Corrente

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

Tell me again what the problem with trial lawyers is?

Republican talking points are for bad people. Obama needs to understand this.

Come on, guy. Represent Democrats.

NOTE Via TPM.

0
No votes yet

Comments

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

From one of the current top recommended diaries in the name of "Rove" and his mischievous plan to steer the Democratic primaries, here the diarists summary of what I find is the dkos echo chamber:

So, now the choice for the Democratic Party is clear:

* There’s a divisive Hillary Clinton nomination.
* There is battlin’ John Edwards. I think he’s an amazingly good man. I supported him early on, but he’s run a take-no-prisoners campaign, and that’s not what it takes to unite the country. Sorry, John.
* And there’s the one candidate who stands for uniting red states and blue states – Barack Obama. Obama is the middle way. He is the one who can win my vote.

I love the irony of the multi-faceted layers of the diary. The concept of "unite the country" probably came from Rove. Uniter not a divider... Indeed. But then somehow Hilary is chosen by the GOP so is toxic, but Obama is the great middle choice. The Goldilocks of modern politics. (on a side note, who are these lunatics who think a black candidate will "unite" red and blue states??!! Maybe the internet and tv seem to be progressive enough, but are you serious?! This country is still primarily a bunch of hicks and rednecks and bible thumpers)

It would seem to me that the Dems should cast their net a little wider. Perhaps take another looks at some of their farm league, and other unthinkables. I'm gonna laugh very hard when Bloomberg walks onto the scene. But Pelosi and other spineless Congressrats set the "top three" up for this failure and skepticism.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

One thing and one thing only; the fact that Republicans and their echoing chorus among the media continue to tell us she is divisive because they don't like her, and based on that dislike, which is strategic and tactical as much as it is a matter of some kind of genuine emotion, other than the usual contempt and hatred they express towards all who think differently from themselves, they continue to lie about both her and her husband.

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't view her as such, when the question is asked correctly, in comparison to other candidates, including Republicans.

I have my problems with Hillary, but when will Democrats, or anyone who considers themselves liberal, or of the left get fed up enough with being told by the likes of Joe Klein, and worse yet, Bill Kristol, or Andrew Sullivan, who has all but endorsed Obama, whom they can and cannot nominate for their party nomination, and what arguments they are allowed to make and place before the American people, to stop using the very tropes and non-fact facts of those forces in this country who continue to identify themselves proudly as the eternal enemies of liberal/progressive ideas and candidates?

Seriously, we weren't allowed to consider Al Gore for 2004 or 2008 for one reason and one reason only; the Republicans hate him for what he stands for, good old-fashioned American values, like those in the Constitution, and they fear what he could achieve in office, which is why they are forever ridiculing him, and the SCLM refuses to critique these attitudes, content, instead, to echo every crap lie, every made-up story, in a display of partisanship that marks our current media as betraying everything that is meant by freedom of the press.

What is also regrettably true is that many liberals have echoed these same lies, about Gore, about both Clintons, and about Edwards, as per "intranets" comment.

My own caveat with your statement, intranet, is when you attack Pelosi and Reid as an equal problem to those posed by the press and the Republicans, you are doing the work of the VRWC. And now we have to welcome the party of national unity folks, who want to make sure Democrats must not be allowed to make their own decisions about whom to run; instead they have to get David Broder and David Boren and Major Bloomberg's approval, under threat of blackmail, yet,

How on earth did Pelosi and Reid set up the top three? You mean because they didn't achieve more? Don't you get that they are being accused by Bloomberg et al of having been too partisan, hence their inability to attract Republican votes? That is a total lie, as we all know. I'm sympathetic to the liberal impulse to critique one's own side first, not in the context of winning elections.

It's one thing to critique congressional Democrats, it's another to let your own frustrations blur the differences between what congressional Republicans have done over the last year and what Democrats have been trying to do.

Just ask yourself what kind of genuine leadership Chuck Hagel actually showed through-out this year, other than self-serving critical-of-his-own-party statements and interviews given to the press? And Bloomberg? Where was he when habeas was being discarded? How many of you know he rhetorically supported the invasion of Iraq? Much more so than Bill Clinton did. Yes, Hillary was in a position to vote, and she made the wrong call.

