home

No More Heroes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:29:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is a chuckle to start your morning:

The panelists gave voice to lingering disappointment over Halter's failed bid. Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had particularly harsh words for Bill Clinton, whose full-throated endorsement of Lincoln is credited with helping her win. "It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Harsh words for Bill Clinton from a blogger? Now that's never happened. I wonder if Bill Clinton felt like he was being treated as a "hero" when he was called a racist during the 2008 primaries. Oh by the way, President Obama endorsed Lincoln too.

Of course the real problem is having politician "heroes" in the first place. Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Administration Will Not Cut Taxes For The Wealthy | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No More Heroes | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That is really funny (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    Calling out Bill but not Barack?

    What is that about? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:48:59 AM EST
    I mean seriously, how self deluded can people actually be?  It annoys the hell out of me.

    Parent
    Par for the course (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    What's also pretty funny is the frontpage link on the PCCC's homepage which discusses this issue.  It's to a HP article that blasts Clinton by name and the "Whitehouse", blaming the decision (as usual) on Rahm Emanuel.

    President Emanuel ... go figure.

    Parent

    And why (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Blame Senator Sheldon Whitehouse?  <snark>

    (As an aside - wouldn't he be a perfect presidential candidate with that name?)

    Parent

    Heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    They'd use any name before blaming Him.  I guess when it comes to blame, it's easier to attack a designated surrogate than admit you've been duped.

    Too bad it's so transparent.

    Parent

    Alternate Title (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    "Where Have You Gone Joe DiMaggio? A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You?"

    Heaven holds a place for (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:56:27 AM EST
    those who pray :)

    Parent
    Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. (none / 0) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    But whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?

    Parent
    Simon wanted to use (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    Mickey Mantle, his real hero, but the name didn't have enough syllables.

    Credit Simon too for at least checking out the pols, doing his due diligence as a citizen -- "going to the candidates' debate -- before understandably turning away in disgust -- "every way you look at it you lose."  Tough times politically in late '67 when he must have written those words.  Easy to see why he'd want to find emotional refuge in the simpler world of sports.

    Parent

    Tough times now too... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    nothing's changed when it comes to politics and pols..."every way you look at it you lose."

    What a great f*ckin' line....

    Parent

    As Tina Turner sang in the movie with you-know-who (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    We don't need another hero
    We don't need to know the way home
    All we want is life beyond the thunderdome

    People, being multifaceted creatures (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    are always going to regard pols through various lenses rational, emotional, social, personal.  It's just futile to expect them to coolly distance themselves emotionally from all public figures who appear on the landscape.

    So there will always be disappointments along with the triumphs.  That comes with the territoire and it shouldn't be any other way.

    So, hat tip to Adam Green and Paul Simon, who were only speaking the truth.

    Obama may have endorsed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    Lincoln but Clinton dragged her across the finish line almost single handedly

    I'm not sure that's true (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:43:52 AM EST
    IIRC, the support of African Americans was critical to Lincoln's win.  She won the more "liberal" parts of the State and that was largely due to black voters.  

    Parent
    and who do you imagine (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    got those black voters off the sofa?

    Parent
    Obama of course (none / 0) (#21)
    by trillian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    I remember an African American voter on TV saying she would vote for whomever Obama supported.

    Parent
    right (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    Bill Clinton doesnt have any kind of realtionship top the black voters of arkansas
    how silly.


    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    his (Obama's) endorsement of a candidate has about as much effect in that state as mine does.
    - Capt. Howdy

    Barack Obama doesn't have any kind of relationship to the black voters of Arkansas

    How silly.

    Parent

    I am not wasting my time (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    arguing with you or spoiling your opportunity to bash Obama.  everyone in the freaking world knows that Clinton WON that race for Lincoln.

    but please continue with your delusion.


    Parent

    Everone in the world? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    Someone should let "everyone" know.

    Parent
    fyi (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    the more you talk the more obvious it is how little you know.

    Parent
    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    Let's see, an AA State Senator from Arkansas and an Arkansas political consultant agree that Obama's endorsement was critical to Lincoln's primary win, ...

    ... versus the Capt., who blames Clinton for Lincoln's win, while saying says Obama's endorsement was "irrelevant".

    Not really a tough call.

    Parent

    Maybe the same person who (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    overwhelmingly won the black vote in the 2008 Arkansas Democratic primary.

    Parent
    since we love quoting print (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:35:52 AM EST
    try this one

    And the Winner is... Bill Clinton
    John Nichols
    The Nation

    Lincoln knew she was in trouble. And she pulled out the big gun.

    No one who watched the last two weeks of the campaign in Arkansas doubted that the energy was with Lincoln. And that energy was personified by former President Bill Clinton, the most popular figure in Arkansas politics - not just Arkansas Democratic politics but Arkansas politics.

    It was as if he was running one more time for governor, and Arkansans loved it. They packed rallies, they held on Clinton's words. And they cheered as they have not cheered a Democrat since, well, Bill Clinton.

    Once he had their attention, Clinton took apart Halter's out-of-state backers with a devastating line.

    Noting that union leaders had said they wanted to make Lincoln a "poster child" for what happens when a Democrat crosses them.

    Clinton may have been turning things on their head, he may have been playing political games. He even put a feminist spin on reelecting Lincoln as a working mom who was under attack for taking time away from the campaign trail to raise her kids.

    Yes, Clinton was spinning the message and gaming the system.

    It worked. Bill Clinton got Blanche Lincoln re-nominated - narrowly, to be sure, but it is her name that will be on the November ballot in the Democratic column. And that's because of Clinton. To suggest otherwise is to deny the logic of Lincoln's campaign, which closed with Clinton television ads, Clinton web videos, Clinton rallies, Clinton speeches and Clinton mailings - all of which had "The President," as he was identified,

    and now I am done with this idiotic conversation.
    feel free to believe whatever inane crap makes you happy,

    Parent

    Another opinion piece ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    ... from a prog blogger crediting Clinton for Lincoln's win?

    wow.

    Hey, .... does he live in, ...... errrr ..... "officially reside" in Arkansas?

    Parent

    last word (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Based on ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    ... what?

    Intuition?

    Parent

    based on the fact (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    that I live in arkansas

    Parent
    Congratulations (I guess) (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    Anything other than the fact that you live in Arkansas ...?

    Parent
    and yours are based on (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    what?

    hateful comments about Obama you spend your day reading

    Parent

    My what? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    I'm just laughing at the hypocrites who bash Clinton for his endorsement of Lincoln while ignoring Obama's endorsement.

    Nice fantasy about what I "spend my day doing", though.  Almost as believable as the fantasy that Obama's endorsement of Lincoln was "irrelevant".

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    Im sure you are right

    in the end it was all those personal campaign appearances that did it though.


    Parent

    did you move (none / 0) (#56)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    from Champaign-Urbana Capt?

    Parent
    my official residence is still (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    in arkansas.
    and probably will always be.

    Parent
    more importantly (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    its where I vote

    Parent
    Does the South still use the term (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:41:59 PM EST
    "carpetbagger"?

    Parent
    I wouldnt know (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    but since that is where I was born and grew up and still own property I dont really think the term would apply.


    Parent
    judging by this thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    you are apparently not "Arkansan enough."

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    Ill be the judge of that

    Parent
    So sorry; it is so sad (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    to see someone not really get into living where they are, and you live in such a great place.

    I see this with a lot of transplants from New York City whom I know, still pining for another place after decades, still reading the New York Times daily but not the local paper, so they can be so oblivious to what is going on where they live.  So, frankly, I wish that they would not vote in local elections (as a few of them do, just going by party labels when not really knowing the local pols).

    It must be easier these days, anyway, for you to keep up with Arkansas news online, so that you still can be an informed voter far from home.

    Parent

    not sad at all (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    I h ave nothing against my adopted state but I am here for one reason.  work.  if not for the job you couldnt pay me to live here.

    why?

    its FLAT.  I FREAKING HATE FLAT.
    I was born in the hills and have never lived in a floodplane before and I hate it.
    I bought the house I live in so I can sell it when I retire and go back to the hills.

    and yes its pretty easy to keep up with politics from afar.  I kept saying during the primaries that I was being flooded with insane anti Obama mail from these people.
    sometimes I know more than even I want to.
    plus I have three policemen (low lever pols) and two elected democrats in the family I see at holidays.
    more than enough info.  thanks.


    Parent

    Ha. I can empathize with that -- (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    as you probably know that we call you the Flatlanders.  

    Reminds me of my mother, who moved here from the West.  Always missed her mountains and when we would visit her folks, we would watch for the moment when she first saw the mountains again.  She always cried.

    I feel that way about some of my local topography.  I realized when away that I always want to be near water, a large body of water, so that I cannot see land on the horizon. . . .

    Parent

    yes about the water (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    water sign here ;-)

    that is another reason I bought the house I live in.   its on a beautiful little lake.
    I have that most rare local thing out the back windows of my house.  a lovely view.

    not quite water to the horizon but not a pond

    honestly there are many things I really like about life here.  and it IS beautiful if flat.  the politics of the state are definitely more in line with my own.

    and I may not go back to arkansas to live.  but if I have a choice I will definitely die on a hill bigger than the entrance to the freeway.

    Parent

    Ha, again. Yeh (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    "bury me on the berm by the freeway" really doesn't have that poetic ring to it.

    Glad you're in the lovelier parts of the flatlands.  It's that central-state prairie that gets to me on the road, after the sixth hour or so of no trees, no lovely little inland lakes like yours.  It was those trips as kids that turned us into license-plate collectors, looking at the cars around us as the most exciting things in sight.  And that was before freeways, even more barren.

    Ugh, berms.  They don't even look like hills.

    Parent

    i'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    are you seriously lecturing someone about how they feel about where they grew up?  I can think of about one hundred reasons for people to not want to live where they grew up.  My impression was that people had a lot of respect for anecdotal information here but apparently not when it may tarnish Bill Clinton.  In 20 minutes of Googling (if that) people here think they know more than someone who grew up in Arkansas???  Um, ok.  Because we know the media always gets it right!

    Parent
    Not at all; read it again (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    as I am speaking about something entirely different, and not really related to politics.

    Frankly, as I contemplate moving in retirement, I wonder how it will feel to be far from my roots, too.  Of course, the longer I would be away from "home," the harder it would be to know the ins and outs of what really would be going on here.  I had not thought about whether I would vote absentee.  It would be tough to try to do so, as relying on our local paper would not be entirely useful; relying on it, I would have to vote Republican!

    Your reactions are, um, interesting today.  Tough day, I shall presume.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    the question about carpetbagging was completely well-intentioned.

    Parent
    As well-intentioned (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    as the commenter.  I give what I get.  To you, too -- so I no longer give any sympathy for the apparently tough day you're having and taking out on us here.  

    Parent
    Wrong impression (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    Personally, I don't give much credence to anectdotal information.  I give much more credence to the opinions of an Arkansas political consultant (a professional who earns their living crunching poll/voter data in Arkansas) and an Arkansas state Senator who's at least as well-versed in Arkansas politics than someone who's official residence is in Arkansas.

    That being said, I'll still take the anectdotal evidence of the person who actually lives in Arkansas over the one who lives in Chicago but reads about Arkansas politics online and discusses it with relatives over the holidays.

    Parent

    has there been (none / 0) (#158)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    a credible source explaining Clinton's thinking, or logic, in his decision to support (vigorously) Lincoln?

