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

What you don't buy, you don't get buyer's remorse for

The Man Who Called His Shot on Bush, The Shrill One opines:

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

Ya think? But what's with the "in effect"?

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.


Krugman leaves out a very important fact, however. As he points out:

Current polls — not horse-race polls, which are notoriously uninformative until later in the campaign, but polls gauging the public mood — are strikingly similar to those in both 1980 and 1992, years in which an overwhelming majority of Americans were dissatisfied with the country’s direction.

However, with the war, the financial meltdown, global warming, the destruction of our constitituonal order, and hugely increased extremes between the wealthy and the rest of us, the country is much, much worse off in 2008 than it was in 1992, let alone 1980.

Nobody ever said "change" had to be for the better. And if the change comes "Shock Doctrine"-style, marketed as "Yes we can," the change will be a lot worse.

Double shot? Latte?

No votes yet


willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

This week.

One on "patriotism" and "faith".

Prepare the popcorn. (and cyanide)


Prepare the bus too, cuz I have a strong feeling someone is going to find themselves under it.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... what % of Americans think the whole country may fall apart in their lifetimes or their children's lifetimes. I don't mean kids listening to that satanic rock and roll falling apart, I mean literal dissolution or close to it: bankruptcy, fascism, etc. There probably aren't historical #s on it, but I'll bet they're crazy higher than in 1980 and 1992. And if not, why aren't they?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

there is another explanation, Obama thinks he is going to win and he WANTS police state surveillance powers.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Withhis desire to have all funds go through him and him moving more DNC folks than normal to Chicago. And his attempts at controlling rally attenders.

I fought him til the end when people told me to give up. There was a reason I didn't give up.

Card-carrying_Buddhist's picture
Submitted by Card-carrying_B... on

So as a favor to a friend one just now swang by the Orange Cheeto where one has not gone for yonks, and quickly learned a bran new langwidge: people who take the FISA thing seriously are "purity trolls" and "purity trolls" are "traitors."


Submitted by lambert on

... and then there are impurity orcs.

I leave the determination of which class these Kossacks fall into as an exercise for the reader.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Okay. Fine.

I'm supposed to take the bullshit that each and every PUMA member is either a ratfucker or criminally-insane and deluded. But to actually insist that each Congressperson take seriously this oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

to criticize those who voted for FISA, to condemn these traitors, one becomes a purity troll? Great --

Excuse me. I was almost immoderate.

Here is the latest ('cause Kos started purging purity trolls at least 2 years ago, y'all) post I think was referred to above:


I'd be proud to be in these trolls' company.

Submitted by lambert on

From the Kos post linked to above:

And since DKos is a blog dedicated to electing Democrats

Except Hillary, of course. But then she wasn't really a Democrat.

And thus is cognitive dissonance avoided.

I think a lot of this guys have a bright future in the Village....

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

them, NARAL, other orgs too soon, i bet...

Obama will end up exactly matching --or to the right of -- McCain on almost everything by the fall, i predict.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

It seemed as if Clark was shitting on McCain's service, a trick you can't use against Republicans and their fluffer media friends.

I love Clark, but he was "inarticulate" is what he was trying to say, which is that being a POW is not an automatic qualifier for the presidency.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Um, no.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

No, No, No.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

when you read the whole exchange you see it.

They're denigrating his service just like Rove did to Kerry in 04.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

This line is where the problem comes in.

That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron.

Clark said that about McCain. Since McCain got shot down in a war, that makes his squadron a "wartime" squadron, in actuality, if not officially. That comes of as denigrating McCain's service, which to the media, is a sin to do against Republicans.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

""A lot of people don't know ... that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity," wrote's John Aravosis. "Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?"

"Getting shot down, tortured and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," Aravosis wrote in the blog post, titled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?" " --

look for more blogs to push this too.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

out the truth as he sees it, without polishing it to the liking of the diplomats and other spinmasters.

I like Clark. He's right about this. McCain's service deserves to be honored (as did Kerry's before him, and Gore's before that).


That stint in the Hanoi Hilton didn't do McCain any good -- physically, mentally or spiritually. Such experiences are many things, and while surviving them is unconditionally an admirable achievement, the fact is, no such experience actually does make you a better potential President. (Well, maybe in this case if McCain would renounce the Bush/Cheney torture policies, that bit of doing the right thing could actually be linked back to having survived having the wrong thing done to him; but IIRC he's already said he won't, so there you go.)

And boys and girls, we've had seven years of firsthand experience learning how being a fighter jock (an incompetent one, anyway) doesn't exactly make you a sterling President, haven't we?

Nonetheless, the press will crucify Wes.

Which sucks.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and said what needed saying. He knew what the backlash would be, and he's willingness to take it on is to me quite admirable. Gives Obama another chance to have his cake and eat it to, which is what pisses of the Republicans and the MSM the most. They think they have the corner on those maneuvers, but a good general studies the enemy and learns how to defeat their strengths.

While we're listing Democratic presidential candidates with military service who've been derided as soft by the VRWC Republicans, don't forget George McGovern; he joined the Army Air Corps in WWII and served as a bomber pilot from 1943-45. He flew 35 missions and was awarded the Silver Star and the Distinguished Flying Cross, the later for piloting his flak-damaged bomber at tree-top level across Yugoslavia to a remote island runway he had never seen before, one that was too short for a successful landing. He had the crew throw out everything that wasn't nailed down including the seats, then brought her in low and just above stall speed. He and the co-pilot literally stood on the brakes and stopped the plane just short of disaster.

Real courage, real heroism, and still he was totally trashed as soft on defense. The VRWC Republicans always lie; that's what the Spawn of Satan do.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That it "overshadowed" his newest GREATEST SPEECH EVAH!!11!

I get that the Repubs did it to the Dems. They are allowed. It seems that over the course of the primaries, while he was enjoying the Obama RULZ, that there are also Dem RULZ and Repub RULZ, and the Repub RULZ are that they are the party representing the "troops" and so their military service(or lack thereof) is sacrosanct and inviolate, whereas the Dems are always traitors, so even if they served in the military, their service must be dissected, to learn how their service harmed our country.

Them's the RULZ, and Obama can't break them no matter how hard he tries. It seems, by the way you are reading Clark's remarks, that you approve, and think we can break those rules.

I don't approve and I knew it was going to blowback badly on Obama.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

Participating in bathroom sex with Larry Craig doesn't automatically qualify you for the presidency.

Being head organ grinder at Mark Foley's house on Carmen Miranda Mondays doesn't automatically qualify you for the presidency.

Whistling show tunes while being strip searched at LAX doesn't automatically qualify you for the presidency.

Hey, this is fun! Let's see: losing an eye while horsing around with a bb gun doesn't automatically qualify you for the presidency...god, I could do this for hours!

Oooh, I know! Driving your car into a crowd doesn't automatically qualify you for the presidency...make me stop!