It's not a matter of giving Obama a chance. It's a matter of giving LIBERALS a chance.

[wcepler]

Hmmm, doesn't look good, does it? Obama's first pick (chief of staff) is Rahm Israel Emanuel, arguably the most important position on his "team" considering Emanuel's power to decide all my himself who Obama gets to talk to or not -- among other powers too numerous to mention. Emanuel's conservative background is to the right of most Republicans.

Emanuel recently came out with the Palinesque pronouncement that the Democratic Party doesn't "have" a base."

Oh no, tell me it ain't so. This is pure, 100%, undiluted Clinton anti-liberalism. This is the DLC, these are the "centrists", and this is status quoism to the max (and please note that status quoism is basically a synonym of fascism).

Thus, we must NEVER forget that 2008 "centrists" were about three standard deviations to the right of the mean eight years ago. So translation: year 2008 "centrist" = year 2000 extreme right wing.

And how did this slight of hand happen? Well, it came from the COMBINED efforts of DLC/Clinton types and eight years of propaganda from George W. Bush. In other words, when it comes to defining a political stance as centrist, that means (a.) in reality, that stance is very right wing, and (2.) this slight of hand was created by Bush/Clinton (two sides of the same coin) when it comes to declaring total war on liberals.

Indeed, IF we had a two party system it would be between liberals and progressives VS DLC centrists, Republicans, and elites. In short the pseudo "centrists" are MUCH more lined up with fascist (remember, ZERO CHANGE, status quo people) Republicans. However this is merely a symptom, because the real reason fascist centrists are virulently anti progressive is became they know the ONLY political force in this country that could drag down the elites (even if just a little) are passionate progressives.

OK, does this mean Obama's victory was a non event? Beats me. Time will tell, but so far Obama certainly seems to be sucking up to the DLC and that is the kiss of death because they are the closet fascists of the Democratic Party. Need an example? Nancy Pelosi and nearly the entire 2006 dem congress -- that congress of traitors.

So, the groom stalks out even before the honeymoon starts. Forget the progressives and liberals who (a.) got Obama into the primaries in the first place, and (b.) who were the core infrastructure of his election in 2008.

I wonder what high moral/rational progressive issues Emanuel is going to try to trash? What do you bet he's going to be 100% against diplomacy with ANYONE, since this guy’s past is more militant than most right wing pugs? He’s also probably going to try to bury any kind of "accountability" for the last eight years. After all, since the DLC dems have been pigging out at the same elite-provided hog trough as the pugs, why would he want to bite the hand that feeds these gutless, greedy, Judas (alleged) Democrats?

So what about Obama's future appointments? You know, it just could be he won't appoint EVEN ONE patriotic progressive. He certainly won't if he listens to his chief of staff who has magically explained away the realty base who supported and elected Obama.

In a nutshell, what we're looking at is the real possibility (probability?) that this is not going to be an Obama Administration, but an Obama/Cliinton (or Clinton/Obama) Administration.

But why are DLC/Clinton types so militantly anti-progressive? We’re used to being trashed by fascist Republicans, but not by alleged Democrats. Well, probably most of it goes back the fact that virulently status quo people are, by definition, fascists. So, Rahm Israel Emanuel hates progressives because he's a textbook fascist Democrat, and fascist Republicans = fascist Democrats. Samo, samo.

So now we see more than ever that the ONLY two party system in America are progressives and liberals VS dem/pug fascists. Of course we already knew this during the 2006 "dem" congress which dutifully kept nearly all of their heads where the sun doesn't shine in George W. Bush (Nancy Pelosi was a veritable Bush homunculus).

So, to rephrase the question, why are "fascists" (DLC or RNC) such mortal enemies of progressives? More specifically, why are Emanuel and Clinton such mortal enemies of progressives?

Almost certainly, it all goes back to the elites combined with militant religious fanatics. The fanatics are terrified of any challenge (e.g., science) to their Palin/pamphlet version of life (like the Armageddon loony tunes that the world is going to go boom any day now). And, tragically, nearly all that passes for political fascism is now totally contaminated with murder-in-the-name of-God mental illness.

However, almost certainly the ultimate big picture of America (and the world) is still the Have and Have Not horror. And fascism (dem, pug or otherwise) is merely the police force that defends a given Dictatorship of the Rich.

Hence, said slightly differently, the two core forces in America are Dictatorship of the Rich elites VS passionate, patriotic progressives and liberals, who represent the will of the PEOPLE not the one percent of national/international Greek God like elites.

Well, it's looking like the elites and their fascist police force already have their tentacles deep into Obama's emerging administration.

Probably the best we can hope for now is that the conscience and intelligence of President Elect Obama will assert itself just enough to at least partially "balance out" fascist, progressive-haters like Emanuel with some idealist liberal appointments.

Again this has NOTHING to do with "giving Obama a chance". Dear God, surely it's obvious that what we're talking about is giving progressives and liberals a chance, since fascist, war mongering types like Emanuel DO NOT REPRESENT the will of the American people.
**********************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

<http://theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com/>

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. k/r

[stray cat]

2. I helped elect Obama for president not just any liberal

[aquart]

5. So whatever he does is okay because it's Obama doing it?

Okey dokey.

[Skittles]

10. it's still here, huh aquart

scary

[Dogmudgeon]

3. "Rahm Israel Emanuel" -- kinda like "Barack Hussein Obama", right?

:eyes:

--p!

[aquart]

4. Let me know what that has to do with anything, sweetie, will you?

[Dogmudgeon]

9. That's coy. That's cute. But bigotry is still ugly.

Post a thread about "Barack Hussein Obama" and you'll quickly have a number of people tell you why it's bigoted.

"Rahm Israel Emanuel" is the same kind of thing. The last time I saw his name written like that was on a white-power website that turned up while I was searching for evidence of Emanuel's "fascism". That form is also used on Intifada websites.

--p!

[aquart]

6. You should probably watch the way you throw around "fascist."

Obama voted with Hillary Clinton 90% of the time. You knew that going in. Neither one of them is as liberal as DU.

[emulatorloo]

7. well, heck, I like Rahm Emanuel as cheif of staff. He is organized and gets stuff done

He will do what Obama asks him to do, and will help keep congress focused on working for Obama's policies.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8091986/the_enforcer/

The Enforcer
Rep. Rahm Emanuel is leading the Democratic charge to retake the House next year. Will his old-school combativeness rub off on his more timid colleagues?

JOSHUA GREENPosted Oct 20, 2005 12:00 AM

For years, Emanuel was the political brains of Bill Clinton's White House. Intense to the point of ferocity, he was known for taking on the most daunting tasks — the ones no one else wanted — and pulling off the seemingly impossible, from banning assault weapons to beating back the Republican-led impeachment. "Clinton loved Rahm," recalls one staffer, "because he knew that if he asked Rahm to do something, he would move Heaven and Earth — not necessarily in that order — to get it done."

Now, as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Emanuel has taken on his biggest challenge yet: to win back the House of Representatives after more than a decade of Republican control. To pull it off, the two-term congressman will have to overcome odds far greater than those the GOP faced when Newt Gingrich engineered his historic takeover in 1994. Back then, according to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress, 117 seats were "marginal" — that is, close enough to be considered competitive. Last year, thanks in large part to Republican-friendly redistricting, the number of close races shrank to only thirty-four.

[Libertyfirst]

8. Get rid of wedgie and you will feel better. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Is this a joke/parody?

It reads like one. So, am I being obtuse because :sarcasm: wasn't included?