
    I think he is WRONG because he doesn't really know what he's doing. He actually believed all the press from last year - that he could transform Washington just by being himself - had he actually BEEN in Washington to do some work, he would have realized that was all BS. And had he stayed around the Senate a little longer, he would have realized what really goes on in the sausage making of important bills.  You only get that from EXPERIENCE.

    Now we are seeing the result of that.  It's like his own very public hangover.


    You think that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:04:22 AM EST
    but I think you are wrong.

    Nope, I think they aren't wrong... (4.60 / 10) (#56)
    by goldberry on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    ...if not totally correct either.  
    I think he's a nasty campaigner.  He knows all of the tricks to get what he wants.  He took a lot of money from the bonus class and now he owes them.  He existed in their strata for so long and learned to play their advancement games that in most respects he has come to identify with them.  
    But the crisis that he took office with was of so great a magnitude that even the most heartless corporate schmoozer would have to rein in the bankers to make sure they didn't pull America under again.  And this he has failed to do because he simply doesn't know how the mechanisms of government work.  Even if he wants to do good, he can't.  He doesn't have any earned coalitions in Congress.  He doesn't have the experience of crafting legislation to know how carrots and sticks work.  
    Even things as fundamental as Constitutional issues that have to do with Guantanemo and torture and trials are elusive to him because he just isn't familiar with the levers of power and since he doesn't lead from principle, he has nothing to fall back on.  
    He has spent his life, not as a public servant, but as a corporate executive.  Those of us in the business world know these people for what they are, probably because we've been stepped on by them on their way to the next office up the ladder.  We know they don't know what they're doing.  They just know how to charm the boss two levels up.  

    disagree (4.33 / 6) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    The reason Obama does not govern is because he has no clue how.  If he had experience he might know a thing or two, but the only thing he has experience at is running for office and voting "present" so as not to endanger his next campaign.  This is how Obama has always lived his life at least since Harvard, where he was Law Review editor and never wrote nor edited a single thing for the Review.
    In the state senate he did NOTHING of note.  In the US senate he did NOTHING of note. Now he is doing nothing because that is the only way to never have to take responsibility.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:54:50 AM EST
    Experienced pols are wrong all the time.

    Obama is wrong because he is wrong, not because he is inexperienced.

    Course there is another option - this is what he wants. hard to believe that one.


    Why is it so hard to believe (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by dk on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:54:07 AM EST
    that it isn't what he wants?  I mean, if he wants any kind of reform he would push reconciliation.  But he's not.  QED.

    Meanwhile, he's keeping his health insurance and big pharma doners happy, and he's maintaining his media darling status by keeping the mainstream media happy.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    We really don't know if he's used PPUS because he believes it or because he doesn't know what he's doing.

    If he believed it, he didn't know what he (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by tigercourse on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    was doing.

    That's odd (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:04:05 AM EST
    because I've read Obama's law review comment!

    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:05:27 AM EST
    You know that TeresainPa has her own facts when it comes to Obama.

    Obama's lack of experience (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:34:43 AM EST
    only hurt him in one way, but in a big, important way.  I think he underestimated the the true vile nature of what has become the national GOP.  It reminds me of that joke that Richard Pryor told about how the Japanese thought we were soft before WWII because the Japanese had only met Californians.  Pryor quipped that they had met any people from Georgia or South Carolina.  Repubs at Harvard and in Illinois are one thing, but those types haven't had any power in the GOP since Bush the First as the truly nutso wing has enveloped that Party.

    I honestly believe that he (Pres. Obama) thought he could just magically bring the country together, which was absurd on its face.  Just substitute "Special Interests" with "Conservatives" in the clip and you can see it as plain as day.  Or eles he had a Palin-esque level of ignorance of current events and recent political history, which simply cannot be true.  What else explains his constant sniffing of Regressive a** as they laugh at him?  It's getting REALLY embarrassing, this lack of leadership, and maybe at this point, we can say lack of character, Obama has shown.

    I don't know if HRC would have been a better President, but I can assure you that after almost 20 years of being called and lesbian and murderer, having her daughter mocked as a dog, and the war she helped fight with the very Right Wing that is starting to run rings around Pres. Obama, she would have came to Washington ready for the inevitable war that she would have to fight, the war ANY DEM would have had to fight to redirect this country from the ditch it is headed into.

    To think the Regressives were going to just get rolled over with pretty words was the dreams of infants who knew nothing of what has gripped Washington for so long.



    That would be lack of intelligence (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    not lack of experience.

