Spinning Heads (by Pat Racimora at No Quarter)
I never even imagined that I could have the last laugh in this election… What I am laughing at, almost hysterically while slapping my knees, are those who hated the Clintons with a passion, who yelled and screamed about how Obama would save us from those “old Washington insiders,” and everything would be new. Change they could believe in. I can see them now—spinning about in a frenetic fury, flopping like freshly caught tunas on a dock. Obama was fooling them all along. Lying, really. My, my, is he actually…gasp.. a Closet Clintonista?
I know that some of you aren’t enchanted with the No Quarter website, but Pat Racimora’s cartoons are often right on target, and you shouldn’t have to miss them.—Caro
Pod Parrots (by J –SOM at Liberal
Rapture)
CNN and MSNBC make a statement - repeat it for a few days - an alleged historian or "expert" repeats it and gives it a faux "context" (Such as: Lincoln hiring members of the opposition party during the civil war is comparable to Obama hiring Hillary Clinton, a person with which he has almost no policy differences.) The cover of Time then provides supporting background noise at supermarket checkout stands from coast to coast...and before you know it otherwise smart people are saying "PollyWantaCracker" at dinner parties across the land...or rather "Obama is just like Lincoln." Furthering their own self serving narrative: that THEY saved the nation.
Both parties have big stakes in Georgia Senate runoff (McClatchy)
MACON, Ga. — The fight for Georgia's U.S. Senate seat is a struggle for much more. For Democrats, the Tuesday runoff could give them their 59th seat in the next Senate. And if Democrat Al Franken beats GOP incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota's recount, which will continue into December, Democrats would reach the magic number of 60 Senate seats — the number required under Senate rules to shut off debate and force a vote.
Nonsense. Even if the Democrats have 60 members in the senate, they’ll find an excuse not to implement progressive policies. They always do. They’ll say there are too many Democrats in vulnerable conservative districts. Well, who wants them if they’re not really Democrats? I’ve been asking that question since February, and don’t have an answer yet.—Caro
The ever-receding future (by Michael J. Smith at Stop Me Before I Vote Again, thanks to Arthur Silber at The Power of Narrative)
Don't cut the cake just yet, guys. The New York Times reports: “N.Y. Democrats May Skip Gay Marriage Vote…” Readers older than, oh, say, twelve, may have noticed a pattern with the Democrats. They campaign on some issue -- in the previous Most Important Elections Of Our Lifetime, the 2006 midterms, it was the Iraq war, for example. Then once safely in office, the find a reason why they can't actually do anything about the issue until they get something else on the next election cycle -- the White House, or the state senate, or a second term for the Governor (why? This one seems especially arbitrary). It's really exactly like the dear old Spanish Prisoner scam, more familiar in our own day as the Nigerian "419" advance-fee con.
And just like Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. And just like the Republicans fooling THEIR potential voters and then never implementing any of THEIR promises. It’s a scam of monumental proportions.—Caro
Click here for more politics and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
That cartoon
What is it supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be funny? Do you have to be smoldering with Obama-hatred to get it?
No, but you have to NOT be smoldering ...
... with Hillary-hatred.
Huh?
Not even a hint as to what the joke is?
The cartoon is of spinning heads. As in "my head is spinning"
from the ever changing Obama mission statement and players. Just when an Obamite thought they were going to see hope and change and lots of fresh new faces, wooh, it's all the old rhetoric and usual players.
I must say it is amusing to see. I have to curb my desire to throw it into my husband's Obama loving face.
I love this job!
Pretty funny!
I must not have gotten it because I don't see Obama as having changed his mission statement or brought on people I didn't expect him too. He ran as a pragmatic/"nonpartisan" liberal. He's staffed up like a pragmatic/"nonpartisan" liberal.
And how can PUMAs rub anything in Obama supporters' faces when their champion works for him now (as it was foretold in the primary debates "I look forward to you advising me too, Hillary.")?
Yes, but that's not what many Obama supporters ...
... SAID they believed, during the primary.
And we get to rub it in as much as we want to, considering the hateful bashing we received from the Obamabots.
Policy is what matters
Better to have a moderate face on liberal policy than a liberal face on moderate policy. It's way too early to conclude that he's not serious about the policy agenda he ran on.
And frankly the biggest "betrayal" of the liberal base was making such an Iraq War booster the Secretary of State.
Yeah, let's forget about
The even bigger Iraq war booster he made his VP.
All CDS, All the time!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Joe Biden
Wasn't my top choice for president!
Irregardless
Show me where you said that picking Biden was the biggest liberal betrayal. Because picking a war booster for VP, seems bigger than SoS.
