The Pre-Blame


There is going to be a lot of blame slung around next week, regardless of how these midterms play out. I know the administration owns a lot of the blame. But people can only control what they do. And too many progressive opinion leaders have spent the last year sniping and complaining when all the signs were there that the left was in the fight of its life with a new brand of vicious reactionary homophobic xenophobic racist politics. Why they chose to focus so much on our own shortcomings and not too much on the threat we have been facing, I will never know.

A week to go and Booman is focusing on the pre-blame? Shame, Booman! Let's GOTV! Fight! Fight! Fight! (Or whatever the "magic words" for acceptable election "focus" are.) What silliness.

Speaking for me only

< Are You Elite? | HAMP'd >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, technically, the left was sniping at what (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:15:11 PM EST
    was/is non-left self-defeating behavior. Corporatist healthcare "reform", corporatists mortgage "relief", corporatist Wall Street "reform", etc.

    The fight for their lives that we have here is largely if not entirely the creation of the conservadems and their supporters. It's that agenda that the GOP and moneyed interests - along with their useful idiots, the teabaggers - are railing against with increasing verbal and physical violence. The establishment Dems only aggravate the problem by insisting - with media help - that their corporatist agenda is indistinguishable from true progressivism; it is that mischaracterization that the real liberals are "sniping and complaining" against.

    But you can't trust insiders like Booman to concede that point. After all why admit one is butt-naked when there are still benefits from supporting the emperor?

    It'll make for a turbulent next two years. Obama has already conceded - not that anyone should've expected otherwise - that he's planning on governing like a centrist Republican.

    conceded? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    he has been positively working for a republican congress.

    I'm so disappointed in this President (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    AGAIN after reading his interview with the five bloggers and what he had to say about DADT.  Does he fight for anything?  Does he care about anything?  Does he own his own complicity in anything?  I wanted to throw the damned laptop into the street and run it over a couple of times, BUT TRULY....none of this is the laptop's fault.  It is our President's fault though.  He wants Congress to agree on everything so his a$$ never feels even a slightly uncomfortable breeze or is ever hanging out there for one second.  Man I'm so mad.  The dude is just flat pathetic.  If his own soldiers were as gutless as their commander in chief we wouldn't even be able to protect ourselves from anything...only surrender.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:47:22 PM EST
    when his own Justice Department is, for reasons of principle I can understand though I don't much like them, is vigorously contesting in court the idea that DADT is unconstitutional, it's a little much to expect the pres. to announce that he thinks it's unconstitutional.

    That said, you'd think he could have thought through a less incoherent answer to this inevitable question.  Maybe something along the lines of, "I'm committed to putting an end to it, but the question of constitutionality is before the courts now and we'll have to wait to see how they rule."

    There, that wasn't all that hard.


    There is no good reason for Justice to (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:47:00 AM EST
    appeal this DADT ruling. They are not required by any law to appeal any court ruling. The decision to appeal has nothing to do with principle, misguided or otherwise. It is a political decision made by the administration.

    Obama has consistently refused to use the tools available to him as President to end this inexcusable policy. If the Pentagon report comes back claiming that ending DADT is just too hard in this time of war, I fully expect Obama to shrug his shoulders, claim he is the best "fierce advocate" the LGBT community has ever seen, and insist we all stop "whining". After all, this isn't Canada or Great Britain or The Netherlands or any of those other countries that so inconsiderately made it look easy.


    You know what I heard? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    I understand that you are gay.  It is too bad that you are a second class citizen, but seriously...you can plug along as is, you've done it up to this point and you aren't dead yet.  Maybe someday you can be first class but for now because we can't get everyone to agree that you are human beings, you will be second class and that's okay.  Blaming me because you are miserable just isn't fair either and we are doing aheckofajob in White House and isn't that great?  As a woman and how he sold my rights out, I don't want to hear what he has to say about that.  I'm certain I'd freak the hell out and throw plates at the T.V.

    Either gay people are first class (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:48:38 AM EST
    citizens or they are second class citizens.  Justice is arguing that it is okay that we make some people second class citizens. I think DADT is Unconstitutional and if this President doesn't I don't think I want him for my President anymore.  I can't work with that, I really can't stand it. I never thought I would ever live to see the day during this age when a Democrat President would go that far in dehumanizing and degrading a whole section of our population and simply be that oblivious and unfeeling and uncaring.

    I know (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    It is just the sweetest of sweet teas and the goodest of good ole boys.

    It seems (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    to me kind of ironic that Booman is complaining about people fighting for issues but yet is complaining that people aren't fighting for Obama who is against the said issues apparently.

    Does Booman have an idea why women are going to show up? Or lots of other groups will probably be sitting out this election? I mean you roll people under the bus and you expect them to crawl out and vote for you? Really kind of silly and clueless in my opinion.

    That (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    should be women are not going to show up.

    The Suffragists fought for my right to vote (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by honora on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    I will be voting. Those civil rights heroes did not suffer persecution on my behalf in vain.  Of course, the Democrats may not be happy about how I vote once I wiggle my way out from under that bus.

    for example (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    So, the "choice" in Colorado (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:35:23 PM EST
    Maybe we are an outlier, but for gays in Colorado...I don't think the voting choice will be Ken Buck. Same for a number of women with moderate or liberal views...from Buck's high-heels remark to his "prosecutorial discretion" in a certain rape case to his repetition about opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest, he did more than throw women under the bus. So, given that this most costly race is at a draw today, the combo of the two groupd just mentioned may well be what sways the election in favor of Michael Bennet.
    A NYTimes evaluation indicates that Bennet appears to be running the smartest campaign this year in view of the cards he has been dealt on the national scene. Fascinating, topsy-turvy local races in Colorado this year.

    third choice (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    stay home

    it's not 2012 (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    Obama's not even on the ballot.

    There are a lot of issues at stake.  Often local issues that have nothing to do with federal politics.

    For me personally, my congressman is a shoe-in.  And he's an anti-choice conservadem.  I might write-in someone else.

    But I'm sure as hell not gonna sit back and let Republicans try to take over the state house.  Or vote to remove low-income housing.  Or eliminate sales-tax and with it my job.  Or take over the treasury.  Etc... etc...

    There are a lot of issues at stake.  Obama is not one of them.


    People are really upset (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:34:07 PM EST
    What can be done?  You going to drive up to each house and remove them at gunpoint and force them to the polls?  And this is about Obama, it is a referendum on him and his administration.  And you have independents so angry about where the tax dollars went and who is being saved in all the legislation that has been passed due to the economic crisis that now they are going to vote in people claiming they are shutting down the spending.  If main street had been the focus though, I don't for one minute think we would be facing this horror.

    And umemployment benefits (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    running out for many after extension to 99 weeks total.  DOes not seem to be a movement afoot among Dems to extend further given jobs crisis. So for whom are the unemployed gonna vote?

    Yes, but if you aren't voting (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    for Dems right now you are stupid and not informed.  Nothing like being kicked and kicked and kicked and then told you are stupid for not walking it all off and getting your tail in gear to go vote for some more getting kicked.

    More importantly (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    where the hell are the unemployed going to live and how are they going to feed themselves?

    I can't even imagine how you survive on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, but what happens to these people when it finally does run out?  THERE ARE NO JOBS.


    No I'm not gonna (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CST on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    force anyone at gunpoint to vote.

    But I will work to get out the vote.  And I won't be shy about talking about why, and what the consequences are.  If that means I'm guilt tripping/berating/sellout so be it.

    I understand that people are angry.  I understand why people are angry.  But sitting at home b*tching about it, or voting to make the pain worse is not going to fix anything.

    If people want to burn this house of horrors to the ground that's their perogative.  It's not mine.  And I'm not gonna sit down and shut up about it either because people disagree with me.  (That's not directed at you btw - but it seems to be a theme in this thread).


    nor am I (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:32:21 PM EST
    nor was I suggesting that as a tactic.  I am simply pointing out that LOTS of people will stay home.

    And, lets see... (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    You know who wins then, and so does the "voter" who opts out.

    "You have nowhere else to go" (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    That's so 2008......

    Nope...its not just 2008 (2.00 / 1) (#152)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    Sometimes people can't or won't hear what others want to say. Beans in the ears, maybe? Its simple: Vote or don't complain. That is the way of the world. People either participate or they don't. If someone wants to marginalize themselves in a snit, hey that is what that person will do...as the world passes by. So sad for you.

    There's a part of me that is (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    rather enjoying seeing you lose some of your oh-so-polite-and-eminently-reasonable veneer; there's even a little snide beginning to show.

    When I would take my kids with me to vote every election, I used to say - and they can probably repeat this verbatim they heard it so often - "voting is the responsibility we have for the privilege of living in a free society."  And I believe that, and wish more people would take that right and that responsibility seriously; voting gives you a stake in the country's future that you don't realize you have until you participate in the process.

    But, "vote or don't complain?"  I don't think so, christine.  You might as well say that if someone doesn't vote, they don't have to be governed by the people who are elected in a process they didn't participate in, that they have no right to benefit by the laws that are passed because they weren't part of the process.

    Voting is a personal right, and you don't know whether the person complaining about the state of the country did or did not vote, and, more important, you don't have the right to know whether someone did or did not vote; it's simply none of your business.

    What escapes your notice - perhaps because you have your nose so high up in the air that you are unable to see properly - is that many who do vote, who have voted in every election since they were able, feel - with good reason - that their vote did not protect them from being marginalized by the candidates they went to the time and trouble to vote for.  That in spite of their phone calls and e-mails and faxes, their concerns were fobbed off with canned responses - if they even got any response at all.  That, in spite of the numbers that suggested a majority of the people wanted one thing or another, their representatives ignored them in favor of those with more money.

    You seem to have plenty of irritation for those who have reached the limit of their patience with legislators who haven't performed up to their promises or delivered the representation they promised - and endless patience and excuses for why it's just so, so hard to take anytihng but the babiest of baby steps in the big, bad halls of power.

    Well, all I can say to that is, thanks for proving you're as full of sh!t as I always suspected you were.


    Good lord (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    We wanted to correct our shortcomings in order to confront the threat, Booman. How else does he suggest confronting the threat? I guess by "whining" about it, rather than pressing our own issues?

    Fight! Fight! Fight! (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    And I stole this from Robert Reich.org

    Oddly, though, after Republicans suffer losses in the first midterms they pay no attention to voices telling them to move to the center. If anything, Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes moved further right.

    Could it be that Republican presidents understand a few things Democrats don't? For example:

    1. There is no "center" to American politics. The "center" is merely what most people tell pollsters they think or want at any given time. Trying to move to the center by following polls means giving up on leadership because you can't lead people to where they already are.

    Dubya was voted back in in 2004 by 51% and he claimed that he had a mandate.  And I'm tired of pu$$ies!

    Calling the other side (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    practicioners of
    vicious reactionary homophobic xenophobic racist politics

    is not very post-partisan of him. Weren't most of us calling for exactly such truthtelling a long time ago, instead of trying to make deals with these people?

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    Too bad we weren't listened to and the Broders of the world were.

    okay (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    One of my favorite back-at-ya kind of things was to say after an argument or difference of opinion--and after the passage of time "proved me right"--the "I told you so" mantra. At one point, my dad said: "So...you were right" and looked at me. Oh, and for anyone married a long time, that rejoinder is fairly familiar...but, for anyone married a long time, each partner does learn sooner or later not to hold the grievance too long. Because nursing grudges get us where?

    Hey, Ga6thDem, I agree with what you are saying. Cannot stand Broder and his puffed-up cohorts. That is neither here nor there. The vote is next week. It makes a difference in an obvious number of individual races. In those races, the Democratic intraparty differences pale. Take Colorado: In other years, arguably the differences between the two party candidates were mild to moderate...but, the field here in 2010 resembles another planet or zone. It is hard enough to think of a Senator Buck (6 years) and it is even harder to think of Buck multiplied by Angle, Miller, Paul, Johnson, etc. That is more than theory, than hard feelings, than the always present intr-party battles.  

    An old saying of which I am particularly fond: "Don't burn down the barn to kill the rat."
    We might not like or appreciate Booman; and, he clearly has little regard for Progressives. But, isn't that a sideshow? Truce among Dems until after the election? Then, we can get back to the philosophical debate...or get into that Repub wannabe-Senator Linda McMahon's wrestling ring.


    Problem with your analogy: the rat now (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    owns the barn since he yelled at the owner enough to give it him. And the rat is still yelling at the owner that he wants the house now.

    In regards to conservadems, it's probably worth burning down the barn if it kills off the rats so that they don't go infest other barns. After all, we can always rebuild the barn.

    Better analogy: battered spouse. Being right, even if one never says anything, invariably leads to more beatings, not resolution. We have a thug within the four walls of the American home, and his name is the American conservative movement.


    S t r e t c h i n g (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:59:36 PM EST
    What's the prob? O + Ds said I wasn't needed (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ellie on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:32:02 AM EST
    ... (nor certain other traditional Dem voters) for the magical trifecta they required to do exactly what they intended.

