13 thoughts on “Third Way

  1. That is the the most annoying thing about the Obama administration. If his supporters in the primaries had wanted a 3rd Clinton term, they wouldn’t have voted for him.

  2. Almost as annoying as Clinton supporters criticizing Obama for doing the exact same things Clinton would have done. For some reason I’m supposed to believe the triangulation would have been good triangulation under her.

  3. Sorry Bob, we can’t assume we know what a Hillary Clinton admin. would do, but we do in fact know what the Obama admin. has done. Nontheless it’s best to be skeptical of all politicians, don’t invest all your faith in any of them.

  4. Ann Brown: I spent the primaries arguing with Susie and a whole slew of others here that there just wasn’t that big a difference between Clinton and Obama. I leaned toward Obama but stressed I would have voted for Clinton in the general had she gotten the nod. And boy was I dragged through the mud for that.
    I specifically pointed out numerous times both were centrist, DNC/DLC types with ties to the same lobbyists and other moneyed interests. Check the archives for such greatest hits as Susie’s patronizing lecture as to why Clinton taking money from Wall Street was a shrewd move while Obama taking money from Wall Street meant he was in their hip pocket, or the claim that Clinton getting 90% of the vote in counties with a strong Klan presence had nothing to do with race, or her defense of Clinton’s pathetic grandstanding on flag burning and video games.
    As for your claim that we can’t know what a Clinton administration would have done, sorry, I think we can guess it would have been roughly the same as what we have. I know to this day Susie will swear Clinton was gonna be the most pro-labor president ever, but I have a hard time understanding Mark Penn’s central role in her inner circle if she’s so damned progressive. As for the skepticism of all politicians, you’re lecturing the wrong person. I’ve spent the last two years here arguing a “lesser of two evils” position. Tell it to the people who still believe Hilary Clinton = Noam Chomsky and Barak Obama = Zell Miller.

  5. Chill Bob. I’m not impugning your integrity,just your logic. You can never know another’s heart. Who was it that wanted “cram-downs”? Tee Hee

  6. It’s just one of those things. A main criticism of Clinton was that she would continue the triangulation policies of her husband. I can’t recall; perhaps the idea that Obama wouldn’t was merely implied. But I’m pretty sure it was spoken right out loud.

  7. Bob — I argued (way back in the primaries, after I learned more about Obama’s legislative history and observed his comfort level with Republican messaging and St. Ronnie) that were Hillary in the Oval Office, she would have been held to account by the left, the progressives, even the muddled middle. She would have been held to account by the MCMers (members of the Mainstream Corporate Media) as well — loudly and constantly.

    I said Obama would not be held to account, and, alas, I was terribly correct in that.

    For that reason, I felt Hillary would have been a better Democratic president.

    Ian Welsh had warned that either candidate would have disappointed his or her supporters. I believe Obama to be doing things far worse than Hillary would — or could — have done.

    I also believe she had bedcore Democratic principles, those of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and of FDR, LBJ, JFK and RFK. Further, I believed that she would not try to disable SocSec, that she would not have given the house away to Big Insurance and Big PhRMA, and especially not to Big Banksters and now the Uberwealthy as Obama has done with his Republican tax plan.

    I cannot, of course, prove the last contentions. I think it is obvious Obama is not being held to account by anyone other than the non-fan base left and some civil liberty supporters. A few Democratic DC types are also noting his shortcomings, as well as Tavis Smiley and Cornell West and Black Agenda Report. The Repubs mostly lie about Obama, so their criticisms barely count.

    I would be on Hillary’s case were she to do what Obama is doing. Congressional Dems would have been on her case. Now, they seem hogtied and unable to fight for their voting constituents (which is not to say they don’t see The Powers That Be (TPTB) as their actual constiuents…or masters) against Obama’s actions.

  8. Ann Brown @ 5:
    Heart has nothing to do with it. We can know what a two term Senator/Presidential candidate considered important enough to fight for in her 8 years of service and election campaign. She voted for the Patriot Act. She not only voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but was from day 1 a leading Democratic voice leading the charge for both wars. Then there was the aforementioned grandstanding on video games and that oh-so-important problem with flag-burning. She voted for the bank bailouts, something Obama continued and that has become a major criticism of Obama here at Suburban Guerilla.
    As for her run for the presidency her top aide was Mark Penn, former CEO of Burson-Marsteller – a notorious union-busting company. Although I don’t believe her to be racist, she certainly appealed to racists as her campaign went downhill.
    Sorry, but claiming we can’t know how she would have served only makes sense if we assume her years in the Senate and actions on the campaign trail were somehow detached from her political philosophy. Her actual record is the same kind of grab bag of some liberal votes and some conservative votes as Obama’s.

  9. Jawbone @ 7:
    I have no idea what you are talking about. The claim that Obama isn’t “being held to account” is ludicrous. With the exception of Balloon Juice, there isn’t a single left-wing blog in Obama’s camp today. There is serious talk about challenging him in the primary. The last time that was tried how’d things turn out?
    One of the problems with bitter dead-enders on both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide is how thoroughly all are ruled by confirmation bias. That you can claim with a straight-face that Obama has gotten a free ride proves how blind you are to anything not confirming your biases.
    As for your claims about her bedrock Democratic principles when your defense of a politician opens with the phrase “I also believe…” you are already in trouble. No one cares what you believe (or what I believe) regarding a former First Lady, two term Senator, presidential candidate and Secretary of State. She has an actual record we can evaluate. No need to feel, or believe anything.
    One last question for the Clinton would have been FDR camp. If she is so progressive, and Obama so conservative, why did she give up a safe Senate seat to serve in his administration?

  10. LOL So you think a couple of dozen liberal blogs pissing and moaning means Obama’s being “held to account”? Really? So labor unions are still backing him, the media still defers to him, the Democratic members of Congress don’t break with him on anything and his reelection numbers are still holding — this, despite two ongoing wars, a depression and an economic meltdown. The only time I see anyone react unfavorably is when he shows signs of straying from the corporatist agenda.

    Could you give some examples of how you think he’s being held accountable?

  11. Sheesh Bob. Take a break, life is much too short for this amount of angst. As much as you would pretend to know about others, know your own heart first. No more caffeine. We’re all friends here.

  12. Susie:
    1. Labor unions backing Obama as proof he’s given a free ride? Really? Is it possible unions are backing Obama because of things like his Executive Order mandating signage in work places explaining the right to organize; appointing Mary Beth Maxwell to a top post in the Labor Department; signing numerous other Executive Orders which reversed Bush-era union bashing; etc, etc. Unions should back a pro-union president. Although I’m sure a Clinton Administration with Mark Penn as CoS would have been every bit as pro-union. I mean just because a guy has become fabulously wealthy by destroying unions doesn’t mean he’s anti-union.
    2. Congratulations, you are firmly in the National Review, Hannity, Limbaugh camp now. Yeah, the US has a left-wing MSM that marches in lock-step with Democratic presidents.
    3. Statistically, Democratic voting in both houses is running about the same as it did for Clinton. Which proves Obama has some sort of strange power over the Democrats in Congress. Ok, sure, wev.
    4. His reelection numbers are holding? I don’t know what polls you’re looking at but every poll out there shows him now below half for the first time. His numbers most certainly are dropping. But don’t let reality get in the way of a good rant.

  13. Really, Bob. The only person ranting here is you.

    1. Obama promised the unions they would get card check. They didn’t get it. They’re not very happy about it. I know; I’ve met and talked to the national union leaders.

    2. The only time the media goes after him is when he sounds like a liberal — which isn’t very often. You can’t compare their treatment of him with the media treatment of Alan Grayson, whom they loathed.

    3. Was there some significant break with the White House on voting for the shitty health care plan and the even shittier tax cut deal that I haven’t seen? Can you tell me any significant piece of White House-favored legislation that was stopped by Democrats?

    4. His reelection numbers look good enough that he’s planning to risk cutting Social Security, under the mistaken idea that Democrats have nowhere else to go.

Comments are closed.