The Villagers Are Different


The WaPo's Steven Pearlstein tells me on MSNBC that the American people shouldn't expect Washington to be able to do anything about jobs because it's the result of "imbalances" that have to be "worked out" and it's going to take time and people just need to be patient and take their medicine. (Mrs Alan Greenspan agreed and added this hysteria over jobs in congress is all just politics in the wake of Massachusetts.)

Those are excellent observations from successful political celebrities who have jobs and are among the wealthiest Americans who can afford to "ride out" the slump. For most people, who aren't any of those things, not so much.

At least they didn't say "let them eat cake!" The strangest thing is these folks think they understand "real" Americans.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Charlie Sheen to be Charged With Felony | iPhone May Get Live TV Via 3G >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "think they understand. . . (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    . . "real" Americans"

    do you think the REALLY believe this.
    its hard to imagine even they are that clueless.  I can imagine them all with a round of drinks later laughing their a$$es off at the stupid rubes they pose to "understand".
    sometimes their contempt comes through the filters.
    like the other day on MSNBC when they were explaining how Obama needed to talk in sound bites because that is all we can understand.

    they don't just think they understand (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    these spoiled celebutators think they know BETTER than "real Americans".

    that is more to the point (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    I remember during the impeachment nightmare thinking that Cokie Roberts head would literally explode if we did not all start  hating Clinton as much as she did.

    In the book "Fools for Scandal" (none / 0) (#22)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    and later "Hunting of the President" Gene Lyons describes the haughty Washington insiders and their belief that Washington and the government is "theirs".  Hating Carter first and then Clinton was all about their territory being sullied by the common folk.  I can just see people like Ezra Klein coming to Washington and suddenly becoming part of the "club." Suddenly  it is "his" village.

    exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    the hatred of the Clintons to this day from the villagers stems from the fact that they did not deserve to be where they were/are.

    they were rubes.  not part of the club.  even tho they both had the scholastic background they did not have the "blood"

    i.e. Clintons mother wore big fake eyelashes and went to the track.


    It wasn't simply the Clintons they disdained (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    It was the people who put them into office. The struggling lower middle class, working class women, minority and union voters who made up the most loyal Clinton constiuencies. The Villagers' judgement of Clinton as a dishonest panderer was based on their judgement of the people who voted for him -- constituencies that are, in their system of value, to be politically manipulated and used, not listened to or served.

    They don't think they understand ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    "real" Americans. They think they are the most real of Americans. They are successful, wealthy and celebrated-- embodiments of the so-called American dream-- and therefore the legitimate objects of imitation and aspiration for all lesser Americans.

    Those comments are reminiscent - (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    at least in tone - of the famous remarks from Barbara Bush, touring the Astrodome after Katrina:

    "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."

    The "Washington can't do anything about jobs" is just so much Republican-style blather; they never think the government capable of anything until it comes time for tax cuts and sweetheart deals that benefit them - then we have to hear about how this is the only way to rev up the economy.

    I should also thank you for reminding me why I no longer watch networks like MSNBC or listen to the political stylings of the likes of Andrea Mitchell and Steven Pearlstein: they make my head hurt and my teeth ache.

    Speaking of Katrina (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    I'd like to propose that the first major federally-funded new jobs/infrastructure project be the rebuilding of the levees off New Orleans to the height and fortitude required to stave off the effects of category 5 hurricanes.  As I understand it, the levees may have been "fortified" but still will not prevent catastrophic flooding in the event of another high voltage hurricane.  I hear Peter, Paul and Mary singing, "...when will they ever learn..."

    Why are Medicare and Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    "entitlements?"  Seems to me a portion of my paycheck has been going for them for some thirty odd years now.

    We need to reclaim that word (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    as we are "entitled" to our "investment", imo. Either that, or give me back my 30yrs worth of "contributions" as I certainly didn't intend it as "donations".

    entitlement (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    The term in actuality isn't bad.

    Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights or by agreement through law.

