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

Massive called shot by Digby...

... on the center right trope. Go read.

No votes yet


Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I'm not sure I come to the same conclusion she does about the election. I think a whole lot of new "Democrats", who seemed to make up a significant amount of Democrats, this year, were voting for a guy they saw as a moderate (read "thoughtful"). Perhaps, they weren't voting for a "center-right" nation, but I don't see any indication that they were voting for anything firmly planted within the left, either.

I mean, anecdotely, I'm sure each of us here can rattle off at least a half-dozen times we heard from the new "Democrats" remarking about how post-partisan the president-elect was, or about how he wasn't "divisive." It would seem that the country voted against rank incompetence, as opposed to voting for a truly new order of things. "Change" was never clearly defined (and purposefully so), so as to market this "change" to the greatest amount of citizens possible. And, I think we can see that a lot of these new voters' idea of change was simple a change from Bush as opposed to a change to something decidedly within the left part of the spectrum.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...and the Villagers own him -- and can do whatever they want with him.

I mean, it was the media that assured us that Obama's history of association with raidical individuals and ideas was either irrelevant or non-existent. And when the Village told the nation that "Obama is not one of them, he's one of us", "us" referred to the Villagers themselves.

And its that media filtered Obama that got elected -- the fact that Obama doesn't seem to have his own existence outside the definitions that the media provides him is the real problem here.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

his own bios, history, and being a "blank slate"--and they followed Axelrod's m.o. to a tee--not to mention their own emphasis on the media's enduring fetishes of "bipartisanship" and Clinton derangement, etc -- and that the whole media is all smooth talkers who have to pretend to know about everything but don't really, and have no devotion to truth or anything real at all.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

He has basically backhanded the media by picking people associated with the Clinton administration, including their arch-enemy, HRC. And he does this even though the media is in hysterics over it. He simply doesn't care about them. Will they turn on him? They might, but I doubt it'll work. The media has long lost their credibility. Looking back on the primary, I think the reason why the media was a big factor was simply because they told the public what many desperately wanted to hear: Hillary Clinton was, indeed, evil--reality be damned (The primary in large measure became a referendum on CDS and misogyny; it was rarely, if ever, truly about Obama himself). However, they don't want to hear that Obama is not what he allowed others to present him as: a savior, a progressive who will fight for you.

My big worry about Obama is his inexperience, qualifications and, in particular, judgment: he has chosen economists who, in large measure, either failed to see the crisis right in front of them (the new Treasury Secretary) or who helped create this mess (Summers). There should be a Brooksley Born-type at the helm: someone who got it right--when it mattered.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

The problem is that Democrats take them seriously.

We have some serious economic problems in this country. Is healthcare reform, for example, a partisan issue? I doubt it. People across the political spectrum are feeling the pinch. If the dems think it's too complicated to fix, then I guess we need different dems. Doing nothing or applying bandaids isn't going to solve anything. Winning the public discourse battle is huge. Charts and graphs are always useful - I notice the dems used them in the past to good effect when making a point.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

won't allow anything that helps regular people instead of the wealthy/connected.

The Republicans will obstruct or stop all but the most ineffective and timid tweaks--so it's all partisan.

of course, Obama is only proposing the most timid and tepid non-fixes imaginable, so i guess it ends up non-partisan in the end probably--tragically.