Friday, August 13, 2010

Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama, plus July 27th Baker City Council Meeting.

In This Edition:

- Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama

- Frustration and Fireworks at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting

- On YouTube--"Democracy" sung by Don Henley, written by Leonard Cohen

- And Until they take it down: The Last Resort by Don Henley & The Eagles


Only two items in this blog, plus music. The first concerns the upheaval on the "progressive left," in which the comments, especially the lower half or so, are the more informative and enlightening. The second is three YouTube videos concerning the heated atmosphere at the July 27, 2010 Baker City Council Meeting. I've little to add to either segment, except that my hopefully objective descriptions of the Council Meeting clips can be found on YouTube, which is only a reflection of one of many aspects of Baker City, Oregon.

Either on my blog, or on the Herald website comment section, I used the following reference in the comment(s):

During the recess Bonebrake approached Pope and asked why he was opposed to the Council interviewing the two applicants.

“Oh go to hell,” Pope responded.

Pope argued that he was not allowed to express his anger toward other council members, and he accused them of not being trust worthy.
See: City Council will interview 2

After watching and listening carefully to the tape yesterday, I don't believe that the Herald's comments, or mine that depended upon them, were acurate. It appears to me, that the Herald didn't quite get it right. If you listen to the YoutTube video Fireworks and Frustration at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting, you will hear Milo telling Mayor Dorrah to go to hell, not Aletha Bonebrake.

Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama
Published on Friday, August 13, 2010 by The Hill
‘Professional Left’ Not Ready to Back an Obama Primary Challenger in '12
by Sam Youngman

As angry as it might be, the professional left isn't ready to back a primary challenger to President Obama just yet.

Two high-profile liberals on Thursday said they are not interested in running against the president in 2012, and liberal bloggers say any challenge to Obama would be fraught with difficulty.

"I haven't heard of a credible name that has been floated that would challenge President Obama," said David Sirota, a prominent liberal blogger. "I haven't heard of that. I think it would be very difficult to do."

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, who is also a columnist for The Hill, said he didn't think Obama would get a 2012 primary challenge "in a million years." In an e-mail, Moulitsas also said Obama shouldn't be challenged.

Still, some influential figures on the left, which erupted in fury this week at criticism White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made in an interview with The Hill, suggest a multitude of voices in New Hampshire and Iowa could be helpful to the party.

"I have always encouraged a diversity of voices in the primary process, within all parties and at all levels of government," said Jane Hamsher, founder of, a leading liberal blog.

"It's a sign of a healthy democracy," said Hamsher, who suggested this week that Gibbs's comments could depress turnout in the November midterm elections for Congress.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a frequent presidential candidate, both said Thursday they had no plans to challenge Obama.

Gibbs invoked Kucinich's name in The Hill interview, saying some on the left wouldn't be satisfied if the prominent progressive who has called for a Department of Peace were in the Oval Office.

But Kucinich told ABC he had no plans to challenge Obama in 2012, and he pressed Democrats to concentrate on coming together.

Challenges to sitting presidents have been uncommon in recent elections, but they are hardly unheard of.

President George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992 after Bush won scorn from the political right for breaking a pledge not to raise taxes.

After his election, President George W. Bush was determined to avoid the same fate.

Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, told The Hill on Thursday that the younger Bush was largely inoculated from intra-party challenges because he worked to make sure he "kept an open door to all elements of the party."

Like Bill Clinton in 1996, the second president Bush did not face a meaningful primary challenge when he was up for reelection.

Rove, now a commentator on Fox News, said Obama's advisers need to take steps on a daily basis to protect him so that he does not face a challenge from the left.

"The president's people ought to be doing things in a way that keeps from providing people reasons to challenge him," Rove told The Hill.

Liberal commentators this week said they had plenty to complain about. They're disappointed Obama has not closed the detention center at Guantanamo Bay despite his promise to do so. Most also oppose Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war.

The left was disappointed Obama did not do more to achieve a public option in the health insurance bill, and they would like the president to do more to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Sirota said liberals feel "100 percent" taken for granted by the Obama White House.

He and others on the left are worried Obama is taking a page from Clinton's playbook and using triangulation to move to the middle in advance of reelection.

Liberals are wary of some members of Obama's inner circle, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who worked in the Clinton White House and is a former investment banker.

"This is an administration that is teeming with Clintonites and former corporate-connected people," Sirota said.

Rove believes Obama has little to worry about it. In the end, he predicts, liberals will stick with Obama in 2012 in the primary and general elections.

"They'll grouse about it, they'll bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day they will [vote for Obama]," Rove said.
© 2010 The Hill
Article printed from

URL to article:

44 Comments so far

quidditas August 13th, 2010 7:45 pm
"‘Professional Left’ Not Ready to Back an Obama Primary Challenger in '12"

Where'd you get that idea? I was ready to primary Obama before he was even sworn in, the minute he adopted the Clinton administration in toto.

How many times do these state criminals get to swing the wrecking ball anyway?

doubledoot August 13th, 2010 7:36 pm
There needs to be a challange made as someone else aptly pointed out if just to move the Pres. form center to left. Remember Ross Perot ? Clinton may not have ever balanced the budget had he not run as a third (the turd in the punchbowl). It did tend to move Clinton more towards a "We The People" agenda that he would have otherwise ignored. It was a means to hold him somewhat accountable. It was very expensive to boot ! I doubt if most Progressive Left or third party potentials would want to shell out that kind of money.

No to Kucinich : He sees aliens !

No to Nadar : for many reasons I won't go into. He's a great consumer advocate but not presidential material. Also the fruitcake factor.

Definitely No to Libertarian Ron Paul. I can't stand a Libertarian any more than I can a Republican.

All three of the above also in my "WAKO" pile !
I don't even know anything about Howard Dean.

I support someone like Richard Trumka;Pres of the AFL-CIO becuse he would embody more of the values and ideals I have. He's fairly articlulate but he's probably not pretty enough to run for President. He has leadership skills and experience ;you don't get to the top of that dog pile w/ out them. Unions definitely know how to organize (a great party). He knows how to fight and will. Unfortunately labor is used to typically supporting the Dem candidate (right or left) and then just going along for the ride. I'd like to see a 'Labor Party' here. They exist in mamy of the European countries. If there were any entity in the Democratic Party that I'd entrust the running of the Gov to it would be a labor leader. More specifiaclly a left leaning labor leader as many uninons have been compromised by Republican types. I know that's true of the UAW (first hand).

I doubt if any labor leader would be silly enough to drop a hat in 2012 ring but beyond that to the 2016-17 election. It's wide open. We just need a dupe for now and any of those three 'wakos' I mentioned would fit the bill. I doubt Nadar would be stupid enough to run and throw more money away in this upcomming election. But Ron Paul : He's our man ! He'd be perfect. He'd attract right wing looney votes as well as the fringe liberal Libertarians (if there is such a thing). We don't need someone to defeat Obama just push him towards a more liberal agenda and at the same time take votes from the Republicans. I personally think Ron Paul and his boy (Ian) Rand Paul are nutcakes. But no matter : If they'd be stupid enough to run (either of them) : Fine !

The point : We on the left have to get physical about this. We've already tried the verbal route and they don't take us seriously. Now it's time to step up the game. Hell : I'll run : That would be good. I've got nothing to loose and every thing to gain. Send donations to "Cmapaign for ME" (lol). It coudn't be much worse that what we've just experienced. And now to get slandered on top of it. Gibbs didn't just mean the "Professional Left" he meant the entire "Left". We've all been pushing left and critiquing the Pres's performance in the negative. Gueas they really didn't mean that "We want your input" thing ; did they ?

Bottom line : You can trace much (if not all) of our present unemployment crisis directly back to NAFA and the Fast Tracking of jobs to cheap labor markets overseas and to management top down Team Concepts designed to elimiate jobs and to the robot technologies designed to eliminate people altogether. Match those with too liberal trade agreements that make this all possible and you have a Republican wet dream come true. You want jobs here : You have to take measures to protect them. You want long term prosperity instead of short sighted, short term profits that make the few rich, rich , richer at the expense of everyone else you have to make some hard (assed) decisions and take some decisive actions. Not pretty and not nicey nice but kick ass and take names. You want the Gov. back ? Take the damn thing ! Let's leave the wako mamby pambies in the dust and get on with it !

cadawa August 13th, 2010 7:15 pm
I respectfully disagree. That's what the suits in the Democratic Party want us to think.