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    because unless he is the best con man in History, Pres. Obama seems quite intelligent and astute, which is why I'm so confused about his actions.  Perhaps he is playing in a dimension that I can't see, but he needs to hurry up and start getting some results, because the time is winding down until 2010.

    what makes you think (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:47:23 AM EST
    a guy who reveres Reagan cares what happens to Democrats in 2010? I don't get the impression he really cares one way or another. Heck, from where I'm sitting he'd probably be happier if he could make Olympia Snowe majority leader in the Senate.

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    that where we are headed if Obama doesn't do something.  Perhaps this lack of fight is Obama's feature and not his bug.  Which is why I voted McKinney (safe state) as I could not abide how Obama got the nod.  So you'll get no argument from me.  :)



    He has he results he wants already (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    See here.

    Excuse me but (none / 0) (#70)
    by mudlark on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    "I don't know if HRC would have been a better President, but I can assure you that after almost 20 years of being called and lesbian and murderer..."

    there's something really offensive about that line.


    What's offensive? (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    HRC HAS been called everything from b!tch, to lesbian (perjoratively), to murderer.  That's just the facts.  The point was, she was called all those names and still managed to charm her Republican colleagues in the Senate, yet play hardball with them.

    "lesbian" is not (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    a "name," is the point.

    Yeah, I understand (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:25:26 AM EST
    But in the context in which she was called a lesbian, it IS a name.

    LBJ was like that. (none / 0) (#133)
    by AX10 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:28:29 PM EST
    He knew how to play hardball with the big boys.

    comment? (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:26:06 AM EST
    wow, how ambitious

    I thought his history showed our future (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:14:48 AM EST
    There really wasn't anything there...nothing that would show he could lead a country this powerful with the number of gigantic problems coming to a boil. He also didn't show a grasp of the issues, let alone having a solid plan for solving them.

    He had handlers and writers and a scheme for getting elected. It was as though he was a segment of "The Truman Show" after he broke out of the set.


    That about sums it up for me (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:33:45 AM EST
    Frankly I had a really hard time figuring out what everyone was excited about. His input on stimulus number one was less then stellar. He ran Harry and Louise ads on National Health Care claiming providing such a plan would mean forcing the poor to choose between rent and health care. He voted yes On FISA. He voted yes on a trade bill(as did Clinton) that both Venezualan and American workers opposed. He voted yes on choice amendments out of political expediency. Then there was the misogyny and disgusting behavior emananting from his camp.

    Other than his foreign policy I didn't think he'd be great at all. Ironically enough, his opponent (you know the one whose supposed sole experience was throwing tea parties) is handling that aspect of the job.


    excuse me I mean PRESENT (none / 0) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:38:50 AM EST
    on choice amendments.

    Fingers got ahead of me.

    Nobody could have imagined just doesn't work for me.


    Yeah, I wondered why you never caught on (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by goldberry on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    But then, I went into science, not law.  Your rules for evaluating evidence are different than mine.  

    I wish (none / 0) (#129)
    by ghost2 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    I would give your comment a '1000'.  I like BTD, but lawyers love 'situational ethics' (also known as rationalization), and it drives me crazy.  

    I probably can't respond without sounding snarky.. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    ... so I won't. That said, good for you.

    In one way, I was right on target:

    The country can't afford to wait for Obama to discover that his strategy of conciliation has failed. Do the math. Reid and Pelosi tried "reaching out" in 2007. Nothing will happen in 2008. Assuming Obama takes office in 2009, it will take his conciliatory strategy a year to fail, which it will, since he's doing the same thing Reid and Pelosi did while expecting a different result.

    That brings us to 2010.

    But in another way, I was way, way off. I thought of the bankers (like early backer Golden Sacks) as just another interest group. I was wrong. They owned the process, own the Dems, and own Obama. Big analytical failure.

    I was also wrong to buy into the idea of Obama as a conciliator, and to tie that to Democratic narratives of weakness. In reality, Obama, and the Dems, are doing exactly what they want to do, or rather, what their owners want them to do.

    Feh. What a mess.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#130)
    by ghost2 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:13:20 AM EST
    Gee, this is getting more and more like a therapy session!

    Thanks for admitting this: (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ghost2 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    because I foolishly believed it was a schitck, not a "nongoverning" philosophy.

    Only when politicians are so tightly binded in clear promises that breaking them means electroal defeat, you don't get much out of them.  

    The time to hold his feet to fire and force him to reveal himself was during the primary.

    As I watched the 2008 primary wars, I came to have the same reaction to Obama that I had to Edwards.  Sleek politicians with boundless ambitions (note the irony) who would say anything to get elected.  

