I used to read this site a lot more, but the past few months it's just been a lot of Obama sucks. I mean, EVERYTHING he does sucks. You start with that as the conclusion and then analyze backwards to get the conclusion you want.
I don't think Obama is a terrible President. We've had terrible presidents - Bush was a terrible president. Obama is a pretty good president... for a moderate Republican from the 90s.
Obama is a wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road, meek, and timid guy who only "fights" when he knows he can win. He doesn't appear to want to upset the established power structure and he, along with all other Dems take people like me for granted. (Oh, and I'm not part of any Democratic establishment. I dont know why you'd assume that.)
But back to the point, it just seems that you've hated on Obama from the start and that no matter what, even the little bits of good things that he's done, is just more reason to crap on him, which would be fine if you didnt support candidates that were far more corporatist and right-of-center. That's my issue.
And yeah, call me a naive idealist, but I do expect you to share the views of the candidates you worked for. How can you have supported Mark Warner (who voted to hold a Repub filibuster on a bill that would discourage outsourcing) if you didn't believe in what he stood for?
So we have a Democratic party that shits on its base and sells out to corporations. (see Henry Waxman and net neutrality roll-over-and-die bill). What do we do about that? Or Mark Warner voting to hold a Republican filibuster? How do we get Dems to appeal to their base instead of treating us like peons?
I've read post after post on this site, specifically from you, that seems to be nothing more than bitter Obama-hatred.
Obama is no liberal. Okay, I get that. I'm disappointed. Fine. But you know what? I am a liberal so I can be disappointed. If I recall correctly it was you who supported Mark Warner's brief flirtation with a presidential run when he hosted that lavish party during the then-named Yearly Kos convention in Vegas. Mark Warner is arguably more corporatist and to the right of Obama. And weren't you a die hard Hillary supporter? Hillary Clinton who unapologetically supported the Iraq war? Hillary and Gates also supported more of an escalation in Afghanistan. You think she would be any different? Yet, there's this strange "I told you so" quality to your posts when you discuss Obama and Hillary.
I've gone from being a fan of this site to now rolling my eyes when I read obvious hyperbolic bullshit like Obama's "brought out to gun down the left". I mean, really? "Gun down the left". As if your #1 candidate hadn't shown just as much derision to the Progressive base. Hell, the entire Democratic political establishment, of which Obama and your chosen candidates are a part of, looks at their base as a burden.
It is your disingenuousness that makes me question your motives. You are no Jane Hamsher and Cenk Uygur. At least they have consistently maintained the same positions. While I disagree with Hamsher, at least she has been consistent. (I like Cenk). If Hillary won, would you be tearing her down at every opportunity the way you do Obama?
You want to argue style and politics, go ahead. That, I think, is the biggest difference between Obama and Hillary. But don't you dare castigate Obama for being weakly to the left of Hillary on foreign/national security policy. It discredits you and makes you appear to be nothing more than a hack.
What does that mean? Not vote in November? Support a primary against Obama?
Personally, I'd rather deluge the White House with calls and letters. Still makes no sense to me why a policy proposal that is popular, does the job well, and would rally the base is having such a hard time.
Then again, I would be okay with no P.O. if they really brought the hammer down on the insurance companies and regulated the frak out of them so they can't raise rates like this because they aren't making as much profit as they'd like. They both achieve the same goal - making insurance companies work for their customers.
He couldn't have announced earlier so the Dems could field a candidate? Nope. Thanks Bayh for one last "fuck you very much" to Democrats and Progressives. I hope he goes bankrupt and has to struggle the way average Americans struggle. Douche.
I honestly don't think the Republicans made this with the intent to call Pelosi a "pussy" or whatever. After all, they obliviously threw all those tea-bagging parties. Nope, I think they are merely dense.
No. The renting out of the bedroom WAS true. It was just overhyped by the Right-Wing Noise Machine.
I take issue with "MORE CONSPIRACY THEORY STUFF". That shows an utter lack of understanding of the dysfunction of our government. You do not think that when a lobby that gives lots of money to a candidate that candidate is then more inclined to vote for that lobby's interests? Please. I cannot even dignify that with a rebuttal.
Garcia, it is not a right-wing meme that Hillary will turn out the Republican base. It is a very realistic likelihood. Hillary is HATED. Period. Whatever the rationale is irrelevant. The fact is that many people, however irrationally, plain don't like her.
I'm not one of those people. I dont like her, but I dont like her for very valid reasons. Support for the invasion of Iraq is numero uno.
(*note that she objects to the handling of the war, but seems not to think that preemptively invading another country and toppling their government to install a government that is more favorable to you is of any moral question. I think it is, but I digress).
Polls show that Hillary has very high unfavorables and one can come to a logical conclusion that she will be a drag on down-ticket races. Elizabeth Edwards is right when she says people dont like her.
The gay thing... Hillary is my Senator. I'm politically involved. I have friends, friends who are close with the "movers and shakers". I hear things. I've gotten reports back from our political groups meetings (or refusal for meetings) with her. Let me tell you one thing, whether she "likes" gay people or not (she has many on her staff) is, again, irrelevant. I have a founded belief that she will not hesitate to throw us under the bus if it was politically expedient for her. She'll take our money and our votes. Lets see what happens when it comes time to delivery. Oh, and of course, Edwards' position is the same EXCEPT he's got a wife and kids who will put the moral impetus on him to do the right thing. I dont think Chelsea will give a frak and Bill has shown us the courage of his convictions with gay issues.
Finally, the "vitriol on the liberal blogs". Blogs are an open forum. Some people like her. Some people dont. The fact that this plays into your decision of who you support for president shows a lack of methodical reason, e.g., "people hate her so I'll like her." I dont like Hillary for policy reasons, because of who she surrounds herself with (union-buster Mark Penn, cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, accepting a lot of money from the pharma, healthcare, insurance lobby). I dont like her because of her incremental approach and her lack of bold new ideas. I dont like her because of her acquiescence to AIPAC and her support of the PREMISE of the Iraq war. These are all valid reasons. Is that vitriol? I would say no. I would say those are things that Hillary has to answer for.
Perhaps you should do a bit more soul-searching and a lot more reading. Then again, far be it from me to tell you what issues are important to you. You like her because people dont. Vote your conscience or vote your ignorance. It's your right. Gods only know the Republicans count the latter as their base.
It's not "negative" as it is true. Edwards said he isn't going to tell you what you want to hear. He told it like it is.
Hillary may talk about healthcare, but has yet to release her plan. Could it be because she's been bought and paid for by the healthcare industry? Hmmm...
I believe he is correct that Hillary is part of "politics as usual" and that she'll just be "better than Bush". That bar is awfully low. If you fly a plane over the country and parachute a chimp down to the ground and declare whoever that chimp grabs first as President, that person would be "better than Bush".
Actually, it's not double-speak. "Military progress" is different from "[Bush's surge] strategy is working". Bush's strategy is supposed to "win the war" so to speak. And it is not working. Logistically it cannot work.
We've all heard the whack-a-mole analogies - the military moves in, security is established in that specific area as a result, and strife and chaos thus moves into another that is not secured.
Bush's strategy has been said by one of his own spokesmen on MTP that the surge is like "whacking a bunch of moles all at once".
That's the strategy that Clinton said is working. Edwards concedes that security is established where our troops move in, but that the Mess-o'-potamia will continue to be a catastrophuck unless political and social progress is made.