Two years ago today
On July 1, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported, with suitably raised eyebrows, that Candidate Obama had expressed his intention to continue the Bush Administration’s faith-based initiatives.
God almighty. How much clearer can it get? Coming on top of the FISA immunity thing, the campaign finance reversal, and the trial balloon about keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense, it’s a miracle of nature that the possums can’t see what this guy is about. If he started showing up at press conferences wearing a flight suit, do you think they’d get it then? (Answering self: no; see insanity, mass.)
None of this is a surprise to PUMAs, who have been sounding the alarm since before they were PUMAs. I stand by what I said here, which is pretty much what I’ve been saying for months: Obama represents the metastasization of the Republican cancer to the Democratic Party. That’s why we’re fighting him. How many Republican parties do we need in this country, anyway?
Emphasis added.
Apparently the answer to my rhetorical question was that we needed two Republican parties, because that’s sure as hell what we got. As lambert points out so elegantly today.
14 Responses to “Two years ago today”
-
Toonces says:
Which is why so many former Bushbots became Obots. Now they’re feigning shock. How many of us were saying Obama was a Trojan horse candidate? Enough that if people wanted to listen, they did.
July 1st, 2010 at 3:30 pm EST -
Violet Socks says:
And as bostonboomer points out today (this must be nostalgia day), many of the Blogger Boys knew perfectly well that Obama was craptastic. They pulled their punches and let themselves be swept away because they hated Hillary. “Rusting vagina,” in the words of Matt Taibbi. But Obama was cool, doncha know.
-
Violet Socks says:
The behavior of the blogosphere in 2008 was like a fucking anthropological display of male status-seeking and pack-formation. Revile the woman, associate with the cool King of the Hill. Fucking twits.
-
lambert strether says:
-
Toonces says:
And I saw with my own eyes, after everyone else dropped out, (regular, non-blogging) guys say they KNEW what Obama was, that he was the corporate candidate, he was favored by TPTB, but “I’ll never vote for that cunt.” Does anyone remember comments or a post on DU by some asshole saying he knew that his issues with Hillary were about his mother/women, but he still couldn’t support her, even though she was probably the better candidate, “sorry.” Most of them would have supported Bill, I guarantee it. Which is why I can’t give anyone who had access to the internet a pass on a) not being aware that Obama was going to suck and b) not noticing the misogyfest that went on. They’re the ones I’m still pissed-off at. I want them to own this presidency like I wanted the Bushbots to own his.
Also, UGH, Taibbi. He’s in the pile with Andrew Sullivan. Anyone who mentions either of them or links to them (positively) is immediately written off for me.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oh, well, you probably don’t know that I was very approving of Taibbi’s Goldman Sachs piece. I thought it was hilarious. I also loved his piece years ago about Thomas Friedman.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Thought I was pretty well read (obsessed, really) during the Primary, but the resurfaced quotes by Taibbi, particularly that one (!), are news to me. That’s just vile. I’ll absolutely observe the ban, now that I know.
*****A
-
lambert strether says:
Hoo boy. Those Taibbi quotes are ghastly.
-
Violet Socks says:
Actually, bostonboomer missed one. There was some article before Pennsylvania where Taibbi ridiculed the Hillary supporters as dried-up bags or something. That’s why in this piece that bostonboomer quoted, a little later, he self-censored (jokingly):
The floor is a teeming mass of celebrating Lifetime demographic; I haven’t seen this many strong, independent women in one place since [potentially offensive gender-specific content self-censored by writer].
In the original I’m pretty sure “strong, independent” was italicized, since it was tongue-in-cheek. Taibbi was under fire for his misogyny, so he was laughing it off as a big joke. Stupid rusting vaginas all upset about something.
-
Sevesteen says:
We’ve got the republican wing of the statist party, and the democrat wing of the statist party. When we change administrations, I’ve never heard of one side giving up the powers that they objected to the former administration taking. The solution isn’t to calibrate left vs right, it is to move away from electing statist power seekers.
-
propertius says:
Once Obama flipped on FISA, I was pretty sure he’d end up being Bush III – but in fact he’s even worse than I expected. Not even Dick Cheney would have asserted the “right” to execute an American citizen without trial.
-
Sameol says:
This is what I don’t understand. Most of these guys are not stupid, and they knew perfectly well Obama was going to be the second coming of Dubya. They made a calculated decision that George W. 2 was okay, so long as it wasn’t the woman. So why are they upset now?
-
Unree says:
Sameol, you’re discussing misogyny as if it were rational. But it’s mixed in with plenty of privilege and entitlement. Just because Obama is better than That Woman doesn’t mean he is good enough for these boyz. In fairness to them I have to say Obama turned out to be even more of a Bush successor & continuer than I (and maybe they) predicted.
-
Nessum says:
Somewhat related Angela Merkel’s first choice as candidate for Präsident was Ursula von der Leyen (an accomplished, charismatic, 51 year old doctor, politician and mother of 7). This was met with opposition from the (conservative) males in the party, who seemed horrified by the thought of a woman both as Kansler(in) and as Präsident. (They of course never objected to both positions being taken by men.)
The alternative candidate, Christian Wulff, was later elected as Präsident. It is said about him that “he says what he thinks people are thinking”. Was elected “The tie-wearer of the year” in 2006.