    In a funny way, as sick as I have been of media's treatment of Hillary, at times I have thought it also a bonus.  I knew she would get a lot of crap, but also so much scrunity that she wouldn't get away with acting like Edwards or Obama or Bush.

    That, in my book, could be a big PLUS for the voters.


    experience (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by noholib on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    Yes, some of us still think that experience is a valuable commodity.  One small example: Hillary Clinton's long experience in public life, though not all of it in elected office, taught her that you have to fight, that everyone doesn't play nice.  Some of us actually thought her fighting, partisan spirit and lack of illusions would serve the causes of fighting Dems well!  Oh well, more people wanted "let's make nice."  

    I'm not quite sure (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    how being disappointed with Obama would make one think Hillary would have been a better choice- I mean almost all of the reasons I'm disappointed in Obama are reasons that I had for preferring him over her despite their largley identical issue profiles.

    ding ding ding (none / 0) (#5)
    by trillian on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:39:33 AM EST

    A dissent (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:47:26 AM EST
    The most prescient statement of the primaries was, "Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me."

    This gets my vote for most prescient statement: (5.00 / 12) (#55)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:17:18 AM EST
    From the Austin Debate Dec 2008:

    Obama:  "Now -- now, I think Senator Clinton has a fine record, and I don't to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said "let's get real." And the implication is, is that, you know, the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional -- (laughter) -- and that -- (chuckles) -- that, you know, the -- (laughter) -- you know, the 20 million people who have been paying attention to 19 debates, and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas -- (cheers, applause) -- you know, the thinking is that somehow they're being duped and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things."

    Emphasis added.


    yes (3.66 / 3) (#18)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    he knew his crew had rigged the primaries and that he would win just at bush did in 2000 when he looked to be losing and he told everyone not to worry....

    Rigged the primaries? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:58:02 AM EST

    Not completely ridiculous (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:21:31 AM EST
    He managed to get four of his opponents delegates and some in a state he wasn't even on the ballot on.

    Next cycle whoever runs should just abstain from being on the ballot in several states and then claim their right to be counted as earning half of the population.


    Obama did not rig anything (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:35:43 AM EST
    and I'm sure those campaign contributions to the superdelegates were just a coincedence. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    When the RBC committee ruled as it did I knew that him and his camp were as good at manipulation as his predecessor.


    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    You are having trouble sleeping.

    Hurling around ridiculous charges like TINS would do that.


    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:44:47 AM EST
    I sleep like a lamb. I'm not responsible for the disaster we have in the WH. I won't be responsible for the drubbing the Democrats will likely recieve in 2010 and 2012. I actually kinda feel like the person watching a train wreck in process safely from the sidelines. Other than the fact that people I know are suffering from the guy the progressives put into office I wouldn't even bother in watching the train wreck unfold.

    Careful (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by goldberry on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    Maybe "rigging" isn't the right word as applied to Obama.  But there was a certain amount of rigging involved with the RBC committee starting in August of 2007.  There was a meeting caught on tape where we can see the genesis of the fateful decision to deprive Fl and MI of their delegates.  We saw a Fl Democratic party official pleading and begging them not to do it and explaining how the legislature forced them into it.  The Democratic voters of Fl were innocent victims.  
    They were also presumably Hillary's voters.  The demographics were all in her favor back then.  I'm sure this was not lost on the RBC who imposed the most severe punishment on Fl that it could.  It even went outside of its own recommendations and guidelines when it stripped those voters of their delegates in Aug 2007.  
    You might say stupidity but I see malice.  

    I can't prove he was complicit (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    but as you pointed out in an above post there were numerous times he had the opportunity to do the right thing and he didn't. The fact that he didn't do the right thing seems to imply that he was perfectly okay with disenfranchising large blocks of folks simply to pull out the win. It was extremely poorly done of him. Couple that with the arm twisting that went on so that Hillary didn't actually get her rightful delegates during roll call and you have a pattern of behavior that didn't speak well of his charecter or a problem with usurping democratic principles when convenient. Nope, I'm not a bit surprised he's a disaster or a President who represents special interests over the good of the majority. Majority schmajority.

    Florida's one thing (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    it sucked what happened to them,  Michigan got what it deserved they have no one to blame for how that turned out but Granholm she played chicken and gambled that the party wouldn't enforce clear rules that it had laid out long before she made move and directly warned her about the consequences of such action then was shocked when the DNC followed through.