I don't think anyone, professional or otherwise, left, right or center wanted 4 more years of Bush. They certainly don't want another 4.

The Democratic "elite" will refuse to back another candidate.
We have two years to pull it off anyway.

upstartgreen August 13th, 2010 6:18 pm
The hell with the Professional Left. After the Revolution they will go to the re-education camps along with Sarah Palin.

jbarret1 August 13th, 2010 5:59 pm
Get sh*t on by the guy you supported; and then turnaround and fully support him in the next election. Brilliant!

Obama has nothing to fear from this crew.

Mordechai Shiblikov August 13th, 2010 5:48 pm
But Kucinich told ABC he had no plans to challenge Obama in 2012, and he pressed Democrats to concentrate on coming together.

Take a hike to the edge of the ocean . . . then drink seawater.

bfriesen August 13th, 2010 5:47 pm
Wanna bet.....

hsansom August 13th, 2010 5:37 pm
What's the "professional left" anyway — people who make money by being progressives? The counterpart to the "professional right"? To the "professional moderates"?

Doesn't really matter. Nor does it matter whether one of the so-called "professional left" is going to challenge President Zero.

What matters is whether not-very-professional lefties like me are going to be dumb enough to get suckered by The Big 0 a second time round.


bfriesen August 13th, 2010 5:49 pm
I think the big Zero you are referencing was in office from 2000 - 2008. And maybe yourself for voting for him.

bardamu August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
Then you should check the record. 0 hasn't come forward as progressive on a single issue, and has not gone so far left as "moderate" on many.

Unless you like the sweeter lies, how's 0 better than Cheney?

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:09 pm
So Hamsher, tell us about your healthy democracy hypothesis?

I think the voting patterns in the USA reflect the high number of Americans who are mentally ill. Some estimates say 25 % "have problems."

I think 50 percent are clearly mentally disabled.

Mordechai Shiblikov August 13th, 2010 5:51 pm
If stupidity and ignorance are mental or emotional diseases, then, yes, at least half of this nation is downright sick.

keithsoulasa August 13th, 2010 4:18 pm
Even though Obama hasn't turned water into wine yet he IS trying.
A thousand dollar increase in Pell Grants to kids that want to college in summer , making direct federal loans to students, that are automatically forgiven after 20 years . All these things are bits of progress.

Or you can put some republican in there , and roll all of these little steps back.

bardamu August 13th, 2010 7:46 pm
Tell him to drop the water and wine routine and the PR card tricks and focus on quitting the massive harm he's doing, at the very least:

Get out of Afghanistan (really, and stop the show)
Get out of Iraq
Get out of Pakistan
Ground the drones
Stop funding research for violent repression of protest
Actually quit funding and supporting torture, rather than making the claim in name
Quit blowing the tops off of the Appalachians for coal
Quit offshore drilling
Shift his support from nuclear and coal power to wind and solar
Rescind his grudging but genuine support of the coup in Honduras
Do not build the extra bases in Colombia
Quit sabre-rattling at the Iranians
Stop funding the Israeli occupations
Promote single payer healthcare instead of the insurance monstrosity he backed.

Gee, where do you start? How about a little shot in the arm to the states to generate employment instead of draining the money to foreign interests?

Could we see a visible attempt?

Sure an addition to the Pell Grants is a good thing, but $1,000 is not enough to cover the jump in tuitions that has come, in part, from his refusal to help the failing state governments. Even that is a net loss.

This is a massive betrayal of what people in 2008 thought of as his base: left-leaning and progressive-ish Democrats. Sadly, a primary challenge will either fail or fail to gel, though: there just are not enough progressive Democrats to control the party o, r, it seems, deeply influence it.

And I should think there will be fewer in 2010 and 2012, when corporations will be freer than ever to bribe candidates and forestall representation, and the people who were young and enthusiastic in 2008 have been either discouraged or wised up by 0's massive betrayal.