    You only think it means something bad because of the Republicans tend to sneer when they say it like it is some sort of welfare plan instead of a safety net for elderly. (which works well since it keeps 1 in 5 elderly from poverty)


    Just tell me (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    how many Republicans return the checks.

    Of course they don't (none / 0) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    They'd just rather not have to contribute to the hoi poi's well being to begin with. I mean why do we need social security? Can't we all just live off the trust funds our mommies and daddies left us in their estates(tax free)? Furthermore, if you weren't lucky enough to be born into an estate than you should be working 80 hours a week at a minimum of two jobs?: It's what God wants dontcha know.

    No. It is not a "safety net" (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    for the elderly. Medicare and Social Security are paid for benefits, just as the monthly annuity I get from an investment is as well as the pension checks from other companies and stock dividends.

    Medicaid and welfare are entitlements and are safety nets. And no one I know is against them as a general rule. Various discussions re who/why various people are qualified have existed for years.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    it IS a safety net. Just because you pay into something doesn't make it any less of a net.

    As I pointed out it keeps 1 in 5 of our elderly population from poverty.


    To me the broader context (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    is that "safety net" means something that someone else has provided to catch the individual. Such as a fireman's net.

    A reverse example is SocSec. You can have paid into it for all your life and if it is all you have for retirement then it is not a "safety net" because it alone won't do the job.


    It still is in that sense (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    Each generation of working folk is paying for the generation BEFORE them with the understanding that when they grow old the net will be there for them.

    In order to collect unemployment you have requirements(must work a specific amount of time and what you collect is based on income that you collected) and I still consider that a safety net.

    I do understand what you are saying though. The idea that someone collects social security isn't considered a stigma because it is a benefit most elderly collect. As opposed to Medicaid or welfare which only the poor collect.


    I think we are more or less (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:59:17 PM EST
    on the same page.

    But before you can collect social security you must have paid in, or be a survivor of someone who paid in. (We often forget that it is as insurance that makes it different from other investments.)


    "There are no moderate Democrats" (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:40:33 PM EST
    It's been my experience that people who make statements like that taglines at their websites, more often than not line up with with the extremists who would do away all safety nets. But no one YOU know thinks that, of course.

    Do you often use (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 11:03:28 PM EST
    partial quotes in an effort to show how unfair and unbalanced you are?



    Oh, you didnt mean (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 11:57:00 PM EST
    there are no moderate Democrats?

    "Let them eat cake." (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:56:35 PM EST
    Not particularly germane to the point being made by using that "quote" in this thread, but kinda interesting nonetheless I think:
    Although commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,[1] there is no record of these words ever having been uttered by her; they first appear in The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, his putative autobiographical work (completed in 1769, when Marie Antoinette was 13), where he wrote the following in Book 6:

    Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

    Finally I recalled the last resort of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: "Let them eat brioche."

    When I visited Shakerville in western (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    Mass. long ago I learned what cake really was.  When the old ovens were heated for baking, the oven floor was prepared with a thick paste of flour and water which was spread out on the bottom of the oven. This helped distribute the heat.  When the paste was hard and baked through, it was peeled off and broken into chunks whereupon it was given to the beggars at the door.  This was the "cake" our ancestors fed to the poor.

    rappelai ... répondit (none / 0) (#18)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    Ah, the passé simple. I remember tussling with my high-school French teacher about why we couldn't use it in conversation. I was all for it, because we use it all the time in English.

    Later, when I learned some Spanish, a friend criticized me for using the imperfect so much. I told him that's how they do it in French.


    to Demi Moaned (none / 0) (#44)
    by noholib on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    But ah, the challenge of the passé composé and the 16 être verbs! And all the different tenses you could put the auxiliary verbs in.  Not to mention the fun of the subjunctive!  

    I know a subjunctive when I see one (none / 0) (#57)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    ... but I never used it much in conversation. OTOH, I've found that using the conditional past is the fast-track to getting cred with native speakers.

    good tip (none / 0) (#58)
    by noholib on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    about the conditional past!
    The subjunctive is certainly useful more for reading than speaking.  I have found though that learning about the subjunctive in other languages has attuned me to using it sometimes in English.   I have always found learning other languages great fun; the added benefit is that learning the grammar of other languages can  help make one more aware of the specific features of one's own language.  

