The Cynical Sucker

John Emerson wrote this, in a comment to this d-day post:

Political insiders, media people, political pros, etc. take this as Rule One. If you donít realize that your candidate is going to cheat you, itís your fault for being a sucker. The pros and insiders are proud to be on the cheating side and not on the cheated side. Go to a centrist blog and youíll see people talking that way in the comments. ďWho were those suckers who believed in hope that you can believe in? How could anyone believe in that

If youíre on the cheater side of the consent/governance divide, youíre cool. If youíre on the cheated side, youíre an idiot. And if you get mad about being cheated, youíre a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and the conspirators laugh at you.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think I have the distinction of both having been a cynical person who did not believe in the whole "change you can believe in" nonsense (remember "not a dime's worth of difference?") who also feels cheated (making me a sucker). I thought that with the mandate he won in November 2008 - Obama would actually make a bigger difference. I was wrong. So I am a new species of citizen - the cynical sucker.

Speaking for me only

< Only 3% | Morning Shootout at Las Vegas Courthouse: Gunman and Security Officer Killed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • join the club (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    dues are, well, not as cheap as they once were, but still...

    i distinctly remember debating friends who were falling for the savior act, but at the same time wishing, hoping they were at least partially right. i thought that obama could NEVER fail to step up in some fashion with the opportunity given him, i felt like the ball had old-school stickum all over it and that there was no way he could drop it.

    now it seems the stickum was grease.

    "Not a dime's worth of difference (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    on issues I care about."  

    Primary candidate Obama:  absolutely no mandates re health care reform.  Otherwise--what she sd.

    Addendum: FISA. (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    Addendum (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    History of voting present for political cover on abortion rights.

    Addendum (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    Allowing Exelon Corporation to write the nuclear regulatory rules.

    Addendum (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    Will filibuster the FISA/Telecom Immunity "compromise".

    Addendum: No lobbyists (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    Addendum: Ending military commissions (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    This one always blows me away where the DFH apologists are concerned.  I'm not overly concerned about it myself, but I think I'm more concerned about it than they are :)  And to that, all I can say is HOLY FREAKIN WOW that must be some good kool aid!

    I will accept public financing. (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:31:36 PM EST
    I was glad he did not accept public (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    financing--it showed he was tough.

    The Republicans will opt out anyway in most cycles....The systeme was a joke

    But this goes back to even before the convention....


    Gonna have to explain that one (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    How did that show he was tough? Just showed me he knew he'd be able to con a lot of money out of people on his own.

    He was going to take a hit (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    for not taking public money but did what he had to do...

    The only people that were even possibly (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    going to take him to task for it were the progressives he had already, to put it diplomatically, won over. Always the easiest group to let down.

    Lindsey Graham went on national (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    television and repeatedly blasted him.  The Press covered the story quite a bit....

    Showed he was weak (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    And could not stick to a specific promise on something that would have been so simple.

    Weak, and not principled.


    He was running for President (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    not saint....

    Presidents need to play hardball.

    Frankly, my main concern with Obama had always been was not, as John Edwards feared, tough enough--to beat the Republicans or face down terrorists, etc....


    Politics (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    It's not about running for president as opposed to sainthood.
    It's about what he stands for.
    And what he is standing for ain't pretty.

    Tough? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:42:55 PM EST
    We've had enough of this kind of tough. Bush. Cheney. Pure BS.

    We need someone with principles.

    Strength of character.
    Forget "tough".


    Principals (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:59:12 PM EST
    and the secret to raising $ 500 mil AND the ability and courage to skirt the hazard of pissing off a Swiftboat-ad-funding Pickens while simultaneously succoring the hard-right board of AIPAC and the Saudis and swing-state Cubans and on and on..



    well then (none / 0) (#197)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:14:32 AM EST
    he should have cynically LIED about it just to fool people.

    Federal lobbyists. Please! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    no lobbyists except (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:13:03 AM EST
    his lobbyists... just like no campaign finance cheating except his thousands of corporate supporters with hundreds of small donations on the VISA gift cards and fake names.

    Addendum (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    Actually viewing diplomacy as a workable option rather than a hinderance.

    Diplomacy (none / 0) (#62)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    viewing diplomacy as a workable option

    If by "diplomacy" you mean "bombing and slaughtering the ever-lovin' ** out of brown people," well then, I agree.


    Notice the thawing of our diplomatic (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    relations with Cuba, whose poassport holders are now in the same category as people from Pakistan and Nigeria.

    Just incredible (none / 0) (#119)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    Obama is still fighting the "good fight" against the 1950's commies.

    Addendum: Transparency (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    Will post bills / executive orders for 3 days prior to signing.  Will not hide meeting participants.

    The White House logs (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    are being published in unprecedented number....Recently too....You are a little behind the curve on that one.

    Recently (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    Not according to what he promised.

    Still waiting on the secret meetings (like his cousin Cheney) with Big Pharma....


    Not a 100%--is that (2.60 / 5) (#66)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    the critique?  Or do you just like criticizing for the sake of criticizing...with a few Hillary-would-have-done-betters, thrown in?

    Bias is most evident in the standard people use in judging others....Rig the system ahead of time--harsh, harsh, uncompromising to make sure the object always fails.....


    Um (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    Hillary is not the subject here. I'm sorry - this is still America and we are still allowed to criticize the President for all his (many) mistakes and lies.

    And of course, you suffer from no bias while you heart Obama.

    Ponies for everyone!


    She is present in many (1.42 / 7) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    comments here...many of yours in fact....

    And, I disagreed here with Obama on FISA, and not taking a more aggressive stance on health care.

    Frankly, due to your right wing attitude toward crime, I don't think you are liberal or Progressive at all.  You do seem to like Palin quite a lot.


    Thanks for the laugh! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    you found me out - I'm a secret mole for Palin - I love her.  I'm trying to help her out by commenting on blogs, pointing out the mistakes and lies of Obama, which are obvious to all except the most closed-minded Obots.

    Mission accomplished.


    this is not about Hillary (none / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:21:49 AM EST
    but since you ask... there is good reason she was the choice of the voters in the primary.  Most of us were adults who could look at the evidence and chose the better candidate.  Unfortunately other people wanted to be lied to.

    yeah (none / 0) (#198)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:18:13 AM EST
    and get a load of all that HCR being shown on Cspan

    Addenda (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    Renewal of the Patriot Act.
    Supporting and campaigning for Lieberman.

    And - who can forget his heartwarming association with Rick Warren?

    And Donnie McClurkin.
    And his telling us that his "religious beliefs" lead him to oppose gay people marrying each other.

    A real gem, this guy.


    Donnie McClurkin (2.40 / 5) (#82)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    that is way, way before the Primaties even....I take it you were never a fan....so you were not disappointed but validated?

    There are some real disappointments....but this site was a refuge for Hillary supporters who never liked Obama--as opposed to those who were liberal on issues of crime (with some exceptions)--and so the level of outight vitriol here has to be considered in that light.

    I have been very, very disappointed at the right wing attitude toward crime exhibited here by commentators--some of whom never fail to bash Obama for betraying Progressive ideals....  


    Piffle (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    Nobody feels "validated" watching Obama fumbling around.

    Obviously, I never was drawn to Obama.
    I was interested enough to look into him because he was being touted as a new and exciting voice.

    I watched him deliver his speech at the 2004 convention - and found him to be just that - conventional.

    And - as someone who was for ending the war in Iraq - I read his little speech endorsing Lieberman - telling people that Lieberman was serving on "our" behalf and they should have the "good sense" to reelect him - I knew this guy was not for me.

    That doesn't mean I have a axe to grind.
    I can't say I want Obama to succeed or fail because I don't know what he wants. His involvement or lack of it with respect to the healthcare bill is stomach turning. His moderately happy talk after the Copenhagen meeting was shocking - considering that the African continent has said that the lack of results from that meeting will result in genocide.

    I don't feel validated.
    I do feel that I have a functioning b.s. detector, and for that I am grateful.


    What individual (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    would you like to see as President? Are you a movement person (as David Sirota would define) or are you a party activist, Lentinel?

    Truth (none / 0) (#113)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    be told, I don't know anyone on the scene that I could wholeheartedly support.

    I guess I would be what you would consider a "movement" person - in that I think that revolutions happen that way. Masses of people feel a sense of anger and injustice and they rise up in a manner that is organic. Maybe one person can spark a moment - a simple action like that of Rosa Parks. Or someone like Ghandi.

    My hero was and is Malcolm X.
    When I go back and listen to him speak, I hear a brilliant, uncompromising, unscripted person who loves people. I identify with his sense of humor and his sense of anger. It feels deeply American to me. I know of no one on the political scene at this time that comes close to measuring up to the standard he set.


    I appreciate your reply, lentinel (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    The straightforwardness of your reply is helpful in understanding your commentary.

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:42:10 PM EST

    Masses of people feel a sense of anger and injustice

    is not always a good thing.  
    see "Tea Parties".

    masses can be manipulated and used.


    I think that (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    people feeling angry and betrayed is a good thing.

    This can, as you say, be exploited by tea parties, and also by politicians like Obama.

    But from time to time, a person of character stands up and turns things upside down.

    We need another Rosa Parks.


    Using that analogy (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    How long did it take after Rosa Parks to achieve civil rights?  How long after that did it take to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act?

    People's time frame has become so truncated...

    And, angry mobs undid Danton....


    Parks (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:47:56 PM EST
    It took one year from the time that Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to the time when all the buses were desegregated in Montgomery.

    funny (none / 0) (#201)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:33:02 AM EST
    I think of Obama campaign operatives and supporters as the democrats version of an angry mob.  They operated as one and some still do.

    the fact that Donnie (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    was technically "before the primaries" rather misses the point.  dont you think?

    Yes, on point (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    The issue was the disillusionment with Obama the candidate and Obama the President....

    If you go back and load up on every single criticism from the begining of time, that doesn't sound like someone who ever thought enough of him to be disillusioned.


    MKS (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    What are you expressing?

    Who cares whether someone looked into Obama, hoped for something from Obama and is now disappointed - or whether someone, like myself, looked into him and expected nothing. The issue is what is happening to us and our country under the Obama administration.

    The beginning of Obama's public life is hardly "the beginning of time". His supporters frequently pointed to what they considered his speech against the Iraq war. I googled it and read it. Like just about everyone, I was looking for an alternative to Bush. The more I looked into Obama, and listened to what he was saying, the less I was interested in him.

    So - like most of the people I read commenting on this site, I am concerned for the future of the American people. I am concerned for my family.  I think Obama is actually endangering us. More and more he looks like a puppet to me.

    It matters not at all to me to distinguish between whether we feel disillusioned, disappointed, disgusted or just plain sad.

    What is the difference for you between someone who never thought much of Obama and is therefore not disillusioned, and someone who had high hopes for Obama and no longer does?


    Bias (3.50 / 2) (#149)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Please (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    If you find yourself not attracted to someone who touted Lieberman, who voted to renew the Patriot Act, who voted for FISA, who expresses religious dogma to justify homophobia, who pals around with the likes of Rick Warren, who gave a featured spot to Rick Warren at the inaugural, who appoints Geithner, who chose Biden, who belittles and refuses to fight for a public option, who expressed a desire to escalate a war in Afghanistan - that's the way it is.

    If Obama were to achieve something that would help us, I would feel better than I do now. Right now, I am not optimistic.

    I guess you feel real unbiased.
    Some good things. Some bad things. He had to do things to get elected. He's better than Palin. The lot.


    he is about to (none / 0) (#202)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:43:46 AM EST
    achieve something and it is making me sick.  The Health Insurance company bailout we are about to embark on will ruin real heath care reform for a generation to come. And we are going to have to listen to him talk about his unprecedented and historical presidency for the next how many years?

    Such a refuge this (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by mollypitcher on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    has been!  Wonderful support, consisting of STFU if you prefer Hillary!  I was here then--and I left to let the kool-aid lose its savour.  Just glad I can come back and read about it.

    wha?...... (none / 0) (#200)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 07:29:33 AM EST
    lol, Hillary, since you insist on talking about her, was always more liberal than Obama.  You didn't want to see and maybe like so many others you just jumped on the bandwagon of the cool black guy who would alleviate all of our liberal white guilt if we elected him?
    I never like Obama since he ran for senate in 2004 and I was working to elect him through DFA.  But he was clearly a weasel and a liar then. He was clearly what operative call "the talent" with no particular political beliefs of his own beyond personal narcissism.  
    But my mistake, I thought at least we will be moving towards a fool proof majority in the senate... our goal when we thought mistakenly that the democrats would do something with a majority..... move left.  HA

    I wish I had the email addresses (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    of all the people who called me a racist for comparing Obama to Harold Ford.

    (~snearing~ why because he is young and black)

    no a$$holes thats not why they are similar.

    Wonder what (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    all those who were banned here at this blog and on other blogs for still questioning Obama after he was anointed are thinking now...?

    Exactly who was banned here (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    for 'still' questioning Obama?

    I must've missed something...or perhaps you haven't been reading BTD on the 'mediocre presidency.'


    not banned,exactly, (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by mollypitcher on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    but essentially told we would not be tolerated if we did not stfu.  We are populating a bunch of new blogs and checking back sometimes to watch the 'suckers' waking up.

    There was a difference (2.25 / 4) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    between questioning, and being a moronic PUMA.

    No (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    No questions were allowed to be asked.  No disagreement was allowed.

    And PUMA isn't a dirty word - people who actually wanted the DNC to be accountable - that's a bad thing???


    jbindc, do agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    that we should not waterboard and that it is torture; and further, do you agree with trying the underwear bomber in Federal Court?

    Do you agree with these positions of the Obama administration?


    Which has to do with what?? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:44:30 PM EST
    Yes I agree with those decisions, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Hmmm jbindc (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    At the risk of adding to the conflagration, my impression of your comments here and taken together is that they reflect someone more than disappointed in a politcal personage, even somewhat more than the general anger one often feels in the give & take of the governmental/political arena.  While it should not matter whom you support or what political affiliation you are, my read is that your comments have the negative flavor of a close-to-100% anti-Obama writer...almost in the style of a conservative radio talk-show participant. Is that incorrect? (Why does it matter to me? Only because it can be helpful to know one's bias--including my own Democratic liberal--when reading the comments.)

    Disappointed and angered (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    at the Democratic Party in general, for allowing a farce of a primary season, and Obama, specifically for being all about himself. So when they tell me I have nowhere else to go with my vote and I should be afraid of the "big, bad Republicans" because my reproductive rights are in danger, or they can't handle the economy, or they will bring back civil liberties, or gay rights will never come to be, or 100 other things, I now just laugh.  They really expect me to believe they'll be better??  What a hoot!

    I watched Obama's speech in 2004 and actually sent him money for his Senate race,and thought he was one to watch.  The more I got to know of him, the more I thought, "No way - not now.  He's green, and right now, it's all about him and not about the job." I started out with low expectations, and yet, I'm still shocked and disappointed as his abysmal performance.


    I hope your views on crime (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:40:32 PM EST
    are a result of "disillusionment"....As in the issue came up first regarding Gates and the Cambridge cop....You took issue with the support of Gates/Obama, so you took a contrary view?

    Actually, I could only hope.  Too many Hillary fans here seem to have the Republican view of crime....


    What? (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    Becaue I believe people should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions? Are you saying that when they commit crimes they should not be punished and instead have their hands held and told "it's all right, you didn't mean it"?

    Because Obama boneheadely stuck his foot in his mouth about the Gates situation (and was wrong to boot)?  

    Because I believe that more times than not, the police do an excellent job? Many in the liberal blogosphere are so willing to castigate conservstives and centrists who want to "paint a broad brush" when it comes to the topics of immigration and are horrified when topics like racial profiling are brought up ("How could you lump a whole group of people together like that?  It's wrong!") but are willing to to lump together everyone who is a police officer or prosecutor as eveil and corrupt - sorry folks, can't have it both ways.

    I'm more socially liberal, but yes, I'm much more of a pragmatist when it comes to law & order.  But I don't know what is a "Republican view of crime"?  Being responsible?  

    I guess you have drunk the kool aid when people shouldn't be held responsible for anything they do, even if it hurts someone else.....


    Never mind (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    I was right the first time....

    Oh well.....


    I'm not disillusioned (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    I haven't had Kool-Aid since I was a kid.  Unlike some around here....

    People stop having the (2.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    capacity to be disillusioned when they stop caring....

    For the reply to my comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    thank you jbindc for the statement of your thinking.

    Most of the country (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    according to Ras, indeed supermajorities, want the underwear bomber waterboarded and tried by a military tribunal....

    So, Obama is going against the polls here...it is not as easy as a broken clock being right....

    What do you think Palin or Beck or Romney would do....They are all supportive of Cheney....

    So, while the Obama bash-fest ensues, there is a lot of right wing stuff ready to rear its ugly head--with many here hoping the Democrats lose control of Congress to teach them a lesson.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    As crazy as right wingers can be, just as Obama gets something occassionally right, so do they. Part of the problem with political discourse these days is that people read soundbites and don't want to admit that sometimes someone with an opposing world view may make a point.

    And your comment here has nothing to do with the string - of all the things Obama said he was going to be and do, and has been a major FAIL.

    The argument that "We're not as bad as Republicans" doesn't really hold water for many people. Yes, they ARE as bad as Republicans.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    So Beck and Palin and Romney get some things right?

    And, you fault Obama for not being Progressive enough, if that is what your critique is.


    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    No one is wrong all the time, and no one is right all the time, so yes, my guess is, they do occassionally make good points.

    Even you're right occassionally.


    Why waterboard (none / 0) (#118)
    by mollypitcher on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    the undiebomber?  He hardly showed up out of the blue unknown.  And, being caught red-handed (!), he's basically a 'confessed' criminal.

    It's all about scoring points against Obama (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:21:52 PM EST
    He doesn't understand the War on Terror...He is weak....He wants to coddle terrorists....

    People are afraid, and that's when Reason flees....


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:24:31 AM EST
    is weak. He has caved so many times to the opposition and gone back on his word that why the GOP can get this line of attack to take hold. If he didnt act so spineless and weak on every other thing out there then he would be able to weather this kind if criticism.

    moronic? (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    So now it's moronic to be right.

    Good to know


    Frightened (none / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:50:38 PM EST
    This site is partial to the democratic party.

    And, at a certain point, the owners of the site became either so fearful of the republican alternative or hopeful that Obama could make a positive difference that they did not want their site to be used by anyone to diminish Obama's chance of victory.

    I saw their point of view.
    And they did let me post my vitriol - with the exception of a couple of deletions when I got really far out.


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    I left during the primaries not because of the managers of the site but because of the comments.
    as the comment at the top of this says.  I got tired of  being called a racist for having unblured vision and for seeing Obama for what he was.
    an opportunist

    The sexism card (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    was all the rage in those days, also.

    Nobody seems to remember that though.


    well (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    if the sexism card had worked as well as the racism card worked we might have some real health care reform now.

    and we might not.  I mature enough to admit that.


    If we're really (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    electing Presidents based solely on engineered perceptions of who is more "racist or sexist", we may as well throw in the towel and start over and just allow landed aristocrats with classical educations vote.

    As a matter of fact, after eight years of that putz from Crawford, I might be in favor of that kind of reform.


    how about (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    electing a smart tested liberal public servant whos positions and passions were known for years and years instead of some manufactured hopeychangey empty suit whos voting record when he as elected had as many "present" votes as anything else?  

    You mean the hawk (3.50 / 2) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    who is for the all-in position on Afghanistan?

    You think Hillary would be any different on Gitmo or military tribunals?

    Hillary's positions are virtually identical to Obama's....

    Sour grapes endlessly....


    on foreign policy (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    thats right.  which is why the Obama mania was so insane.  he was elected to end the freakin war when she was honest and told the truth.
    howz that whole ending the war thing working out?
    on DOMESTIC issues she is light years ahead of him when it comes to knowledge and experience.  AND you can bet your a$$ she would not share a stage with Donnie.

    Working out well on Iraq (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    The timetable will be kept--if only because we just don't have the ability to stay....Need some troops in reserve....

    Still looking back.....


    working out well? (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    something tells me that if he had been honest during the primaries, or even knowledgeable about what was even possible, he would still be the junior senator from IL.

    I bet you'd say (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    now Bill would never share a stage with Greenspan and his peons, if it hadnt already happened.

    Sharing a stage .... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    ... with the Fed Chairman is somehow comparable to pandering for the homophobic vote with a hate-mongering bigot?

    Interesting analogy ...


    What they have in common (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    is that they're both egregious examples of sucking up to the conservative base. And it wasnt just "sharing the stage" with Greenspan, it was rolling over for Greenspan and his disciples while they called the deregulatory tune which led to the financial debacle.

    Other examples of pandering not exclusive to Obama would be beating it back to Arkansas in the middle of a campaign to do some tough-on-crime grandstanding in the form of supervising the execution of a mentally deficient prisoner, and later on, attempting to finish-the-job-Bush-started by inflicting unconscionable collective punishment on most vulnerable citizens in Iraq, including thousands of children.

    Some progressive hero.


    I believe you are talking about Bill (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    WE are talking about Hillary.  who has always been tougher smarter and more progressive.

    One can always hope (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    People tend to known by the alliances they make though.

    No one claimed ... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    ... Clinton was above pandering (is any pol?), but Clinton never claimed to oppose the Iraq boycott or the death penalty .... just the opposite, in fact.  You may not like it, but Clinton's support of Greenspan, the death penalty and the Iraq boycott are entirely consistent with the positions he took on the issues, including his support for the execution of Ricky Ray Rec, who  was only "mentally deficient" because he shot himself in the head after murdering a police officer.  It's not like he claimed to support equal rights for gays and decried intolerance, bigotry and homophobia, then turned around and tried to justify a campaign tour with a homophobic bigot because "a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs".

    BTW - Did someone claim Clinton was a "progressive hero"?  Personally, I think he was a great, moderate Democratic President, but maybe you buy your straw in bulk?


    Somehow the fact (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    that a pol is CONSISTENT in their pandering just dosnt carry alot of weight with me. Im funny that way.

    Im also not the one who's saying that that pandering quality is a factor in making one pol "great" while making it the basis for condemnation of another one.


    Neither am I, ... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    ... but a candidate supporting positions which are entirely consistent with their publicly stated positions is not evidence of "pandering".

    OTOH, a candidate condemning bigotry/homophobia and then going on a campaign tour with a hate-mongering "Reverend" because he's popular and a "great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs" is pandering.


    I still feel like (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    you're trying to sell me on the stale bread as a viable substitute for the moldy cheese.

    And neither one is lightin' my fire. Sorry.


    I would sooner try ... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    ... to convince a Creationist that man did not roam the earth with dinosaurs a few thousand years ago than try to disabuse a Clinton-hater of their animosity toward all things Clinton, whether they're Freepers or True Progs.

    It also seems (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    like more religious folk need to have more public in-depth discussions concerning whether the love-and-forgiveness message of the Bible deals possibly with a higher order of reality than "the law" aspects of the Bible, because it dosnt appear that the always-well-organized and highly vocal Church-Mosque-and-Synagogue-going-folk are going to just disappear anytime soon.

    Is this ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    ... a rationalization for Obama's campaign tour with Donnie McClurkin?  Not quite as straightforward as Obama's explanation ("A great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkins's beliefs").  Come to think of it, there's still a great deal of racism (particularly in cetain areas of the South), so perhaps Obama could have invited a KKK leader, or a holocaust denier.  Ya know, ....... just to help start the discussion.

    Oddly enough, the Obama campaign was smart enough to avoid any such "public, in-depth discussions" of McClurkin's bigoted views during their tour through SC.  Not a single word about how "America is at war with the gays", how homosexuality is a "curse", or how gays are "trying to kill our children".  Weird, huh?

    But, hey .... bonus points for trying!


    You know I didnt know (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    all that about that jackas* McClurkin and Obama's cynical exploitation of the bigotry of folks mentally living in Biblical times.

    Yet, Im still not strong enough in the faith of the Branch Clintonians. Maybe if you could tell me that moving story again about Bill and his righteous use of the lethal injection machine..That might do it.


    "Branch Clintonians"? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    "Righteous use of the lethal injection machine"?

    You Clinton-haters sure do love you some fairytales ...


    No they weren't (5.00 / 10) (#148)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    Hillary supported a universal health care system with mandates- Obama did not.

    Hillary wanted the first batch of economic stimulus to include funding for infrastructure and government programs. Obama had Goolsbee go on  TV and ridicule her for it(of course the last laugh goes to her because she was right and the "checks" sent out did little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

    Hillary had a record on choice. Obama had a record that showed that when the going got tough he would not fight for choice instead being content to vote "present" for political cover.

    Clinton didn't trot out people who called gay a disease to campaign with.

    These are just a few of the differences I can think of off the top of my head.

    Saying they were the same is like calling Ben Nelson the same as Barbara Boxer. Just because 2 people have a D after their name does not make them interchangeable.


    Checks did in fact stimulate (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    the economy.....The analysis is starting to come in on that score....

    The data is looking good.  Today they reported that industrial production is up for the first time in three years....

    Employment should improve over time...

    The real issue will be inflation and whether and when the Fed raises interest rates....Bernanke, according to his scholarship at least, is more worried about deflation than inflation, so I think he will be able to convince the other Governors to keep the rates in place....


    Up to its highest level in three years (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:26:41 PM EST
    How about (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    looking forward?

    I would support Hillary in 2016--and, no, she won't be too old....Huntsman would be a problem though....


    forward? (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:47:55 PM EST
    not quite finished with I told you so.

    Actually (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:29:30 AM EST
    I agree that there probably wouldnt be much difference. The problme is that Obama lied to everybody saying that he wasn't like that and people believed him and now they are mad and disillusioned.

    A time tested union busting (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    Walmart board member, whose old man pimps for that Columbian murderer Uribe.

    Find an idiot to try to convince.


    Favoring a trade agreement .... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    ... that Uribe supports and giving some speeches is "pimping" for a murderer, now?  Really?  Well, thank goodness for Obama's courageous stand against that "Columbian murderer".  Oh, wait, .....

    .... that was back during the primary.

    Now it looks like Obama's just fine with Uribe and supporting the CFTA.  Funny, how that works ....

    BTW - Does Michele Obama's status as a board member for Treehouse Foods (a big Walmart supplier) make her a time-tested, union busting Treehouse Foods board member"?


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#183)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    MO working at the University of Chicago Hospital where part of her job was to figure out how to get poor people to go somewhere else for their care, even though the results weren't always in the best interests of the patients.

    Yes and Yes (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    and Uribe is still a murdering pos. Or do you wanna rehabilitate him too?

    I dont like the Clintons, so I HAVE to love the Obamas. Is that the only choice; the only allowable paradigm around here?

    Sorry Carville, but Im just going to have to opt out.


    You could call virtually ANY ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    ... leader of a country a murderer .... doesn't mean that Clinton or Obama is "pimping" for them by virtue of agreeing with their position on a trade agreement, or even speaking about them in generally favorable terms.

    BTW - I'm not trying to "rehabilitate" anyone, particularly in Clinton's case, ....

    .... where there's absolutely no need.


    Not "any country" (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    leads the world in murdering labor organizers -- who also happen to be citizens of that country.

    Jesus Christ, at least educate yourself a little about what goes on in the world before you toadie for these people; you'll be able to do it better.


    Guess you'll have to be more specific (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:46:27 PM EST
    Sorta need to define "murder", then you'll need to define "labor organizers".  Do you mean FARC, AUC, ELN, or some other "labor organizers".  Such an innocuous term .... "labor organizers", ... don'tcha think?

    You know what's really weird?  Uribe has heeeee-YOOOOGE approval numbers (@ 70% - due largely to his campaigns against FARC and ELN) from people who, oddly enough, also happen to be citizens of that country.  Guess most Colombians are not big fans of "labor organizers" who use conscript children as "soldiers", or their habit of kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering.

    If only these people would "educate themselves" about what goes on in their own country, huh?


    BTW (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    Who said you have to like Obama?  I just think it's funny when the ABCton-haters attack them for doing what every politician does, and overlooking the fact that Obama has done the same thing.  Actually, that's not entirely fair, since Bill Clinton has been consistent in his support of CFTA, and Hillary has been consistent in her opposition to it.  It's only Obama that conveniently changes positios after duping all the true progs who opposed it.  In any case, no one ever said you have to like Obama ...

    I used to think you got that straw in bulk.

    Now I'm starting to think you own a farm ...


    Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:20:05 PM EST
    is still alive and well.
    People still let loose with respect to Palin, for example.
    They can call her any pejorative name in the book.
    The same names formerly hurled at H. Clinton.
    Totally permitted.

    The racial equivalent of this type of invective is not permitted. Anywhere.


    Palin apologists on this site (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    She is being criticized as is Beck....when you defend her, you defend Beck....

    on this we agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    it amazes me that people on this site defend her.

    however (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    some of the criticisms of her do wax a bit sexist.
    and there is no need for that.  it is annoying and should be called out.
    she is a crazy dangerous wingnut.  criticize her for that.  god know there is plenty to work with.

    Toss out Sully (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    and focus on her positions--that should keep one busy for eons....

    When I defend her (none / 0) (#150)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    I defend her. You don't get to interchange the Republicans either.

    Do you defend Beck too? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    It's just the reflexive (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    conflation of Palin and HRC that the Thug strategists were banking on.

    Sexism (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    I'm fascinated at the palpable anger of some toward Speaker Pelosi. The more effective she becomes in seeing through/passing legislation, the more the reported disparagement grows. It certainly has the look and feel of sexism.

    this is a great point (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    she is going to be the single biggest motivator in 2010 I think.
    even more than Obama.

    a woman is doing this to us.  a woman.


    Republicans hate Democrats that (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    are successful.  They like defeated Democrats who are out of power.  

    During Impeachment, Republicans praised Carter's personal piety.....

    During the primaries, they praised Hillary, and many here thought they, including Rove, were sincere.


    please (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    the praised Hillary, who they hate only slightly less than the devil, because the knew it would help get Obama elected because the didnt think he would win.  and if the economy had not collapsed and exactly the right time he would not have.

    And it was Rush's Operation Chaos (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    trying to keep the Democrats fighting for as long as possible and taking a hit or two out of Obama along the way....

    But you seem to agree the praise was not sincere...


    I dont remember democrats (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    needing any help to fight

    Oh wow (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    the oldies but goodies.  Interesting that you failed to mention the documented OFA effort to play havoc in the primaries and caucuses as well....

    this is true (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:25:07 PM EST

    Well, I stand corrected (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    Bullsh*t (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    it may not be "permitted" at sites like this one, but it's out there plenty. Especially these days.

    But, it's obvious that you're not so much concerned about common decency and fair play as you are about winning the gold medal in the Oppression Olympics.

    Petty bourgeouis hurray-for-our-side crap.


    True, and the last discussion (3.00 / 3) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    of why Hillary supporters won't let the Primary go focused on the delegate apportionment for Florida and Michigan.  Nothing--nada, zip, zilch on sexism, which I thought was the most problematic issue.....It is fascinating in a way.

    The basis of Obama dislike changed from sexism, to the caucuses and rules being inherently unfair, to the allocation of Michigan delegates being wrong....So arcane procedure trumps all other reasons.....Not so sure about that.


    Question to MKS (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    or anyone interested in the purported divide between 2008 Hillary Clinton supporters and Barack Obama supporters. My comment: There are a lot of us who strongly support both. During the primaries, I supported then-Senator Clinton with work (responsibilities for caucus organizing, calls, visits, etc.) and with $ contributions (my husband & I were fortunate enough to be able to contribute the maximum.) I fought hard; I cried hard (and, I discovered this site.) In the general campaign, I adjusted my perspective and looked at the longterm and became a proud supporter of then-Senator Obama. By 2009, I had come to admire Secretary Clinton even more in her role as Secretary of State; and--despite some first year misses, especially in the matter of misguided "bipartisanship" with the Repubs that will have none of it, and in Treasury's Geithner--I find that President Obama has done more than ok/better than average under any first-year circumstances (and, his first year clearly had harsher challenges than most.) By 2010, I'm looking ahead...for me, looking back even in this Janus month does not change things; although the historical perspective is certainly instructive. My political inclination: registered & active Democrat since first voting more than 40 years ago; consider myself liberal with a pragmatic bent when it comes to a deal necessary to pass particular legislation; and, an advocate for health care and environmental legislation. Why the background: (1) Because where we stand <on pols and issues> often depends on where we sit. (2) Because isn't about time we all focus on where we are going in 2010, rather than where we may have been in 2008?

    look (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    I am all for moving forward.  I have done what I can to prop Obama and argue for giving him time to do several difficult things.  I cant say I am exactly "proud" to be an Obama supporter other than the pride in not supporting the "other" but I have defended him on several occasions in threads at this site.
    which brings me to the point.  
    I think if you dont, or are not forced, to remember the past you are doomed to repeat it.  it will be a cold day in hell before I let the koolaid drinkers forget what the foisted on us in 2008.

    you know, they know (none / 0) (#184)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    To Capt Howdy: They may pretend not to know how they went off the deep-end (at least, some we all know)then; but, I suspect, they really know. Two things--one pragmatic, and one a bit more altruistic. Pragmatic: To say to the "opponent," say it...say it...say it...admit you were wrong--gets you (at most) hard feelings and feeble response and fleeting "victory." Thats been my experience when I've tried "to rub someone's nose in it" (my experience more than once, I would say.) Somewhat altruistic: An indirect response here... See the movie Invictus. Forgiveness, practical approaches to dealing with those formerly on a very other side, and reconciliation in the worldly sense of the word.

    Can't gainsay anything (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    in your comment.  

    I think Hillary is obvious choice for next time around....hmmm, that means, in 2016.

    My view, although not totally responsive to your post:  When the economy turns around, so will the opinion of Obama--just as it did for Bill.  Hopefully, Obama--and the rest of us--don't suffer a repeat of 1994 to get there....


    See circa May 2008 (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    "still" questioning him when he was chosen

    Holding out hope is often just (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    a way to pass the time while you watch the world crumble around you.  Makes you feel like you're doing something when you know there isn't really anything you can do.

    In a way, that was one reason that I felt some level of contempt for the Obama campaign - I didn't need hope - I needed action.

    Yup. Some folks continue (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    to mistake activity for action...you know, travels, speeches...

    The action is all behind the scenes in closed-door meetings with corporate pals cutting those health insurance deals, saving Wall Street and banks, rescuing auto companies, etc. etc.  You know..."the most transparent presidency evah!"

    Need some jewelry or a bridge in Brooklyn...?  No need to call Sammy - I can get it for you wholesale!


    Well I was an early and outspoken (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by david mizner on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    critic of Obama (and in retrospect I had him pegged pretty well) yet I'm disappointed. Why? Because in some cases (civil liberties), he's even worse than I'd feared. And because I hoped I was wrong.

    Digby and others had great fun at Tom Hayden's expense, making fun as his tearing his Obama's bumper sticker off his car, but I think it's not only possible but natural to feel both unsurprised and disappointed. Maybe those two emotions technically contradict, but emotions are often contradictory.

    I'm not much of a critic until a need (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    to critique arises.  And then when that takes place and someone tells me to STFU, I get very very Pi$$ed.  I wish the apologists and the serious people much luck next year.  They will need it since they have burned down everything else.

    I (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    have also felt disappointment, even though I never expected anything much from Obama.

    But now, I am beginning to feel fearful.

    Frankly, he is much worse than I thought he would be.


    Maybe I'm misreading you, David (none / 0) (#16)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    but I don't think unsurprised is an emotion so I see nothing contradictory in your feelings of disappointment.  I share them.

    Expect the worst, hope for the best.  Oh, well...


    I don't ever pay for the (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    experience of expecting the worst.  I can get that for free.

    Pajamas Media (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    While a right-wing outlet, has a post up that talks about this idea too.

    Best line:

    But if we insist on applying metaphorical correlates to the object of our presumptive adoration, it might be more appropriate to regard the president as some kind of UFO -- an unidentified flying Obama. Or better yet, as the ultimate balloon boy. An entire nation breathlessly follows his flight across the political skies, fixated on his trajectory, preoccupied with his actual whereabouts and eventual destination, only to discover in the course of time that he was never really where we thought he was. He was always elsewhere. Sadly -- and this is inevitable -- we will, sooner or later, learn that we were the credulous and willing dupes of an elaborate hoax.

    Good Lord (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    It's sad to read an educated rightist viewing of my party and know that we resemble that remark.  During my sometimes nightly phone call with spouse that is monitored, I just let loose.  My husband let me go too for about ten minutes of ranting and then he said, "Okay honey, that's enough for now on this line about the guy we work for :)"

    you mean these people (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:15:31 PM EST
     AREN'T so embarrassed by the pathetic joke that THEY got behind for eight years, that they're still talking as if their thoughts about anything matter?  

    Newsflash (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    They are half the electorate, so while you may think it's cutsey to say things like "they're still talking as if their thoughts about anything matter?"  Um, yes, they do.  These people also vote, and frankly, Obama is the president of all the United States and not just the people who voted for him.  

    Of course, I guess you were silent about Bush and the Republicans all those years.


    I thought it was a bad (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    idea to reach out to Republicans....Situational criticism....

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    We should listen to constructive criticism from wherever it originates.  Now you can argue that Republicans don't offer constructive criticism 99% of the time (of course, Dems don't either when they are in the minority), but I stand by the fact that this writer made an excellent point.

    and yet (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:19:35 PM EST
    you voted for President Kumbaya......

    How's that working out for you?


    I think it will turn out well (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    Newflash (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    I think they should secede, and the ones so inclined, (Im guessing a good 50%) should be generously supplied with ammo, Good Books and lethal injection machines and sent to the settlements to await The Rapture.

    Other than that, I dont give an eff what they think.


    Now that's a surprise ;-) (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    Still waiting on (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin to move to Canada...

    Yeah (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    The liberal Hollywood elite.

    Meanwhile Sarah can unravel the stars' n bars and go camp out with the Alaska secessionists. Praise the Lord.


    as one of the ones (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    who had trouble accepting Obama and supporting his candidacy, I am deeply disappointed and yet not surprised at what has transpired...almost feels as if the right wing chose Obama behind the scenes...I know that sounds paranoid, but makes me wonder anyway...

    We are all idiots now, I guess, since (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    the cheaters seem to have what they want, and we are still trying to get what we need.

    Here's a post that I feel like I could have written myself; I'm guessing some of you could have, too.  Here's an excerpt:

    Like any good progressive, I've gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I'm fast getting to rage.


    Did this clown really say on national television that "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street"?!?!

    Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing? Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

    Are you freakin' kidding me??? What's up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don't actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter...

    But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don't really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

    Are you going to tell us that "I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex"? But what - they're just so darned pushy?

    "...I did not run for office to continue George Bush's valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It's just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky."

    "...I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It's just that they asked so nicely."

    "...I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it."

    "...I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn't want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops."

    Here's a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he's turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He's being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He's being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

    And he doesn't even seem to realize it.

    Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself "a good solid B+" for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed?

    Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?

    I think we get where he's coming from, and I think to call what a lot of people are feeling "cynicism" is to discount how far toward rage many people have traveled in the last six months or so.

    It may be only a piddling 3%, but that's still a whole lotta anger.

    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    there was quite a precedent ALREADY for that Rubin-protege, Goldman Sachs-in-the-West-Wing Democratic establishment.

    And, judging by the plethora of short-memory-inspired nostalgic paens to ninties days gone by often encountered here, it's fairly reasonable to assume Obama & co would see no major reasons NOT to give us the same goods.


    Yeah, and my twenties were pretty (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    fantastic, and if you get me going, I can get myself all giddy over those good times, but the thing is, I'm not in my twenties anymore; in August, I celebrated what I like to call "the 35th anniversary of my 21st birthday."

    I moved on from the seventies.  Got married, had kids, got a real job, built a house - all of it.  It's been, like it usually is for everyone, a mix of highs and lows and ups and downs.  I like to think I've been able to learn as I go, that I haven't ensured that my kids will need long-term therapy, and since I'm still married to the guy I walked down the aisle with almost 30 years ago, I think I know a little bit about give and take, compromise and all that other good stuff.  He's a Republican, too, so I think I've done my part for bipartisanship.

    My point is that we are all living in the now, not the past - even if we think the past would be more fun now than it actually was then.

    We have an Obama presidency now, and regardless of whether one was or was not seduced by the rhetoric (I was not), did or did not vote for him (I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain), thought he represented a new day in politics and government (I did not), the fact that we are all human and not animatronic droids means we could still have some expectation that a new president and a Democratic-majority Congress would see some much-needed changes to what Bush had wrought.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I wanted to be wrong about Obama.  I wanted to be pointed and laughed at for not believing.  I'm disappointed that I'm disappointed - I wanted to be surprised and shocked that I had him pegged all wrong.

    There are always lessons to be learned from history, but we have to live in the time we're in, which is what I think most people here are doing.  


    On another thread (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    it was stated--to much agreement--that many here always thought Obama was horrible and now their suspicions have been confirmed.....

    That struck me as a perfect statement in some ways.....Many here thought it was right on the money....I too thought it was a very interesting statement....People's pre-existing views were confirmed....

    Some are genuinely disappointed--I have supported a more agressive stance on health care and the brandishing and perhaps using of reconciliation....

    Others were always aching for a chance to criticize...

    What is truly interesting is that many here who laud Bill as the Great Progressive and Obama as the Great Failure, forget just how unProgressive Bill was.  He executed Ricky Ray Rector.  He pushed NAFTA.  He signed Welfare Reform.  He said the "Era of Big Government is Over"--is that not a repudation of the New Deal or at least Progressive Politics?--as it was intended to communicate.  But the Clintons are held up as the ideal Progressives....


    I'm not holding Bill Clinton up as a (5.00 / 13) (#89)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    beacon of progressive perfection, and I'm not looking to live in the past, either, only to learn from it and apply those lessons in positive ways to where we are now.

    I think Obama has to stand on his own merits, his own record - and it is this belief that caused many of us to look beyond the rhetoric and the sales job before he was elected, and we did not see enough "there" there to warrant our votes; it had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.  Did it have anything to do with Hillary - well, of course it did - she was a primary candidate, too.  And many of us who supported her did not start out in her camp - some of us had her at the bottom of our lists, and ended up coming over to her side the old-fashioned way: research - we did our homework, we looked at the record.

    I know people who supported Obama felt they did their due diligence, as well, so as is often the case, we saw different things, we weighed the pros and cons differently, we voted differently.  A big factor for me was the unconscionable way in which the DNC conducted itself, revealing that it was quite willing to cheat people out of their votes in order to advance the chances of their preferred candidate.  The misogyny that Obama never rejected, and in fact participated in, was a deal-breaker.  These were revelations about character, MKS, and while Hillary Clinton is not squeaky clean, her record, her work ethic, her devotion to dinner-table issues, to children and the have-nots far outweighed the blemishes she might have had.

    I hate the false logic that puts Clinton on one end of a spectrum and Obama at the other; they are not that far apart on the spectrum, but the difference is one of leadership, of being able to know an issue inside-out and backwards, of work ethic, of being willing to risk being reviled for taking a position one believes is right - and leading as many people to that position in order to make it happen.

    I didn't see these qualities in Barack Obama, and that's why I feared that where we are right now is exactly where he would take us.  As I've said, there is no joy in that for me - I would much prefer to have been proved wrong about him than right, because it simply is not in my interest to be right.

    There's very little gloating on the left about all of this, and if that's what you're reading, I think it's worth remembering that we're all just putting words on a page, and they tend to take on the tone and meaning of the person reading them, and not always the person writing them.  


    You state your position well (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    I give them a high level of credibilty because your positions on crime and drugs are consistent with a liberal or progressive point of view--one of the premises of this site.

    I am was quite disillusioned to read a number of regular commentators here take a positively atavistic attitude towards crime--they can and do criticize Obama at length over Gitmo (for not closing it sooner) and military tribunals (for having any) and FISA, yet have no trouble banging the law and order drum and throwing away the key for even nonviolent felons--if only they were at Gitmo, they would merit better consideration.    

    I am convinced that you are not gloating.  Not so with others here whose only purpose is to trash Obamma. Commentators here, not me, are constantly referring obliquely, and at an increasing rate directly, to the Primary.....It is that--not other issues that tend to creep into every comment.

    Also, I do agree that Hillary and Obama have positions that are very close to one another--and that that has always been the case.  Yet, you may want to consider that your primary concern about Obama was his character.  That seems an amorphous catchall that can be refuge for all kinds of preconceptions--eye of the beholder.


    Her concerns about .... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    ... Obama's character weem to be an "amorphous catchall that can be refuge for all kinds of preconceptions"?

    Like what "preconceptions", ..... exactly?


    Mmm.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    I was a lot better off during the 90's.  So were most people I know.  Peace, prosperity, low unemployment, poverty down, respect around the world - yeah, who'd want to go back to that?

    A veritable Golden Age (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    with most of the same mad-for-deregulation Wall St A-Team players hovering around the President the same way they are these days.

    Also, if "poverty was down", it wasnt down by much: most of the studies I've seen indicate that 80% of workers wages stagnated to adjusted-for-inflation early seventies levels in the ninties.


    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Most of us were still much better off.  I can't speak for anyone else, but my wages were higher -and that was before I went back and got another degree.  But my costs have sure risen.  The housing market was better.

    And again - that peace and prosperity thing was going on....


    Of what peace do you speak?... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    yeah, we weren't violently occupying two countries like we are now...but we had bombing runs over Iraq, the NATO bombings of Serbia...and the big war on our own people called the "war on drugs" chewing people up and spitting them out at new record highs.

    you say this (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    yeah, we weren't violently occupying two countries like we are now

    like its a small thing


    No small thing... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    point taken...Bombs over Baghdad is no small thing either though, which is why I dislike the revisionist history of Clinton as some great peacemaker...he was a military/prison industrial complex guy too when push came to shove...just like the rest, not at all special.

    Man (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:37:04 AM EST
    the apologia and blame shifting never ends does it? Take responsiblity for having an empty suit that lied to you and move on please.

    It's a nice post Anne (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by smott on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    ... and I guess I could have written it too...but I stopped reading this guy in 2008. He was pretty vile towards the CLintons and I'd had it up to here with the WWTSBQ thing...

    I knew/know nothing about Mr. Green, (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    but was just struck by his recitation of thoughts I have had myself.

    If he was another Clinton-hater - there were so many, and impossible to identify all of them - he was flying under my radar.

    I used to comment regularly on Steve Benen's old blog, before he inherited the Washington Monthly from Kevin Drum, and it was impossible to counter all the Clinton hate and rank misogyny in the comments there.  I took up for Clinton then, feeling that someone needed to bring a little bit of truth and fact to the discussion, and that's really how I ended up supporting her - the more I learned, the deeper I dug, the more qualified she became in my eyes.

    With Obama, the deeper you dig, the faster you get to nothing, and that was part and parcel of why I didn't think he was qualified to be president.

    As for Mr. Green, there's nothing timid about his 180 on Obama, but I notice there's also no regret that Clinton wasn't the one who got the nomination instead.  Telling, that, I think.


    Your experience (none / 0) (#161)
    by smott on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    ...mirrors mine, Anne.
    Started out OK with Obama, a little hesitant on CLinton thinking she would dredge up hate and divisiveness (guess I was right there!  But who knew it would be amongst the Dems??)

    But as with you, the closer I looked at Obama the emptier he got.

    If Green started expressing regret about his vileness towards (both) CLintons I might take a look again, but these days I don't have the energy. I really haven't recovered from 2008. It's hard when you realize how many of those you thought were on your side, simply hate you because of your gender.


    I disagree with this (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    Re: Bankers--it had to be done.  TARP was essential to preventing us from going over the cliff economically.  And, B of A has repaid the money as will Citi and Wells....The Great Depression taught us you have to have a functioning banking system....

    The fat-cat bankers, well, the reason B of A repaid the money is that the execs did not want to have their compensation limited by federal regulations--which Obama was imposing ....

    The current dominant theme about national security is whether the underwear bomber should be tried in civilian court or tortured.....Obama will try him in Federal court and Obama has vowed not to torture anyone--no mean feats....especially given the latest Ras polls showing supermajorities of the Americam people want the underwear bomber waterboarded and tried by a military tribunal.

    And, what about Sotomayor?  That's not chump change.  I did have some misgivings about her given her law and order background--but she was never all that charged up about prosecuting misdemeanors, and will be a sold liberal vote.

    Afghanistan--he was clear about this during the campaign....And, no one here knows for sure exactly how this will turn out....

    Health Insurance Reform.....Rockefeller's changes may make this a workable bill.  Insurance companies regulated as to procedures and profitability--on the road to utility status....    


    Idiots or sages? (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    I do not believe that most people are either idiots or sages. There is a lot of territory in-between...as in most situations.

    I have to wonder (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by standingup on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    if there aren't some insiders feeling suckered too. Paul Volcker and Greg Craig are two that come to mind.

    No Chit! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    I'm actually pretty satisfied (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    the President's done an above average but not exempelary job, he's basically been Bill Clinton 2.0(this time with personal discipline), which is a bit disappointing but ultimately not horrible, Congress and the President has produced a decent Healthcare bill that for all its shortcomings is better than anything that's passed in more than 4 decades, he's done some significant things in terms of Gitmo and Torture (though now it appears that releasing people could be a mistake), he's drawn down in Iraq, stemmed the bleeding economically, returned science to science education and funding, nominated a Supreme Court Justice, started the process of carbon regulation (with virtually no help from the Senate), actually respects federalism with regards to Medical Marijuana, improved the situation (but not allieviated it entirely) with regards to federal lobbyists, and most recently removed the ban on Visa's to HIV+ individuals. All in all a "B" or so.

    Gitmo and torture... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by trillian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    The cynical side of me knows (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    campaign promises themselves are not worth anything. My eyes glaze over at the 'laundry list' part of anyone's speeches. After all, anyone has to work with the Congress they have, etc. I don't even blame them for not being able to fulfill promises. I think they are silly for making them, but I understand it is part of the game.

    But I do feel suckered when I have been led to believe they believe in the same principles I do, and then it turns out they don't. On issues such as FISA, civil rights, unwinnable wars, and holding past government lawbreakers accountable I believe Obama's PR machine distorted the strength of his principles. The difference between him and Clinton in those cases was advertised by him as the difference between him, the young idealist change agent, and her, the establishment accommodater, and to some extent I believed that, but supported her because I thought she was smarter, tougher, more competent and able to actually accomplish things. When he was nominated instead, I supported him against McCain because I believed that at heart he had the same principles I did.

    So yes, I do feel suckered for believing that. And no one is more cynical than a sucker that's been had.

    obama generates cognitive dissonance (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pluege on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    (by design). His flowery oratory misleads people into believing he is speaking progressive when he is not. Like a republican, he lets people interpret his words to be what they want to hear. His deeds, and the fine print in his speeches tell a completely different story than his imagery.

    Its not completely people's fault they feel betrayed even when they knew better about obama. obama's misdirection is sophisticated. That said:

    a) 'let the buyer beware' always rules
    b) the real alternatives were barely different so progressives were always going to be frustrated.

    the epic opportunity of 2008 was exhausted breaking the racial barrier. The opportunity costs are 1) real progressive policies and 2) breaking the gender barrier. Hopefully, breaking the gender barrier won't take another 30 years of disastrous plutocratic rule. Another opportunity for real progressive policies, unfortunately is going to take a whole lot more suffering and plutocratic plundering of the sweat of average Americans.

    Youngsters (4.50 / 4) (#59)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    he's basically been Bill Clinton 2.0(this time with personal discipline

    You and he BOTH wish. You must not have been alive during the Clinton presidency. Anyone who was, can tell you it was fantastic, and not just for the rich. Was Clinton perfect? Find me a politician who is. But overall, for the country and for the Democratic party (assuming that party still matters to you--it doesn't to me, although it sure as hell did during the Clinton presidency), Clinton stands head and shoulders above any president, from any party, of the past three decades.

     There's a reason Clinton's popularity remained high throughout both his terms, including during the vicious impeachment proceedings.

     Oh, and that "personal discipline" sneer? Straight out of the Newt Gingrich/Joe Lieberman playbook. Your parents must be so proud.


    Fool me once,.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:53:19 PM EST
    The euphoria of a Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency has quickly dissipated.  As such, you could call me a "paranoid conspiracy theorist".  
    Put another way, let's see who the suckers are come election time.

    No need to wait.. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    for the next election Denny...we need only look at 30 years or more of past elections to say that 95-99% of the people who vote are suckers.

    Yeah, keeping promises (none / 0) (#5)
    by robotalk on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    is for suckers.  Defrauding people, that's the ticket. If this is what Obama and his people believe in, then they should say it.  Otherwise, they should keep their promises.

    What's worse than a woman scorned?  Anyone whose trust has been violated.  

    They won't be seeing any of my money (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    in 2010.  My money will be going to gutsy intelligent bloggers who speak for and fight for me.  Sell outs and apologists need not apply, this is not a welfare program I'm running here and I expect people to work for their living.

    The post-partisan unity shtick (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    was not a shtick.  That's the most surprising thing so far, because I thought the shtick was too dumb to last this long.

    But it hasn't lasted. (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by dk on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    He's not being post-partisan unity.  He's pushing the Democratic party to the right.  That's something else entirely.

    You think that's different? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    Given how far to the right the GOP currently are and how unflinching they are in the face of adversity, for me, "post partisan unity" meant a shift to the right in the Democratic Party.  Analysing what that actually meant in practice, it was clear that there was no other possible outcome than a shift rightward.

    I actually do think it's different. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dk on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    I think post-partisan unity meant working with republicans.  In fact, he actually is not working with republicans.  The lousy healthcare bill is going to pass without one republican vote.  It will, however, involve Democrats in both houses of congress voting to line the pockets of healthcare executives, and relegate women of childbearing age to second class status.  And that's just healthcare.  Democrats are also going to fund a pointless war, continue down the road of restricting civil liberties, etc.

    Just because none of them will (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    vote for the bill doesn't mean he isn't working with them.  In fact, he has done everything except invite them to write the bill.

    Also, very important, it takes two to tango.  Which brings me back to my original comment where I noted that this GOP is extreme in their views and stalwart about sticking to them no matter what.  Therefore, if you signal that you are willing to work with people like that, then you have basically said that you are willing to cede your ground.


    I just don't agree. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by dk on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    These are not Republican bills.  They are Democratic bills.  This is the direction that Obama, the party leader, is leading the Democratic party toward.  

    Do you think I don't agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    that Obama is taking us rightward?  Because I do.  That's how I read his post partisan unity push - as his push rightward.

    More like the Democratic party (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    is GOING to the right.

    And there are no "leaders" willing to put their butts on the line to redress that.

    He's an elected chief executive, not Francisco Franco.


    I don't agree. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dk on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    He's the leader of the party.  It's the job he wanted.  He bears responsibility.  

    Small consolation (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    for us all who feel as you do. Shall we sit on our hands in protest in 2010?

    Nope, .... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:43:16 PM EST
    ... doesn't sound that way at all.

    Interesting choice of words, though.