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

Hullabaloo blogger's bottom line: what's really bad about Obama's anti-liberal policies is that he might lose the 2012 election

vastleft's picture

Or to paraphrase the old Catskills joke: The Obama presidency is terrible... and such small portions!


As an activist on the ground, I can see firsthand how dispirited many of our core volunteers are at this stage. How long can the Democratic Party run headlong from its base even as Republicans eagerly rush to embrace theirs, before the liberal base gives up and goes home even if it means Michele Bachmann in the White House? It seems the President and his advisers are willing to test those limits. Time will tell if it blows up in their faces in 2012, or if they are vindicated.

Also at the link, look at brooklynbadboy's pretzel-logic theory that's the toast of Kos and DU right now. Ours isn't to vote our values and interests, ours is to be pawns in Obama's brilliant 11-dimensional game, in some bizarro-world "make me do it" scenario.

If the presidents gets his big deal, he expects you, the Democrats, to be upset about it. Not cheering it. When and if he strikes a deal to cut Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit at all, which he himself says he is willing to do, he doesn't expect you to respond by saying "GO OBAMA! CUT MY SOCIAL SECURITY! HOORAY!" He expects you to be plenty pissed about the Grand Bargain. He expects you to respond with HEAT.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the man himself. My message is "no need to worry, sir. I'm already there."

Update: upon re-reading, I think that brooklynbadboy's post is snark. Unless I'm missing some double-meta subtlety, I think that thereisnospoon presented it in earnest as an arguably sound theory.

Here are the threads with it on Kos and DU, where the comments generally ran as sympathetic to the post as a knock on Obama.

No votes yet


Frerico's picture
Submitted by Frerico on

Pretzel logic is a good way to describe it. I can barely follow the logic of his posts and it hurts my head to think that he's this prominent and also this far down the rabbit hole on Obama and his intentions.

On a positive note, since he started blogging there, the comment threads have blown up with challenges to his "stay with the party, we'll win...somehow" message. Though it is clear that Digby approves of him. A disappointment for sure.

Joe's picture
Submitted by Joe on

Its weird, but I actually saw that post at DKos the other day, and, not knowing anything about the poster, had a completely different interpretation.

I thought he was scolding Obama apologists. I thought he was essentially saying, "how are you not mad? Even Obama himself expected that you'd be!"

Jack Crow's picture
Submitted by Jack Crow on

Painful, VL. Painful, painful, painful. I'm going to go hug my kid so I feel more human. It was almost cruel of you to link to it...

pmj6's picture
Submitted by pmj6 on

...the spoonless fellow seems pissed. Well, it's about time.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

the Clarkies I know in the DC area are real cultist, now in the Obama cult. Digby strikes me as very objective on Clarkie standards, but a Clarkie tuned Obama supporter for sure.

Cleaver's picture
Submitted by Cleaver on

how guys who are douchebags like to call each other "sir"?

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

I think he was scolding the Obama clap louder caucus. I think his point was he's doing this so he can run around and say he took on his own Party and appeal to independents.

john.halle's picture
Submitted by john.halle on

One think I don't get is why Greenwald continues to link to Digby's postings as if they were a source of profound, timeless wisdom. Sure she's a little better than your average party hack, but got Obama wrong from the beginning and is only now digging herself out. Why not link to those who got it right from the beginning-e.g. Ken Silverstein, Adolph Reed, Glen Ford, Doug Henwood, Bruce Dixon etc.

Cleaver's picture
Submitted by Cleaver on

the Very Serious People occasionally read Greenwald, and he knows that the VSPs believe that Digby is the "Left" "Blogosphere"?

tomfoolery's picture
Submitted by tomfoolery on

For (at least) three reasons it won't matter who "wins" the next presidential election - both the economy and the environment are conspiring to massively fail in the next few years (with the added effect of causing our "standard of living" to dive off a cliff). So people will finally see that the whole pile of shit is the fault of their greedy, reckless, paranoid policies.

Secondly, it won't matter since Obama is basically a Republican in his actions and policies (and therefore it's really no contest - they're all Republicans). Oh, sure he's thrown a bone to the gays (no pun intended, no - really), but basically he sides with Wall St., the Big Banks, the wealthy and the military - just like the rest of the Republicans (hell, at this point if i were a Republican i'd vote for Obama, since his idea of compromise involves totally caving in to the other sides' demands).

Finally, i think anyone who actually believes that Obama, or anyone for that matter, can "rescue" the "American Dream" [of obesity, wanton spending on gadgets (and ever more crap), and ignoring both the rest of the world and the environment because we're much too distracted having all this fun trying to stay alive] is so deluded that reality never interferes with their actual lives (and won't until it just doesn't).

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Here he invokes a perfect-Democrat conceit, a Sherlock Holmes analogy, and also a Solomon-baby-division analogy.

As to the latter, both parties agree the baby should be sliced up. They're just disagreeing on whether to do it lengthwise or side-to-side.

Kathryn's picture
Submitted by Kathryn on

..for the next round of psy-ops. That's all this is. TINS is a very deliberate plant. It's a little over a year prior to the next election. This is when Axelrod and company begin deploying the doubtspinners. Because the tendency in doubt is to go with the known. One of the tells is that TINS avoids noticing the trillion dollar war elephant in the room: that which needs to stay behind the curtain. He creates ambiguity for others in identifying his pov, he self-attacks and then slides away to the stupidity of "solomonic judgment." Which is every bit as stupidly bad as "the govt budget is like a family budget" -- this is not an all or nothing decision.