I'm still hoping for wisdom and a shrewder coalition of left-leaners, but I'm not taking any bets.

Diana August 13th, 2010 5:27 pm
good initiatives...but completely useless amid the dire, dire situation we are in. About as timid as one can imagine, and far, far from the substantial initiatives we need just to stay afloat!

Haven't you noticed the economy is still on brink? Haven't you noticed that O is escalating the middle east wars, and even using the same rhetoric as Jr.!? Haven't you noticed that substantial environmental regs are still not in place, EVEN with the horrifying, unending saga in the gulf, which O could've easily used to get his campaign-promised environmental initiatives through?

What IS he trying to do, exactly, Keith? He's barely made an effort for the people, certainly not using the bully pulpit or the mandate voters gave him. (See health insurance: consistently 80% of the people polled wanted single payer. He didn't even make it part of the bargaining process; it was off the table from the very start.)

The excuse we hear over and over for lack of progress is the 'just-say-no republicans.' Sorry, don't buy it. Sadly, what he's shown us is that he really agrees with the republicans and simply uses their obstructionism as an excuse for why things his base wants--why he was voted into office--can't get done.

keithsoulasa August 13th, 2010 6:27 pm
Remember all the money in our political system . Banks even wanted to stop nationalization of student loans . A thousand dollars extra for low income students is useless ? Maybe not enough but considering my mom still has student loan debt this is some small progress . Could you imagine the pure horror we'd be in if Obama didn't sign the unemployment extensions, exttensions all but 2 republican senators oposed.

your entitled to your opinion but president Mc Cain would of been much worse ." The Russian government is run by KGB spies " , " The Vietnam war was winable " I could list more Mc Cain quotes but the point is were better of with an ineffective democratic then a cold war artifact Republican .

Michael Goodhart August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
Unemployment extensions don't mean anything if you're term unemployed or limping from one temp job to another unable to get a full time job.

What's the point of a student loan when the original costs are too high anyway? My parents didn't bother with student loans. Yeah, I had to temporarily suspend completing my college degree halfway into my third year when they were pushed into bankruptcy but I don't think the college loans would have changed the fate.

Michael Goodhart August 13th, 2010 3:41 pm
Go figure ! The Democratic Party activisits are organized with Netroots and able to meet up face to face. How about progressive challengers and why not just forget about a primary challenge and organize for some kind of a third party revolution?

speakout2 August 13th, 2010 3:39 pm
It is too bad that the "professional left" has either given up on the real Democratic principles and platform or has embraced the neo-liberal DLC platform or both. I am especially disheartened to read that David Sirota is basically giving up and endorsing President Obama. So, the "professional left" has officially become part of the MSM, status quo. Many of them have now made it clear where they stand without ambiguity.

The "professional left" however, does not represent the "amateur left". President Obama has pushed for an agenda that Republicans of the past only dreamed about. If the "professional left" wants to ignore this, well... I would like to hear someone from the "professional left" justify escalation of wars, further loss of privacy rights, going after "whistleblowers" instead of the real criminals, handing out money to financial institutions without conditions (who are now making record bonuses), mandating that people buy PRIVATE health insurance, a "stimulus program" with over 30% of it in tax CUTS and credits... how can they justify this as being from the "left". The only justification I can see is that our country is such a military, corporate empire that anything less is now considered to be "left". If that is the case, this country is going to collapse.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:17 pm
I would respond that the "professional left" see the writing on the wall (if I may use a cliche'.) They know that the end is near for the republic.

So they want to take all they can, build their own nest and hope to ride out the storm without to much pain.

The rest of us are going down with the ship, as the professional left row away into the night while promising they are only going for help.

It is a sham within a sham within a tragedy.

delia_darrow August 13th, 2010 3:18 pm
Anyone on the left supporting any Democrat should have their heads examined. Who cares which Democrat challenges the Uncle Tom in 2012.

The left has to support third part candidates and no one else.

Or let Palin win, things can't get any worse under the bitch anyway. In fact Democrats are getting away with Right-wing laws and reforms that Republicans wouldn't. We'd be better off with Republicans, at least we have clear enemies in power, not a con artist like Oilbomber.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 4:30 pm
Direct action in the streets will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of where any movement goes. When you're facing nightsticks and smoke, lockup and probation, criminal record flagging and phonetaps, the stakes get personal real quick. Let's see who shows up to the 2nd rally wearing bandages and talking about how the jail food gave ya' the sxxts. Then the fight is on.

wanked August 13th, 2010 3:12 pm
This professional leftist SURE IS>>>>>> !

MakesMeWantNader August 13th, 2010 3:00 pm
Why is this article using Rove as a source for liberal views?

"Rove believes Obama has little to worry about it. In the end, he predicts, liberals will stick with Obama in 2012 in the primary and general elections."

This Rove statement about liberals is hardly relevant to the elections or Obama's fate. Self-described "liberals" are only 22% of the population. "The Left" is much bigger than that but the "Professional Left" primarily comes from this liberal wing.

Obama is in trouble from "anti-war folks", "progressive democrats", "labor groups", "centrists", "independent voters", "libertarians", "swing state voters" etc.

The fact that now more people disapprove of Obama than approve should be common news although I have not seen it reported on CD. Here is the link from Real Clear Politics:

What may be less well known is that the "disapproves" are largely "strongly disapproves", see:

Obama had a lot of people giving him a chance in the beginning of the administration and his support continually eroded as he continually sided against the public's strongest wishes in favor of entrenched Wall Street interests.

It's not just going against the public's current wishes. Obama has been breaking promises he specifically made to get elected, see for example:

That is a sure-fire way to become a 1-term president. Obama clearly appears to be at peace with this inevitable outcome. He is resigned to support his major campaign donors at the expense of losing 2012. His major campaign donors will still win in 2012 since they control both major horses [D] and [R].

I already predicted no primary challengers to Obama on this site. Co-running with Hillary will be the DLC/corporate strategy to fool the public with false change in 2012.

To Be Determined:

1. Is 2012 the year 3rd parties finally take off?
2. Are progressives going to join Ron Paul libertarians for a 2012 challenge to Obama's ongoing wars and bank bailouts?
3. Are progressives going to kick out pro-war, pro-bank fake Democrat congressmen and women (Democratic Leadership Council / "New Democrats") from office (and yes replace them with real Republicans who vote for same) for a term only to bring in fresh blood and possibly progressive Democrats in subsequent terms?
4. Can Americans strategize beyond any single upcoming election?

Stay tuned.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:25 pm
He is my answers to your good questions:

1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Hell, No.

Sorry, the Republic died years ago.

rvrwalker August 13th, 2010 1:37 pm
The Milken experiment! Obedience to authority! What is it, 90% of us will always defer to "authority" (the professional left, in this case) Ya don't think the psyops machinery knows that?! Ha!

I'm beginning to think the "professional left" is an entity cooked up by these psyops professionals. After Nader gave them a scare in 2000, the empire's duopoly became understandably nervous that a quantum leap by US progressives could do some real damage to the American Way of politics. Can't have that! The rug was easily pulled out from underneath this bottom up movement. For a long time, it appears. Way to go US Progressives!

In the 2000 elections, 10,000 motivated and impassioned progressives packed to capacity the Portland, Oregon Coliseum, all of them ready to take on the powers that be. All of them ready to draw the line at last. Nader is a very inspiring individual - and he has SPINE! (A powerful progressive with SPINE? - uh oh. RED FLAG!)

Of course, Nader was taken down in no time - the always reliable M&M treatment:

Marginalize/Malign! The sheople will go along with anything if the PR is just right. As you know, the left was particularly rabid against Nader.

Supporters of the Democratic Party are spineless, weak, and running on empty. Who in their right mind could support a man who is doing the things Obama is doing. Killing innocent people, many of whom are children!? Are they serious? Their going to support that? Propping up a brutal, bloody military/industrial complex, ditching his base? Screwing them on health care? They are still supportive? wow.

Go ahead, bend over again if you must, and I hope it doesn't hurt to much, but I happen to have a spine and will use it anyway I can. If you want to follow the duopoly around for another round of this, have a great campaign and don't forget to shout: YES WE CAN.

