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

Good riddance

Shouldn't Rahm be resigning to spend more time in the Chicago after the 2010 referendum on The Big O's performance?

I mean, is Obama already thinking he needs to steal votes in IL for 2012 that desperately? Feel free not to answer that...

No votes yet


jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

First Summers, now Emmanuel. Obama is being stripped of the people that most access bloggers use to deflect blame away from him for the more corporatist things he does.

When there's no one left to blame but Obama, what will they do over at Kos and OpenLeft?

Submitted by lambert on

One thing that concerns me about the series of Daou articles is that one can well imagine the opinion leaders quoted there -- Greenwald, Hamsher, Aravosis, Digby -- lining up behind some sort of (SEIU-funded) run. It's even more interesting because Daou worked for Clinton, Hamsher and Digby essentially caved to the OFB, and Aravosis was a Hillary hater. So there is, one might say, a full spectrum of "progressive" opinion. One can see them in 2012 coalescing behind, say, an Elizabeth Warren candidacy. Or an "insurgent" candidacy from fetish object Alan Grayson.

I admire GG's work on executive power greatly, but Hamsher was a blatant, bought-and-paid-for shill on the so-called "public option," which is still doing its destructive work, and Aravosis... Well, he's the guy who has a hard time making it on $75K a year. Oh, the humanity!

So there's very little for the ramen noodle constituency in any of this, which is why these guys focus their attention on executive power (with a side order of gay marriage) instead of lunch bucket issues. Danps's platform of:

1. Medicare for All

2. End the wars

3. Soak the rich

will get very, very little traction with these guys, and Hamsher's betrayals, censorship, and shilling during the HCR debacle -- where, let us remember, 45,000 peasants a year are dying -- is the "tell."

So, again, we're seeing a career "progressive" moment that won't be able to deliver the goods, and will merely kick the can down the road toward collapse. Pardon my cynicism but again, it's not like these guys don't already have a record.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on


I've thought that we might see three parties running candidates, maybe four. But perhaps we might see five?

Of course, if no candidate wins a majority, the election goes to the House of Representatives. But what happens if the House can't decide on a winner?