    Except (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    The Party DID'T enforce the rules in the end, and in fact, violated its own rules by giving 4 delegates (the equivalent of 81,000 votes) to someone who not only gamed the system, but encouraged his supporters (through channels) to play havoc in the Republican primary.  My parents were two of those people whose affirmative votes for Hillary were stolen and given to somebody they had no intention of voting for.

    Oh, and it was the Republican-led state legislature who officially moved the primary in Michigan....


    Let's get this straight (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    Michigan agreed to the scheduling of its primary only after long and difficult negotiations aimed at finally breaking up the Iowa/New Hampshire hegemony. It was part and parcel of a deal in which NH expressly promised to give up the #2 slot. It was only AFTER New Hampshire broke its end of the bargain that Michigan decided hey, this compromise isn't worth much if we're the only ones required to abide by it.

    And of course, to this day, NH has not faced even the whiff of a penalty for violating the exact same schedule that is supposedly so sacred and inviolate when it comes to Michigan breaking it. I am so sick and tired of people dumping on Michigan, you have no idea.


    Isn't it amazing (none / 0) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 04:04:54 PM EST
    how the rules were cherry picked though to Obama's advantage. It must of been because of that nice "impartial" Ms. Brazile. You know the person who went on national television and insisted that the DNC didn't need the working class any longer. Whew, we sure are glad the creative types are fixin' the country for us uneducated blue collar workers(tonue firmly in cheek).

    No, it didn't (none / 0) (#127)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:39:10 PM EST
    It didn't suck "what happened to them".

    It sucked what Obama['s supporters] did to them.


    except (none / 0) (#137)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:36:43 AM EST
    they only enforced the rules that helped Obama.  The ones that hurt him they turned a blind eye to.
    Five states broke the rules, only the ones which were going to be big solid winds for Hillary were punished.

    Really, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    can we start going through how many superdelegates served in the Clinton admin and/or recieved campaign funding from the Clinton Machine?

    Knock yourself out (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    if you want. It won't change the fact that he pilfered four delegates she EARNED. Nor will it excuse the fact that arms were twisted on his behalf at the convention. States where she won upwards of 50% were expected to pretend he won them. But hey whatever. Who am I to deprive the progressive folk of their shallow victory. How's that health care reform goin'? and How bout them jobs?

    Health reform and jobs are going... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:16:13 PM EST
    ... where your house already went.

    Thanks, "progressives"!


    sure (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:40:08 AM EST
    it's less.

    Did you listen to the witnesses (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    ...In the film I helped produce, We Will Not Be Silenced?

    What these people say mirrors what we know about the Alice Palmer race, that Obama's organizers used procedural techniques to skew the results. In the Il state Senate race, he knocked all of his primary challengers, including Senator Palmer, off the ballot by challenging petition signatures.

    As a witness in Iowa says, Obama people pumped up their own tally, and suppressed Hillary numbers. In a caucus, this is perfectly legal, since any challenge would be heard by a majority-Obama committee, not a district attorney.

    This pattern continued through every caucus state, although the press strenuously ignored it. In Nevada, there was similar systematic fabrication of Obama votes and suppression of Hillary voter. I can send you an affidavit that makes most people cry, the account of Obama organizers threatening the job of a Hispanic service worker with her job, in from of her child, one of many such stories.

    In Washington state, party leaders issued direction to not check ID in neighborhoods friendly to Obama. In Kansas, with huge 4+ thousand person caucus sites, there are no records to audit allegations that OFA organizers padded their numbers, which I believe they did. There are few records in any caucus state aside from Texas to see if caucusers were legal voters.

    The Alice Palmer rules were applied wherever there were not laws to stop them, but the biggest example was Texas, with about 750,000 caucus-goers and an elaborate paper trail.

    I was there as an area captain who also ran the the triage desk. I had direct oversight of much of El Paso. By mid-morning, we knew independently what the HQ in Austin did, that there was a systematic effort to gather blank caucus forms, and submit the names of people who did not attend the caucuses. We have a witness in the film who overheard planning for this, and many witnesses who reported manipulation of the sign-in sheets. In El Paso, we have  a number of affidavits from people who witnessed OFA organizers falsifying forms.

    I've been a field volunteer since the mid-'90s, and I would never have believed this if I hadn't seen it. This is something I only would have expected from a Republican campaign.

    I have a large number of documents I can share that I'm sure would convince you that caucuses were systematically abused by the Obama people. Jeralyn already has a set, and every one of the few who cared to look at the evidence has been convinced by them that something very bad happened in Texas and elsewhere.

    It's a story that would have already been told and fully investigated if it didn't fly in the face of so many pro-Obama biases.