    I mean, it wasn't ideology, and simple expediency falls flat.

    Parent

    Seems Obvious (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:18:55 PM EST
    Apart from loyalty, the Dem establishment calculated that Linclon would have a better chance at winning in Nov than Lt . Gov. Bill Halter.

    I think that about sums it up.

    Parent

    That's speculation, or assumption (none / 0) (#161)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    I meant, has there been a face to face (like a Charlie Rose type interview) where this question was addressed?

    Parent
    Speculation, Assumption? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:33:44 PM EST
    Hardly it is deduction, derived by noticing what the Democratic Establishment has done (B Clinton, Obama), along with using some math.

    why is that even a question? are you stuck hero worshiping, and now disappointed?

    It is all about numbers for the big Pols, for the peanut gallery, well we can be activists, and vote for the loser.


    Parent

    Even funnier (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by BDB on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:43:00 AM EST
    is that Bill Clinton is endorsing essentially anyone who supported his wife in 2008.  Now, maybe he'd have come out for Lincoln anyway, but he has reasons beyond the usual issues for supporting Lincoln.  What's the Big O's excuse?

    Now THAT is the Clinton way (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    That is a game plan that it does seem to me he has worked hard to stick to.  Not so much throwing under the bus.  And is still no excuse for anyone to be silent where he is concerned or Obama either when both of their choices are taken out of my hide.

    Parent
    No disagreement (none / 0) (#44)
    by BDB on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    from me.

    Parent
    reasons? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:44:19 AM EST
    like being part of the boys club.

    Parent
    He should be called out (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    and I hope it would make Clinton a bit uncomfortable (not that it will).  Are there other targets that require the same treatment?  Yes....

    Why should it make him uncomfortable? (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    Why does he owe any loyalty to the Netroots? At what point in his life does the guy get to stop worrying about who likes him and who doesn't?

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    is still playing the political game.  Why would he want to be a pariah to a segment that overwhelmingly (and effectively) did not support his wife's run for President?  The road to Rome leads through the left internet, in one way or another, I believe so anyway.  

    Parent
    did not support his wife (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    All the more reason seems to me.  Further, it seems he was right in his warnings to the left.


    Parent
    Do you think there is any chance (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    that group would support his wife in the future? I sincerely doubt it, and Bill probably does too. The netroots burned the bridge, not the Clintons.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    But it is not Clinton who has ever said 'my way or the highway'. The Netroots defamed him in 2008, and yet he still mostly does things they approve of. When he crosses them once, in BTDs example, he gets called on the carpet. Sure, that is their right to hold his feet to the fire. I just don't think he has any reason to care after the last couple of years of history.

    Parent
    How many times (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    has BO crossed the netroots and gets a pass? Double standard.

    Parent
    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    of course history will see the Clintons well.  
    screwing your base and getting the corporate client elected is not the worst thing a politician can do.

    that does not change the fact that many many people who loved both Clintons and would have done anything for them or at their bidding were hurt by what he did.

    there was a time when he was on the side of things like "unions" which were his principal opponents in that race.  it was sad.  it was a sad day for him and for progressive politics.  

    Parent

    He's doing very good things in Haiti (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:58:56 AM EST
    Therefore giving the rest of us a royally good screwing over will be forgiven in higher places :)  In pursuit of perfection I don't want to be an enemy of the good do I?  

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    you should combine politician's careers into a whole anyway (for ex., "Obama's first year gets a [insert grade]" type stuff).  It's better not to frame action X as compensating for action Y.  Or frequently as in Clinton's case, not compensating!

    Parent
    You are such a hater (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    Just tear our precious leaders (who are the only thing that stands between us and the completely insane Republicans who will drink our blood during Satanic rituals and become even stronger and more insane and karmically powerful) apart.  You literally advocate shredding our leaders and the buffer against the seven plagues that they are, and thereby you also destroy anything good they could maybe accomplish in a thousand years too :)  I just don't know what to do with you.  Everytime you say you don't believe, another one of Tinkerbell's family members dies. Soon the Republicans will own and run the whole world all because of you.

    Parent
    Wasn't going to play in this thread (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    but, I've got to now, as this is serious.

    Republicans who will drink our blood during Satanic rituals and become even stronger and more insane and karmically powerful

    How, where and from who did you get a copy of our playbook?   :-)

    BTAL, calling the bat cave, BTAL calling the bat cave, come in bat cave.

    Parent

    And many other (none / 0) (#137)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    places

    Parent
    I guess you have forgotten that, (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    according to many of these bloggers, Obama doesn't really have any power - he's "just" the president, after all - so, of course no one is going to waste their time making even a feeble attempt to hold him accountable.  I mean, we all know that a president is never more powerful than he is when he's been out of office for 10 years, and if his name is "Clinton," well, shoot - how much more bright and shiny an object could one ask for than one named Clinton?

    For myself, I think it would certainly be sad, but also completely predictable, if this Traveling Road Show of Delusion called "Netroots Nation" would spend all that time together and still not have a good grasp on the concept of "leadership," and still be engaged in Olympic-level contortions to avoid even suggesting that Obama bears any responsibility for where we are and what's been done, and is being done, about the issues confronting us.

    And no, I am not suggesting that there should be blame ONLY for Obama, but if these people cannot summon up enough intellectual honesty to even consider that not holding him to any level of accountability is harmful on a number of levels, then the only conclusion I can draw is that this wing of the Netroots has a serious case of root rot.

    I had to give you a fiver (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    for traveling roadshow called "Netroots Nation".  Once upon a time I had such high hopes too, but now to join them is to seek ways to which to make yourself irrelevant.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    I wonder if Bill Clinton felt like he was being treated as a "hero" when he was called a racist during the 2008 primaries.

