If you have "no place to go," come here!

And speaking of ladies...

Anglachel on FL and MI:*

But, we're looking at a lady or tiger situation here, or rather a co-dependent win with the lady and a crushing defeat you will never recover from tiger. Fail to seat Hillary's supporters while their votes still count and you lose in November. Seat them and you risk losing the delegate lead and get relegated to VP. (And, yes, Hillary will make Obama her VP without batting an eye.) If you still somehow managed to squeak out the delegate count, you instantly make her VP, thereby legitimizing your biggest political opponent, or you lose in November. There's no recovery from that. Failing to give respect and power where it is due only strengthens your opponent for the next round.

The actual political battle being fought this electoral year is whether or not the Democratic Party is willing to abandon its elitist politics of resentment against its own working class core and take that part of the population back from the Republicans. That means abandoning fantasies of Whole Foods Nation and living in archipelagos of urbanity where you can be ironically detached from the events of the dirty world beyond your redoubt. It means rejecting "unity" predicated upon a purge of what frustrates you in the party coalition. It means relinquishing your dearly held fantasies of the evil demons out to get you, and accepting that you will have to compromise with others to get things done.

Obamacans need to grow the fuck up and jettison their juvenile paranoid conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing except run a tough campaign. As Krugman concludes:

the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose.

If the anti-Clinton wing persists in the politics of demonization to the detriment of the party, they will be the ones left at the station as the Republicans drive off with the majority of the voters.

Maybe somebody I'll be able to put together a post like that. Awsum.

NOTE * Bringiton would argue, I think, that 5/31 is all wired. Then again, 5 days is a long time in politics.

NOTE PB 2.0 people will also find an interesting comment on the nature of "communities" online.

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Maybe somebody I’ll be able to put together a post like that. Awsum.

well, you can, and have done it in the past Lambert -- but I don't know if you (or anyone) is every going to surpass this sentence...

That means abandoning fantasies of Whole Foods Nation and living in archipelagos of urbanity where you can be ironically detached from the events of the dirty world beyond your redoubt.

rjpjr's picture
Submitted by rjpjr on

Awsum doesn't even begin to describe it.

My only question is who will be the first person Obama throws under the unity bus?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Or were you referring to after he takes office? (assuming he makes it that far)

“Rules are not necessarily sacred,
principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

are the bloggers she refers to (aside from Chicago Dyke of course) in the opening who have been informed "The Decision has been made". Further, I want to know who The Deciders are (and yes CD, that means from you too).

For two reasons:

1.) We need to know how credible this all is.

2.) We need to know who to blame when the shit hits the fan.


Good night and good riddance!

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

One of the things she claims about Reagan Dems, is that they are voting against "uppity women", yet they are voting for Clinton.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The point, though, is that she believes that Reagan Dems are basically lost to the party anyway, so Clinton wouldn't be able to keep them in the fold in the GE without being seriously compromized on issues of importance to the Pandagonites, so the Pandagonites have no incentive to support Clinton over Obama.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Wasn't Obama's early electability argument was that he (and he alone) had the power to bring Reagan Democrats back into the fold?

That it was the Clinton's and their 'divisiveness of the 90's' that was the cause of all our current electoral problems?


Reagan Democrats are 'lost'...NAY...Reagan Democrats are irrelevant because Obama now has a NEW coalition of voters. (and it's made up of women Reagan Dems, and not the males)???

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

I myself am planning an AWSUM post...

most people will not like it. (I'm going to name names and stir the pot something terrible, but it was all brought on by the recent posts by CD and Xen, so you can blame them when I'm done)


holla at yall later.