Open Left

Clinton would've stood up for us. (0.00 / 0)

That's the difference. She knows how to fight.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 20:00:52 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

Bwaahaaahaa!!! (4.00 / 2)

And I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn... she said right out that she'd compromise anything to get a bill passed.  Her public option would have been thrown away immediately.

She bears the scars of her failed reform effort... She would not have stood her ground this time around...  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 21:12:24 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

Yeah I agree (4.00 / 1)

that's why I preferred Obama over Clinton, though I supported and voted for Edwards (and seeing how Obama's doing now, have never been happier with that decision).

I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.  But it seems like that we have all of the worst of the Clintons in Obama, from their whole network of stooges (and Hillary herself) to the same timid, this-is-a-center-right-country style of governance.

(I will concede that Obama is more liberal and is doing better than Bill Clinton ever did.  But given what's going on in our country and the majorities we have in Congress, we need something a lot more than even that.)

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:12:36 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

When all it takes is Lieberman threatening a filibuster (4.00 / 4)

to kill health reform, it sure makes that super majority look pretty weak. It may not be a center right country, but with every red state getting two senators no matter what, it's going to take a huge progressive wave to even the score.  

---

by: frankenheimer @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:18:06 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

True (4.00 / 2)

but Obama has created a culture of timidity and appeasement that invites the sort of shenanigans we see coming from the ConservaDems.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:03:51 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Lieberman, et al can't kill health care reform. (0.00 / 0)

If the conservadems try, we just go to reconciliation process.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:30:37 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

david axelrod is a very good marketer (4.00 / 3)

I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.

if you'd been paying attention to who his policy advisors were during the campaign you would have known that you were going to get clinton redux.

dennis kucinich and mike gravel were outside the mainstream. bill richardson was a governor and therefore outside of washington at least somewhat. but john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, chris dodd, joe biden were all senators and all basically interchangeable. dodd would probably have been better on fisa, hillary would probably have been better on women's rights [and on privacy], edwards would probably have been better on poverty, but they were all just slightly different faces on the same ideology.

---

by: hipparchia @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:13:18 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Yep. (0.00 / 0)

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:20:39 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

david axelrod is a very good marketer (0.00 / 0)

I thought the whole point of picking Obama over Clinton was that we wouldn't get the Clintons.

if you'd been paying attention to who his policy advisors were during the campaign you would have known that you were going to get clinton redux.

dennis kucinich and mike gravel were outside the mainstream. bill richardson was a governor and therefore outside of washington at least somewhat. but john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton, chris dodd, joe biden were all senators and all basically interchangeable. dodd would probably have been better on fisa, hillary would probably have been better on women's rights [and on privacy], edwards would probably have been better on poverty, but they were all just slightly different faces on the same ideology.

---

by: hipparchia @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:13:18 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Clinton is pro-choice. (0.00 / 0)

Obama is pro-whatever. He's not on our side, he will not stick up for us.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:19:14 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

lobbyists are people too (0.00 / 0)

the words of history's greatest progressive, right?

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 21:59:05 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

actually, they are (4.00 / 2)

teachers, nurses, environmentalists, lots of groups that progressives love do hire lobbyists to present their case to our congress critters, yanno.

---

by: hipparchia @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:09:29 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

because that's totally who she was referring to (0.00 / 0)

100%!  also, clusterbombs

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:19:10 PM CST

[ Parent | ]

predator drones (4.00 / 1)

william lynn

---

by: hipparchia @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 00:19:31 AM CST

[ Parent | ]

Right (4.00 / 1)

That's why Hilary quit the Senate before the fight.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:32:10 AM CST

[ Parent | ]