I believe that's called "party unity," isn't it? I mean, it's nice to be idealistic and all, but Democrats have to stand together if we want Bush out of the White House and the Cuban embargo to end and the US to get out of Iraq and Iran and freedom to rain. Reign? Rein?

Nell : I agree with your posts, but you want to prevent a "Congressional sellout?" Shucks, that's what they're there for. They are role models for our Business ueber alles mindset, where everyone has his or her price. Almost all of our "institutions," from elite universities to the free (ha ha) press enable and support this mindset. College students once talked of finding a "philosophy of life" in their four years on campus. Those were the days. Now they network. Any "philosophy" they need they think they can get in Positive Psych and Entrepreneurship classes. No Kant or Camus. Too depressing.

I like this headline much more than the innocuous one you posted to the same story on TMW.

Oh Blogistan, Oh Blogistan
Where is thy party now?
The Democrats will sell YOU out
The Republicans too, and how!
YOU have the power
To relie on self
Surely this YOU know
And if YOU'll just
RISE UP YOURSELF
YOU'll show the others
The door.

This blog post has an inaccuracy in its title. Obama was a horrifying scumbag before he had the election clinched. Seriously, any whites who voted for Obama and against the non-Clinton candidates* in the primaries simply because he was black pretty much fucked over black people in a tremendous way.

*The Clinton-Obama struggle was a wash from day one and had no real moral character.

Blue-staters should be spoiling to replace mainstream Dems with progressives and, if necessary, denouncing the prez. candidate we will vote for in November. Only a fool or a monster would support Obama; what is essential is that we [i]run against McCain.[/i] That has been the score for months, and we knew it would be when the better democratic candidates dropped out of the race.

Oh Blogistan, Oh Blogistan
Where is thy party now?
The Republicans will sell YOU out
The Democrats too, and how!
YOU wanted change
But YOU are it
A THIRD PARTY
With a CLEAN slate
All YOU need do
Is just RISE UP
And YOU'll show them all
The gate

I do not endorse or suppport Barack Obama and I do not intend to vote for him but he's just being pragmatic.

Obama believes that Thomas could win the nomination but would lose the general election which means The Democrats would lose a House Seat.

Great post title, by the way. I second Cris' opinion.

Pragmatism. Truly one of America's most hallowed virtues, which is pretty impressive considering the size and scope of our Virtue Arsenal.

Should Mr. Change win the prize, the Party Faithful will be deploying the term and its variants on a daily basis. Without the slightest sense of irony or shame.

But who am I to criticize the pragmatic pragmatists comprising The Party Of Pragmatism. They've gotten us this far.

We're now rolling back to the Nixon era thanks to the Democratic Party "leadership".

Ha! If only.

We aren't rolling back. This train is definitely moving forward. Careening forward.

It's the seats that are backward.

But, unfortunately, you still can't see Nixonville from here.

cemmcs: "Obama believes that Thomas could win the nomination but would lose the general election which means The Democrats would lose a House Seat."

That would be _good_. Better a Republican in truth than a fifth column. I don't want the worst senators cacusing with the Dems because then they shape Dem policy. It would be better for the Dems to shrink in representation in Congress and toss out all non-progressives: this would present a starker and easier choice for voters. And, please, spare me the bullshit about how things will be worse with repugs in office instead of blue-dog dems: such an idea conveniently, and absurdly, ignores the policy and electorate effects I just mentioned and the recent legislative history of the Dems.

It is pragmatic to change tactics once one's values become difficult to maintain. It is NOT pragmatic to change values in the face of such difficulty. That's called giving up.

Of course, Obama isn't giving up. He never had any integrity in the first place. This is who he is, folks. Do not abandon your dignity by claiming he is merely compromising.

It would be better for the Dems to shrink in representation in Congress and toss out all non-progressives: this would present a starker and easier choice for voters.

This is especially true when reflecting on the fact that, even when they're in the minority, Republicans are consistently the ones setting the terms of debate in this country. Or so it would seem.

Yet, through some bizarre stretch of the imagination, I'm supposed to believe the same fake progressives who were so indispensable to Bush-Cheney, Inc., as minority party ticket-takers are magically transformed into principled leaders when holding a majority. Even though, that, too, has been proven demonstrably false as recently as... today.

Must be nice to have a job in which you're amply rewarded for just being there.

Obama believes that Thomas could win the nomination but would lose the general election which means The Democrats would lose a House Seat.

I'm sure that's the same rationale he used when he supported Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. That's worked out well.

When, at last, the foul fiend crawls from the depths of the abyss, and the sky rains sulfur down, and his armies cover the face of the Earth, and all of mankind wails and moans in terror as they are overcome, then, when the flesh is being torn from our limbs and our bones ground into dust, in our final agony we will look up and see, writ on the standard of the herald of the army of Hell, in letters bold and plain, the slogan under which Satan has conquered us: "We're just being pragmatic."

And the same rationale when he supported Rahmocrat Tammy Duckworth against grassroots progressive Christine Cegelis. That worked out well, too.

saurabh: Amen and amen.

Obama can yet put this right. By leaping to condemn him so quickly, you betray your agenda: criticism of the mainstream left as fundamentally flawed at any cost, and for any reason. Same old stupid bullshit. Have you considered the possibility that he's been mislead by some faction within his staff? That he might respond, as he has so far, to objections? You should be working to make that happen. If that fails, then your complaints might be worth more than dick. You are either being played for fools or don't care about outcomes over self-righteousness and grandstanding.

That all said, he's got some explaining to do and as I said, he needs to put it right.

And yeah, Obama supported Liarman. Who then shafted him. If he doesn't realize that this guy will do the same at the first opportunity, not only are we fucked, but so is he.

A few other things:

1. viewing the Dems as a monolithic block is pretty moronic.

2. "We're now rolling back to the Nixon era thanks to the Democratic Party "leadership"."
I quite like the notion someone put forward recently that the Nixon era never ended.

3. "Must be nice to have a job in which you're amply rewarded for just being there."
Oh, there are better jobs. As a CEO, due to the rigorous scrutiny of the magical pony marketplace, you get amply rewarded for fucking up and then leaving. This is known as the invisible hand giving the middle finger.

"Obama was a horrifying scumbag before he had the election clinched."

"Of course, Obama isn't giving up. He never had any integrity in the first place. This is who he is, folks. Do not abandon your dignity by claiming he is merely compromising."

So which Republican's office are you operating out of, Inconsequential? Any evidence to back up your bald (sic) assertions?

Have you considered the possibility that he's been mislead by some faction within his staff? That he might respond, as he has so far, to objections?

No, because that is a fucking stupid idea. It assumes that Obama is an imbecile. Seriously, why are you projecting your values onto him? He's already pledge to murder innocent people for political gain -- and done it publicly. He was Wall Street's favorite in the primaries. What more do you want? Sure he's better than McCain. Then again, so is Charles Manson. Better than McCain is an easy thng to be and it's entirely possbile to qualify and yet remain an immoral asshole.

Obama endorsed and supported Lieberman in The Democratic Primary against Ned Lamont. Once Lamont won the primary, Obama endorsed him but did not really support him.

BTW I just made a small financial contribution to Regina Thomas' campaign. You can too at http://reginathomas4congress.com/donate_now.html