    German vs. French subjunctives (none / 0) (#61)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 09:32:13 PM EST
    ... learning about the subjunctive in other languages has attuned me to using it sometimes in English.

    Also my experience when the other language was German. The German subjunctive functions pretty closely to ours.

    In Romance languages they use the subjunctive for things that we don't, like indirect commands (e.g., I want you to reply to this message).


    language is fun (none / 0) (#64)
    by noholib on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    Politics is what draws me to this blog, but I'm always pleasantly surprised when foreign languages pop up as a thread.

    The French did find some quick ways ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by cymro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    ... to tackle "imbalances" in taxation and the distribution of wealth in their country.

    Whether those sharp instruments were more effective in the long run than the modern-day financial instruments like the stimulus remains to be seen. But allowing modern-day Nobles to be completely isolated from any threat of a Reign of Terror does not seem to be effective either.  


    Yes, it's rather Egyptian, if you (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:33:30 PM EST
    ask me.

    Revolutionaries (none / 0) (#48)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 08:28:55 PM EST
    I remember reading a book that speculated the phrase became attributed to her retrospectively as a means of giving validity to the young revolution. Shady, to be sure, but not unexpected considering her treatment in "court" -- where she was accused of sexually molesting her children. The mothers in the room, all from the peasant class, were outraged that the revolutionaries made this baseless accusation and Marie publicly wept for the first and only time between her imprisonment and execution. I hear the majority of French people still hate her. I, on the other hand, clearly have a thing for her, haha.

    As Mr. Somerby reminds us daily (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    at Daily Howler, the media engages in the novelization of the news and issues. In the novel, the reporters themselves are Everyman with a typewriter, one of us, sharing our lives, just set apart enough to observe and tell us what we are thinking and feeling.

    In reality we know they make more than 100 times more than most of us and have not thought or felt like us in a long time - some of them came from elite backgrounds even before they were rich personalities, and never lived like normal people. Now, occasionally they have training or experience or contacts that make their opinions worth listening to, or sometimes their personalities are entertaining, but they are never to be trusted to tell us anything about what 'the people' think or should do.

    Somehow Thomas Friedman comes (none / 0) (#29)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    to mind.  I still can't get over how rich Joe Klein became being the anonymous writer of Primary Colors. Now look at how well known he is at Time.

    Oh, come on (none / 0) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    While it's certainly delightful snark, both you and Digby badly misrepresent and mischaracterize Pearlstein's views.  (As for Mrs. Greenspan, I couldn't care less about her opinions, but I've heard what she's said mischaracterized so frequently I no longer believe it unless I hear what she says myself.)

    I didn't hear the MSNBC segment, but here's just part of a recent Pearlstein column on jobs and the recession:

    "Most important would be for the federal government to step up its spending for infrastructure, basic research, clean-energy development and expanded public higher education. After 20 years of badly underfunding public investment, the first stimulus package was a step in the right direction. A second package would create additional high-paying jobs now, while generating higher growth and tax revenues for decades. A boost in government investment would also provide the perfect political cover for moving aggressively to reduce the government's "consumption" spending by reforming entitlements, reducing farm subsidies and business tax breaks, and eliminating underperforming social and military programs.

    "Given how we got into this mess, we're probably stuck with several more years of slow growth in jobs and income. The only important question is whether we'll use this opportunity to lay the foundation for another generation of sustained prosperity, or get sidetracked by chasing after short-term stimulus and overzealous deficit reduction."

    Pearlstein has no of more an overprivileged, oblivious "villager" mentality than you or I do.

    I've also never heard or seen Pearlstein claim to "understand real Americans," whatever that even means.  He's not a political commentator, he's a business/financial/economic reporter and now columnist.


    Wait up (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:48:42 PM EST
    You didn't actually see the segment?

    Maybe you should wait to react then.