    I'm sure he feels free to go his own way at this point, as he is in supporting Romanoff in Colorado, contrary to the wishes of the administration.  What does the Netroots Nation have to say about that race?

    Nope, he is not going his own way (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    with his spouse in the administration.  And Clintons are good Dem party people.

    Bill cleared his work for Lincoln with Obama, you can bet on it.  Probably his work in Haiti, too.  Remember the backroom confabs on how much -- how little -- he would be able to do with his spouse in the administration?

    The Dems and their ilk who blame Bill -- and continue to beat up on Hillary; let's call this for what it is -- are such fools for what they actually are saying about Obama.

    Parent

    So he cleared his support of (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    Romanoff with the Obama administration too?  Perhaps I have been in the military too long, but toeing the line has everyone in the same line or at least formation :)

    Parent
    In the Colorado race he certainly (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    is going his own way. I think he is picking and choosing his efforts on behalf of the administration.

    Parent
    Clinton's support of Andy... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    ...was defininately pay-back for Andy's support of Hil in '08.  And probably some of Andy being a good little DNC lackey too.

    However, the fact that the endorsement failed to include any personal appearances on his behalf says something.  Romanoff is far from being a long-shot and a fundraiser appearance or two would have been a real big deal for him.

    Parent

    Actually Romanoff is such a long shot (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    that probably no one cares who Clinton endorses. Too bad - I like him a lot when I lived in Colorado. A real fresh young voice.

    Parent
    Hear hear you ruffian (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:06:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Ummm frickin Verrrrr (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    Meta Meth Lab :0)

    Said he (Kos) and his followers are disinclined to help Democratic candidates simply to preserve the party's big majorities.

    I don't think that half of the Kos "followers" are aware of this.....and count me cracking up this morning.  Let's not tell them today either, I want my Friday afternoon nap.

    I can tell you (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:47:39 AM EST
    there are a lot of progressives down there who will not soon forget what Clinton did.  
    they are not making a big deal of Obamas endorsement because it was completely irrelevant to her winning.  his endorsement of a candidate has about as much effect in that state as mine does.

    Does anyone care (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    anymore about what progressives think?  I don't at least.  I care about what liberals think, but that's different.  

    Seems more real, in my view, to lump people on their concern about real issues than manufactured social movements.

    Parent

    whatever (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    that means

    Parent
    Kind of important - a benchmark of ridicule (none / 0) (#40)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    and a measurement of irrelevance and yardstick of the pathetic.

    I actually agree with Rahm's contempt for 'progressives' - they were politically pathetic, they got rolled and they keep getting rolled, and, other than their whining and their cowering and their sniveling,

    THEY STILL VOTE WITH THE SELL OUTS!

    as the big boyz fight over which band of thieves gets to get the next pound of flesh, they probably amuse themselves with what the pathetic "progressives" will sputter and fume about -

    they sure as hell don't worry about missing out on the pound of flesh.

    rmm.  

    Parent

    "Irrelevant"? Pfffffttt ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    For all the millions that both sides spent on the bruising Arkansas Senate Democratic primary race, Yvonne Thomas admits she went to the polls not having much of a sense about the candidates.

    What she did know, and what turned out to be the only thing that mattered in her decision to cast her ballot for the embattled incumbent Blanche Lincoln, was this: "Obama wanted us to vote for her," said Thomas, who is African American.

    ... in this election, Lincoln and her Democratic primary challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, battled hard to win black voters...

    The black vote "was definitely something we had to pay close attention to," said campaign manager Steve Patterson the day after Lincoln's victory.

    Where former president Bill Clinton's endorsement also carried some weight with blacks, it was more crucial in rural Arkansas among white voters, said Arkansas political consultant Stacy Williams. He estimated that Obama's imprimatur may have added as many as six percentage points to Lincoln's total, by reassuring African Americans and white liberals.

    "There's a great deal of magic to President Obama in the black community," agreed state Sen. Joyce Elliott, an African American candidate who won the Democratic primary for a Little Rock-based congressional seat. Elliott's own candidacy may have increased black voter turnout in populous Pulaski County, which went decisively for Lincoln on May 18 and in Tuesday's runoff.

    Link

    Hey .... don't they live in Arkansas, too?

    Parent

    oh well (1.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    I guess Yvonne Thomas explains everything

    have a nice hysterical day now.

    Parent

    Actually, Yvonne Thomas ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    ... was just an example cited in the article.  I put more weight in the analysis of Stacy Williams (Arkansas political consultant) and state Sen./Congressional candidate Joyce Elliott.  Well, ...

    ... more so than some guy who "lives there".

    Parent

    Any progressives there who might (none / 0) (#66)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    consider that Obama sent Clinton to campaign for her because he didn't want to be sullied when she lost, which was a very real possibility? Obama and the Party have made it plain that they support all incumbents over all challengers but Obama doesn't want to be tied to losers, as was apparent when he disappeared on Specter when it was clear that he would lose. And who better to pull it out for incumbent Blanche than a favorite son if it could be won? There just seems like there has to be more to the story than Clinton going rogue and meddling in the primary. I think he is committed to Obama's presidency and his role as party leader and wouldn't insert himself unless Obama requested it.

    Parent
    It's surely (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    all coordinated.  There's really no reason to protect Obama or Clinton in this.

    Parent
    no reason (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    but knee jerk

    Parent
    who said he was going rogue (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    of course he was sent by Obama.  and it was not because he was afraid she would lose.  or certainly not ONLY because of that.

    he was sent because Obama is about as popular as Kim Jong Il in the state.

    THAT is why Clinton did it.  and yes, of course he was acting FOR the white house.

    it doesnt change the fact that HE did it and that every progressive in arkansas and everywhere else who can read a newspaper knows he did it.


    Parent

    Do you ever listen to/read your own words? (4.40 / 5) (#82)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    Or do you just chatter reflexively, with no regard to whether one of your comments makes any sense in relation to your others on the same subject?

    It's now quite obvious that you don't want Obama to have anything to do with Lincoln's victory, in spite of his having affirmatively endorsed her, and you seem to regard Clinton acting as Obama's surrogate as even more reason not to put any of this on Obama.

    I guess what this means is that Obama need not take responsibility for the actions of anyone acting in any capacity in his administration, even if those people are carrying out his agenda, following his instructions, implementing his policies, and your reason would be that Obama, himself, did not physically do the things he wanted done.

    Man, this is some kind of weird definition of leadership: lead, but take no responsibility, direct, but do not attach any accountability, instruct, but disavow any ownership.  

    Unless it is at all possible to claim anything of an historic, Abraham Lincoln-esque, or FDR-esque victory toward the ultimate goal of having a legacy so burnished that one of those special eclipse-viewers would be required to look at it so as to avoid permanent blindness.  Then, take all the credit.

    Here's the thing: certainly Clinton has to accept responsibility for agreeing to rally support for Lincoln as an emissary of the president- assuming that is, in fact, that was the nature of his support; and if he was there of his own accord, he has to accept his role in her victory.

    I don't think Clinton has attempted to avoid responsibility for whatever his role was, nor has he felt a need to apologize for it, but if we are going to hold him to that level of accountability, why isn't Obama being held to that same level?  Why try so hard to exempt the president, who stands not just as the leader of the country, but of the party, from his own role in Lincoln's victory?

    The contortions people are willing to put themselves through to protect Obama are ridiculous, and the abandonment of both common sense and honesty are helping no one.


    Parent

    you know (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    being lectured by you on common sense makes my friday.

    let me see if I can type this slowly.
    no one is saying Obama doesnt have some of the blame for Lincoln.  he did not win the contest for her.  Clinton did.  if not for Clinton she would have lost.  no one with a clue denies that.
    what I and others are responding to is the unrelenting hatred and loathing and "piling on" as one of your comrades put it so well of Obama.  sure Obama asked Clinton to do it.  he did not hold Hillary hostage and force him to do it.
    he did it because he wanted to.  he said he would do it months before Obama could possibly have asked him to do it.  
    and the problem with that is nearly all of the people he screwed in doing so were some of his biggest supporters in the past.
    well, he wont have those supporters any more.  not that he needs them but we see who he really is now.

    and no Anne, unlike you I dont usually pour over my own comments.
    sorry.

    Parent

    the truth is I am looking forward (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    to how much all you progressive haters love Clintons campaigning when he hits the trail for Obama and the democrats this fall.  which he will.

    he is Obamas secret weapon in that category.
    look forward to all the rich consistency that this will bring forth.


    Parent

    You anticipate something consistent (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    that can be exploited in the future out of this cathouse?  Most of us around here have made peace with the fact that they are all just a bunch of whewwrs.  I'm my own whewwr now, I've sworn off pimps.  They can go hock their own damn wares and if I like it I might buy some until it's time for something else :)

    Parent
    I anticipate (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    quite the opposite.

    good thing old comments are not supposed to be brought up huh.

    Parent

    "progressive haters"?! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    really?!

    Parent
    would you like me to sift (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    thru this thread and list the digs at those awful "progressives"

    sorry Im busy. try reading

    and yes really.


    Parent

    That might be because the only (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    "progress" many of these so-called progressive bloggers seem to be interested in is the continued upward trajectory of their own careers, which many of them have hitched to Obama's fortunes - which has made them fairly incapable of being honest about Obama's actions and performance as a leader.

    Now, I don't fault anyone for wanting, and striving for, personal success, but some of these people have, because they have super-glued themselves to Obama, become obstacles on the path to the kind of real progress they purport to be acting in service of.


    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    so there IS a "cause" for the progressive bashing.

    I call this progress.

    Parent

    I have been quite clear, in more than (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    a few comments, that if there is one label I could live the rest of my life without ever hearing or seeing, it would be "progressive;" it may have, at one time, been a substitute for "liberal," but, speaking as someone who refuses to be ashamed of being a liberal, one - "progressive" - bears almost no resemblance at all to the other - "liberal."

    Lost in translation were actual liberal principles and ideology.  In their place was substituted a pragmatic world view that found value in selling off the heart and soul of liberalism and prizing victory without much interest in what was being "won."  It has give us policies and legislation nearly indistinguishable from those offered by conservatives and Republicans and created a template for compromised, conceded, watered-down policy and legislation that is not in any way, shape of form "progressive," but is, instead, "regressive."

    So, yes, I will bash progressives - they deserve it; they have pretty much killed what should have been a tremendous opportunity to make real progress, in exchange for what?  The greater good?  I think not.


    Parent

    Progressive is pseudo-pragmatism (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    I'm with you.  The term progressive has morphed.  It used to be a substitute PC term for liberals who were frightened of Republicans but now incorporates those who value an odd sort of pragmatism.  

    I remember when incrementalism was the part of progressivism when it was related to liberalism.  I guess my example would be health care.  Today's progressives define it as a success of 'incrementalism' which it isn't in any liberal sense as it takes the country in a conservative direction with an entrenched broken system and increased corporate welfare.  It is a pragmatic settling for reform in name only.

    The new progressive more closely models itself on our media which presents he said/he said as moral equivalencies and the false ideology that the answer lies in the middle.  Pseudo-centrism.

    The new 'progressive' presentation seems to appeal to those more interested in politics than policy ... and ex-Republicans :)

    Parent

    They only used the word "progressive" (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    to begin with because the right wing noise machine -- always on the same page like killer bees or virulent bacteria -- had launched a campaign, starting in the eighties, to transform the meaning of the word "liberal" in the public mind into a synonym for weakness and disloyalty to the country.

    Not that 99% of Dem frontrunners were EVER that liberal or progressive to begin with..

    Parent

    In Other Words (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    Everyone who supported Obama is a progressive, and everyone who supported Hillary is a liberal.

    You have made this point many times, no need to explain.

    Parent

    No, those are YOUR words, squeaky - (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    not mine; I have never, ever boxed people in like that, nor have I ever claimed Hillary is or was a liberal; do I believe she is she more liberal than Obama on issues that matter to me - yes - but once again, you have jumped in to attempt to change the meaning of what I clearly stated - and fallen flat on your face.

    I speak only for me: I am a liberal who supported Hillary, which says nothing about where others who supported her fell on the political spectrum.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    Its the Hatfields v the McCoys redux. Pretty much a homogenous group, except that they are fighting because someone done them wrong.  

    Parent
    It was always (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    a choice between one corporatacracy, Wall St, MIC beholden "democrat" or the other..That will remain the REAL problem; not who put a certain bourgeois demograph's undies in a permanent twist by scratching his face at the wrong time..

    Hillary: possibly more 'liberal', but still not liberal enough to seriously attempt to do anything about the Pentagon revolving door or to keep the Greenspan disciples away from the design of economic policy.

    It's a rigged game specifically designed to keep out those "heroes" everyone seems to want.

    Parent

    Liberal Sec of State (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    Yep, the more liberal Sec of State is replacing troops in Iraq with mercenaries (oops, I meant private contractors) further privatizing our military and security state (which happens to be a serious issue for me).  Yippee.

    Parent
    Is that her call? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    I'm not being snarky - just haven't read much about this.  Who is it that gets to decide whether to use troops vs. "contractors"?

    Parent
    WaPo series (none / 0) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:01:24 PM EST
    I think I'm surprised that it appears you haven't read the WaPo series and how the admin is blocking attempts at oversight and the expansion.  Clinton is required to sign off on the contracts.  She hasn't said one word that she disagrees with the policy ... I supported her but was suspicious she would be supportive of most war so I am not disappointed but not surprised she goes along with this but I was hopeful her statements about a draw down in Iraq were factual.  Oh well.

    As a liberal I expect incrementalism in the other direction and would never vote for her if she ran again.

    If you haven't had a chance to read  the series, it's mostly a rehash of known data as they cooperated with the Admin in not releasing info, but it's pretty good.

    Parent

    Okay, read it, ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    ... at least anything that seemed relevant to the administration's use of contractors.  The article that appeared to be the most relevant was this one, and I didn't see anything about Clinton or her role in the decision to continue the use of private contractors.  Maybe I missed it in one of the other articles.

    I'm still not sure of your premise, however.  Seems to me the authority to continue/discontinue the use of contractors and a draw down in Iraq rest with the CinC.  I hope they do move away as quickly as possible from using contractors, but I don't see how she's at fault for following the administration's policies.  Could you imagine the reaction if she called out the WH on this issue?

    Parent

    Wise Words (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    Of course the real problem is having politician "heroes" in the first place. Pols are pols and do what they do.


    Parent
    They are indeed (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 07:35:23 AM EST
    That's why I don't have any politician "heroes".  Of course, ...

    ... some people pretend otherwise by twisting words and reading minds.

    Parent

    The way things (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    are working these days, it was probably the contractors, the major shareholders and whoever else has a major financial stake in deal's call.

    Parent
    Well said Anne - you articulated what I have been (none / 0) (#141)
    by mogal on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    thinking. I understand what Liberal means. Progressive, not so sure.

    Parent
    He'll have to (4.50 / 6) (#117)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:14:33 PM EST
    since both him and his wife are about the only people connected to his Administration whose poll numbers aren't plummeting.  I knew both Bill and Hill would be loyal to Obama, which is why I thought all of the derision and hate they faced was particularly funny.  And of course Bill was just a sheet-wearing good ole boy who secretly hated all African Americans.

    Of course, Biden has really brought a lot to the table, no verbal gaffes or any other form of stupidity that he has been known for.  I find it ironic that Biden, once one of the most hated people in the blogosphere (Sen. MBNA was his nickname) was suddenly a true Progressive champion to so many once Obama chose him.  How extremely odd that is and was.  

    Hilary would have stabbed him in the back with what I can only assume was her intelligence, competence, and dedication to the Party because God forbid his Admin have any of that.  Rahm, Vilsack, and Lieberman (who Obama purposefully chose as his Senatorial tutor) are the kind of Democrats Obama prefers, the ones that haven't met a Republican *ss that they refuse to kiss.

    I'll give you credit though Capt., at least you're not calling us retarded or racist, I guess I'll thank you for that small favor.  But Clinton does Obama a favor and gets ALL OF THE BLAME!  Yeah, nothing odd or ironic about that.

    Jackson

    Parent

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    if you knew half as much as you think you do you would know I was the one defending the clintons for months until if tired of it and fled this site.

    but dont let that stop you from making your "point"

    Parent

    Of COURSE Clinton will campaign ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    ... for Obama and Democrats in the fall.

    "progressive haters"?
    "category"?
    "Rich consistency"?

    Try that again.

    Parent

    last word (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    again

    Parent
    C'mon Capt. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    I was serious.  I have no idea what your point was.  Besides, you whole "last word - n/t thing" thing is just, ...

    ... well, ...

    ... embarrassing.

    Parent

    you were serious (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    thanks, I needed that.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    no one is saying Obama doesnt have some of the blame for Lincoln.

    That's exactly what the BTD points out the netroots are doing.  

    Parent

    really (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    you are talking about this?

    "It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

    you know, its funny.  I dont see Obama mentioned there at all.

    Parent

    Oy. (none / 0) (#99)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    That's exactly BTD's point.  That's why he got a chuckle.  The fact that Clinton got called out for it, with no mention of the fact that the leader of the party did the same thing.

    Parent
    not that you would know (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    but that has been explained.

    Parent
    Explained? By whom? (none / 0) (#104)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    By you?  LOL.

    Parent
    its ok (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    I know you were busy piling on.

    Parent
    The only "explanation" (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    I've seen is yours, and it's entirely irrational.  Something about Clinton enjoying himself too much, even though he was doing what Obama asked him to do, and your argument that Clinton wanted to do it before Obama asked, even though that's a ridiculous concept since, given that it's Arkansas, of course Clinton was always going to do it and Obama knew that.  

    I mean, look, BTD's point (one of them at least) was that it's silly to hold Clinton out for special criticism because Obama did the same thing (well, and the point that netroots holds an irrational hatred of Clinton).  To be honest, I don't care who won in Arkansas, because I don't think it effects the lousy policy coming out of the Democratic leadership these days, but I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the point that BTD is making.

    Parent

    Let's do a counterfactual (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    What if Obama had asked Clinton to stump for Lincoln, and he had refused.  Do you think that Clinton would have been heralded as a hero at netroots nation?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    Parent

    big word (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    yes he would have and the fact that you dont get it supports the notion.

    actually.

    Parent

    It's not the speed of your typing (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    no one is saying Obama doesnt have some of the blame for Lincoln.

    Really?

    there are a lot of progressives down there who will not soon forget what Clinton did.  
    they are not making a big deal of Obamas endorsement because it was completely irrelevant to her winning.  his endorsement of a candidate has about as much effect in that state as mine does.


    Parent
    And we might lose a PA senate seat (none / 0) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    Obama doesn't want to be tied to losers, as was apparent when he disappeared on Specter when it was clear that he would lose.
    Maybe he should have sent Bill in on this one too.

    One of the things about Specter was that he always won both Dem votes and GOP votes. He would have won the seat again if not for the Sestack ads showing Specter saying he switched sides to win again. That and yes, it really was lousy weather that day and Seniors in this state, and we have many, do not go out in bad weather. I worry about this choice because Sestack has lost his big lead and the right wing Santorium want a be Toomey is tied or leading in polls. Now, this is a very serious problem that no one seems to be addressing. And a few days ago, Pro-Israel group attacked Sestack and the Jewish vote in PA is always a solid camp. Toomey is scary. I can't believe he would pick that camp up, but he has a lot of people in the Christian camp. This senate race petrifies me.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    I was reading somewhere that the pro-israel attack was less about picking up Jewish voters and more about picking up Christian voters who don't like Muslims.  Israel is our "brother" in that fight and we must always support Israel.  A lot of conservatives are rampantly pro-Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with being Jewish.

    Parent
    I'm not sure why endorsing someone with a 0% (none / 0) (#32)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    chance of winning instead of someone with a 5% chance of winning is cause to convene another circular firing squad, but hey, that's just me.

    its called (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:14:10 AM EST
    principal.

    but then why should we work for candidates that share our beliefs?  

    actually your statement seems insane to me.
    it was if fact the perfect opportunity to back someone who was worthy of backing.

    Parent

    The health care debate was over. It was all about (none / 0) (#43)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    revenge.  Halter had almost no chance of becoming a Senator.

    Imagine if all that effort and money had gone into daily protests at the Maine offices of Snowe and Collins--there were real pressure points there.

    Only bloggers have unlimited resources (electrons).  Having fights on principle that even if you win will have no real world effect is a waste.  There are other fights available that WILL have an effect.  They may not satisfy the revenge motive, but are more worth it.

    Parent

    oh sure (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    it was over.

    no reason at all to follow through with what they promised her they would do.

    no reason at all.

    Parent

    There was no reason to do it in the first place. (none / 0) (#53)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    Lincoln was never vote #60 for anything.  The pressure needed to be applied elsewhere.

    But some bloggers needed to play "make my day" on TV, even though in the real world, it would have no policy effect.

    Parent

    as was obvious from the start (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:49:15 AM EST
    you donk know what you are talking about.

    she opposed the public option.  she was warned not to and she did it anyway.
    and she got what she was promised.  unfortunately Clinton pulled her sorry a$$ out of the fire.

    in the end the message was sent.

    Parent

    Oh, I guess Lieberman supported it, so she (none / 0) (#60)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    was vote #60.  Seriously...she was NEVER vote #60.  However, there could have been so much more pressure placed on Snowe and Collins.

    But I guess it's more fun to bash Democrats.

    And is "message sent" the new "mission accomplished"?

    Parent

    What is this 60 number you (none / 0) (#61)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    are talking about?  The health care bill passed through reconciliation.  It only needed 50 votes.  Thus, Lincoln's vote, Lieberman's vote, Nelson's vote, etc. etc.  All were irrelevant.

    Parent
    When the original 'I dare Blanche' threat was made (none / 0) (#63)
    by steviez314 on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    we were still in regular order, and looking for 60.

    Why didn't anyone dare Snowe or Collins to vote against their constituents.  Because it's just more fun to have a circular firing squad.

    Parent

    No disagreement on that. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:14:17 AM EST
    Though I think the final result (i.e. reconciliation) proved that it was the Democratic leadership's intention all along not to have meaningful healthcare reform.

    In other words, the whole notion of blaming the "blue dog" Senators was all just smoke and mirrors to provide cover for the fact that the Democratic leadership opposed reform.  I'm fine with blaming Democrats for stopping reform, but let's please blame the Democrats who had the power to enact reform if they wanted.  Namely the Democratic leadership and the fifty most liberal Democrats...the few outlying blue dogs, and Presidents Snowe and Collins, were always essentially irrelevant.

    Parent

    How do you bait (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    Snowe and Collins?  By convincing them they could run as Democrats?  Dems protesting outside their offices could've been a worth a shot, but then again it could've meant giving more "oomph" to their No votes, so as to curry favor among Republicans.  Were Snowe and Collins really going to capitulate to hippies?  The public option was popular almost everywhere, but few (in the Senate) let that determine anything they did.

    I think revenge is a fine enough motive for a primary.  The blogs need to exert their strength from time to time to get respect.  If you can make Bill Clinton get off his @ss hopefully you can do something else as well.

    Parent

    details (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    details.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:30:20 AM EST
    I thought the blogs should exert their strength to forward the issues.  Since only 50 votes were needed for healthcare reform, why not focus on pressuring the Democratic leadership or one of the 50 Democratic senators who would have voted for real reform?

    Parent
    Well sure, if the netroots (none / 0) (#48)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    really cared about effectively fighting for liberal causes.  I think this is just another example showing that's not what really motivates the big-time netroots folks.  

    They're drunk with the own sense of self-importance.  That's understandable...they're having their taste of fame and they like it.  The sad part is that it distracts their followers, many of whom have put their trust in the big-time netroots folks, from focusing on the issues.

    Parent

    now (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    whos bitter?

    I forget

    Parent

    Too true. Principal is a financial term (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    unless you mean it was about the schools.

    To figure out anything that this administration does, follow the money.

    This administration rarely seems to battle for  principles, unless you mean Nu Dem party "principles."  This administration is about politics, and Obama backing Lincoln was good politics for him.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    excuse me

    principle.

    it was about principles.


    Parent

    thats what happens (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    when you rely on spell check

    Parent
    LOL. Too true! (none / 0) (#38)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    Also, I was never convinced that there was much substantive difference between the two candidates anyway.  I mean, Lincoln is no prize, but doesn't she usually end up toeing the administration's line in the end anyway?  Obviously I'm not satsfied with the administration's line, but it's not like Halter would have been able to convice Obama to move to the left or anything (nor would he have wanted to, most likely).

    To me, this seemed like a simple chance for the netroots to feel powerful, and they're bitter their attempt failed.  It's not like it would have made any substantive difference.  Whether they are naive, or whether they know this but keep it hidden because they want more money/respect, who knows.

    Parent

    I agree about the choices (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    For that reason I did not follow it that closely. Any Dem who wins the senate in Arkansas is going to be a center-left at best. Maybe Halter talked a 'lefter' game, but maybe could not win anyway, or be a significant improvement over Lincoln.

    I'm glad there was a primary fight anyway - can't hurt to keep her a little insecure.

    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    Credible primary challenges from the left are a Good Thing, IMO, whether they succeed or not.  Anybody think she would have proposed that finreg amendment if Halter hadn't been barking at her heels?

    Parent
    netroots bitter (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    thats rich coming from  you

    Parent
    Actually, it was coming from BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    I was just piling on.  :)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 05:30:16 PM EST
    I just thought it was funny.

    A bit surprised that there is that much to discuss in this.

    I thought it was funny too (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 05:51:37 PM EST
    and there wasnt that much to discuss.

    have a good weekend.


    Parent

    Hmm..then why the (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by dk on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:35:08 PM EST
    attempts to disagree with the joke and justify the double standard?  

    Odd, I just thought the double standard was funny.

    Parent

    And yet... (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    you managed to make forty - 40! - comments in this thread.

    Forty.

    Parent

    Nice Bean-Counting (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 07:42:05 PM EST
    Did he also have a higher word count than you? Usually you win that prize.

    Parent
    I doubt it, but then again ... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    ... she wasn't the one saying "there wasn't that much to discuss".

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    Content wise... Not sure what that has to do with bean counting comments, as anything about hero worship and Clinton is a red meat topic round here.

    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 08:54:32 PM EST
    A guy who says "there's not much to say" about this topic, after making over 25% of the comments in the thread???

    Have your doctor check your funny bone.

    Parent

    Little Content (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 09:06:43 PM EST
    lots of back and forth, about a rather thin issue, hero worship.

    The McCoys v the Hatfields.

    Not sure why this seems strange to you.

    Parent

    It's the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:04:30 PM EST
    As for the "lack of content", that's just how he rolls when he's on a tear.

    Parent
    Hypocrisy? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:21:49 PM EST
    More like, your inability to understand the subtleties of the english language, not to mention human behavior.

    Parent
    This has to be the funniest comment I've read (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    this morning:

    your inability to understand the subtleties of the english language.

    Given your almost-always wrong interpretations of others' comments, I would say that not only do you lack an ability to understand "the subtleties" of the language, but the "basics" are still a challenge for you, as well.

    But, thanks for the chuckle...

    Parent

    "Subtelties"? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 07:28:56 AM EST
    You mean like when you were claiming LL's flashing the papparazzi was a feminist act of political anti-authoritarianism.

    (snicker)

    Yeah - if by "subtelties" you mean ridiculous fantasies, ...

    ... you got me.

    Parent

    Tends to happen on Fridays (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 11:54:43 PM EST
    I've noticed.  Must be slow days at work, or anxious days before the weekend, or ?

    Parent
    I vote for (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 24, 2010 at 12:28:10 AM EST
    the "or."  Seriously.


    Parent
    Red Meat (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 05:54:26 PM EST


    Parent
    omg (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 10:23:29 AM EST
    40 comments!
    fourty

    four oh

    just when you think the peanut gallery cant get more pathetic.


    Parent

    Actually, 45 comments ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    ... on a topic where there "wasn't that much to discuss".

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    No More Heroes | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment