until the election, as of right now I have zero intention of voting for Obama, much less contributing to his re-election campaign.

If there is no primary to Obama, I'll register Republican to toss in my two cents in their primary; I registered Democrat to vote for Dean in the 2004 primaries, and I've stuck with the Dems since then because the GOP was so horrible.  The last month has convinced me that the Democratic Party and I have pretty much nothing in common.

3rd party?  Great.  Primary, cool I don't have to re-register.  But, barring Obama suddenly finding a way to get progressive policy implemented during the next year, I don't care whether a 3rd party or primary is there or not, does damage to the Democratic Party or not... I don't owe Democrats anything... vote, money, lip service, nothing... but if Obama looks roughly like I expect him to look in 2012, I will not vote for him, and obviously my meager contributions won;t be headed his way either.

This shit where Democrats think we owe them our vote and support is insane.  I can't speak for the rest of progressives, but when someone tells me to shut the fuck and take what I'm given, becasue what else am I going to do... well, I take that as a challenge.  Fuck me?  No, fuck YOU!

We'd better pass this piece of shit... it may be a long time before we do anything else.

Is a piece of shit better than nothing?

More Clinton FAIL!  Clinton can kiss my ass just like all the other apologists for this shit bill.

No... I know what losing looks like from playing games with kids and people who suck at them and letting them win.

Obviously.  McCain is a dick.

It's similar to NAFTA.  Bush Sr. wrote it, Clinton jammed it through.  On that issue, the election was a trivial event... the outcome was the same.

So yeah... neither of the parties represents me.  The GOP is bought crazy and the Dems are bought and scared.

What I am saying is that he was masterful in the primaries.  So he knows what he's doing.

The fact that he is being outmaneuvered by a bunch of idiots is indicative (to me) of the fact that he WANTS to lose this fight.

He wants to put on a show of making a fight while throwing the fight... e.g. he is outmaneuvering himself on purpose.

Yes, I was around during the primaries (in the Clinton v Obama portion, I was Obama fyi).

He did some things right, some things wrong (FISA).  Sure he won... I'm not even arguing that it's politically wrong (though I hope it is... if he jettisons the public option then I hope that nothing passes, let the chips fall where they may).

But morally, like his position on FISA, he's going down the wrong road.  He's gonna do bitch-ass reform.  I don't think he's weak... I think he WANTS bitch-ass reform.

I don't think he's dumb, and he does what he wants to do... e.g. he let's Baucus and Enzi run the show, so he must want what they want.  Since they are in the Insuance Lobby's pocket, that means he wants what they want... which puts him on the opposite side of the fence from me.  If he wanted single-payer or public-option then he'd have done something besides hem and haw and let the fire get out of control.

I saw the primaries.  He knows what he's doing.  He's outmaneuvering himself.  I've played a game to lose; I know what it looks like.

Thanks... I'll check out the site.

I am not, however, upset that some items on a list haven't been checked off.  I'm upset that there is almost certainly not going to be satisfactory results on:

*Torture investigations
*Indefinite detentions
Domestic Surveillance
*Universal Health Care as a human right, not a commodity.
*Actually getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan
*Investigation and prosecution of wholesale lawlessness by US military contractors

So while he may be better than McCain, he is by no means made of awesome.  Basically, he's a big-ass pussy with respect to the GOP and the right wing in general.  I wish it were different, but I have no respect for a 'progressive' who'd rather fight us than the bad guys.  He's useless to me, as are most national-level Dems.

It's very VERY likely that reform without the public option will not work.

If progressives don't break the bill (assuming that it has no viable PO) then we'll never get a damn thing we ask for because they will see the obvious.  There is no upside to incorporating progressive ideas because we'll just STFU and go along with whatever crap you tell us to.

You are correct, I gave no evidence... I thought it was pretty obvious what I was referring to; however I can elaborate.

The constant demand for bipartisanship as an end unto itself has given the GOP a de facto veto over the entire process, on practically any given legislation.