    It's so pathetic to hear the latest Obama and leadership complaints that us rotten, repeatedly exiled scapegoats are ruining the floggings to improve morale by not lining up for the scheduled whuppings.


    sounds like the ole' nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, myah! (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:54:42 PM EST
    I'm all for local voting and voting for the candidates that you really like which apparently you have some good ones in Co. I am showing up to vote but here in GA voting against the incumbent means voting against these jokers in the GOP. If we didn't have a gubernatorial candidate like Roy Barnes I probably wouldn't be showing up to vote. In fact I already voted.

    When I talk about the dems losing in November it's country wide and it's because they failed to deliver and they have no one to blame but themselves in that respect just like the GOP had no one to blame but themselves for investing in an idiot like W.


    Appreciate the clarification,, Ga6thDem (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:04:38 AM EST
    And, I'm glad that you voted early. 'Promise to listen even more now that I know you care enough to vote.

    You are not entitled to demand voter justification (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Ellie on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:54:29 AM EST
    Or otherwise pester likely, unlikely or dormant votership with demands for explanations, as you and other Obama image-protectors can't seem to stop doing.

    I hope that clarification is appreciated, because for all the windy rhetoric about democracy you're blowing around here, the sanctity of the private vote is the one you keep forgetting.


    In this country, Ellie, I am entitled to urge (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    that people vote...and exercise a citizenship right, a fundamental right, that millions of people around the world desire.  Sorry for your bitterness.

    Check the batts on your psychic antennae (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ellie on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    Because they're not working. Regardless of what the mothership is signaling, your pathologizing is, as usual, pathetic, but nice try deflecting your bad behavior.

    GOTV all you want, but don't demand explanations for votes -- past, present or future -- as you and your pals on the Psychic Friends Network who coincidentally drop by to high five you habitually do.


    You are quite over the top (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    What else can one say to a personal, angry diatribe!

    Well, he still is all for making deals with them (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    Because according to Booman that is the only way that anything can be done.

    With Obama (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    it's not even cutting deals so much as preemptive surrender. The minute the GOP yells at him, he caves and does what they want. Can you imagine if the GOP wins the house and shut down the government, how Obama will behave? It will be so easy to give them what they want and I'm sure that's what he will do because it's the path of least resistance and that's the one that Obama always seems to take.

    Heck, the GOP yells at him, and he then asks (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    what do they want.

    Literally, if one takes too much (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    of Booman to heart you could end up in a warm bath opening a vein :)

    Booman settles cheaply (none / 0) (#132)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:51:38 PM EST
    He'll accept mealy mouthed management instead of demanding leadership.

    My biggest hope is that unabashed (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by magster on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    liberals win in so-called swing districts and states while the Blue Dogs get their a**es handed to them, thereby forever dispelling the myth that Democrats have to be like Republicans to get elected.  Go Grayson, Feingold, Boxer etc!

    Second biggest hope is that the most insane of the insane lose: Angle, Paul, Miller, Buck.

    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    that the left was in the fight of its life with a new brand of vicious reactionary homophobic xenophobic racist politics.

    I don't think the left was in the fight of its life about this.  What direct relationship does the left have to the tea party?

    You can look at TPM which for the past two years has basically been a website with one message - "look at them - they're crazy!"  How effective has that been?

    Is the sole purpose of progressives to attack the right?  Can progressives ever fight for something?

    I've been wanting to support for example my rep Mike McIntyre more strongly because he's going up against a complete @sshole, Pantano.  But everytime I'm tempted to pick up the phone he puts out some xenophobic thing about English as an official language or our borders.  He's a Blue Dog.  Blue Dogs contribute to the homophobic, xenophobic environment (although he's not as bad as some).

    The actual left might come out of this looking good.  As you and digby have said, this could be a chance to send a message to the Dem Party.  

    there is an old saying (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    "people never get registered to vote "for" something.  they WILL always get registered to vote "against" something.

    this year is a very good example of that.


    Only when there's nothing to vote for. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    That's the cynical "choice".  In 2008, we saw people voting for Obama - they believed and I've never seen so many people personally excited to vote for a candidate in my lifetime.  I didn't entirely get the enchantment with him, but my view was that it was a good thing as long as he didn't disappoint - he has and that level of positive intensity has transformed into various iterations of unhappiness and resentment.  The harder they come, the harder they fall...

    Anyway, the Democrats have basically screwed up their chances of conjuring up that level of excitement again in the near future - and on some level I don't really think that they really liked having such an enthusiastic lot watching them closely and wanting to be involved.  A lot of these elected officials don't really want to deal with voters ever and try to keep their exposure down to a minimum - like the last two weeks of a campaign cycle.


    voting for Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    and what did that get us?

    less cynical answer (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    yes they did vote "for" Obama.  that is part of the tragic irony.  many of those people are now more disillusioned than ever.

    Of course, that's why I said, (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:31:30 PM EST
    "The harder they come, the harder they fall."

    I watched that campaign and thought almost constantly that they better not abuse that trust and enthusiasm - and that's why I say that the Democrats will not be able to reengage the public again in that way for a long time - they've screwed this up big time.

    And as you said, it isn't about what they've done - it is about the fact that they didn't even choose to make a strong effort to do better.  That's how we find ourselves just two years after Obama's election looking at real anger, antipathy and cynicism - some of which has been successfully co-opted by the opposition to advance some extremely pernicious objectives.

    BTW, I've never been a big Obama fan.  Just a long-time - lifetime - Democrat who "hoped" that all of my instincts about him and how he was chosen were wrong.  I am not happy to have correctly called this one - not happy at all.  Would much rather have had the Obama Administration knock my socks off by proving themselves to be tough, inspired and passionate enough to have at least curried favor and trust amongst the public that would have made this election a piece of cake for the Dems - regardless of their poor work product.  Would have been even happier with a few pieces of legislation that were bold and smart taken up when Obama couldn't lose in the early days.  But that's all water under the bridge now.


    It's almost embarrassing (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    how Obama has so totally fulfilled what we Obama skeptics predicted.

    I'm really kind of baffled that what seemed to glaringly obvious to some of us was literally invisible to so many others-- pols like Pelosi (who I imagine cursing a blue streak these days about him after dark in the safety of the marital bed!) and famous pundits, as well as some of us rank-and-file types.


    The sociological theory: Rising Expectations (none / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    I dont think so (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    most people are smart enough to know what is and is not possible.  what I am talking about is his turning his back on ever single issue he ran his campaign on.

    Our local League of Women voters (none / 0) (#103)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:09:32 PM EST
    went to the college campuses around here to present the local ballot measures in a pro and con format in 2008.  (We are non partisan so don't do candidate rallys, although we do have forums for local candidates who debate each other).   Students were invited extensively to the ballot programs which are considerable here in california. I'd say we were lucky to get 6-8 students.  On the other hand, all of the sqealing girls arrived as we were packing up to announce that they were putting on an OBAMA smackdown. They filled the student union rooms.  It was so much rah!rah! and for what? Axelrod and his ilk were so clever.  

    Take heart. Feingold got only (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    about that many students to turn out at my campus last week.

    Of course, it was at 7:30 a.m.  Those sorts of students you describe still were fast asleep for hours to come -- that is, unless they were just heading home on the Walk of Shame in the same fashions worn to the bars the night before. . . .

    He returns at the end of this week in the late afternoon.  Y'know, lunchtime.  So we'll see.


    They're CRAZY, while we're merely BONKERS (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ellie on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    And nothing stays the same but me.

    It's at the core of what's Insane!(Nosferatu's Nina with the Dandy Warhols, still crazy after all these years and just in time for Halloween.)


    The best way to fight bad policy (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    is with good policy; the best way to look good isn't to make the other guy look worse, but to, you know, actually be and do better in ways that matter in the lives of real people.

    The Dems can screech all they want about how bad the GOP is, but if the Dems aren't making good things happen when they have the power, they will always lose the votes of people who won't reward them for their utter mediocrity, even if they aren't willing to vote for the other guy.  The Dems simply don't seem to understand that the response to what now seems to be a constant refrain of "Republicans are crazy, they will do bad things, life will be worse!" is - "yeah, okay, but what have YOU done for me, how have YOU made my life better?"

    If I have to live with the results of any political party's governance, you can bet I'm going to complain when the quality of that governance negatively affects me or my family, and when the party I claim to belong to is the one that has the opportunity and the ability to do more and do better, and chooses to half-ass their way through it, I'm going to speak up about it.

    It's not my job to (1) protect the tender feelings of Democrats or (2) keep them off the unemployment line if they aren't doing their jobs.

    Booman seems to have an excuse for every day of the week; I guess there's no limit to how low some people's standards and expectations can go, but when you expect little, that's what you get.

    Anne you said it as well as Bill Clinton.... and (none / 0) (#101)
    by mogal on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:58:39 PM EST
     in fewer words.

    A simple concept that is overlooked (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    by our corporate owned political parties.

    Good policies that work to enhance the lives of real people are good politics that keep politicians in office.

    Of course, the problem lies in the fact that the policies that are good for people conflict with what the corporations demand.  


    "New"?!?! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    ... all the signs were there that the left was in the fight of its life with a new brand of vicious reactionary homophobic xenophobic racist politics.


    How old is Booman?

    Psst.. the racism was the new part. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by observed on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    In Booman's mind? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:46:46 PM EST

    New? New since when? (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:00:31 AM EST
    Since Booman left the cradle (none / 0) (#159)
    by observed on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 08:45:21 AM EST
    3 years ago.

    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    I am afraid of is if Republicans are going to make this as a victory over the progress GLBTs have been making, and try to turn back the clock.  That would be awful, to put it mildly.

    If you want to lay the blame: (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by robotalk on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 08:34:00 PM EST
    Blame it here:  The democrats have no idea who they are or what they stand for.  Booman only contributes to this ignorance.

    Deep Thought (2.25 / 4) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    Many of the anti-Dem/Obama posts here point to the enthusiasm that brought Obama into office and the ridiculously high hopes and expectations that accompanied his election.  If you recognize that, isn't it obvious that there was no way in h*ll he was going to be able to satisfy even half of everyone's expectations?

    Some in this very thread acknowledge that expectations were stratospheric but then call him a failure for not meeting those unrealistic expectations . . .

    . . . in 20 months in office . . .

    . . . in the middle of The Great Recession . . .

    . . . and two wars . . .

    . . .  and FoxNews Dominance . . .

    . . . and the rise of a completely obstructionist opposition party . . .

    . . . and the Tea Party . . .

     . . . and being a black guy named Hussein who is a gay, homophobic, jive talking, elite, uneducated, muslim, black christian nationalist, illuminati loving, women hating, crackhead and probably wasn't even born in this country.

    C'mon people.

    The progressives are supposed to be the smart ones.  I used to make fun of the Nascar types and I'm reading people seriously saying that the important thing about this election is sending a message to the democrats.


    you (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    are pretty much saying that he wasn't up to the job in the first place then I guess.

    I am saying (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    No mortal man or woman could have done everything that some are demanding he do to be considered worthy of support.

    His task was impossible. I knew that. Lots of people knew that. They've just forgotten now that things are tough. And make no mistake, this is the low point of his presidency I think.

    But it's a low point for the country (morally, economically, etc.). The Ground Zero Mosque mess was about the worst I've felt about the country in a long time.

    We should be intensifying our fight instead of attacking each other.

    In my world, every progressive blog or other person of note would be focused on attacking the GOP.  We can continue the fight of whether Obama is Ronald Reagan later.


    I think you (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    are overplaying what people expected of him. The problem is that he made promises to people and they believed him. The most clear cut example is he promised to end DADT and has actually had his administration go to court to defend it. It's not people expected him to be superhuman though if they did that his fault and the fault of his campaign because they practically promised miracles and some people bought that hook line and sinker and now are disillusioned especially young voters.

    Save your lectures for Obama. When Obama actually fights for something let me know. When the leader practices preemptive surrender to the opposition it's really hard to get the troops motivated you know?


    Your monikor suits your comments, that's for (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    certain.  Please, get some help with that anger.  And remember that Obama declared himself the hope and change candidate and that he would be able to transcend all of the nonsense that was going to get thrown at him.  Many of us doubted that and said so.  So, don't blame us. Put the blame squarely where it belongs - on Obama.  He is his own problem.  

    My name was created (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    during the primaries when I read PUMA blogs making the same stereotypical comments about Obama that have been used to bash black men for centuries in this country.

    I am over that and am actually quite happy with life generally.

    But during this period, I'm angry. No doubt.  The GOP is telling us what they are going to do and we're pretending like it's no big deal.

    I blame no one for that other than the person who refused to vote against their madness. Obama isn't following you into the voting booth and Obama isn't up for election.


    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    Obama agrees with them so what's the big deal? He's the one that's constantly trying to woo the GOP and he's the one that's been giving the impression that the GOP is superior in every way by his behavior. He even agrees with them about Reagan. The only reason the GOP is going to bad for the county is that Obama is such a wimp that he'll give them everything they want if he says he doesn't agree.

    No, Obama isn't up for election this time but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    this election is certainly a referendum on his performance.

    Do you support that (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    concept? That we should elect congressional leaders based on our opinions of the president.  That something as important as a vote should be placed, not based on advocating for a policy going forward, but because you want to send a message.

    In short, of course people are using this as a referendum, but shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to convince them not to?


    See Anne's post #60. She very eloquently (none / 0) (#66)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    gives you the answer to that question.