Progressives who are still supporting the empire's duopoly are equivalent to the "good Germans" and by now should be ashamed of themselves.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 2:40 pm
That's quite an interesting spin on Oregon in 2000. Nader, got what, 5-6% of the vote! I'm all for Oregon and in the 30 years I've been voting here 3rd parties have played an interesting an important role in local and state elections. But what did Nader do in Oregon in 2004 or 2008? Years you'd think he'd of thrived in. He got blackballed by state election officials, right? Well, if it can happen in Oregon what do think would happen in more mainstream states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Please! I'd rather have direct civil obedience, roadblocking, tax resistence, etc more than pushing the 3rd party boulder uphill. I think it's gotten beyond politics and clictivism. Where's the energy in Portland for that. I was there when 45K protested befor the Iraq War. That beats Nader's # but still too little, too late!

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:31 pm
You would think that Michigan would vote for anybody except the two main parties. Look at Detroit, it looks like Hiroshima just after WWII.

The jobs in the auto industry have pretty much left for the South or Asia.

Good Grief.

moonpie August 13th, 2010 1:25 pm
Nader needs to run against these criminals. There is just no other option, period. Not sure if it should be the Green Party or not, but he's got to run and at least split the vote, who knows at this point, he might even place second and the groundwork for some real opposition might be laid in the process. At least with republicans, we know what we're getting. The results with either party will be the same: more murder abroad and financial criminal behavior at home. The dems are obvious the worst offenders and the biggest liars,

As for the republican candidate, it may be they nominate a candidate who (like Dole, McCain, Gore and Kerry) are just stand-ins/throwaways, so Obama can complete his 8 years. Seems thats the way things are going with the real behind-the-scenes power brokers, everyone gets 8 years.

As for the stalwarts mentioned in this piece, they need to be seen for what they are: liars and backstabbing a-holes (listening, Little Dennis?).

What can we do in the meantime? Don't patronize the "Professional Left" and their sponsors, and withdraw from participation in the economy as much as possible. Stay-off Main Street. Our dollars work better than votes.

sLiMsHaDy August 13th, 2010 1:06 pm
One term "president". If there is no third party alternative on the ballot, I will write in "None of the above". That might be counted in a way as a vote for the rethuglican, but if that branch of the one party gets in, it's all over but for the civil war anyway.

Bring it.

Heavyrunner August 13th, 2010 1:03 pm
There is another party in the U.S. with good candidates and a solid record. The Green Party!

Login or register to post comments report this comment
BillyD1953 August 13th, 2010 11:57 am
I don't plan to ever vote for another Democrat again anyway. The only challenger we need against Obama is a legitimate progressive third party. The Dems (and of course, the GOP) are dead ends for true progressives seeking change. It's a 2-party-all-pro-war system. We can't get anywhere inside that kind of system. We need to work outside of it with a third party. I don't know what chance a progressive 3rd party would have, but it sure beats wasting time voting for Democrats anymore.

Big Mac August 13th, 2010 1:06 pm
Amen BillyD...A primary challenge would show there is hope (sorry) for Progressive change within the Democratic Party. Sorry, There isn't.

We have only so much time, talent and money. Why waste it on the Dems. Besides, they would certainly use every political and legal trick in the book, ethical or otherwise to stop a challenge from the left. They would fight us a lot harder than they ever fight Republicans.Screw 'em.

SJRyan August 13th, 2010 1:54 pm
I would like to see Obama challenged from the left to make him move to the left. That's politics. If you don't demand change or even expect change, you certainly won't get change. I just can't support DLC Dems. The ends do not justify the means. Especially when there are no good ends for Progressives. Obama has nothing to offer Progressives. Gibbs makes no bones about it.

Progressives are the new blacks of the Democratic Party. If we vote straight party line for the next 50 years, we may get a man in the White House but little else.

What do Afro-Americans have to show for their support? Up to 50% unemployment in Detroit. The first black president, Bill Clinton, ended welfare as we know it. Blacks have been displaced in the workplace by Latinos and Orientals. Regressive tax after regressive tax. The worst public schools in the America. No future for their children. The right to stand in line with 30,000 brothers to get on the waiting list for nonexistent Sec 8 housing.

