Money quote:
I tried to persuade myself that I was supporting this Obama. I really wanted to believe it-- and sometimes I did/do. But when he chose the single most ruthless Machiavellian and corrupt slime on the Democratic side of the aisle as his chief of staff, I knew that not only would he be another in a long line of shitty presidents but a failed one at that. None of this should have come as a surprise to me-- or to any DWT reader. All during the campaign, while the Republican media plants insisted Obama had the #1 most liberal voting record in the Senate, I kept pointing out that it wasn't #1 or even in the top 10, nor in the top 20, nor among the top half of the Democrats. In fact, Obama's Senate voting record could at best, be called "moderate." In actuality he was at the bottom of the barrel, never even nearly as progressive a Senate voter as Hillary Clinton, let alone Dick Durbin. His was more in line with Joe Lieberman (his mentor), Blanche Lincoln, Max Baucus... that's right, all the worst members of the House of Lords preventing a progressive agenda from going forward under... President Obama.
I disagree with the implication that Hillary Clinton would be a more leftish president than Obama is. After all, she is the candidate who still insists that if she'd had the information that so many of us out here in the real world had, she wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War. She is the candidate who stood up at Yearly Kos 2007 and said "Lobbyists are Americans too." So I think the elevation of Hillary Clinton to Progressive Sainthood is as misguided as the pre-election elevation of Barack Obama to progressive sainthood was. But he is right that the minute Rahm Emanuel became Obama's Karl Rove (only Rahm isn't anywhere nearly as good at it), many of us knew that the fix was in.
And now everybody knows:
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire