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

Salon's Joan Walsh picks sides

Pathetic. Naturally, The Nation and The American Prospect pile on.

Walsh seems to be really upset that the debate between pro-torture "liberals," like herself, and former Obama supporters, has turned "personal." Well, since there was never any other reason to support Obama other than the putative content of his character -- the oratory was always over-rated, and there was certainly no resume -- why wouldn't the debate turn personal? There's nothing else to debate, given that in every important respect, the Obama administration is the second coming of the Bush regime, except with more wars, richer banksters, and higher unemployment.

NOTE Naturally, since Walsh has already declared her support for Obama ("I support Obama's re-election"), her piece is purest campaign puffery, devoid of leverage or strategic import, and of no interest to anyone beyond her small circle of Kool-Aid snorting "progressives" (and those who follow their antics with clinical interest).


Submitted by jm on

Walsh has made quite a sideline out of appearing regularly on the cable news circuit. Over the last couple years, she has become one of the go-to progressives. Criticism of the president from the left is not recognized as being serious by the political media. As such, a big part of a progressive pundit's job description is slapping down any such criticism. Walsh, having a steady income stream to protect, plays the role with relish.

Even though we're not talking about a lot of money by ruling class standards, when you live in a really expensive place like San Francisco on an editor's salary every little extra bit helps.

Submitted by lambert on

Filed alphabetically, and apparently by Agatha Christie character!

Submitted by Hugh on

Joan Walsh is a Democratic tribalist and your basic Rent-a-Liberal as jm points out. All these Trojan horse progressives should be treated as the sellouts and moles they are.