Corrente

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

Glenn is so not getting a pony

vastleft's picture

Today, Glenn was confronted by some, er, astute readers who, er, astutely believe that Obama can eliminate all political divisions.

He responds to the latter:

But don't worry they are going to die out as fast as all these 'old farts blogs' who mainly live in the past and who haven't realized yet that 'move-on' really means moving on way beyond move-on!

Way beyond! Like to the sky! Where Obama lives!

Where mean political arguments don't exist and bad people are silenced and divisions are erased and harmony reigns.

The post that this is in comments of is a serious affirmation of everything we said when it was politically incorrect to do so. But no reaction to it here? Anyone? Anyone?

0
No votes yet

Comments

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

This:

In the meantime, everybody can just get on with their lives and be happy.

As a great man once said, "I encourage you all to go shopping more."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's way too late now--and they absolutely refused to listen before.

seeing (still only a small fraction of) people wake up only now just makes it all more depressing, and makes it all worse.

seeing the vehement reaction to those people waking up now (and seeing how people routinely have to put disclaimers on posts and articles knowing what reaction they'll get), and how it's still as delusional as it's been for over a year, makes it even worse still.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I, too, kept hoping they were actually delusional, rather than being intentionally devious. But here we are: all of a sudden, out they come with what we've known all along and they say it matter-of-factly.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

depressing and aggravating--i don't know if it's simply bec he wasn't Hillary or a Clinton that made him better in their eyes automatically, or if it was because if you're an African-American Democrat of course you're progressive, bla bla bla--or if they just believed all his early lies, or what.

Either way, the result is that this very very DC Village Establishment (much more than Hillary for sure), very conservative, and non-fighting, and non-Democratic with a capital D, guy without experience is now gonna be our next President.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

After Edwards dropped out, his supporters had to go elsewhere.

From the way things played out, about half of Edwards supporters hated women, and the other half didn't.

They are totally separate from the true believers, though they probably share a good dose of the woman hatred. You can tell the difference now, because before the election, they all defended Obama vociferously, while now the CDS purists will look at him critically.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i thought that made the difference in PA, and other places-- but for Hillary.

--i wonder...it seems to me that except for union members (who were heavily pushing Obama and spent tons), more Edwards supporters went Hillary. i have no proof tho--except that she was a known Democrat with a record, talking more populist than Obama by far-- and a clear and tough and demonstrated fighter.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Edwards supporters went for Obama when it really mattered --- on Super Tuesday.

Most Edwards supporters were "anyone but Hillary" types --- and when Edwards dropped out right before Super Tuesday, they wound up voting for "anyone but Hillary", managing to keep Obama competitive on that day. This was especially true throughout the south.

Once Edwards voters had a chance to think about the choice, however, they appear to have gravitated toward Clinton. (see my piece on how Clinton managed to win over Edwards voters in West Virgina at http://www.correntewire.com/how_clinton_... )

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i remember arguing with my Mom about it endlessly--i was 16, and couldn't imagine why she-- and my stepfather and my grandparents and aunts and uncles, etc--all lifelong Democrats--were so against Carter and so willing to vote Reagan even tho they didn't believe any of his bs.

it was like they were only 1000% certain that Carter had failed--and that was the only determining factor--even tho they knew Reagan was rightwing and conservative, which they weren't. it just didn't matter--at all.

over and over again these past 2 yrs i've thought about that, and how it was like talking to a wall.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"He never pretended that he wanted to implement or advance a progressive agenda. And he certainly never did anything to suggest he would oppose or undermine the Democratic establishment that has exerted power in the party over the last two decades."

He certainly did pretend--and outright lie-- on many things that are progressive--from taking public financing to FISA to NAFTA reform to lobbyists to diplomacy to ...

And he repeatedly--daily even--denounced the only Democratic president "over the last two decades", and the way the party--and all of DC--has worked over the previous decades. It was only during the convention that he even grudgingly praised Clinton's terms at all.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

From the original letter:

"You can't run America by declaring that everything that's come before is utter crap."

That's essentially what the president-elect ran on. It was his central message, that everything in the past was crap (i.e. lumping Bill Clinton and George Bush over and over and over again), and that he represented something totally and completely removed from past battles. Can you say "irony"?

So, I guess that in the stages of grieving they so often attributed to us "dead-enders" they are in the bargaining stage or the acceptance stage of things. I love the whole nervous "he'll change" narrative running, now, when they know that that isn't true.

My god, Lambert. There are not enough ponies in the world for the true believers...

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Every true believer is getting a pony, maybe three. They're just on back-order, that's all.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

it will only take another four or five month before Greenwald "discovers" that Obama's exploitation of misogyny and homophobia, and the "race-boating" of Clinton, foreshadowed the kind of government Obama would have -- and be pretending that he was writing about that all along.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

He said, accurately I believe, that he didn't write much about the horse race.

Now that flaws of the horse race are coming to roost, we can again wish he did. But he didn't.

After his not-so-fair piece about Bill's Jesse Jackson quote, I'm just as glad he didn't. But his FISA writing should not be ignored if on wants to accuse him of being in the tank for Obama.