"Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for American Idol, not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him. It’s just a cult of personality with Obama. This is the Supreme Court."
So speaketh Jane Hamsher in Politico today on the selection of Elana Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, of course, Hamsher is once again "representin'" for Liberals. Funny thing is, I have been a Liberal my whole life and I can say uneqivocally that I don't agree with Jane Hamsher on just about anything she spews from her anti-Obama trap.
Frankly, I was irritated when she appeared as an advocate for the Left throughout the campaign when she could barely say Obama's name after her candidate, Hilary Clinton, was defeated. Time and again I asked on this forum and others why in God's name she chose to appear on shows speaking on behalf of Democrats when the best she could force was a lukewarm endorsement of the party's candidate?
Jane's abhorrence of all things "Obama" has gone unabated from the moment he set foot in office (and before, to be honest). And while I can say I agree he has been far from perfect in many ways, does Hamsher really think Hilary would have been any different? Really?
It speaks volumes that while Hilary Clinton has managed to move on, there are still a few of her diehards---the PUMAS--who refuse to concede anything to this Administration. Jane Hamsher is only the most vocal among them.
So when the media wants to promote the idea that the LEFT is as angry at Obama as the RIGHT on any given issue, they can always rely on Jane Hamsher to condemn Obama---and his "followers"---on a moment's notice.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, we know what Jane Hamsher's is and always will be. Certainly their are others on the Left whose opinion will be at least slightly less predictable and likely far more reasoned.