Taibbi's one of those people who are rarely wrong.

Dunno.  If the shoe fits, throw it at the guy.

But no laurel is coming.  Dean was treated like a pariah after setting up the infrastructure that enabled Obama to get elected.  Obama didn't do it by himself.

My beef with Obama is the half-assed measures he took that he portrays as major victories.  A case in point  is the public option-- maybe you get that if you don't A) throw out single payer as a bargaining chip at the very beginning and B) send out messages during the negotiations that the public option isn't necessary.  I seem to recall Obama letting the House and Senate do all the work and then taking a victory lap over the legislation that he undercut. 

Then there is the less than adequate stimulus (no do-overs on that one), the abandoning of support for net neutrality, refusing to prosecute torture from the previous administration, INCREASING wire-tapping, and email interception, etc.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that a President can twist arms into getting what he wants more than Obama has been willing to do (i.e. not at all) or can use the bully pulpit to hammer on certain concepts so the American people know why they are important.   The stuff about extending the middle class tax cut was a day late and a dollar short.  As a result his (perilous) majority is running away from him.

A mediocre president with a brilliant political mind once said "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right".  Well, being detached and unwilling to fight certainly doesn't give the appearance of strength.  One wonders if Obama would prefer the Democrats to be in the minority just so he can be seen as the only bastion against complete Republican control 2012-- thereby getting himself re-elected when people realize what is happening.  It will probably play out that way, but it didn't have to.  This has been a blown opportunity of historic proportions, that has ended up severely damaging the Democratic brand.

Obama has a lot of gall pointing his finger at the base, who while maybe not providing him with the majority of his votes, certainly provided him with the enthusiasm and diligence he needed to get elected.  These people are the ones who WILL show up to vote, despite their disappointment.  It's just going to be harder for these people to go out and make the case to undecideds about why he and the democrats deserve continued support.

Seriously.

I wonder if he'd do it.  Or Howard Dean.  Or Michael Moore.  It has to be someone who wouldn't be afraid of being tarred as a bad team player by the "liberal" media and the Democratic establishment.

Just once I want a Democrat in the White House who doesn't play defense all the f*ing time.

Where anything and everything is sucked into a void and is destroyed by the emptiness within.

You sure you don't mean the Senate?

is the seats of Democrats in Congress.  A huge fight is going on WITHOUT Obama.  Obama has yet to publicly back any liberal position.  Name one principle in the HCR bill he championed.  All he's done is roll over and undermine the bargaining power of the party he ostensibly heads.

Put the blame on Harry Reid, Senate Democratic (mis)leadership and jerks like Nelson and Lieberman. 

Put the blame on Harry Reid, Senate Democratic (mis)leadership and jerks like Nelson and Lieberman. 

First the president threw away the negotiating point of single payer, then he said that a public option wasn't necessary either.  Then he, and a lot of the democratic party supported the fallacy that "we need 60 to do anything," and compromised further.  He in effect gave a way the half the field, then another 25%, then another 1/8.  Now our STARTING NEGOTIATION POINT on health care reform is without any liberal ideas-- you know, the things that would make the bill good so people would like and support it.

We only need 60 for a permanent law that is harder to overturn. Reconciliation with resolve and a bare majority would give the public a taste of something positive.  Progressives realize that.  DINOs and Obama couldn't care less.   Obama wants a victory without having to fight and without risking anything.  This is the opposite of leadership.  Rather it is selling your side out.

Obama needs someone  to hold his feet to the fire or else we're seeing W's third term.

Like minded people will always congregate together.  The only alternative is a world government.  Until that Utopia comes along, singling out individual countries for having birds of a feather flocking together is a losing battle.  If you condemn Israel for it, condemn ALL countries for it.  If you want to eliminate Israel, be consistent and call for the dissolution of all countries based on ethnic groups.

It is human nature for like minds and blood to form unions.  It always will be.

So the only fair thing is to have everyone in the world draw lots to find out their new state.  That way there can't be any associating with people of like Beliefs or heritage.

Uncle Joe was onto something...

I mean, what if all the Frenchmen gathered in France, all the Spaniards gathered in Spain, and all the Russians gathered in Russia? 

I believe we'd have to sanction those ethnocentric bastards out of existence!

Less so even compared to China.

I read pretty well.  You're pretty much a one trick pony.  Palestinians good. Israel bad.  

Even considering all of all of Israel's issues, I'd rather live there than any Arab country.

So you do deny that Israel has a right to exist.  Finally.