Take, for example, the stimulus bill.  Passed without GOP support, but they got to take their pound of flesh anyway before they voted against it.  That is very obviously happening with health care (though in this case, it seems that the administration wanted to water the reform down anyway to garner industry support during the 2010 cycle) as we negotiate with Fucked-Up Chuck and Enzi even as they clearly state that they want to kill anything that is remotely reform-ish.

DADT, cap-and-trade (given away, not sold) and torture investigations.  All of these have been 'compromised' by basically telling progressives to STFU and adopting what is essentially the closest that a Democrat can get to the GOP position.

Single-payer was taken off the tabel before the negotiations even started.  The entire bank bailout was handled according to the Bush playbook.  Cash for Clunkers was renewed once, then allowed to die despite the clear benefit and potential to continue to provide that benefit.

Sotomayor was a moderate appointment (despite the faux outrage from the GOP) that was clearly chosen to defuse GOP criticism in advance (though it failed at that, because they would protest no matter who was appointed).

So... if you think I'm not right about them being in charge, please give me some examples of Obama actually leading and getting something (that is worth a shit) done.  Maybe I have missed them.  I'd be happy to hear them.

I don't want to sit out in 2010 or 2012.  I enjoyed supporting several candidates in the primaries (Feingold, Dodd breifly during FISA, Edwards and eventually Obama).  I enjoyed getting behind Dean in '04 (though the Kerry pick was just too brazenly lets-do-this-so-they-can't-criticize-us- on-national-security for me to enthusiastically get behind - he was visibly lame from the get-go).

But so far, we 'have' the House and Senate, and the oval Office and we (proressives) literally have nothing worth a shit to show for it except 'it could be worse under the GOP.'

Frankly, that's not worth fighting for.

To say that Obama is risking nothing by jettisoning the public option is not exactly true.

I live in a Red State... both of my Senators and my Representative are 100% safe seats for the GOP.  So I pretty much contribute to other races... I can tell you that anyone that votes for any bill w/o the public option or against it in any way... will be getting no cash from me next cycle, including Obama in 2012.

If Dems don't do right by this, I'll pretty much be ponying up only for primary opponents against Dem incumbents this cycle, and sitting out the Prez election all together.

Yeah yeah the GOP is 'worse' except that under this administration, the GOP is basically running  the show anyway.  So a vote for Obama would wind up being a vote for GOP proxy rule anyway... and I sure as hell ain't gonna vote for that.

So he can Sister Soulja me if he wants.  Just don't expect me to support someone who just slapped me in the face next cycle.  Duh.

the election was clean and thoroughly modern.  As to the 2012 elections, yes I'm sure that the results will bebased on the status of the country then... that's the point, after all.

Lower- and middle-class Venezuela is better off now that when Chavez started, by his Herculean effforts to use Venezuelan wealth to benefit Venezuelans rather than the corrupt US-sponsored Miami-wannabe parasites that are the more traditional beneficiaries.  If this continues, I'd expect him to win big in 2012 - especially if the opposition cannot figure out what it's for in addition to what it's against.

BTW... your Spanish is off just a little.  I think what you meant to say is "Chavez se irá"; this has the added benefit of still rhyming with "Oh! Ah!" Irony and sarcasm are facilitated by grammar.

Everyone who took exception to that either do not really get the modern context (MTV "pimps" rides, people buy "pimp" hats at Ren Fest, etc) or had a reason to bash on MSNBC (like, they were critical of a person's candidate or are a news-cycle competitor).

I beg to differ with this.  The 'pimping' that Schuster used was the 'old style' pimping, which is managing a prostitute.  The 'pimping' you are referring to is clearly different.  He didn't mean that Clinton was upgrading or tricking out her daughter, he meant that she was prostituting her for politics.  This was not a contextual misinterpretation.

That being said, I don't like Schuster more for his style and voice (arg!) than the pimping comment.  While I thought it was out of line, it was mildly so and nothing to get worked up about.  Still, he was not misinterpreted.

Exactly how much do you hate Joe Lieberman, if at all?

if the evidence let's me.

Waiting and hoping in OKlahoma...

Awesome.

Color me surprised and delighted.  Reid gets kudos from this guy, and I don't EVER give him kudos.

Way to go Congress (man, that feel wierd to type)!