Or are you just holding to Clinton to an unreasonable standard?
Also, see here for why beating Clinton up over the AUMF, isn't really a good argument.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
I'm not holding Clinton to any kind of standard
I'm just trying to point out that Obama ran as a liberal on domestic policy who has good foreign policy judgment and a "pragmatic centrist" political style. That's what seems to be coming to fruition with his appointments, and the SOS, who sits at the top of a huge and powerful government bureaucracy, is a much more influential job than VP.
This should make Clinton fans happy, but obviously you're not going to be happy until 2016 at the earliest, "irregardless" of what happens.
Here, use this fine point brush
Cuz, the one you're using is awfully broad.
Horseshit, your not holding Clinton to a standard. You call her appointment as SoS the biggest betrayal of liberals, completely ignoring ever other Iraq war hawk being appointed by Obama, including the VP, who whether they command a bureauracracy or not, is the person the president trusts most to carry forward their objectives, in the event of their untimely death. That is much bigger than SoS, who is, as CDS-ers like yourself have pointed out with glee, is "subservient" to Obama, and will be "kept on a leash".
Also, you don't know shit about me, and are making a lot of generalizations about me, based on the PUMA's who live in your head.
I myself am very happy about Clinton's appointment, it is a promising sign from Obama, and hope to see more. I truly doubt Clinton will run in 2016, she will be close to 70. Now, if Obama's presidency tanks(60% chance, IMO) I would hope he would pull an LBJ, to give the Dems a chance at keeping the presidency in 2012(which could give Clinton a chance), but that would require a selflessness from him, that I have not yet seen demonstrated.
If you truly believed all the things you posted in the above comment, great. The shoe doesn't belong to you, so stop trying to wear it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, many Obama supporters did not believe that Obama really was a pragmatic centrist, but was instead the Second coming, and are having a hard time adjusting to the new Obama, who was there all along. This is their shoe, and we will keep trying to make them wear it, until they cry out about how uncomfortable it is.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
The PUMAs don't live in my head
They live on this blog, and do things like forecast a 60% chance of Obama presidency failure (where did that number come from?).
At least I try do deal with the specific garbage you, Caro, Lambert et al write rather than just preferring to address imaginary Clinton supporters. You on the other hand blame me for wearing a shoe (the Kool-aid drinking Obamabot) that doesn't fit me.
Maybe this is because there aren't as many Kool-aid drinking Obamabots as you folks like to think? You're still so pissed about the primary that you want desperately for Obama supporters to be as angry and disappointed as you are, even though we aren't.
Horseshit again
All you've done is bring up arguments nobody made.
I'm guessing that there is a better than 50% chance Obama's presidency will fail because of the drastic nature of the shit currently wrong with this country right now. That isn't something I'm "hoping" for at all, I said it was a possibility.
Your defending yourself against charges of being an Obot, when nobody said you were one, just like you are accusing people, like me and Lambert, of being PUMA's when we aren't.
Well, I'm done feeding this troll, I've got Bunco with the rest of my dry pussy demographic.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
That's Entertainment
Of course it doesn't matter if the VP or WH Chief of Staff were such Iraq War boosters. Or the Sec of Defense being from the party that brought us the war in the first place.
Thanks for the laugh!
Of course it matters
And it's a little disappointing, but not that unexpected.
What's funny is the PUMAs who supported such a hawk for president getting all high and mighty about the haws in the cabinet (like... their beloved Hillary Clinton).
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Hillary was not a hawk on the Iraq War ...
... and Obama wasn't a dove.
It's the refusal to face reality, stupid.
Up is down
Left is right.
Only when you let yourself be fooled.
As you were.
I don't know who you are, lowellfield.
I've only known others like you.
There are no saints or saviors in politics. Take him down from the pedestal.
He's done nothing, as yet, to earn that kind of adulation.
Nothing.
If you wanna bug a PUMA, start with me.
I might be the only PUMA here.
JFK has been shot, we miss him a lot
He always knew what to do
-- Philly Cream
Oops, I came late to this thread, but
you're not the only PUMA here.
lowellfield, if the shoe doesn't fit you, why are you so defensive?
Btw, a lot of PUMAs are in disagreement over what they think of Clinton as SoS. I probably can't do justice to the disagreement, but many feel she (and we) are better off with Clinton in the Senate fighting for the initiatives that are truly important to liberals, esp. health care, and that SoS, esp. in Obama's admin, is a waste of her talents. Others feel SoS is a very prominent cabinet post which it is very important to have a competent, accomplished politician at the helm of, given how absorbed Obama will be domestically with the economy. I was tending toward thinking it would be a waste of her talents until the news started leaking about her conditions w/ regard to picking her own staff and having direct access to Obama. (I have nits to pick about how that news was presented, but that's another comment entirely).
As far as being a hawk, Clinton's not even in the top 5 for hawkishness of Obama's political choices so far (esp. if Iraq is the only meter), and probably not even in the top 5 of those whose names were bandied about for SoS. Did anyone really think Obama would appoint Kucinich for SoS? Maybe Cindy Sheehan? If Clinton's a hawk then so is Obama for choosing her. Or do you think maybe that Obama is underinformed about Clinton's politics?
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
"Haws" in the cabinet
Indeed.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
It's better not to have two faces on policy
but that's exactly what we get from Obama.
Like telling Democrats, among other lies, he would filibuster FISA if it included immunity for telecoms, then voting for it.
The biggest betrayal of the liberal base, though, was the theft of the primary by Obama's henchmen. It undermined the faith of millions of Democratic voters, a faith that won't easily (if ever) be restored.
So, frankly, you've made it obvious you're just another Obama troll trying to sell a false bill of goods, and we aren't buying it. Your propaganda falls on deaf ears here.
Not all of us 'liberals'
were or are now for pulling out of Iraq this very minute.
I am the liberal base. I am not anti war. I think Hillary Clinton will kick ass and take names. That's not betrayal. That's taking care of business.
Obviously not talking about you
So don't worry about it, but the more you dig....
Anyway, here is a primer on the dynamic.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled anti-PUMA rant....
BTW, I'm not a PUMA either.
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Actually, the tip-off...
... is anybody who tries to do for PUMA what Limbaugh did for liberal, without even getting to know any of the writers classified that way (and with no links, either). I can get that at Kos, so I don't see the value add here.
BTW, I'm not a PUMA either. Nor a Democrat, for that matter.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Hillary Clinton will not be working for the president...
she'll be working for the people of the United States, as will president-elect Obama.
If you really think that it's better to have a moderate face on liberal policy than a liberal face on moderate policy, then maybe you ought to take that up with the fauxgressive who bamboozled you out of your vote.
actually, no--"performs such duties as the President requires"
her job is to implement HIS policies and talk to who HE wants her to and to arrange what HE wants, etc -- and to further "American" interests in the world as HE defines them alone -- not the American people's interests--and most certainly not our domestic interests like healthcare or jobs or housing, etc.
She works for him -- not for us.
Hmm...wiki isn't the most reliable of sources
and selective quotation doesn't help.
What I find most troubling. however, is the notion that the executive and his cabinet do not work for the people. It's not the cynacism that bothers me; it's that it's the defeatism.
Given what I know about my senator, I have a strong feeling that Hillary Clinton will be working in the international interest of the American people. I do not think that she will advise against our interests; nor do I think she will implement policy contrary to our interests.
Let's hope that the president-elect (who serves at our pleasure) does the same.
the pres does--those directly under him
politically appointed by him don't. it's always been clear, and always been true of political appointees, who are not voted for by us, but only "confirmed" by Congress.
and even those who are explicitly mandated to work for us--from Pres to Congress, etc--most often don't do so.
that's not new-- but as long as people keep voting for them anyway there's no solution.
the people's international interest is what? cheap oil? products all made in China? "free trade"? Billions for dictators? occupying and bombing multiple countries? more budget for military than for domestic? massive permanent bases in Iraq? ...
it's not our international interests that are ever served by SoS but always the administration's interests.
and the constitution is clear and easy to find--go look it up.
Is there a point
behind the vitriol? Are you suggesting that the American people don't have a stake in foreign policy? Are you denying the SOS's chief role as advisor to the president on international affairs? Exactly on who's behalf do you think Hillary will render that counsel? Corporate interests? The Chinese? Big oil? Why on earth would you think that?
The Constitution is easy to look up. That's why I find it surprising that anyone would rely on Wikipedia as a source.
As for its clarity, I think that there are many who would disagree with that facile assessment. Brandeis comes to mind, as do Holmes and Cardozo.
Oh yeah, and wasn't there a landmark case that involved a framer (then serving as SOS) and his interpretation of constitutional provisions? As I recall, the court disagreed with that framer's reading of the document of which he has been called the "chief architect".
Clear? I'm not so sure about that, but I'm glad that you are.
