You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 26, 2010.
As much as we all bitch about his decisions, I know that is what he is trying to do. People who attempt to find common ground end up getting crap from all sides. Nobody likes the middle man. He is like the HR rep who has to balance the corporate will with the workers needs/rights. Tough spot to be in and I give him loads of credit for taking on the job!
some good answers
28. And what should we give? Gay rights? Social Security? Medicare?
There are some fundamental promises that we, as a nation, ought to live up to.
3. Give a little? This has become a party that Ronald Reagan could REJOIN
and you want us to keep GIVING? Permalink
The Hillary Bashing of the Day
eventualy gets responded
6. Hillary does what the president wants
Not the other way around.
Unless of course you mean to impugn Obama. Permalink
21. I guess we have to have one Hillary bashing by somebody
every day. WHO IN HELL SAYS SHE IS AFRAID… Permalink
On the Wikileaks CNN interview
one idiotic comment – strong DUdie contender
49. That guy’s a scumbag. He’s done the same thing Plame had done to her. Except he’s done it to
dozens and dozens of people. Permalink
Someone splains it to him
51. You really don’t know the difference between a whistle blower and Dick Cheney?
An old debate
Is still voting for evil.
generates another DUdie contender
1. Tell that to Speaker of the House PALIN on Nov 4th!
that knocks THEM for a loop
How the hell would that happen?
She isn’t running for congress (or anything). Permalink
A voter’s story
for another Democratic Congress to do less in terms of pulling left, just get it done. We had our chances in the primaries. And in 1.5 years we get another chance to get rid of the dead weight.
is met with characteristic arrogance
5. Well, the rest of us are eternally grateful that you condescended to vote…
for these poor, unworthy Democrats that don’t meet your personal standards of excellence.
We’ll be sure to let you know when have we proper candidates that you don’t have to be ashamed to vote for. Permalink
I hope everyone prepared to hold their nose read that comment.
17. Interesting that even though you over came your distaste
You went and voted D — it wasn’t good enough for some.
They seem to change the bar with some
Predictable regularity. Permalink
Who has the right to criticize Obama?
But some are vigilant
3. Riddle me this. How do we know who voted for President Obama on an anonymous web site?
Because they say so? We have at least one self-identified Nader voter from the last election two years ago here. Think thats the only Nadernut(a half a million kooks voted for him), or LaRouche cultist we have posting around here?
You want to join up with them criticizing our president? Good luck. I am sure you will find plenty of company.
Clinton infuriates the CDS-ers
the reason for the thread comes down in the middle
14. Maybe it’s the revisionist history, infatuation and arrogance of
Edited on Sun Oct-24-10 09:12 PM by ProSenseall things Clinton.
As the OP points out, Clinton got stomped in the 1994 midterms. He’s campaigning now, and that’s a good thing, having all hands on deck. Let’s not pretend that his efforts weren’t clumsy and unsuccessful a couple of years ago.
The constant attempts to elevate Clinton to Obama’s superior is downright condescending. Permalink
and gets responded
16. Funny that you should choose the word “arrogance”.
The one candidate and campaign that epitomized the term was not Clinton.
On the “angry gays”
Someone gets it
50. It’s like a bully demanding lunch money for “protection”.
Vote for Democrats, because Republicans will cram you into a locker!
Looking for what GLBT got from Obama
55. He let us roll Easter eggs on the White House lawn.
89. He’d probably thought we’d lay more.
On Obama dissing the D in Rhode Island
You just can’t have it both ways. you are either a party loyalist or you are a person of principle. They are two different things.
What are you?
And unless you say you’re a party loyalist, you better not claim any higher moral ground than **ANYONE** who says he will or will not do something based on principle.
Hypocrisy. Its not for repubicans anymore.
8. Maybe they were different people
Three way races are complicated. It is up to each voter’s conscience. Maybe it would be better if we didn’t have these polls out there and so didn’t vote for strategic reasons. Permalink
and the reply
11. Caprio is a traitor. Chafee is a true Democrat.
Caprio endorsed Hillary in the 2008 RI primary.
Chafee endorsed Obama in the 2008 RI primary.
Caprio’s loyalty to the party is thus highly suspect, if we define the party as Barack Obama.
This is what I have learned from reading several threads on this topic in various fora here.
Seriously… for the second time today, you need to get your priories straight. Permalink
I just read an interesting survey of liberal books by Jonathan Alter on the New York Times website. In the article, he makes reference to “a tactical split within liberalism itself,” between two groups of people he calls “action liberals” and “movement liberals.”…….
Action liberals are policy-oriented pragmatists who use their heads to get something important done, even if their arid deal-making and Big Money connections often turn off the base. Movement liberals can sometimes specialize in logical arguments (e.g., Garry Wills), but they are more often dreamy idealists whose hearts and moral imagination can power the deepest social change (notably the women’s movement and the civil rights movement)……..
I especially appreciate the fact that he described the split as “tactical” rather than ideological or values-based. It seems obvious to me from reading DU that we all share the same core values, even if we disagree on how to achieve our shared goals.
Anyway, I was interested to find out what percentage of DUers would identify with either side
interesting how women’s movement is distinct from the civil rights movement – for men only?
Being a principled liberal means supporting principled liberal politicians for office, regardless of whether they have a “D” next to their name.
Accepting reality means that these politicians have to be voted for in the PRIMARIES so that they can GET a “D” next to their name, and that a vote for them in a general election is no different than a vote for the Republicans.
It must be after Obama refused to endorsed more Ds. Someone sums it up
6. Everyone left of me is too idealistic. Everyone right of me is a sell out.
Unfortunately, the same is true for everyone else.
It’s like George Carlin’s old routine where he said that people who drive slower than him are idiots and people who drive faster than him are morons. Wherever we are looks reasonable to us. Permalink
Today, a different opinion is posted
6. Just priming the “It’s teh libruls fawlt” pump we will be subjected to. n/t Permalink
15. Don’t forget the homos. It’s always our fault when things go badly. n/tPermalink
I notice women don’t get represented. Again.
25. We are a powerless fringe, yet we hold the world in our manicured hands.
It’s an amazing paradox, isn’t it? Permalink
0. Divide, and conquer. Divide, and conquer…
and so it goes…
with the upshot
18. Yeah, I wondered about this yesterday
when Skinner posted the same article. I’m starting to feel unwelcome here…Permalink
And the DUdie
has to go for the latest in Palin scare mongering
1. Tell that to Speaker of the House PALIN on Nov 4th!
It even comes with its own illustration:
While voters have been lectured – hard – about party loyalty, Obama – like he did in the NYC mayor race, can pick and chose.
In RI he got his response – NY Post has it on page one