I'm going to do a separate post on Obama and Edwards, but it's not as if I haven't read comment thread after comment thread in which purported liberals, and not just supporters of Obama, call Edwards an ambulance chaser. That has got to stop.

And frankly, acting as if Obama is the enemy isn't the answer either. I don't believe that is what our criticisms here at Corrente are doing. So let me state again, it's not about shutting up about your own side. It's about being smart and taking elections seriously.

None of these guys are jerks, none of them are on the other side, and none of them will ever do everything that any individual voter might want them to do. I'm not arguing for holding your nose and voting. I'm deeply perturbed by Obama's primary speeches, but I'm still open to the possibility that his move to the center is a process position, and that at some point, especially if he makes it to the general election, that he will start to more clearly define the kind of policies he wishes to unite the country behind.

I wasn't voting for the lesser of two evils when I voted for Al Gore in 2000, and I think the role he's chosen to play in his post-defeat life has vindicated my vote; I didn't not vote for Nader because I didn't think he could win, I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he would be a good President, although I did support the notion of votes for Nader in "safe" states for Gore in order to send the Democrats a lesson.

And while I'm on this subject, what are all of us doing, and the Democratic party as well, to ensure that all legitimate votes will be cast and then counted in 2008?

Question to Obama's fan base; does Barack really think he is immune to the election-stealing machinations of Republicans? He should sit down and have a serious discussion with John Kerry. Does Obama think he's immune to the kind of trivialization Republicans and the press use to defeat Democrats? He's had moments on the stump when he hasn't been at his best. Does he really think he's too smart to say something like "I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it?"

Like you, I voted for Gore because I thought he would make a great president, and my esteem for him has only grown.

But watching certain Democrats encourage the perception that Hillary Clinton is not an accomplished public servant but instead a gold-digger who chit-chatted her way through her adult life while her husband did the heavy lifting, I am certain that if Gore had entered this race he would have been vilified anew.

Six months in we'd have Democrats saying he's not much of an environmentalist really, and that the Nobel peace prize committee was rigged.

Submitted by lambert on

Even if you're running for the Democratic nomination on a "unity" platform!

Now, I see why an Obama statement like this:

“I don’t want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats — we’ve done that in 2004, 2000,”

would appeal to low information voters, so maybe it's all good, but last I checked, Gore won in 2000. And as far as Kerry in 2004 goes, Obama's statement is false.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

@leah

How on earth did Pelosi and Reid set up the top three? You mean because they didn’t achieve more? Don’t you get that they are being accused by Bloomberg et al of having been too partisan, hence their inability to attract Republican votes? That is a total lie, as we all know. I’m sympathetic to the liberal impulse to critique one’s own side first, not in the context of winning elections.

I meant the opposite. Well, I guess I am of the doing-more-camp, but it is precisely because they are too non-partisan that Reid and Pelosi have not done their job at all. By giving the Executive chance after chance to lie and get award with Constitutional murder, they have screwed the top three. They have set the tone for unity whatever. The attitude that everything that matters is "off the table" has doomed them into encouraging a Bloomberg run. I don't think they were partisan at all. Only the media might be howling that if anyone, and it would be laughable.

How many times must they be mocked by Bush's insane signing statements and vetoes? I recall some justification why Dems couldn't filibuster, then they find the other side doing it in record votes. WTF?! Why didn't the Dems filibuster anything back then, or at least going on the media blitz talking about how they are filibustering!? Why not keep sending the same bills that even Senate Republicans voted for? Keep sending him the same bills. Send whatever war supplementals you feel like, if Bush needs the money he'll have to accept the strings attached. If Bush howls about supporting the troops, just say that "we put money in there after five years to buy body armor, how about it Mr. Bush, sign it or you don't support the troops". Has one single Congressional investigation gone anywhere? There are criminals running loose, and it appears no one will do anything.

I just passed two fast food places with signs up hiring at $10/hr. So I think their one accomplishment is pretty lame and insufficient. And I disagree with the whole kos-invented meme of shut-up-there-is-no-problems-with-our-guys... Let's-not-look-at-any-stolen-elections..