What do Progressives have to show for their support of Obama in 2008? Will it take Progressives 50 years to see what's happenin'?

linkwray August 13th, 2010 11:40 am
This article is about 3 months premature, which, could be its' real point. The brinksmanship of cutting off being primaried may be Gibb's whole reason for going off. I think there will be a diffeerent tune sung after November. If Obama loses the House and or Senate, he's toast. The pols will abandon him quicker than they did single payer. That's how the game is now played. Who will rise? If Feingold wins in Wisconsin and Murray wins in Washington, watch out Obama. The Murray win would allow Cantwell to step out of the shadows while still protecting the state's seniority and economic interests. I think this would be a great ticket. Both are proven vote-getters and fundraisers and neither is particularly fond of Barack, albeit for different reasons. How's that for sideline quarterbacking?

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 7:08 pm
Although Feingold and Cantwell have introduced legislation that was too progressive for Obama and both have voted against Obama's agenda on a few occassions, Murray has been an Obama rubber stamp every step of the way and even paraded a 10 year old orphan in front of Congress to bolster support for Obamacare. Based on that behavior its hard to believe any Senator is more fond of Obama than Murray.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
I should have been clearer. Murray's win in November allows Cantwell to run in 2012 or 2016. Washington state Dems need someone down on the farm, so to speak. Murray will get to the White House as Secretary of Something, only. Cantwell has nat'l ambitions, is smart and well-connected in the money chase that is necessary. She's an intersting possibility with Feingold. Hell, I'm all for Bernie but where does he get the money and logistical support. From the deep pockets of CDers?

mtdon August 13th, 2010 11:40 am
it's good to hear the "professional left" finally starting to call Obama on his banskter led economic plans and endless empire and warfare as sound policy bullshit -

obama has surrounded himself with corporate whores ready able and willing to sell out the working and middle classes to enrich himself and his corporate whoring buddies......

my apologies to women in the "oldest profession" -

Stiv August 13th, 2010 11:31 am
"Professional Left"? That would be the people who are neo-con Democrats?

This article is so far out, perhaps it should be left on the "Hill"?

Build a third party or drop dead trying--that's the only lesson anyone on the "left" can take away from the Obama Presidency, anyone that involved in electoral politics.

Oh, and scrape those Obama stickers of the bumpers--yours or any you find in public places...

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 6:29 pm
Anybody still displaying an Obama bumper sticker has a terminal case of denial and partisan delusion. No known cure for that.

Login or register to post comments report this comment
quickstepper August 13th, 2010 11:27 am
If Markos Moulitsos is a liberal then so is Bill O'Reilly.

Moulitsos is nothing more than a Democratic apparatchik and loudmouth at large.

"Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, told The Hill on Thursday that the younger Bush was largely inoculated from intra-party challenges because he worked to make sure he 'kept an open door to all elements of the party.'"

Translation: Rove threatened any and all prospective opponents with his slander machine.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:35 pm
And the people who blog to the Daily Kos are just full of themselves.

Tiredoftrolls August 13th, 2010 12:21 pm
Bravo. Same for MoveOn, The Nation etc.

Vote progressive third party. Ditch the Dems.

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 6:26 pm
Rahm's DNC has been following the Rove playbook to the letter for several years now and will not let a challenger interfere with the their corporate money magnet Obama in 2012.

See Also: Gut-Check Time for Progressives, and
US Staggers Toward Dysfunction

Fireworks and Frustration at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting
These Videos are in reverse order of occurence during the Council Meeting and are best viewed on the YouTube link provided in the title of the video.

Council Bickering Continues through Recess (Thanks for Sharing).m4v (On YouTube)


Councilor Pope & Mayor Dorrah Argue, Dorrah Calls Recess.m4v (On YouTube)


Councilor's Pope, Dorrah and Duman Discuss CM Problems.m4v (On YouTube)


"Democracy" by Don Henley


The Last Resort by Don Henley & The Eagles (Until they take it down)

No comments: