home

He Was Never That Into You

The only thing remarkable about the comments [. . .] is that anyone would be surprised by them. - Glenn Greenwald

The Progressive blogs scorned AGAIN by the Obama Administration:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base? [. . .] [I]n general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “internet left fringe” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Outrage ensues. At this point, it is rather ridiculous. Obama signalled his disdain for progressive blogs and activists who did not toe his line long ago. A new articulation of this long held view does not seem to me an appropriate moment for shock and outrage. After all, pols are pols, and do what they do:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

But TalkLeft readers know all this.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | AHIP Not Into Obama/BaucusCare >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Gays will be fun under the bus! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    with the rest of us bitter clingers.  But can they knit?  Hope so, as they'll need slippers to go with their p.j.'s., because it can get cold under the bus.  

    Gays were under the (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by dk on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    bus first.  Remember McClurkin?

    We've been with you the whole time.

    Parent

    Gavin Newsom (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    Remember, he did not want a picture with Gavin Newsom.  

    Parent
    Yeh, I realized after I wrote it (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    that they're one of the reasons it has been fun under the bus for a long time now.

    And I do not forget McClurkin and so much more, believe me -- nor do the blogs that are working on forging stronger alliances among gay rights and women's rights organizations.  Obama's alliance with McClurkin was a lesson that taught a lot of us what to expect: More slaps in the face (or more dirt off the shoulder, whichever) such as another Obama invitation -- to a minister to open the Dem convention with a speech against a Dem platform plank for which many women (and some men) had fought long and hard.  (But that went unnoticed compared to outcry about McClurkin, and we must call out together every slap at every one of us).

    Parent

    I remember McClurkin (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    Yet, IIRC  many of the blogs did not.

    Parent
    Although Rev. Warren should have (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    served as a reminder.

    Parent
    We just finished watching 'Religulous' (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    And then you put this comment up.  I wasn't wild about Warren's role but it seems heinous tonight.  My daughter is watching it again.

    Parent
    Don't forget .... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who scrubbed a "gay-curing" ministry from his church website, then said he'd "would need to check with the church" to see if he supported gay marriage.

    Parent
    The best thing to do (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    is to act as if the President was elected by some other party, the Centrist party if you will.  Why people go out of their way to make it all about Obama is beyond me.  

    And because I think John Cole is a total @ss on gay rights:

    Nothing constructive is ever built with negativity. Period. So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights, why don't you do something constructive? Why don't you embrace his message? How about an ad campaign that has Obama speaking from the HRC declaring support for your goals, and asking Congress whether they want to join you and the President in achieving those goals? How about going to Harry Reid, who is in a tight election as it is, and asking him whether or not he will join with the President and the gay community to end DADT and DOMA? How about stating that you stand in unison with the President, that you intend to work with him to achieve those goals.

    His message?  Because it doesn't reflect the actual gay platform?  "Why don't you just compromise dammit!  Just shut up and be happy he's not Bush!!"  And btw John I'd guess Obama would not be so happy with an HRC ad campaign, but that's just my guess.

    Reason number 5789543 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    why I don't read John Cole.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by dk on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    So instead of blowing up at the first President in my lifetime to openly advocate for gay rights

    Well, I don't agree with the content of what Cole writes, but I have to admit that he writes quite well for an 8 year old.

    Parent

    John Cole preaching against negativity? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    That is hilarious.

    Parent
    what do you mean? (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    those awful, obnoxious gays who are setting back the clock on gay rights need to be taught a lesson about positivity by John Cole.

    Parent
    John Cole (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    does the good work of being negative about his former cohorts every day and night.

    It just strikes me as funny to hear him preach against negativity.

    I'm pretty negative myself so it is not a slam on people being critical.

    Parent

    But you don't preach (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    positivity while practicing negativity.  I think John Cole is completely delusional/ridiculously defensive on the subject of gay rights.  Stand with the President on this?  That's like standing with him on the Baucus bill when you want a robust public option.  Plus like I said, if you think Obama wants to be featured in a national HRC ad campaign, you've got another thing coming.

    Parent
    footed pajama ass kicker (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

    i would counter that jaded and compromised political whores should realize that mocking and insulting an active part of your would-be base is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do in close elections (as i would wager 2012 will be).

    this bumbling fool of a political slut should realize that what the left is pushing for (kneecapping of the for-proft health industry, providing econ assistance to families not banks, etc.) has fairly wide support across the country--and would go far in helping obama politically.

    does obama want to be one of the great presidents and lead to the revitalization of the country, or will he be satisfied if his admin is reagan's 8th term?


    One doesn't have to read/listen beyond (none / 0) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats

    to see there's not an ounce of credibility in the source.

    Parent

    Latest Gallup poll (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    has Obama at 83% approval among Democrats, so yes, 90% might be a bit of an exaggeration.  "Not an ounce of credibility" is a little harsh.

    Parent
    I've also never kept it a secret (none / 0) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    that unless a poll tells me how many people, the various demographics they are part of, and the questions that were asked, I put no credibility in them, either.

    I pay attention to the people I encounter...everywhere I go. I don't hear 83-90% of those voices saying good things about their faith in this administration. And, they are democrats.


    Parent

    Name Names (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    I wish just once these reporters would name the advisers that are saying these things. That whole 'in their pajamas' thing is so tired, not to mention a complete distortion. That adviser should not be holding down a federal job.

    I sense a tad bit of jealousy (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    from the aide. Not everyone gets to sit around and work in their jammies . . .   :)

    Which reminds me . . . I should put some jeans on before I walk the dog, lol!~

    Parent

    I'm formulating a great protest plan (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    Everyone send old jammies to the WH!

    Parent
    Jammies for Justice (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    or PJ's for Progress?

    Parent
    We could ride in on (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    Ponies!

    Hmm, they both work. I'm partial to calling them Jammies . . .

    Parent

    PJs for Ponies? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    Suppose I send the White House my PJs (if I had any). Would they send me a pony back? Finally?

    Parent
    Only if you really BELIEVE! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    When I saw some of the footage yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    I was thinking it would be pretty funny to have a 'Pony March' on the WH where every sign said "Where's my f*cking Pony?!"

    I'm still waiting for mine, spots and all . . .

    Parent

    Love it! (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:29:00 AM EST
    Hey, I'm game.  If anybody actually organizes such a thing, I'll definitely do it.

    Parent
    Actually, the real object of my scorn (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    is, as usual, the "news" media. Lester Holt should have said 'Hey, not so fast Harwood. This isn't a gossip show'. If you're not going on the record with something, don't come on my show.'

    In my dreams, I know. By the way, the Newsuem is doing a shrine of Tim Russert's office. I'm not kidding.

    Parent

    How does the anonymous WH person (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    know I am sitting here in my nightgown?

    Parent
    Remember the Patriot Act? (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Radix on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    I do want to make my constant point (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    that Obama is no different in this than most every pol.

    He is a pol, and they do what they do.

    I am really criticizing everyone who thought it would be different despite ALL the evidence that it would be exactly the same.

    blame the citizens. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    ???  :-)

    Parent
    Yes. For being ignorant and (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    willing victims of propaganda and all the sales machinery of Sigmund's nephew.

    Parent
    Nah, Eddie just translated Uncle Sig's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    works for us here.  The campaign was classic  Freudian in playing on group guilt.  (If it was reverse Freudian in the Venus envy.:-)

    Parent
    Venus (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    and unfortunatly, still married to Mars.

    Parent
    Oh the irony (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    The administration becomes elitist against the (Anglachel termed->) Whole Foods Nation types.  Oh, and they DO scream, don't they?

    I have to laugh.

    Didn't they see? If it could happen to we po-ah white trash bitter gun-slingers, it could happen to them too.  Any group that doesn't toe the line and kiss the hiney is susceptible.

    And BTW, don't they know that Nobel Prize winners deserve respect?  Obama is a Gawd.  Shut up and fall at his feet.

    Me thinks the anti-pajamas (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    guy protesteth way too much.   And, the Whole Foods thing is still in, for I saw, in a recent photo-op, that arugula still growing on top of the Oval Office mantelpiece.

    Parent
    Whole Foods Nation (none / 0) (#82)
    by bordenl on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    Gay people are everywhere and in all socioeconomic groups. I cannot comment on how many of the organizers and attendees of the march are members of Whole Foods Nation.

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    isn't really his disdain for progressive blogs but you can really see the hilarity of how they bought a pig in a poke.

    Heck, it goes past just the blogs to having a disdain for women generally. Obama ONLY cares for himslef and what' good for Obama. He isnt into anybody. And somehow he believes that pandering to the people who despise him the most is good politics. Whatever.

    It's not like this isn't part of the pattern. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:59:22 AM EST
    Glenn breaks it down:

    Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;

    Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals:  "He's your president, not your boyfriend");  

    Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,

    Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

    Obama can disavow all he wants, but I'm not buying it, sorry.

    Those whom the Obama administration keeps kicking in the teeth and throwing under the bus are showing many of the symptoms of being classic victims of bullying and abuse, which does not bode well for many of the issues that were at the center of the election.


    Glenn wrote a good un today (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    Linked above.

    Parent
    Btw, BTD, your header on this post (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    is a classic.  Thanks for the laff on a gloomy Monday morning.

    Well, I did hope it wouldn't (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    come to this - the bloggers that haven't been co-opted by the Media or seduced by the Beltway are only to be mocked.

    Wonder if ye olde blog ATMs will fill the DNC coffers this time around?  

    White House disavows (none / 0) (#22)
    by jes on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    comment.

    "That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth."


    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    Hey, White House!  Way to come down on both sides of the argument -- again.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#27)
    by jes on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    carefully worded!

    Parent
    Great, so then all the White House (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by dk on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    needs to do is publicly give permission to Harwood to release the name of his White House source.  How many people think that is going to happen?

    Parent
    We're supposed to believe that?! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    They might want to replay some Obama tapes . . .

    just sayin' . . . .

    Parent

    WORM (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    What Obama Really Meant.

    Again.

    Parent

    Yep. Somebody got caught (none / 0) (#40)
    by jes on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    speaking to plainly.  

    Parent
    No this way the WH can show (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    support or lack of support depending on which group it wants to appeal to at the moment.

    Parent
    And then they walk it back (none / 0) (#48)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    An old pattern.

    Parent
    But Based on Past History (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by The Maven on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    those "calls with the progressive online community" are largely one-way teleconferences with the veal pen to ensure that the WH's message gets out unmolested.  And for the most part, the bloggers on the calls seem to value having seats at the table more than they do any role as a possible gadfly, so they play along to enhance their newly-found insider status.  This wasn't how it was supposed to be, but for the better part of two years now, it became increasingly obvious that this was where we -- or, rather, they -- were headed.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#34)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    Exhibit A:

    [a|the] [Federalist?] public [health insurance?] [option|plan], where the "progressive" online community obligingly nailed the left end of the Overton Window firmly in place at a point that left the primacy of the health care for profit completely unimpaired.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    The Obama Administration was certainly not behind.

    Bad exhibit.

    Epic fail at attacking people who disagree with you Lambert.

    Parent

    "behind"? (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    I don't see the word in either my comment, or the comment I'm responding to.

    When you claim "epic fail," don't you think you ought to be able to back it up with evidence?

    Parent

    "Exactly" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    is your response to this "those "calls with the progressive online community" are largely one-way teleconferences with the veal pen to ensure that the WH's message gets out unmolested.  And for the most part, the bloggers on the calls seem to value having seats at the table more than they do any role as a possible gadfly, so they play along to enhance their newly-found insider status."

    Exhibit A is NOT a White House message.

    QED.


    Parent

    But 'Single Payer is not gonna happen' (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    certainly was a WH message that did not get protested very strongly by most bloggers. Can't help but think that the veal pen treatment had something to do with that.

    Having the 'public option' define the leftmost point of the window was a result of that.

    Parent

    You say this better than I did (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:37:58 PM EST
    Versailles is a single system, in which Ds and Rs, along with the Veal Pen, play their parts.

    Parent
    Different argument (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    BTW, I came to the conclusion that single payer was not going to happen all by using my own little noggin.

    Lambert's full of it on this one.

    Parent

    You're confusing a legislative session... (none / 0) (#84)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:52:47 PM EST
    ... with a movement.

    You might just as well have said:

    "I came to the conclusion that abolition was not going to happen all by using my own little noggin."

    Or:

    "I came to the conclusion that women's suffrage was not going to all by using my own little noggin."

    I wouldn't mind so much that BTD is full of sh*t on this; what I do mind his being forced to eat his sh*t because of (a) policy choices he's advocating now and (b) because of the policy choices he didn't advocate when it might have made a difference.

    Wise fool.


    Parent

    But that started long ago (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    Kucinich was the most liberal, then Edwards, then Hillary and Obama, with Obama placing himself purposefully to the right of Hillary on healthcare.  Obama was nonetheless loudly adopted by many progressives and labelled Left to Hillary's Right.

    None of this is new of course.  But progressives simply won't stop paying for their early unconditional support of this man.  It's a little crazy.

    Parent

    True, both of you, sad to say (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    Single payer was dead before Obama came into office.

    I guess I knew that too.

    Parent

    Re: Exhibit A (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    you don't think the WH has any involvement in that idea?  Are Carper and Schumer flying solo on this one?

    Does the WH think even that is too controversial?

    Parent

    I am sure the WH had nothing (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    to do with it.

    Parent
    Why's that? (none / 0) (#64)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:36:20 PM EST
    If that idea is dead, then I'm thinking the fight is between the modest and robust public option.  Co-ops are on the out and I haven't heard much about triggers.

    That doesn't seem terrible to me.

    Parent

    He may be made to do it (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:39:45 PM EST
    but it is not from the White House.

    As an "early adopter" of the Blue State Option (you can look it up, I wrote about it in mid-September), let me assure you that the WH had nothing to say about it.

    Parent

    well it has only (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    seemingly been on the Senate table over the past week or two, pushed by Carper and Schumer.  The Admin's silence on the idea suggests they're not quite into it.

    I remember your early posts on it, but nobody in the House or Senate was interested in the idea at the time.  Now somebody is, and was it their own idea?  That's what I'm asking.  

    No one in the Obama Admin has said anything about a public option in the last two weeks as far as I am aware though.  Are they telling others to speak up or no.

    Parent

    Word from the veal pen? (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    Kidding!

    Parent
    Where's your evidence? (none / 0) (#85)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    Why should we take your certainty on faith?

    Parent
    Not to carp (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    but I think Exhibit A is any version of a public option or plan (note the strategic use of brackets) not just the Federalist opt-out idea.

    Parent
    Does Obama sound like a Public Option (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    purist to you?

    Parent
    haha - no (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    point taken

    Parent
    damage control (none / 0) (#26)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    no surprise there.

    i think most people will see the truth in the initial comment by the anonymous WH staffer, though. the actions of the obama admin show that the initial comment was much closer to the truth than the political massaged 'correction'

    Parent

    Hey, wait just a gd minute. Has TL (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    been participating in conference calls w/the Obama WH?  And not telling us?

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#86)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 07:54:34 PM EST
    What's the answer? BTD?

    Parent
    Center Right (none / 0) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    I think of Obama as center right so I'm not surprised by his positions and actions.  I keep getting told that the country is center right and getting more so.  Obama's people read the polls.

    telling lies (none / 0) (#43)
    by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    the claim that the country is 'center right' has been brought to us by those that are profitting from the status quo as it is now. on many of the biggest issues if the day the public leans left. hence the need for the corporate controlled "center" to divide and conquer thru "culture" wars.

    Parent
    Culture war (none / 0) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    alive and well.  Polls show support for abortion rights slipping.. that's a move to the right.  Immigration is turning the country more conservative with regards to gay rights... Prop 8 in CA showed a clear demographic divide.  Young white people show support for gay rights but will they get out to vote.

    Parent
    I don't know if just one poll in confirmation (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    on the loss of support for abortion rights. And if memory serves, Latinos were only slightly more supportive on prop 8 then Whites.

    Parent
    Pew Poll: (none / 0) (#42)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    Divorce (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    Another interesting statistic would be what the rate of divorce is in the black community? I don't understand why so many people are worried about saving the sanctity of a marriage. With the national average hovering around 50%, Gays couldn't do that much worse than straights have!

    Parent
    Black unemployment hovering around 25% (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    odd confluence.

    Parent
    White evangelicals (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    oppose it 77-17.  Those who attend church weekly oppose it 85-10.

    But I'm not sure if we were in the process of making a point here.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    he has to play to the base.

    Parent