    One of my favorite anecdotes... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    ...is from an attorney at a Maine caucus: In a clearly pro-Obama gymnasium, OFA organizers asked for a "good faith show of ID," by asking the crowd to waive their drivers licenses in the air. Of course, this was "legal," because in a caucus, the majority makes the rules.

    So we ended up with one (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    center-Right, big donor beholden candidate rather than the other one.

    And feature films that focus on the smaller corruptions for the purpose of blackening one and whitewashing the other while ignoring the larger corruption of the electoral process itself.

    T. Boone Pickens fund this one, too?


    Heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:54:02 PM EST

    Heh (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:56:42 PM EST
    Just to clarify, I dont like center-Right, big-donor-beholden candidates.

    LEEAAVVVEEE (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:59:25 PM EST

    Just give us another Clinton.


    you are so (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:48:18 AM EST
    Nader circa 1999

    ps... Hillary is not her husband's rib.  Do you know anything about her?  Or do you assume your Nader talking points will suffice for her as well as him?


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    from everything I heard Nevada was basically the opposite of what you suggested- it was a calculated suppression of the Obama vote.

    More proof (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    Of the media drivel, CDS, and misinformation put out by the Obama campaign.  My sister was IN Nevada, wroking for Hillary, and had Obama supporters ask her (they didn't know she worked for HRC) to come caucus for Obama.  When she told them she wasn't registered in Nevada, they told her it didn't matter.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 03:29:31 PM EST
    As you can see from my links, the press simply did not report the story. Even most Hillary people don't know about the NV press release. I didn't find out about the recurrent pattern until I interviewed dozens of people from various states.

    The reason is self-evident: the press was heavily biased toward one candidate and against the other, and the evidence way painfully dissonant with the dominant narrative that Obama was a pure, transcendent figure (and Hillary was a desperate b**ch who would "knee cap" a threatening campaign).

    What we did hear was the Obama noise machine, that in retrospect served a valuable purpose to history. As Armando points out, TINS and the rest of the "progressive" blogosphere showed that they would scream turned up to 11 at any sleight from the Hillary campaign, real or imagined. I know from experience that caucus vote theft was one-sided from the way we conducted interviews ("Are you aware of any problems at your caucus from either campaign?"), but we all know that had Hillary organizers done any of what these witnesses report, it would have spawned wall to wall noise at the Obama blogs, like the ultimately inconsequential allegation in NV.

    In Texas with perhaps 1,000,000 caucusers, there was exactly one allegation I'm aware of that a Hillary organizer was involved in significant improprieties (a DFW area Dem vetran took materials from a site, and was chased to the police station), but upon close examination, she was following the rules of the TDP, that once a precinct convention is called to order, it freezes the roll (or can freeze the roll), so late attendees do not count. And of course a precinct officer usually takes convention materials home and turns them in to the TDP office when it's open.


    El Paso Times (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    And if you want to know why the El Paso times gave none of this local coverage, this might be the answer.

    "Everything you heard?" (none / 0) (#117)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    No doubt.

    But then, of course, you don't talk to racists.


    You don't believe the accounts (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    of the caucus states?

    Like TINS accounts in Nevada? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:18:16 AM EST
    Enough of the BS.

    I simply asked a question (none / 0) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:20:02 AM EST
    I hadn't heard anything about Nevada.

    Accusation of Hillary rigging in Nevada (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    Just as stupid as the ones made against Obama.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:50:56 AM EST
    except there is proof in one case and not in the other.  But James Bakers says we counted the votes over and over so it must be true, right?

    but true (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:32:35 AM EST
    Rigged (none / 0) (#90)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    awesome I have to wonder if you actually believe this is true why you would have prefered the leadership of a group of people so incompetent that despite massive funding and almost complete capture of the elite they were unable to prevent a dark horse and a group of people who had never run a national campaign to rig the game.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 04:10:01 PM EST
    The sad thing is you sound like you almost believe he and his campaign were novices at manipulating the system. Pssssssst, he did the same thing to an opponent in Chicago. He got Alice Palmaer thrown out on a technicality.

    Clinton's biggest mistake is her loyalty to a party that doesn't deserve her.


    Yeppers, "rigging the game" beats... (none / 0) (#121)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:20:36 PM EST
    ... winning the popular vote every time! (Assuming you don't disenfranchise the voters of FL and MI, of course.)

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:49:08 AM EST
    You (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:04:54 AM EST
    are not the only one who can stir the pot, good sir.

    Steve Yzerman is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:05:57 AM EST
    not your role model I see.