    I don't need to see the segment (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    because I know what his views are and have consistently been.  I see no reason why he would suddenly change them for an MSNBC segment, do you?

    I have a different reaction (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:21:22 PM EST
    to that column than you do.

    And in fact, Pearlstein has been pretty elitist for as long as I have read him.


    I would add that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    "get sidetracked by chasing after short-term stimulus" sounds pretty "let them eat cake"-ish to me.

    Read the column (none / 0) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    I linked to.  He's talking about the deeper structural change that's happening in this country that needs to be dealt with.  Small short-term stimulus stuff isn't going to fix that, is his point, which is pretty obvious.

    Short term stimulus isn't intended to (none / 0) (#56)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    "fix" that -- it is intended to provide relief for present suffering and prevent more erosion in the nation's private assets, resources and skills.

    It is absolutely correct that the problems in our economy are structural and that we need to make immediate investments that will only bear fruit in the long term. But we also need to address the economic problem of a generation entering the workforce today in a job shedding economy AND an older generation facing retirement in the midst of a general collapse in asset value.

    Let's not forget how vitally important, for instance, Social Security initially was to an older generation that's wealth was destroyed by the Great Depression (and, how beneficial it was to a younger generation that could not afford the burden of supporting their elders). Or, how public jobs programs provided younger workers    not only with support, but also with skills that they were able to put to good use in the private sector when the economy recovered.

    The solutions of the 1930s may not be the correct solutions for today, but the problems are in some ways very similar and demand immediate and creative attention.



    Life in a bubble (none / 0) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    A lot of people in the media and in DC need to stick their heads out of the bubble they live in if they really want to see what America is all about.

    Maybe they should try taking public transportation to work for a week and listen to the people talking around them. It might give them a different perspective of reality.

    I personally think (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    their first year in office they ought to be required to subsist on median wage.

    I also am all about building them dorms so they don't "have to maintain two residences."

    If it works for geographic bachelors in the military then it ought to be good enough for Congress.


    Dorms like C Street? ; ] (none / 0) (#62)
    by DFLer on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 10:09:42 PM EST
    Where is the present-day RFK (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 09:44:30 PM EST
    when you need him to shed light on the abject poverty in which many more people live today than a few years ago?  Many had hoped John Edwards would take up that mantle (speaking of various past & subjunctive tenses).  I'd like to take Mrs. G and the rest of them to the free medical clinics, the new tent communities, and yes, New Orleans.  I caught part of the sound clip from a TV news report on the latest free medical clinic talking about a young, unemployed man who was thrilled to have access to the free clinic because he could now take advantage of a job offer he thought he'd have to turn down given his inability to pay for the required medical check-up.  Why can't Congress offer a tax credit for employers who pay for medical check-ups given to unemployed workers as conditions to securing jobs with the employer? Speaking of two Americas... not red and blue but rich and poor.

    "Wage inflation" (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    was always one of MISTER Greenspan's concerns....I've no doubt it is one of the little imbalances that has to be worked out before people can get back to work.

    The imbalances will (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    be worked out as soon as everyone is willing to work for $2 a day like those over in the developing nations. Oh and ifwe can get rid of pesky things like safety or environmental standards too. Welcome to the global economy.

    Yep (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    you've hit the mark

    Where was Digby when the masters of the universe (none / 0) (#36)
    by kidneystones on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    Were telling then entire world that what Americans really, really, really wanted was HCR?

    This is pathetic. You can back over the posts at TPM and Hullabaloo and find frigging reams o-crap on the Tea-Baggers and the Birthers.

    The new village bloggers proved they're bit as mixed up as the millionaire celebrity talking heads.

    Frigging worthless. The union backroom deal right before the MA vote, the early money invitations to wall st and big health care, and the relentless boasts about transparency, closing gitmo, hcr reform, and trying to pretend the Pentagon wanted more troops for Afghanistan confirm just how out of touch this gang is top to bottom.

    I read better analysis in the comments section of most blogs. Silly Sully just issued his own exculpatory post on why the Edwards hustle wasn't a story.

