I'll post my annotated transcript by tomorrow AM.

Better you than me, pal!

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

Expect a Daily Kos Obama Rationalization (just as going on Fox in the first place has been rationalized) that goes something like, of course, he has to pivot right, Hillary has smeared him as some sort of dangerous un-patriotic radical. He needs to counter that and show his awesome potential appeal to moderate and independent white voters and how else is he going to do that other than to pander on FOX?

Nevermind that Obama's biggest problems have stemmed from Goolsbee/NAFTA, Rezko, Wright, Bittercling, and Ayers. Every one of those is a self-inflicted wound.

but he wouldn't have self-inflicted them if Hillary had taken her boobs and gone home like a normal woman. So it's still all her fault.

The "Obama Watch" will finally stop this weekend when Senator Barack Obama sits down with us for an exclusive "FOX News Sunday" interview.

Don't take the reacharound to finally give FOxNews release too lightly. It's not insignificant.

I'm shocked there is almost nothing on dkos about either of these subjects. The way the masses quiver at DailyObama, you'd think they would be excited their cult leader knows their name.

As long as the Orange Frat House builds audience and influence what does Kos care? He has his fellowship at Cato Institute, a Newsweek column and a huge online community, what does he care?

may i have another!

on how long it will take for massive WORMing to start?

He abuses the media and they lick his boots in gratitude.

Or in this case, the big orange cheeto.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Not. It's not the first time Obama threw Daily Kos under the bus, remember.

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

Yep. Daily Kos is nothing special.

Obama has always pooh-poohed the progressive blogs but it won't make Kos throw off his rose-colored glasses.

Both Clinton and Obama have distanced themselvs from the netroots ("teh loony left"). When Clinton does it, she is disrespecting Progressives. When Obama does it, he's building up his Indie/Repub base in the most awesomest way evah.

See Matt's post here

and for good measure, TalkLeft.com not mentioned but clearly related

Even as he's complaining about Obama lying to his netroot supporters about taking Fox on, he can't leave out mentioning Hillary and Bosnia.

It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses. We should be stuffing ads discussing her Bosnia sniper fire in Indiana. But we don't believe in standing up for ourselves.

I guess the Bosnia stuff at the ABC debate wasn't part of the distractions or gotcha questioning. And how on earth does stuffing envelopes with crap about Bosnia have anything to do with netroots standing up for themselves. Look, I know folks are a little angry about Hillary's MoveOn comments, which were taken out of context and made privately not during an interview on Fox news, but she isn't the one lying to you guys. She's the one who voted against sanctioning MoveOn and her spokesman defended Kos on Fox. Don't try to pull this pox on both their houses crap. Obama is the guy who is throwing you under the bus and who can blame him? If you ask nothing in return for your support, nothing is what you'll get.

you cling to anything that looks like it will help you float.

The Clintons have made a career of throwing members of their own administration under the bus when pressure from the right forced their hand- never to speak with these long time associates again.

Obama's dirty little secret isn't that he is willing to piss on people who carry water for him to look good as a centerist- it's that he isn't a particularly progressive politician.

Just like Hill.

can you give specific examples of people that the Clintons "have made a career" of throwing under the bus... it must be a long list, so, providing examples should not be hard.

And Hillary never hid the fact that she is a centrist (yet more progressive than BO on certain issues, like UHC).

It's not the positions, it's the hypocrisy.

I was talking to Leah the other night, and MoDo or GaCo had written another stupid column about how terrified everyone was that the Clintons would return to power and wreak terrible revenges like, not inviting them to the best Village parties, or something.

And this is a truism... However, Leah and I couldn't come up with a single example. Can anybody?

Could it be -- and I know this is ridiculous -- that the Village knows how badly it screwed the Clintons, feels guilty about it, and fears just punishment?

And of course, deep down, just like the Republicans, they want to be punished. Deliciously. It's not being able to admit that to themselves that makes them hysterical.

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

... are people like Lani Guinier, who were driven out of the Clinton administration by rightwing gotchas.

If only the Clintons had realized that the rightwing wasn't seriously invested in causing them any problems at all! It was just one of those misunderstandings of the bickering 1990s.

no examples are available.

It was the GOP, and only the GOP, that practiced "wedge politics"

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

These were the ones I could think of off the top of my head... it seemed at the time like a well practiced political skill: Clinton would jettison the controversial party and close rank with breathtaking certitude. Not saying that this isn't an effective tactic to keep the heat off of ones administration, it's just that it demonstrated a certain ruthlessness.

With Gunier I recall her commenting that once they had decided to pull the plug on her nomination they never spoke to her again- and they had a relationship with her that stretched back many years... just sayin'...

If either one of them deliver UHC they will deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore- but since Nixon was nearly "the one" to first propose this legislation it shouldn't qualify Hill as a progressive- it's just LONG past overdue.

The real point of my post:

The Clintons have shown themselves to be very effective at getting things done by making deals with monied interests. Perhaps this is the only way to do things in Washington, but it doesn't bode well for the possibility that any real change will come of a second Clinton Administration.

And If that's what her brand of centerism represents, I'd rather take a chance on Barry.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Elders and Guiner are, too my mind, consequences of "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog," especially with an administration under the constant assault that culminated in impeachment and Bush v. Gore. Certainly the village hysteria on this issue is disproportionate to any actual events. And let's also remember that both of those supporters were not jettisoned for revenge or out of retaliation --- which is what all the hysteria is about. So, JackBrown, your example is not on point

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

After the democratic Congress and the media (remember "Quota Queen") helped the Republicans knee cap them. I think Clinton mismanaged Guinier's nomination and would've been better off standing and fighting, but it's not like he acted in a vacuum.

Look, politics ain't beanbag and none of these people are ultimately loyal to anyone other than themselves. Distancing themselves from particular individuals that become a political liability is the norm. It's what politicians do. But what Obama did here was essentially throw his own party under the bus, not any one individual (Kos is right about that, it wasn't really about him). That's entirely different, IMO.

And yes, I know the Clintons have been more than willing to strike deals with monied interests. It's what makes it so disappointing that of the remaining democrats, she's the one more likely to fight. Because the bar has not been set that high for Obama. He just refuses to step over it.

The Clintons have shown themselves to be very effective at getting things done by making deals with monied interests.

Obama is not a progressive and is not interested in change. He works with the monied interest just as well as they do.

but it doesn’t bode well for the possibility that any real change

No one, and I repeat no one, whomever is elected in 08, will be able to change jack shit about the way things are done in Washington. The country is in too big of a mess, to be concerned with Change. Things must be fixed first. Then, come talk to the American people about change.

And do you have a link for that Guinier "never talked to them again" story.

And, just out of curiousity, since Obama has thrown his own grandmother, his pastor, and several others under the bus, b/c of the perception of trouble to his campaign, what makes you think he will be any different in his administration?

And these questions don't even touch on your conflation of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Yes, Bill Clinton showed that he would jettison people who were distractions(and who made them distractions, always remember that when Obama says he wants to "reach out"), but Hillary Clinton kept Mark Penn around for a long time, even when most of her own supporters made it clear they blamed him for the campaign's problems. I am sick and tired of too many people treating these two seperate people, as if the are just one whole person, instead of two married people, who support their spouses, even if they disagree with them.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Kos isn't a member of Obama's future cabinet as far as i am aware of, so I'm not sure what kind of debt of loyalty he owes to him. On the other hand Clinton kicked his own dog when it suited his political survival and never looked back. That's just the facts.

But really, I don't want to belabor a point that begins with Barry trumpeting his efforts to assist the Republicans at torte reform...

better to throw all the voters of the bus, than 1 employee. Give me a break.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

.

that "you gotta dance with them that brung you?"

Obama owes his whole candidacy to the big orange cheeto.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

You cannot simultaneously take credit for the accomplishments of the Clinton administration and distance yourself from its President. I'm not aware of a single instance of Hillary publicly distancing herself from anything her husbands' administration did... if you want the credit, you have to take the conflation.

And as far as Mark Penn goes, he's still in her campaign so I wouldn't be going on too much about that particular issue.

Here's an instance when she clearly SHOULD have thrown someone off of her bus...

That was one of their big issues, that Hillary refused to throw him under the bus.

BTW - It's one thing to cut loose someone who has become a political liability, it's quite different when you throw a key asset under the bus.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

but none of the credit?

If you're not going to give her any credit, don't give her any of the blame either.

BTW - What part of the nineties did you not like, the peace or the prosperity?

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

in the face of such unrelenting, orchestrated attacks. The thing I didn't like about the Clinton 90's was his turn to the right prior to the '96 election- " The Era of Big Government Is Over" etc. Worked like a charm on the Republicans, unfortunately it set back Democratic values about 50 years.

Loved the Peace and Prosperity (TM)

I wish we could have a bit of that back just now...

Exactly how did he "set back Democratic values about 50 years?"

Actually, if he did wouldn't that have taken us back to the New Deal?

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

for his domestic agenda has cost us dearly: we now have nearly a third of the worlds prison population in our Free and Democratic country, thankyouverymuch.

And this at the expense of education... this was our peace dividend?

And thanks to his stewardship any cause left of center became much easier to marginalize- read "far left". Things like, oh, family planning, science-based discourse, and ultimately UHC.

Hill's failure to get out of the blocks with her health care proposal cost us UHC for more than a generation- and the Dems the Congress. Tell me that's not where it started? I'm not a Hillary Hater- I just don't think they made the wisest use of the most prosperous time in our nation's history-and now our choices are a lot, lot harder.

It's not hard to look back with fondness, but man, what a missed opportunity...

That's my main problem with the revised history of the 1990s. Everyone has agreed to blame the Clintons because that keeps any other Democrats from taking any blame.

The Democratic Congress was more than happy to appear bipartisan in asking questions about Whitewater, kneecapping Clinton out of the blocks over gays in the military (thanks, Sam Nunn!), and generally mismanaging their own house. It's not Clinton's fault that the House Democrats, led by convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski, had grown self-satisfied and corrupt. And while the Clintons certainly made their mistakes on UHC, they were also hurt by Congressional Dems lacking any clear direction on healthcare (something we're seeing again with Schumer and Rockefeller). In fact, some Congressional Democrats worked to undermine Clinton's healthcare plan, including Jim Cooper, who has been rewarded by becoming Obama's point man on the issue (yeah, I'm sure that'll turn out well).

It's not that I don't have some frustration with Bill Clinton tacking right in the 1990s, but he didn't do that because he wanted to. He did it because the Democrats were splintered and ineffective. Some of that is his fault, but some of it (a lot of it) is the fault of Congressional Dems who never met a Republican they didn't want to strike a compromise with.

There was a GREAT piece on This American Life about him- and his meeting, face to face in prison, with the results of the anti-drug legislation he pushed through just prior to the '96 election:

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.as...

It speaks to my point, which is when you use your power to maintain power you kill the possibility of forwarding a more progressive agenda ... something which helps explain the Democrats' role in how we arrived where we are today.

Nothing happens in a vacuum- I don't blame the Clintons for the failings of the Congress... a lot of people with D's after their names do a lot of anti-Democratic shit. The Clintons do, however, get the brunt of the blame for having finished off a rather remarkable run of dominance we had enjoyed more or less since Roosevelt. This by their indecisive, meandering, and vulnerable first 1+ year on office. And that UHC debacle.

to defeat Hillary's health care reform?

Do you recall those "Harry and Louise" commercials mimicked by Obama?

And don't forget that the Dems in Congress failed to support it or the Clintons.

More than anything, Newt and the "Contract on America" were an attack on the Democratic Congress, not Bill Clinton.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Clinton, probably both of them, will throw people to the wolves if they have to; just part of the reality of politics.

With Obama there's a pattern of gratuitously pushing people off the curb and under a bus, without appearing to think about the consequence. Not to be overly harsh on the guy but he does seem strangely uncaring about loyalty, and in some way needing to distance himself from any focus of support; he had no reason to undercut Kos, but he did it anyway.

Maybe he is so insecure he can't allow anyone else to claim a part of the story; any appearance of a dependence on another party has to be defeated, to sustain his own fragile ego. Very odd.

"I’m not a Hillary Hater- I just don’t think they made the wisest use of the most prosperous time in our nation’s history"

Why was that period the most prosperous time in our nation's history?

BECAUSE OF BILL CLINTON.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Of the Healthcare debacle is woefully lacking, like the fact that is was Bill's plan, not Hillary's.

Some recommended reading.

And, like most Obama supporters, you continue to ramble on about why Clinton shouldn't get the nom, but have yet to give us one substantial reason why Obama should(HINT: Hope and Change[as in change Washington] are not substantial reasons).

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I have been considering the revenge of the Clintons, I mean we all know she is a rattlesnake fighter, with sharp fangs and venom, and all of her followers are hillary rattlesnakes (bat eyelashes). But could it possibly be that she is also the party coordinator for the village. We do know she controls the global villages, and promotes them. I do think this is some cause for concern. On the bright side, no need to worry about being thrown to the wolves as there are no wolves in NY only in zoos.
On this logic it makes sense to vote for HRC over BO because there is more of a possibility of being tossed under a bus than to a wolf.

Little known fact but hope is that the bus is coming and change is hope I got it for the fare.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”

Because you never know.

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

"Your knowledge of the Healthcare debacle is woefully lacking, like the fact that is was Bill’s plan, not Hillary’s."

You can't give Hillary credit for taking point on formulating the UHC legislation and the effort to sell the political process and then say it was all Bill's. That, in the words of John McSame, is nonsense.

Sadly, while I want to give Bill all the credit for the amazing prosperity of the 90's I would point out something he said after a few years in office: he found that he often felt he did not run things- I believe the quote went like " the Fed controls domestic policy, and the World Bank controls foreign policy"...

In any event he should have gotten richer that Bill Gates if it was all his doing...

I guess we were unfair to blame Bush for the current mess too.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Jeralyn has the story at TalkLeft.

"The wheels on the bus go round and round"

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

The difference between throwing one's own to the wolves and throwing one's own under the bus? I shouldn't have to point out that this doesn't lead anywhere good.

Perhaps we can find common ground in this: there are some eerie similarities between the canny and somewhat morally ambiguous political instincts native to both Bill and Barry... I often think of how Bill would have fended off the kind of loaded political gotcha that's faced Obama and find that they match up pretty well...

If Bill Clinton truly doesn't like Barak Obama- as some in the press have reported- perhaps it's because it's a bit like looking in the mirror and not liking what he sees.

You can’t give Hillary credit for taking point on formulating the UHC legislation

When have I ever given her credit for "formulating" legislation? I give her credit for her hard work and dedication in working to forward Bill's policies.

I give her credit for being knowledgeable about the process, and understanding how the process works.

I give her credit for the policies she took leadership on as First Lady of Arkansas(like microlending) and in the WH(i.e. women's rights globally).

In any event he should have gotten richer that Bill Gates if it was all his doing…

Politicians are supposed to profit from their work on behalf of the citizens? WTF? You are all over the map. And you still haven't given me any reason to vote for Obama(my primary is on May 20th, so there's still time!)

And this:

I’m not aware of a single instance of Hillary publicly distancing herself from anything her husbands’ administration did

Because a First Lady isn't supposed to stand up and argue with her husband in public. The VP doesn't do it either, so I'm assuming you didn't vote for Gore? I mean, he didn't distance himself from Pres. Clinton until he ran for President(just like Hillary didn't distance herself on stuff like NAFTA, until she ran for president).

And I'm sure that when Hillary is the WH, Bill won't publicly call out her planned policies as bad, either. It's what political couples do(with the exception of Carville & Matalin).

It's obvious you have your opinions set in stone, based mostly on erroneous information and impossible expectations. I'm done.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

OK...No where to go with that one, jackbrown, and no I wasn't trying to sell you on anything; I talk to other people here but not to you, waste of my time...Go, shoo, begone.

jack brown, at least with wolves you have a fighting chance.

There are a lot of reasons that Bill doesn't like Obama, not the least of which is the disprespectful and churlish way that Obama has treated the race for Presidency (not student president) as well as Hillary as a fellow partisan Democrat (yeah I know Hill isn't a DINO ....but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt with BO)
Obama has run a pretty dirty and annoying race, complete with misinformation given to the media, and a lot of blame. Loads of blame, blame grandma, blame whitey, blame elitists, blame 3 and 10 year old kids, blame PA, blame VA and KY, blame chablis democrats, blame religious democrats, blame gun-toting democrats. Geesh.

Bill Clinton does not like BO because Bill loves his wife. Using your logic, Michelle has one funky mirror too.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”