    Not so (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:17:34 AM EST
    We both pursue a course of action that is likely to cost us some teeth. :)

    Heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    I'm a refugee from that war. I hope (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    this party makes a better choice in 2020.

    That you are. (none / 0) (#108)
    by TomP on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 03:32:43 PM EST
    Hope you are well.

    I likely would still support Obama knowing all I do now, but I see the point about Hillary fighting.  It might be that we would be the same palce no matter who won.  Hard to tell.


    Snark? (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by vicndabx on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    Course there is another option - this is what he wants. hard to believe that one.

    Easy to believe IMHO.

    I'm glad you're finally taking this subject on BTD (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by goldberry on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    The primaries left 18 million of us disenfranchised.  The left will never be able to reconstitute itself until it takes a long, hard look at what happened to it and how it was used against itself.  If it never examines the primary of 2008, it will be subject to the same forces again.  
    A great crime was committed against the Hillary voters in 2008.  It might not have legal consequences, although there are instances from that time that merit investigation.  But the crime is still there.  The party and whoever was running the show disposed of 18 million inconvenient votes and fraudulently, IMHO, allowed states to fund primaries  whose results were nullified at the convention.  It held hostage NJ, NY, PA, CA, MA, TX and many other states that voted for Hillary by deliberately withholding votes for her from MI and FL.  Without those states, she lacked the critical mass to be seen as the frontrunner.  Then, after reducing that critical mass at the RBC hearing, they restored those two states on the Sunday before the convention.  But by then, it was too late.  The result was written in stone.  
    And all we heard from the DNC and Donna Brazile was all about the rules.  Hillary followed the rules scrupulously and got screwed and so did her voters and so did the country.  
    For some reason, our voices in protest have been ignored.  We've been told to get over it as if having your vote discarded was no big deal.  I guess it's because Hillary's voters were just considered to be old, stupid women.  And our culture wants old, stupid women to go away.  Or at least the old ones anyway.  Or women who don't agree with the men in charge.  It makes me wonder now whether the Suffrage amendment actually counts anymore.  
    But we were old and young, educated by academia and educated by living, men and women and we were told we weren't wanted anymore.  
    I see Jane beating her head against the wall and I wonder how it is that she doesn't see this vast resource available to her.  But it's like she's still caught up in the belief that she and people like her are smarter than the 'old coalition' that they left behind.  What she doesn't get is that she can't do it without us.  None of you can.  But you can't get us back together without reexamining this painful period of the recent past.  If we remain the 'Losers' to Jane and her friends we'll always be separate and our strength divided.  If they continue to believe the illusion that Obama created about who we really are, they will not see us as the people who can help them the most.  

    I love the "exceptional knowledge" (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    is this little rant- how anyone can believe that the longest and most heavily contested primary in American political history one segment of the Democratic base was going to feel disenfranchised and hosed- it was inevitable.  Seriously, lets pretend the RBC handles Michigan and Florida differently awarding Hillary the full strength in each, Obama his Florida delegates and leaving Michigan unapportioned-- Obama's still ahead but its close-- then on the convention floor Obama gets the Edward's delegates but the superdelegates defect en masse and put Hillary over the top-- how do you think the Obama segment of the vote would have reacted, you honestly don't think they would have felt at least as disenfranchised if not more so (due to having the lead for the vast, vast majority of the race only to have it taken away in the end quite literally by the party elites) because I have to assume you either don't think that (which is ignorant) or simply think screwing Obama's base would have been the better choice (fair opinion I just happen to disagree).

    The point is (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    Had the DNC followed its own rules Hillary would have won Michigan at the time of the primary, and been able to take all those delegates (to Obama's zero), plus Florida, which Obama should have been disqualified for for having a press conference and a national ad that ran (that should have been blacked out), and she would have had the momentum she deserved.

    Had he won them fairly, no one would be complaining.


    It's not about feelings (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:10:57 PM EST
    It's about caucus fraud and the RBC not following its own rules.

    You waste your time on some (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    The solid bots aren't listening to learn, they are listening only to respond with their "I know you are but what am I" social skills. They are disrespectful young adults who deserve what Obama gives them. The best part of this is that by the time SS gets to her retirement age, she will be longing for the days when there were good paying jobs and one could afford a new outfit because they weren't mandated to buy health insurance first.

    thank you (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    James Baker

    I've been thinking about this moment for a while (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    I just wonder why this is the only area where Obama apparently believes his own BS? He's been very willing to change tack when he's otherwise found it convenient to do so.

    I keep waiting (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    for him to get mad.  He absolutely has the ability to get mad, especially when he thinks senators are actively working against HIM.

    I don't see how he can't be super ticked off by now with Lieberman, Nelson, etc... to the point where he just says screw em.  They are effectively trying to kill this bill.  They know nothing that they find acceptable will pass the house.  And despite what the C.W. here might be, Obama has spent way too much time on HCR to want it to die.  It's too important to his political future.


    Mad doesn't work for him (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    I want to see him get firm.

    If we're going to bring up the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    I think its pretty obvious why Obama can't get mad-- its the same reason Hillary generally couldn't get emotional-- they'd play directly into the sterotypes about their particular oppressed class.

    Forget it...he's like Jello that will (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    never set, cream that will never whip, custard that will never thicken (speaking of food, what's your take on Top Chef?)

    Sometimes, you just have to start over.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    this is the second year in a row when the judges chose the wrong person.

    Last year, the reptilian Stefan was robbed. This year it seems to have been Bryan. I was rooting for Kevin, but it seems that he really was having an off night.

    But I also thought that the final three should have been Jen, Bryan, and Kevin. If you go back to the episode when Jen was eliminated, you can make a good case that it should have been Michael going home, just on the evidence shown to viewers. (Obviously, more goes on at Judges' Table than we see.)

    I'm disappointed, though. Michael may be Top Chef, but he's not MY Top Chef.


    I've learned a lot by reading the (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    judges' blogs on Bravotv.com; Tom Colicchio and Gail Simmons have provided excellent explanations and insight into the judging process throughout the competition.

    For me, it was a toss-up between Bryan and Michael; I think Michael has a passion for food and cooking that is awesome, and I think to some extent, he was a victim of editing that made him the resident "bad boy."  

    When all is said and done, I think it's going to be tough to find a group next time around that will see four such accomplished chefs making it to the end.


    Hey there, sher (none / 0) (#131)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    Who were you rooting for?

    I don't have strong feelings about the result (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    I was hoping for Jen to be in it, but she had a really bad streak for the second half of the season.

    He saves his ire for the progressive (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    members of Congress.

    I thought it was very bizarre of the President to (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by DFLer on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    call out John Conyers, and charaterize Conyers' criticisms of the administrations' policy on HC and Af, as "demeaning" to the President.

    Bizarre and disturbing.



    The President (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    did not "call out" John Conyers. They had a private conversation, one where we don't know exactly what was said, which Conyers chose to share.

    But then you knew that, from reading your link, right?


    Conyers spilled the beans, and so it was not (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by DFLer on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 03:15:02 PM EST
    private. The President called him and called him out. What's the difference? I still don't like the tone of "demeaning" I hope he has taken time to call Lieberman, Snowe, etc. and call them out for their obstructions.

    I do not think (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    that you can "call someone out" in private, by definition.

    I trust Conyers but I would note that he didn't quote the President, so we don't really know if "demeaning" is a quote or a paraphrase.


    Mayn't we infer? (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    Well, it may be that community organizer (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    brand of leadership in action.  Allow the subject to be raised and step far away, anything, absolutely anything, that emerges is a plum--and something that no other president could do, because he just let Congress knock it around and knock it about.  And, his great legislative success, albeit an idea of almost universal consent, with his friend the retro-Senator Tom Coburn, the Coburn/Obama "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Actm 2006", gave confidence to his expectations for bipartisan support, even if he was left in the cold with just Snowe.

    "And the special interests will just (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    go away."  Forgot about that part.  

    Way to wake everyone up on a Mon. a.m.

    Obama is a disappointment to many of us (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    who supported him.

    I still don't see how Hillary would have been any different on Afghanistan, Bush's detention policies, bank bailouts, and yes HCR.

    We were provided a choice between a known corporatist Democrat and a suspected corporatist Democrat who hinted at maybe being something more, or at least capable of becoming something more.  I went with the latter.

    I also thought that as far as the choice of which history-making election, that of a woman or that of an African-American, the latter  represented the higher societal hurdle that we needed to overcome.  So we did accomplish at least that, and that alone has for the first time instilled millions of Americans of color with a real feeling of inclusion.  To me that was worth Obama's election.

    I would love to see a progressive woman challenge Obama in 2012.  Then maybe we can get another history making election and some real, unapologetic liberalism at long last.  

    And end a couple of wars too.

    of course (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 07:58:46 AM EST
    you are talking about the Bill Clinton the Nadernuts convinced you he was.

    Hillary is not Bill and like most people who opposed her you have no clue who she is.


    Mike Gravel's (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    "Who would you bomb, Barack?"

    We know the answer to that now (none / 0) (#85)
    by themomcat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    Afghanistan and Pakistan.



    So basically the same people (none / 0) (#98)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    he said he'd bomb all along then?

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#114)
    by themomcat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    I don't recall Obama ever saying he would "bomb" either one. He said that place his focus on Afghanistan. So much for diplomatic efforts in dealing with either the Taliban, who are not going anywhere, or aiding Pakistan, unless you consider bombing villages with innocent people being killed by unmanned drones, "aid".



    Cool (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    I remember hearing Art Spiegelman, proud member of the Creative Class, interviewed on NPR. When he asked about Obama he said he (Spiegelman) was voting for him because he was "Well, Obama is cool. And I want a cool president." Seriously, he said that, as if it were the best reason ever to vote for someone.

    I remember hearing that and thinking, "We are doomed."

    I've had a bad feeling about Obama since his much-vaunted 2004 convention speech. The next I heard of him was his condescending, progressive-bashing scold session on Kos. That was, what, 2006? All I'm saying is, who and what Obama is has been crystal clear for a long, long time and people who didn't see it were either lying to themselves or overly optimistic.

    For the record, again, I think HRC would have just as hideous on foreign policy and, in fact, in that area there was almost no difference between McCain and our two Democratic candidates. But I am certain that she would have been ten times better on domestic policy. She couldn't possibly be any worse, that's for sure.

    Ow. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    The same Art Spiegelman who wrote Maus - the story of his father's experience in the Jewish ghettos and interment camps?

    That's a HUGE disappointment.  I know his stories were about his father and not the whole political landscape, but I'd think that some of that would seep in.


    Double ouch (none / 0) (#122)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    Yes. Published in the New Yorker, which I've been reading all my life, up to the point that Hendryk Hertzberg drenched the talk of the town in Kool-Aid. Same with the New York Review of Books. It's a shame.

    Oh, good times BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Teresa on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    I came out of hibernation just to read this. I often wonder how different Hillary as President would be. I agree with a previous poster that foreign policy would be much the same but dang I hope she'd go down fighting on health care rather than giving up before the fight. We may have still lost the HCR battle, but I like to think we'd have seen a hell of a fight for it.

    Maybe I'm just dreaming. I do know that if the current bill in either the House or Senate passes, it won't do me any good while I continue to get worse & worse. If I'm lucky, I'll be in one of those little hoverounds in the next few years. If I'm not, I'll be paralyzed & lacking enough insurance to pay for surgery may mean just that. Meantime, I'll sit carefully & try not to damage my fragile back and neck anymore. Ugh.

    And if I win the lottery, those conservatives democrats will have a well-funded opponent. I can't believe there isn't something we can make worth their while to vote for a bill better than this. If only we'd try.

    HOLC, too (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    Hillary proposed that in February 2008.

    And in December 2009, Obama's still trying to embarass the banksters into doing mortgage mods -- and the CEOs phone it in and don't even bother to show up.


    I stood with Hillary and I still (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by AX10 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:34:06 PM EST
    believe she would have been a better President that Obama.

    I supported Hillary because she knew
    the realities of governing.  She also
    had the experience and knew who was who
    and how to pull the strings (much as FDR and LBJ did).
    I knew that electing a junior Senator with
    less than a term under his belt was going
    to turn out this way.

    I stand by my original
    assessment.  Obama made it to the top
    in record time because he sold himself to the interests that control the government.

    Bill and Hillary paid their dues, they also fought with the powerful interests from day one.
    The movers and shakers who get things done will anger many people.  That is the way it has always been.  In order to change the status quo, you have to upset it, upset those who support it.  You cannot placate it as Obama has done.

    Bill's turn to the right only occured after the 1994 mid-terms where he had to deal with a hostile GOP congress.  Obama promised us that he could better deal with these thugs.  He claimed the Clintons were too divisive to do anything.  As I said before, you have be willing to agitate to get things done.

    I still insist that Obama enjoys the limelight and getting meaningful reform of any kind is not important to him.  Obama has to prove to us he means he wants reform and he wants to rebuild the middle class.  So far he has not done so.
    I give him a C for his first year.

    yeah (3.50 / 2) (#13)
    by souvarine on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:52:23 AM EST
    But I'm  a perennial optimist. Obama is not going to change and become a fighting liberal, but I still expect to see the fighting conservative Democrat. He's way too good a knife fighter to let Lieberman succeed at skewering him.

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:53:45 AM EST
    I used tot think  so.

    I think it less and less these days.