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

About that downside risk part...

Go read Glenn.

I always said that the real different between our two centrist Dem candidates was risk, and I don't like risk. Mostly. Hillary had no downside risk, working on the assumption that all her flaws were known. She also, I felt, had less upside potential -- though I have to say that how she adjusted on the way to her "impervious" popular vote victory in the primaries impressed me. Obama, in my view, had more upside potential ("new kind of politics") and more downside risk, since he was not such a known quantity. Oh well. C'est la vie. As Anglachel wrote:

You gain legitimacy by being willing to risk power.

Oh well, oh well, oh well....

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Via Talk Left, from TPM:

[A] reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that. . . ," [Robert] Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well." It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

Submitted by lambert on

I loved that quote.

I mean, shit that they care about, they've got the talking points ready, right?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Re: Obama's demonstrable downside, specifically vis-a-vis doing almost nothing about telecom immunity and actively supporting a major FISA-raper's re-election vs. a true progressive:

"None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts."

He adds: "There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens."

I agree with him, but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't seriously flawed and that there isn't an awful lot to complain about -- especially as a corrective to the nauseatingly inflated claims made in his favor in both the MSM and the mainstream blogosphere.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

he's telling us NEXT TIME we have to do a better job of vetting the candidates --- but that the horrible evil McCain must be vanquished...

He's just like the rest of the bloggerboiz -- he's Aravosis with the rough edges sanded off. But he's still an Obot (note how he accuses others of being Manichean -- then turns around and later describes McCain and the GOP as evil?).

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I wrote that after reading Glenn "the bundler" Greenwald's most recent column.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

He's been supporting Obama for a very long time... indeed, Greenwald was in the vanguard of the race-boating of the Clintons.

greenwald wants you to believe that this is somehow about the presidential campaign. Its not. Opposition to telecom immunity is POPULAR with the electorate.

Greenwald can't face the fact that he's been supporting an empty suit for the last five months -- and thus he tries to cast this debacle as if it was some sort of campaign strategy. ITS NOT.

Its part and parcel of who Obama is -- someone who isn't interested in leadership on ISSUES, and was happy to give away any claim to any leadership on ISSUES in exchange for the support of the slimebags in the Democratic Party who are responsible for this debacle.

Greenwald has been all about targetting Steny Hoyer... but Steny Hoyer is doing exactly what Steny Hoyer will do unless LEADERSHIP stops him from doing it. Its only in the last two days that Greenwald has even acknowledged that OBAMA is responsible for his happening....that one word from Obama, and the Democrats would have fallen in line in the name of "party unity."

Greenwald may have a big brain, but like the fools over at FDL, they are so full of themselves, and so obsessed with finding fault with McCain and the GOP, that they never bothered to examine the cancerous growth that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership represented.

Greenwald and his ilk are just as much to blame for this mess as Steny Hoyer -- HE and his fauxgressive peers chose to ignore what was happening in the Democratic Party as a whole, and now that their FAILURE to act responsibly is coming home to roost, their looking for any means possible to excuse their own dereliction.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I gradually lost the habit for pretty much all the A-list blogs because they either suddenly or gradually showed signs of both going in the tank for Obama and/or (usually and) deliberately misjudging Hillary. And I mean "going in the tank" as opposed to making a reasoned argument for why he was a superior candidate.

IIRC, I lost the Glenn habit when he went goo-goo eyed about the Greatest Speech About Race Evah, which my lyin' eyes showed to be a middling mishmash, a something-for-everyone (including a shoutout to white racists) distraction from the real issues of the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

I missed the race-boating, though. Can you point us toward one of the more-egregious examples?

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I'd forgotten about that one. Yup, that's around when I stopped enjoying my daily dose of ads.

How on earth did the context of the fairytale-gate and LBJ-gate fauxtrages escape a big brain's like Glenn's?

That Kool-Aid is bad medicine.

Submitted by gob on

could stand in for a lot of people this election season. He and many of my erstwhile favorite bloggers and real-life family and friends could be exhibit A for a book entitled The Stupidity of Intelligent People.

The whole affair reminds me of the surprising fact that small children, unlike adults, aren't fooled by sleight of hand.

Submitted by lambert on

... when you can become them?

It's like one of those SF horror movies where replicants defeat their natural enemies by morphing into perfect imitations of them....

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

the two things I want from the Democratic Party is that they generally agree with me on the big issues and that they fight the GOP. They're 0 for 2.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"...Maybe we had it wrong from the start: It's Barack Obama who is running for George Bush's third term, while John McCain just might be pursuing John Kerry's first.

Not on policy, of course (not that Team McCain would much mind that perception these days). But in approach, in temperament, in stability, in take-no-prisoners mindset -- inside which campaign would Karl Rove recognize a piece of himself? ..." -- The Rematch: If It's Bush vs. Kerry Again, Who Gets Which Role?

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

…Maybe we had it wrong from the start: It’s Barack Obama who is running for George Bush’s third term, while John McCain just might be pursuing John Kerry’s first.

Neither. Both are running for Ronald Reagan's eighth term.

...for the rest of us