    It's not that he didn't meet his expectations (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by magster on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    it's that he didn't really seem to try.  

    As Yoda once said: "Empty campaign promises and hippie=punching do not a happy Democratic voting base make"


    "Nascar types"? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    So Dems who decide the party and/or their specific Democratic candidates don't deserve their vote are now "Nascar types"???  Is this synonymous with what you say are those who believe there is a "black guy named Hussein who is a gay, homophobic, jive talking, elite, uneducated, muslim, black christian nationalist, illuminati loving, women hating, crackhead and probably wasn't even born in this country."

    Nice job lumping that all together, but if you really believe that, perhaps it's the "Nascar types" who should be laughing at you.


    Wonder where those high hopes came from (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Romberry on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:53:34 PM EST

    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. - Barack Obama

    Regardless of who set the unreasonable expectations, the problem is NOT that Obama is or has been moving too slowly. The problem is that on many issues, he hasn't even bothered to fight, and worse, on many issues he has actively been going the wrong way.


    This IMO is the problem (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    on many issues he has actively been going the wrong way.

    All the blame cannot be put on Obama either. We had Democratic Senators and Democratic Representatives who helped shaped and voted for his agenda. So if people are not happy with the results and vote them out of office, the Dems have no one else to blame but themselves. Don't really want to hear about but...but... the Republicans. The Dems had a period where they had 60 seats in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House to pass good legislation if they had chosen to do so.


    In fact, it had been my hope (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    that the Democratic Congress would push Obama left when he started veering to the right, that they would assert their independent ability to craft legislation in much more progressive ways, and defy Obama to veto it.

    But, no...that's not what happened.  And when I saw that instead of pushing back, they were going to march in lockstep, it was crushing; I knew that the possibility that we could take advantage of the opportunity we had was not just evaporating, but morphing into this unacceptable Republican-lite and not-so-lite mess that wasn't going to benefit anyone but those who already reap the most benefits.

    Disappointment all the way around, and it's hard to justify sending them back to disppoint some more; if they're not going to work for us when they have the power, maybe the only thing left is that they would fight back against attempts to pass Republican legislation if they don't have the power.

    Yeah, right.  Dems don't fight - they accomodate, conciliate and triangulate - and Obama's so enamored of being on the good side of Republicans that he's not going to push back, either.

    Welcome to life between a rock and a hard place.


    Strange ... your posts are so clear, ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:27:44 PM EST
    ... and yet others seem to feel the need to "translate" them.

    I wonder why that is ...


    Projection? (none / 0) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    * the unconscious transfer of one's own desires or emotions to another

    LOL (2.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Politalkix on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    What Anne meant

    (1) She is disappointed that the Democrats did not fight on women's issues as much as she wanted, so the only thing left is to elect Republicans who will not allow abortion even for incest and rape victims and hope Democrats fight back against such Republican legislation (not that she has much faith in the ability of Democrats to fight back)

    (2) She is disappointed that the Obama administration gave us HAMP and not HOLC, so the only thing left is to elect Republicans who will
    take great satisfaction in removing all impediments to foreclosures but also voting against extension of unemployment benefits.

    (3) She is disappointed that the Obama administration did not exercise as much muscle as she would have liked in closing Guantanamo, so the only thing left to do is elect Republicans who motivate their base with talk of making the Guantanamo prison experience harsher for its inmates.


    What Politicalkix meant (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    Is that Pk completely agrees with pre-blame and is trying to assuage guilt over getting creamed next week because it couldn't be more clear that coming on a liberal site and mocking potential voters is a vewy, vewy bad idea likely to backfire.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Politalkix on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    (1) I do not agree with blame, pre-game, etc. I do not work that way. This is a time for GOTV. If the results turn out to be as bad as you are imagining it will be, I am confident that I will take it in stoic fashion and move on.
    (2) I do not believe that the people who I spar with on this blog are "potential voters". I really do not! However, I do think that you are insulting them by implying that my "mocking" or schmoozing is going to have any effect on the way they vote because I have heard each one of them say that they are only concerned about "issues".

    What? No "LOL"? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 08:08:12 AM EST
    Funny, how people aren't nearly as amused when someone returns the favor by speaking for them ...

    I have been quite clear, in many (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 07:59:23 AM EST
    comments I have posted, that I am not voting for Republicans, but for some reason, you - and a few others - seem to think that if someone is not voting for Democrats, his or her ONLY choice is to vote Republican.  

    Somewhere in this very thread, I stated that I was not voting GOP - and I additionally said that in my state's gubernatorial election, I am most definitely voting for the incumbent Democrat.

    So, guess that blows your translation all to hell and back, doesn't it?

    Well, you did get the what-I'm disappointed-about part right - but the only thing that makes you is master of the obvious, considering I've been quite clear about just what I am disappointed about.  But you have never read any comment of mine in which I stated I was going to protest vote for Republicans, or where I have urged anyone to do so.  In fact, I have stated on more than a few occasions that across-the-board refusals to vote for Democratic incumbents don't make sense if the incumbent is performing well; I may be disappointed with the end results coming out of the Congress, but that doesn't mean there aren't members of the House and Senate who are at least trying to do the right thing.

    I do question why people think returning mediocre Dems to office will raise the quality of their representation, and I think that's a valid question that could do with some serious discussion, but in the end, each person's vote belongs to him or her - just as mine belongs to me.  

    And if all of this isn't clear, if you really think that what I write is so hazy that it requires you - someone who doesn't even know me - to supply a translation, I'd have to conclude that there's a possibility you might have a comprehension problem.


    Please reply to comments (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:36:54 PM EST
    Your comment has nothing to do with me and what I have written for the past 3 years.

    BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    You are absolutely correct.

    I disagree with you on a number of things but I think you've been pretty fair in your criticisms and also in keeping the correct perspective on the big picture.

    Your message of "fight, fight, fight" is exactly what we need.

    My conservative friends detest the Tea Party candidates, but they see the big picture and they are lining up to tow the party line because they fear Obama and the dems more than anything.

    We need to have that same sort of fear in our eyes, we don't and it's maddening. Some blame Obama but Obama isn't shutting your ears off when the opposition is talking about doing away with birthright citizenship or eliminating social security or any of the other madness they are seriously proposing.

    We should be the ones with the eye of the tiger given that craziness.


    if the distinction (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    had been drawn more clearly, say ever since the health care debate, perhaps more people would be in a fight fight fight mood.

    at this point its hard to get really motivated to fight fight fight for more dithering, compromise and betrayal.


    Who established the Debt and Deficit (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    Commission (i.e. Cat Food Commission) after it failed to reach cloture in the Senate? Who stacked the commission with people who are on the record  wanting to cut or privatize Social Security? If the Republican are able dismantle Social Security it is because Obama willingly provided them with the vehicle and the bipartisan support to do so.

    One of the few things that the Democratic Party stood together to defeat the Republicans on was in their effort to gut Social Security. Obama will be able to succeed where Bush failed.  


    Thanks for reminding me (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    about one of Obama's many egregious betrayals.  If SS and other so-called entitlements go, I WILL blame Obama.  He opened the door.

    As for blaming the voters early (to beat the rush)
    I'm tired of these lectures from ABM and christine.
    I'm not turning the other cheek so Obama can slap the sh*t out of it.  


    I think you are right (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    we should be afraid of the crazy Tea Party folks.  I think they're insane.  There are two issues for me though:

    1.  We were probably going to lose seats anyway.  In order to lose fewer seats, the Dems needed to define themselves.  Instead they allowed themselves to be defined.  They wouldn't even vote on the Bush tax cuts.  If we're talking about the "Tea Party is crazy" Jon Stewart, Colbert, lots of people have been saying this for a while.  But our actual politicians kind of refuse to call them out on being crazy and that sets the national mood more than anything.  Basically, god helps those who help themselves, and the Dems have been such a political disaster on that front midterms wise that it's exasperating.

    2.  What is the strategy for defeating the Party of No?  Even with the majorities we had, it really weighed down the legislative process.  I don't think that we've found a solution for the Party of No yet.  Collins and Snowe weren't going to cross the aisle forever and they've stopped doing so.  Things are going to get really difficult, but they're already difficult, and the nature of that difficulty is the same.  There needs to be some way to combat the Party of No idea.  And that strategy hasn't emerged to date.

    To: Dr Molly (2.00 / 0) (#160)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    'Just want you to know that your attentiveness to my comments are always appreciated. Open-minded?

    I didn't throw any woman under a bus (1.67 / 6) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    and neither did any Dem I know.  Take out your frustration that Hillary lost legitimately on a punching bag or something.

    There is more at stake than your frustration with a ridiculously small portion of democratic leaders and voters.  There are lives (healthcare), family disasters (unemployment), civil rights (LGBT issues) and foreign policies at stake.

    Or maybe all of that pales in comparison to your ability to say "Gotcha" to the mythical democrats who wronged the world by not anointing hillary when she demanded it or giving us every progressive policy we wanted.

    When the real world hits on January 1, the "protest vote" is going to look ridiculous.

    Wake up.

    2008 is two years ago. People need progressives (even moderate progressives like Obama) in power as opposed to the alternative.

    The big picture is clear.

    You need to use the reply button (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:12:27 PM EST
    Or, if in fact, you are replying to my post, my reaction is WTF does your comment have to do with my post?

    My apologies BTD (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    I did not understand how the threads on this site work.

    Apologies while I learn the ropes.


    "Reply" seems (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    a rather obvious instruction, no?

    And btw, lose the Hillary fixation, will you? It only embarrasses you.


    Threads work the same (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:14:46 AM EST
    as they did two years ago when, as you say, you were writing about PUMA on progressive blogs -- including this one.

    Good goddess, but you're fixated (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    on someone that -- did I miss this? do point to it -- not mentioned by anyone else.

    Gotta thing for white, post-menopausal women, huh?


    good grief. (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    This has everything to do with Obama's preemptive surrender to Bart Stupak when he DIDN'T even need the vote and nothing to do with Hillary. That's why women are sitting it out. It's Obama's own behavior that is turning women off and not anything else.

    You want women to act like abused wives who keep coming back for more. Well, you know what? there's plenty of women who are sick of this and it's showing in the polls apparently.


    and this (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    is the likely result.


    "After the election, there will likely be eight to 10 fewer women lawmakers."


    yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    and I also read that Obama was abandoning women in favor of blue dog men. How is that helping?

    I have no idea what you're talking about (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    For one thing.

    For another, where did I say anything about Obama?  I'm talking about women sitting out of the election.  An election where women candidates are likely to get creamed.  How is that helping?


    From (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    Huffington Post:

    Reps. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), Carol Shea-Porter (D-Fla.), Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), and Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) found their re-election contests shunned. So too did Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), though earlier in the cycle the DCCC spent roughly $20,000 attacking her opponent

    So Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    is in charge of the DCCC now?

    Could have fooled me.

    I don't doubt he has influence.  I highly doubt he makes every decision about how and where to spend money.

    In any event, at the end of the day it is ultimately up to the voters.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    but I'm sure that he has a big influence on them because they are acting just like he would IMO.

    I do agree that it is up to the voters in the end. I'm just telling you that there are a ton of reasons that women might really not care so much about keeping a democratic majority when the democratic majority really hasn't done much for them. Obama has had almost two years to give us policies to reward him for but he has chosen to throw women under the bus. Too bad he's just now noticing at this late date that he needs the women voters.


    I realize that (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    it's infuriating because right now it's not Obama who needs women voters.

    It's women who need women voters.


    I know (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    and I am voting for a woman here in Ga for Lt. Gov. But I think that this the only one on the ballot for me.

    I can understand why a lot of women won't be showing up though.


    And, what about healthcare? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:45:44 PM EST
    Because there are no caps on what the insurance cos. can charge, rates have risen to the stratosphere this year; because of the way healthcare "reform" is written, in order to avoid covering kids with pre-existing conditions, many insurance cos. are dropping child coverage altogether and, in certain states, families with children have no where to go for coverage.  

    LOL Go take some chill pills, dude! (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:21:12 PM EST
    We all know how you feel about Hillary.  We don't need to be told what this election is about, what happened in the last election, or what is going to happen after this election.  Capice?  

    You would save yourself a lot (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    of typing if you just typed the word Hillary or Clinton in all your posts.

    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    who's even talking about Hillary other than you?  And you're only doing it to deflect the real, legitimate and fact-based reasons why people are unhappy with Obama and unhappy with Democrats.  And for the life of me, I don't understand how you expect the Dems' problems to get fixed if you aren't willing to be honest about what they are, and stop accepting an increasingly lower standard for the quality of our representation.

    I hate to break it to you, but most of us are WIDE awake - and a good portion of the country has begun to rouse itself from stupor - probably thanks to an economy that isn't getting better for them, and the realization that the "sweeping reform of health care" not only isn't helping them, but has gotten more expensive and less inclusive - is looking at the choices before them and realizing that in many instances, those choices are six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    I'm not voting for any Republicans, of that I am certain.  I am voting for the Democratic candidate for governor in my state because as the current governor, he's done a pretty good job and we've already lived life under his Republican opponent's governance and I don't want to go back there.  

    You're right about one thing: 2008 was two years ago.  And we are on nothing that resembles a clear path in furtherance of a true Democratic agenda - and that's a problem for a lot of Democrats, myself included - and no indication that's likely to change.

    And this has NOTHING to do with Hillary, nothing.  And the more you insist on invoking her as the reason why people are not happy, the more you keep laying the dissatisfaction off to latent racism or FoxNewsNation, or whatever the excuse-of-the-day is, the less credibility will be accorded pretty much everything you say.

    Obama ran for this job - he took a lot of money from a lot of people, made himself out to be The One who could lead us out of the darkness, and his inability to deliver on people's expectations is on him - it's not on the expectations.  

    Him.  He's the president.  And he had the ability to corral the Democratic caucus in both houses of Congress to work for a truly progressive agenda instead of one that had a lot of weak legislation with deceptive titles.  That's what LEADERS do - they lead.

    Absent real leadership, we are getting a big muddle of mush and mediocrity - and many of us aren't inclined to keep rewarding that with our votes - the only way we can express how we feel about the jobs these people are doing.


    Well said Anne ! (none / 0) (#105)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:15:29 PM EST
    It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this election loss.

    You're "over it"? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    Or maybe all of that pales in comparison to your ability to say "Gotcha" to the mythical democrats who wronged the world by not anointing hillary when she demanded it or giving us every progressive policy we wanted.

    Uh, ... yeah.

    Riiiiiiight ....


    While I feel that the sentence (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    about Hillary was gratuitous (read: beside-the-point and unrelated), I very much agree with the remainder of your comment, ABG. The wake-up call coming loudly or blaringly next week will be heard over and over--worse than a snooze alarm--when the new Congress meets.

    I'm not into self-fulfilling prophecies, so my attention span during the final stage of this election season tends to look toward the next steps--while leaving angst about the past alone for now. (Plenty of time to talk philosophy later; but then, if we are formally playing defense, the philosophy discussion will be deferred until the next majority...I guess.)

    Oh, to the raters who gave ABG a "1": Did I misunderstand the rating system? Are "1"s in order when ABG or any of us speak our mind, freely and on the issue with language no more vehement/strong/passionate than a number of others here? Or, is the tent smaller now?


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    Obama sees nothing wrong with these crazies because after all he's been talking bipartisanship continuously so maybe the people are just taking Obama's advice.

    Obama is the one who gets a wake (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by observed on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    up call.
    Personally, I don't get the point of blaming private citizens for the incipient failure of the Democratic party. Look, if the Dems lose, it's NOT the fault of the disgruntled Dem voters---its the fault of the party leadership which disgruntled them!

    Why the GOP will win (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:20:02 PM EST
    I think people honestly believe that the possible GOP wave that's coming is the result of angry dems. The polling numbers (and the early voting numbers) indicate that that is not the case.

    Dem voters are voting in numbers that would be expected in a normal election (i.e. the idea that huge chunks of the base are not voting is wrong).

    We will lose because the GOP is OVER-achieving. In part because they are furious at Obama for not being conservative enough.

    Much of my frustration comes from what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the numbers say is happening.

    If the numbers are accurate, Obama isn't necessarily to blame. The Foxnews/Tea Party/sarah barricuda BS parade has just been really, really effective.

    They've got their base scared as hell and ready to shut the borders, close all mosques, send Obama back to Africa and amend the constitution to keep the evil from eating their kids and puppies.

    They've just out spun us. If you want to blame Obama for something, blame him for that. Not being a conservative.


    Obama needs to take the blame for lack of (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    leadership.  Period.  People are staying home and not voting because why vote for someone who isn't going to fight for you?  Many of the Obama supporters are disillusioned.  I have friends who supported him who are life-long Democrats but today they don't even want to talk about him except to talk trash about how he hood-winked them into voting for him because he was going to do all of these great things blah blah blah.  He has not performed to his personally promised expectations so people are not energized, they feel demoralized instead.  That is the reason the Democrats are going to lose big next Tuesday.  

    jinx (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    Well, as long as Obama's not (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by observed on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    to blame.... first things first.

    I would actually agree with most of that (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    also I still do not believe the tsunami predictions and still cling to the hope we will keep the house (however thin it is becoming).

    as for you last sentence:

    They've just out spun us.

    THIS is what I blame Obama for.  he has the megaphone and he has sat on it for two years.  things are starting to trickle out about why that is.  but is is mostly about arrogance and over confidence.  under estimating the opposition and over estimating himself and his appeal.  from health care to repealing DADT we are in desperate need of some LEADERSHIP


    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    I think people honestly believe that the possible GOP wave that's coming is the result of angry dems. The polling numbers (and the early voting numbers) indicate that that is not the case.

    Dem voters are voting in numbers that would be expected in a normal election (i.e. the idea that huge chunks of the base are not voting is wrong).

    We will lose because the GOP is OVER-achieving. In part because they are furious at Obama for not being conservative enough.

    Much of my frustration comes from what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the numbers say is happening.

    If the numbers are accurate, Obama isn't necessarily to blame. The Foxnews/Tea Party/sarah barricuda BS parade has just been really, really effective.

    What "numbers" are you talking about?  In reality, Democratic participation in this year's primaries has fallen to a record low, leaving overall voter turnout at the second lowest level ever for a midterm election.

    But nice try.


    No, they're not. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:28:47 PM EST
    The GOP isn't angry with Obama because he isn't conservative enough. They are angry because he isn't a Republican. If this was about Obama's conservative credentials, his problems would be very small.

    The GOP hates it when they don't control everything. They don't care about policy. They care about POWER. Obama has bent over backwards to push for policies that are right out of the GOP playbook. They don't care.

    Obama's failure to grasp this very basic point and to act accordingly by dumping the ridiculous PPUS is what got the Dems to this point.


    And their messages (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:52:23 PM EST
    have power because the Dem leadership response is lame and the record on the economy uncaring about the average Joe.    

    Sorry, but the spin excuse doesn't hold water (none / 0) (#82)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    With control of the WH and huge majorities in both houses, the path that was taken has alienated just about everyone.  

    Latest polls show Independents turning against the Dems at approximately the 70% rate.  That's not hard core GOP people but the very same people that delivered all three branches to your party.

    Spending is a major issue with many.  In that regard the Dem congress (with appropriation control since Jan 1, 2007) has set themselves up for the traditional tax and spend label.  Pelosi promised in Jan 2007 - no new deficit spending.  She gets somewhat of a pass due to the financial crisis but not enough of a pass to cover the entire tab.

    The fact is the Dems squandered their golden opportunity, especially considering the size of their majorities.


    Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    don't care about spending. We've seen that time and again. They rail against it but then they spend, spend, spend. It's not about spending with the GOP. Just be honest and say that the GOP doesn't like what it is spent in. You better believe that if every penny of the deficit was spent on some neocon fantasy in the middle east, they would not be crying one tear or complaining one iota. I mean how much money was squandered in Iraq with the GOP sitting by silently?

    not to mention (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    It was G.W.B. who passed TARP.

    Everyone seems to forget that...


    TARP sucked but was a must do play (none / 0) (#90)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    It was only at Obama's request that Bush granted the second half to be authorized.  How it was subsequently executed is something you cannot pin on him or the right.

    subsequently executed (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    you mean the fact that it only ended up costing 1/10th the original value?  And we might even get that back?

    So TARP was a must-do but the Stimulus and spending money to create jobs and save states was not?

    Or is it the GM bail-out that wasn't necessary?

    I'm confused as to what spending = necessary and what spending = evil Dem overreach.


    You need to read the SIGTARP report (none / 0) (#94)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    before claiming that 1/10 number and/or that it was a success.  

    The way the GM bankruptcy was handled was an over reach.  The financials are a mess and we will never recoup those monies.  The upcoming IPO will flop making for both a financial and political embarrassment.

    The supposed 3 million stimulus jobs is pure smoke and mirrors.  The "saved or created" meme, right out of the chute was a clear indication of the BS to come.  Now we have the "I didn't know there was no such thing as shovel ready projects" excuse.  Even if we meet half way to agree some stimulus should have happened, the way it was put together was wrong.  Too many political pay offs and not enough true stimulus.


    I never said (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    "success".  And even if you add $40 billion from the AIG mess it's still not close to 700 billion.

    Oh and btw. it was GWB who gave AIG all that money.

    Again there is a huge double standard.  GM bankruptcy was an overreach.  AIG/Bank bailout necessary.  Heaven forbid we write someone a check and try to influence how it's spent.  I wonder what category (necessary vs. overreach) the Patriot Act is in...

    Then there is the Stimulus.  All that wasted money in tax cuts, state funding, infrastructure funding (yes it does actually exist).  I admit some of it was probably mis-spent.  But apparently money spent dropping bombs is a-ok.

    Political pay-offs.... Like giving an exclusive contract to Haliburton?

    GOP hypocracy on spending, government power, political deals, etc... would be astounding if it weren't so predictable.


    It is not just the AIG monies (none / 0) (#110)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    It is also the Freddie and Fannie never ending pit that was initiated via TARP then continued by Treasury under the auspices of TARP.  Treasury's "new" spending under TARP stopped on Oct 2nd this year.  SIGTARP says, we won't see the money returned from all the ancillary TARP spending.

    As to AIG, do the research on Mr. Geithner's role in how much AIG received before trying to lay that all on GWB.

    The GM bankruptcy violated the long established laws regarding secured vs unsecured creditors.  Go ask some of those union and civil service pension funds who held secured bonds and were forced to take ten cents on the dollar when unsecured, politically motivated groups received 100% on the dollar.   You still are not addressing the pending failed IPO and that $60B hangover.

    Your Haliburton boogy man is a strawman - check into Clinton's no-bid contract awards to Haliburton then get back to me.


    Can't agree but will say that many many of (none / 0) (#89)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    us on the right were thoroughly peeved with the actions of the R majorities from 2000 - 2006.  Same with the Bush proposed Medicare D spending.  As much as we did not want to lose those majorities, we felt they needed the loses in 2006 - we were feeling and acting in similar fashion towards them as what those here on the left are feeling now towards yours.

    too bad (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    you didn't feel that way in 2004.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    but they continued to vote for them didn't they? Medicare part D was passed before 2004 right? And they still voted for him in record numbers so sorry I don't buy the GOP bunk. There have been two presidents in the last 50 years or so that have passed balanced budgets but of which the GOP abhors-Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower (because he was  gasp!!! liberal republican).

    The GOP is about three things: Being the high priest of voodoo economics, gay marriage and abortion. That is what we saw and it doesn't matter what they say. They had six years to do something and they did nothing to make this country better. In fact they started it swirling down the drain.


    It passed in 2003 and went into effect in 2006 (none / 0) (#95)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    Kerry was not an option and there aren't enough Rs to have one that election on our own.  

    You didn't have to (3.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    nominate the joker did you? The GOP was 100% behind George W. Bush and they have to take responsibility for that just like the Dems have to take responsibility for Obama.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    blaming John Kerry for voting for Bush doesn't cut it with me. There were plenty of other options out there for you to vote for: the constitution party for one. You voted FOR Bush. Take responsibility for your choice and live with it. For all the yammering about spending, you still voted for Bush so like most conservatives and republicans you really don't have any credibility on this issue.

    The GOP is really good at trying to blame everybody else for what they do and it's tiresome.


    I said I didn't like his Medicare part D (none / 0) (#108)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    I will not apologize for voting for GWB, both times.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    then don't whine about the spending then. You didn't have a problem with it with Bush so like I said you don't have any credibility on that issue.

    I didn't say apologize I said take some responsibility. You are just as responsible for the debt as anyone else by rewarding Bush for his wasteful ways.


    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    Dubya just flat threw money away, and when he wasn't driving down the street throwing it out the window he was shipping pallets of it baled up and sent to Iraq where it just disappeared into thin air.

    Small problem: "moderate progessive" (none / 0) (#81)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    Since progressivism is already premised on smart decisions arrived at reasonably, "moderate" can only mean less smart and less reasonable.

    Which really means not progressive at all. Which Obama is not. He's thoroughly corporatist.

    Frankly, the "protest vote" against corporatist goverance has been made to look ridiculous since shortly after January 20, 2009.


    Are you sloganeering? (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    Are you stalking? (4.00 / 3) (#144)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 06:43:53 AM EST
    If you don't want people... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    ...to respond to what you post, refrain from commenting.  Otherwise, knock off the poor victim crap.

    I'll do my pre-gaming at an Irish pub. (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:18:19 PM EST

    Word n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:53:13 PM EST

    What was the campaign slogan? (none / 0) (#21)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    Vote for Dems--we suck less!

    Just because it is uninspiring (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    doesn't make it false.

    And just because it isn't false... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    doesn't make it inspiring. Fighting progressive/liberal battles win or lose would have been inspiring. Win, and the base is motivated to fight for more. Lose, and the base is motivated to fight the other side. Sell-out, and who gives a darn?

    My prediction for most horrid result imaginable: (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    Governor Tancredo.

    Hickenlooper disavowed negative advertising in a race where Tancredo's only hope is that no one remembers what he's all about.

    My nightmare too (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    Oooh! South Africa (none / 0) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 12:01:45 AM EST
    is one "exotic" location I'd just love to see.  Many people say it's the most beautiful country in the world.