"Nat'l Security" team--not "Diplomacy" or
even "Foreign Policy" or anything like that.
disgusting--and worst bday present ever!
and the Attorney General is announced as part of "Nat'l Security" -- and not Legal or Constitutional or Justice, etc--- even worse. And tells you exactly what he won't reverse--ever-- let alone progress.
this is Dubya 2.0 -- expanding the military --and their budget, and "surging" in Afghanistan, and troops inside the US always, and Napolitano who wants troops on our borders, and Gates and Jones, etc --
anyone who still thinks this is in any way liberal or progressive or means Obama will do anything different from Dubya --or McCain -- is severely mentally disabled.
And it was all foreseeable.
To those of us who were paying attention.
When I saw this cartoon I saw a depiction of Hillarians,
the die-hard dead-enders who are still decrying the awfulness of Obama while the supposed object of his perfidy accepts - perhaps demanded - the most senior and powerful Cabinet position in his administration. If Hillary so respects and approves of the man, is so comfortable working closely with him, how can those who depended their argument on her supposed victimization continue to be derisive?
What happened during the primary was a good old-fashioned no-holds-barred political bar-room brawl that first cleared out the Liberal riff-raff, and was eventually settled in favor of Obama by an also old-fashioned exercise of political backroom double dealing that undercut Hillary like a baseball bat to the kneecap. It was, in other words, classical traditional American politics at work and a wonderful lesson for those willing to examine it free of candidate personality bias.
The only ones whose heads may be spinning over Hillary as SoS are those who bought into the idea that Hillary and Obama represented some difference between them. There is in fact little to none, never has been, and Hillary will fit right in with Biden and Gates and the rest of the Center-Right Conservatives and Corporatists. All together a relief from the Radical Reactionary Corporatists and their Republican lackeys, to be sure, but this new administration – like all those before it – is no less a creation of our Corporatist masters.
There is nothing bewildering from a political standpoint about Clinton joining Obama's administration, although I had hoped for SCOTUS. They were both bankrolled, to a greater or lesser degree, by the Enlightened arm of the Corporatist cabal, and they are as a result inextricably obligated and will do as they are expected to do. This Obama-Clinton rapprochement is simply a consolidation-of-power exercise, a smart move as the new ruling elite displace the former ruling clique. With Hillary and Obama as a united front, in the same camp with the same talking points and the same agenda, it will be much more difficult for the group that just lost power to find places to drive a wedge.
If anyone, at this point, finds their head spinning, it is because they haven't been following the ball.
consolidation --and neutralization too--
esp on Domestic issues like health, where she differed most from him.
Bringing her in -- under his control, and only on foreign policy -- removes her entirely from all domestic policy -- in Congress, in the Exec Branch -- or outside of it.
nothing to neutralize
Nor was she "brought in"; what a terrible demeaning construct, as though she were an object to be manipulated at will.
Hillary is as much a part of the Democratic Party Corporatist alliance as is Obama, just different groupings. Persisting in assertions that she was somehow forced against her will to give up what she had - a secure Senate seat for life - to become an at-will employee at State argues against her having any free agency at all, and is manifestly disrespectful of her as both a person and a politician.
She made the move because she wanted to, because it was compatable with the arrangements she has already made to facilitate her political career and will in her view continue to advance her position in the political heirarchy, not for any other reason.
you're the one making assertions that i never made--
yet again, of course. Go twist other people's words--you enjoy it so much.
of course she was "brought in" -- and her job and its length only exists at his pleasure too.
those aren't assertions.
all Presidential appointments are "brought in", whether it's from a statehouse, a corporation, or DC itself---the process requires that at the bare minimum--way before senate confirmation.
her experience and primary motivations are domestic--not in diplomacy or foreign policy. that's not an assertion either -- but her own words and work over more than 30 years.
Surely, you jest, BIO.
She made the move because she wanted to, because it was compatable with the arrangements she has already made to facilitate her political career and will in her view continue to advance her position in the political heirarchy, not for any other reason.
For no other reason...
Wow. Just...
wow.
I like to elicit a couple of Wows now and then, pie
Tell me, please; what did I do this time?
You give Obama
the benefit of the doubt, but not Hillary. He's done absolutely nothing to earn that.
Why is that?
Still unclear, pie
Think of me as the slow kid in the class; please speak slowly, and in complete sentences. I'd love to defend what I said, but I don't understand what you're asking about. Taking a stab, though:
I don't see much if any difference between Obama and Hillary, and I don' think I'm being particularly biased in favor or opposition to either of them. My comment just above isn't particularly a slam of Clinton, she is like just about every other high-level politician in America, not the worst of the lot but still one of the elite insiders, and she is doing what she is doing to further her own interests just as much as any of the rest of them.
Doesn't make her a bad person any more than it does Obama, but IMHO it would be a mistake to think that her political positioning choices are somehow divorced from or even distinctly separable from her personal ambitions. If she saw the SoS job as contrary to her own political welfare she would not have taken it - in my estimation.
Look, it's totally classy gesture!
Hillary said she wanted to kill Obama, and he turns around and appoints her Secretary of State! How classy is that?!
* * *
That is, if the blogosphere was anything but a shadow of its former self, that's the simple and obvious kind of snark that would be going around right now, and Obama would have earned every bit of it. As would his fans.
As it is, I don't see any exploding heads at all (am I wrong? Links!). That was then; this is now; turn the double think knobs up to 11; and airbrush it all! VastLeft is really right about Obamawin's law....
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
More universal than Obama
This kind of arrangement isn't anything new to politics, where strange bedfellows constantly come and go and morality is whatever you need it to be to justify whatever it is you're doing at the time.
This deal works for both of them, or it wouldn't be happening. It isn't forgiveness or subjugation or rescue or anything so dramatic, just a couple of pols working out a deal. The People Magazine-style battle of the personas doesn't actually seem to be happening except in the heads of the pro- and contra-Obama camps.
It won't wash at all that this is somehow stunning to anti-Hillary Obama supporters and taken entirely in stride by those who for nearly a year saw him as Hillary's low-life woman-bashing brutal attacker. Spin wildly, spin slowly, it is still a whole lot of spinning going on.
Hillary said she wanted to kill Obama...
.... and he turns around and appoints her Secretary of State! Gawd, the haka went on for days, from people whose intellect and integrity we're supposed to take seriously.
That's discourse at a level of ludicrousness that should cause anybody's head to explode. But no, of course. Obamawin's law enables the doublethink. However, thank you for taking the child-like nature of my political understanding into account with your patient explanations. Lengthy and obfuscatory post facto justifications aside, of course.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Why don't we just leave this to the "big boys"?
All our petty concerns about "the memory hole" or shadenfreude at the dismay taken by those with CDS are like the buzzing of gnats to those that man the parapets. Bringiton and John Aravosis (quoted here), man that wall for us, steely-eyed, reasonable, rational, solemn. Through years of hardened battle, they are immune to the mundane and suffer our rantings for they must, as all parents must, shaking their heads sadly, wondering when we will grasp the tedium we are to them.
Here is John, we must listen and learn, he hopes someday we will all understand why the great do what they must, for all us "little people":
Why indeed. Why, why why?
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
there you go again, with "haka"
How many times have I patiently explained how insensitive and rude it is to use that term to mean a senseless political brouhahah, and still you continue? Patience and well-referenced reality do not, in some instances, seem to be enough to get through.
My point in this thread requires no post facto explanations; if you can show me doing that, literally changing my opinion after the fact to suit the needs of argumentation rather than change from new data or altered circumstances, please provide it. Otherwise, please refrain from such ad hominem attacks. You know how much you hate it when we play tit-for-tat that way, so please - don't start.
As well, I have not used the term "child-like" with regards to your political understandings or anything near it, so again: if you have an example please cite it, otherwise please refrain from making false charges against me.
Fine examples of uncritical analysis certainly abound here, provided by many others and some quite close to hand. Especially telling are those who take the time to object only to a superficial issue, to what they perceive as an unacceptable tone, while failing to refute the substance of what is written; pray you do not feel tempted into that behavior.
To the extent that double-think is at play, I see no difference in the requirement for that with either the Obama=Good+Hillary=Bad crowd or their mirror opposites; Both are operating under assumptions unsupported by evidence and both are caught up in a contest of falsely assigned personas that the actual people involved do not seem to share in the slightest. To me, Hillary in the SoS job makes a laughingstock out of anyone who still persists in fighting the obviously artificial battles of the primary, a battle that the principles involved appear to have brushed off like so much dust on their lapels - but that is just my opinion.
If my voicing that opinion discomfits, well; you'll need to sort out what it means.
Heh...
Yeah, I should have written "Pelosi haka." Would the wordage increase in linear proportion, or geometric, I wonder? I'll have to try. Anyhow, I'm a racist, although a kneecapped one. So why would I be sensitive to such concerns?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
again, the implied false allegation
I've not accused you of being racist either, so why introduce it here? Only to obfuscate, trying to deflect my sincere and well-documented request that you stop misusing the term "haka" by implying it is somehow an equivalent to the false charges of racism you got from the people at Kos. It is not.
By all means, lick that "racist" wound for as long as it pleases you to keep it open, but it has nothing to do with me. Please desist from these ad hominem attacks.
If you personally never called a Clinton supporter ...
... a racist, then good on ya. However, many Obama supporters did. Viciously. And incessantly.
Don't try to pretend it never happened.