I don't watch Ms. Maddow's show (although I like her a lot), but there's this ridiculous tension right now between Democrats who like the Clintons and Democrats who don't, and honestly both sides are responsible. Someone recently said to me, "Man, good thing Obama didn't pick Sen. Clinton - can you imagine having to build a cabinet with the Clintons always looking over your shoulder and pushing you around???" but in my view, Obama's picks have so far all been Clinton staffers who, like it or not, have a reputation on both sides of the aisle. It DOES seem contradictory for Obama to, on one hand, condemn Clinton's politics in the primaries and then, when he wins the election, promote people who learned at her husband's knee. I understand the politics behind his choices, but I still think he should be called out for it.

I don't see what is hypocritical about being both moderate and partisan. I am a progressive. I do not necessarily agree with the Democratic party, if the Democratic party does not support my ideals. I am, in essense, leftist AND non-partisan. The problem with militant partisanship (as Rep. Emmanuel is accused of) is that he has the reputation of rooting for the Blue Team, even when the Blue Team is running towards the wrong goalline. Again, partisanship has its place, and I actually thing Rep. Emmanuel is a good choice for Chief of Staff (in that it keeps him from vying for Speaker of the House for awhile).

"Bush and Clinton are the same thing, we're going to get rid of the last 30 years of politics whee!"

Yeah, I don't think this is a majority view in any sense of the word. It seems to conflate specific people who hate the Clintons with all progressives who just don't trust them. We don't forget who supported DOMA or Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

When Obama fails to come out against prop 8? Oh he's just playing politics, which is well and good.

What? No. Fuck Obama's stance on gay marriage. I absolutely reject it in the strongest terms. Ok, perhaps the second-strongest - I reserve the strongest terms for certain religious organizations that flaunted IRS tax exemptions rules.

I'm with you on this, Firas. Appointing Rahm Emmanuel was a brilliant move on Obama's part. The COS, especially this COS, is going to have to throwing bolts without blinking to get stuff done.

I read on the Times or somewhere that Barack's name in Hebrew = Lightning, and Rahm's = Thunder.

It's like the most bad-ass 70's cop show just showed up at 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue.

He's a mean mutt from the South Side of Chicago! His partner is a pitbull from the hottest corridors of power! Together, they're Thunder and Lightning!

Coming to NBC this January!

≡ Click to see image ≡

"So, how's this years crop of interns lookin'?"

I can't seem to link directly but you can copy and paste Rahm's name in Hebrew -רם- into this dictionary to see the definition.

When Obama fails to come out against prop 8? Oh he's just playing politics, which is well and good.

What? No. Fuck Obama's stance on gay marriage. I absolutely reject it in the strongest terms.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. Obama is against prop 8.

omg puppy pile!!

Do those freakin' puppies ever wake up?

Her basic thesis seems to be that the Clinton era was too moderate *and* too partisan. What a hypocritical view.

It's quite possible to be both moderate and partisan when the opposing party is at the extreme right, as it was during the Contract With America years. Moderation was partisan; only the Democrats were doing it.

It irks me no end to see comments on blogs like "Bush and Clinton are the same thing,

If this is in reference to my comment on this blog, I can say that what I mean is not that Bush and Clinton were the same thing - that's patently false, and thank God for that - but that Bush and Clinton shared some of the same weaknesses.

Boomers weren't in control during the 80s and most of the 90s. Some were, including many of the most major players, but they were the young, and the Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy generation was still very strong.

Well, hey, election's over, and so is the love-fest. I don't see any reason that Maddow or any other real progressive can't start in criticizing the Obama administration for its centrism. In fact I can't think of a better way to make sure that we keep pulling him leftward than reminding him when he's hugging the double yellow.

Lord knows there will be plenty of voices pulling him to the other side.

Jaltcoh, he didn't come out against it because it would have been a bad strategic move.

Miko, it's not in reference to any comment of yours. Maybe I just need to spend less time reading stupid comment threads on the web.

Also, the boomers still have a vicious grip on the electorate, why else was Vietnam so relevant in 2004? I count Ted Kennedy in the same group actually, he's spent his life dealing with Nixonian bullshit from the GOP himself.

The only way to be less moderate (ie. more leftist) is to be even MORE partisan, right? What am I not getting here. People who criticize Rahm for playing for Team Blue too much want him to play for team DARKER blue, not team Purple.

Is the assumption that if Clinton and his buddies were old school socialists suddenly there'd be a silent majority that would wrest control from the right wing? There was a major global realignment in the 80s and 90s. Massively socialist countries like India had to change rapidly after the collapse of the soviet Union. Even Labour in the UK had gotten less leftist. The only sensible thing to do was to be more moderate, especially after all the drubbing we'd received over death penalties and things like that by Reagan and George H.W. Bush

Also I was thinking of threads like this where idiot Obama fans crawl out of the woodwork and ask for Hillary Clinton's communications director to be hung by his boots for the great sin of trying to win a campaign.

the boomers still have a vicious grip on the electorate, why else was Vietnam so relevant in 2004?

That was 4 years ago!

Since that election, 16,224,000 new people have reached the age of 18 and become eligible to vote. That's equal to more than 10% of the electorate. In the four years since 2004, if 2005 rates were basically constant, 7,744,048 people over 60 have died. Our country's demographics are at the beginning of a phase of major change, and this election is one early result.

There certainly are still a great many baby-boomer leaders out there, and any number of them are wonderful leaders. And there are a great many boomer voters out there, and I'm not hastening to see that change since many people I love are among them. But they're not able to exert quite the monolithic power they once did, since their numbers are gradually shrinking while the population numbers in generations below them are starting to roughly stabilize and become more evenly spread amongst age groups instead of having a boom-and-bust cycle in which particular generations hold major sway because of their numbers.

Also I was thinking of threads like this

Well, here's a sage piece of advice I like to offer around my house: don't read stuff that makes you mad.

Comments on a news site almost always make me mad, because they are almost always angry and ill informed. There is always going to be another idiot out there. If you're real quiet...right now...you can almost hear yet another idiot saying something in a bar or on a couch or at a game somewhere in America. They're saying idiotic things right now! About people you like and respect! Idiots are saying them!

And what can you do about it? Nothing, other than maybe to (a) write great rebuttals and share them, or (b) try to identify what causes or ideas you wish to advance and keep working at that. But never let a bunch of cranks yapping on a anonymous-comment site get to you. There are always going to me more of them than there are of you.