Skip to main content

Good lord, people, get a hold of yourselves.

He may or may not be a "Blue Dog" by definition, but my point is he is not, and never has been, a liberal.

I know many folks projected all sorts of shit onto Obama during his presidential run. (And he and his campaign did nothing to dispel those notions.) But he has NEVER been a liberal, dating all the way back to his days in the Illinois Senate. He has ALWAYS been a moderate. A compromiser. Always.

Used to drive me nuts when he was in the U.S Senate. It led me to send him many angry missives.

The choice of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff should have been a tip-off. (Never mind, the economic team...)

But here's the reality (and the context that makes all the hand-wringing so idiotic)...

In 2008 we, as Democrats, were essentially left with two choices: A Blue Dog (Clinton) or a Blue Dog (Obama).

That's it.

Obama was the better choice. Clinton would have been far worse.

And to those who will now write responses like "But Hillary's a fighter!" or "She would have taken on the insurance companies!" I can only say, "Bullshit."

There are no bluer Blue Dogs than the Clintons.


I guess I'm surprised that the light bulb just went off over so many supposedly politically-astute heads.

I long thought that kos' declaration that the DLC had been defeated was premature. Look at the 2008 election. Our only choices were Blue Dogs! (And no, serial philanderer, John Edwards, doesn't count.)

So this is not a revelation about Obama. It's not news. It has been obvious from the day he announced his intention to run for president.

I can understand the disappointment. But what I really don't get is the ignorance.

Originally posted to Bob Johnson on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:27 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences