Progressive? In what sense? No longer greedy? No longer stupid? Ought to be quite a sales pitch at this point. There is NO solution to this present problem but time. Time heals all wounds IF the patient survives the cure. IMPEACHMENT (1-202-225-0100)would have given SOME foreknowledge and a possible chance for a bit of surgery to stem the present tide. While late for today's problem, one never knows what George and Dick have for tomorrow's surprise.

No. We still have Rahm and a shitload of bluedogs.

Bob Shrum is dead?

That Social Security, as mentioned in the PDF file, will remain solvent until the year 2049 with no changes is interesting considering Obama insists that Social Security needs to be fixed.

Jon, have you ever tried to organize a bunch of two-year olds? Say in a game of Duck Duck Goose, or to eat cake without spilling it on the floor? Don't give it short shrift.

Did all the incompetent people who wanted to lose die?

No, they joined THE Maverick's party...losing is in their bones!

How Did It Happen is not just overly gentle to Democrats, but disappears their role in this debacle completely. Rubin and Greenspan killed regulation of derivatives under Clinton. Clinton signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. He also pushed banks to loosen up standards at the low end of the market in exchange for permitting them to securitize of mortgages; thus, housing for the working class and poor could be addressed via "the market" rather than (gulp) social housing. This is a crisis of neoliberalism, not conservatism. And democrats have as much to do with neoliberalism as Republicans. Tt was Carter who started deregulation and killed Federal urban policy! I'm voting for Obama, but c'mon - let's be real.

um. i just had a medium-length argument with a big CAP person who not only refused to acknowledge any democratic responsibility but pinned (actually, f***ing speared ) all non-republican blame on ralph nader. so i would say... yes... "gentle" is a good word....

"Did all the incompetent people who wanted to lose die?"

No, they just decided that winning, in and of itself, was more important than the thing won (cough*Eric Alterman*cough). Who knew Al Davis would be adopted as the patron saint of Democratic partisans? Just win, baby!

http://blog.ira-401k-realestate.com/2008/10/21/credit-default-swaps-smartest-guys-in-the-room-may-be-not/

Neoliberal Democrats are erased from the pages of time, as is the role of Fed monetary policy. The latter should be there: whether it's as "myth" or "fact" I don't care, honest attempts to answer the question would address it.

please do not mix dr dean baker and them dem apologists in same para .
what a useless and meaningless term progressive has become

dude par4 perhaps it is time to actually read and UNDERSTAND some history and get over your koolaid " it is all fault of them bluedogs and that only if we had " better democrats "

I’m not really impressed with the “Fisking” of IOUSA by Baker and Rosnick.
I agree about the exaggeration of the Social Security problem and the potential problems of health care costs, but the rest of it seems to be mainly baseless assertions decrying other “assertions”. Plus it seems to have a very Cheney-like “Deficits don’t Matter” theme to it. Maybe Cheney will be inviting them to hunting trips soon.

It isn't necessarily that they want to win, it's that they're winning regardless and they're going along for the ride. Imagine what an Obama win will do for Democratic-leaning think tanks and other not-for-profits. Ducats galore, my man. For once it's safe to be on what passes on K Street these days as the right side of history.

... and also and not coincidentally Democratic lobbyists, many of whom will be staffers of Congressional Democrats who voted for the theft of $750 billion. Mmmm, yummy.