    The left blogosphere spent about ten to one hundred times more energy exploring Sarah Palin's family sex life than pushing for jobs.

    That goes double or triple for Digby and TPM. I'm really pleased to say that I can't recall many Palin posts here at Talk Left, other than on policy. Please don't go look, if there are others on moose hunting or beauty pageants. I'd like to think BTD and Jeralyn have better things to write about.

    JMM probably makes more than (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    20 other Brown American History Ph.D' put together.

    He's been a profound (none / 0) (#39)
    by kidneystones on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:04:01 PM EST

    Good for a laugh when the world doesn't do what he thinks it should. He's deeply immersed in the importance of being Josh


    Look, he was a man with a plan. (none / 0) (#40)
    by observed on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    He really read the blog mania well, several years ago, and positioned himself to occupy a lucrative niche.
    I could criticize him for many things, but his site isn't all bad, and he still is working on the SS privatization issue. It seems the Republicans are so excited about Obama opening the door to privatiztion (possibly) that they are practically peeeing their pants (misspelling in case that's a forbidden word).  

    True that, not all bad, not (none / 0) (#41)
    by kidneystones on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    a complete disappointment. Good in a pinch.

    Josh used to the sharpest critic this side of Duncan Black. Had he used his intelligence and his acumen for something other than cheer-leading and building brand, I might have some respect for him.

    He's read by a bunch of smart people. He's turning into Andrew Sullivan. He follows story and provides commentary and certainly isn't about to write anything that might deviates from the 'Repubs is evil and de Dems is gud' line of analysis.

    Josh's former rapier wit now has all the beauty of a ten-pin bowling ball. He's a dud.

    No offense.


    Oh I never read him now. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    I stay away from the people who threw away their credibility in 2008. I don't mean all Obama supporters, btw---just the ones who were blatantly dishonest in advancing their case.
    Kos and JMM are foremost in that regard, in my mind.

    I was very disappointed in Kos (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:35:05 PM EST
    I expected him to behave like a leader and denounce untrue and unfair accusations. I expected him to encourage debate. Instead he allowed bullies to hijack the site and make it into a propaganda machine. He censored a bunch of people who dared to challenge and provoke debate. I still have an account there but I can't visit the site without getting sick to my stomach at the thought of the community good will that was lost to get Obama into office.

    I can't even be happy and say that perhaps in the big scheme of things this was worth it because the country got comprehensive health care or Obama's visionary leadership created millions of jobs for the jobless. No, instead Kos should get a tshirt that states "I threw my credibility down the toilet to get Obama elected and all I got was this lousy t shirt."


    Lol (none / 0) (#47)
    by kidneystones on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    at your last line.

    But Markos got a whole lot more than the lousy shirt. observed is right about the income generated for cheer-leading.

    Good business.

    Call it the new blogger activist/ political public-relations/news scam. Rip and Riff.


    I think alot of progressive bloggers (none / 0) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    honestly believed it was going to be as simple as getting Obama elected to get the country back on the right track.

    They created this superhero out of a pol and whipped themselves up to the point they believed the hype. They did not plan for anything past getting "their guy" elected(much like Bush didn't plan in Iraq for anything beyond the initial military incursion.) It is and was a huge tactical mistake.

    I actually almost feel sorry for Obama, he was bound to disappoint with all the imaginary jujitsu and dimensional chess player qualities he was imbued with by progressive blogistan.  


    Wow, I'd forgotten about First Draft. (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    I used to go there all the time.
    I'm such a different creature now. I go to 3 or 4 blogs. I just can't spend the time perusing all the excellent blogs out there.
    So sad how many are gone.
    Remember how Atrios kept the Uppity Negro link on, long after Aarron ( I think) died?
    And Steve G. of course.
    In a way I'm glad Billmon isn't writing.
    I loved him, but man, he could NOT keep it short!

    So you dont really (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:46:25 PM EST
    believe "there are no moderate Democrats".. that's just hyperbole. Good to know.

    For awhile there I thought maybe you were appealing to that fringe element that touts any HCR as creeping socialism.