The search for the soul of the Democratic Party continues, with some Obamacrats now questioning the choice (error?) they made in 2008 in selecting Obama over Hillary.
The argument goes that while Hillary might have ended her first year in the same Obamacratic disappointments, she would have at least been a fighter where Obama is not even trying.
The Hillary buyer’s remorse is coming to a head in the comments sections of prominent left-wing blogs, with Clintonistas infuriating Obamabots with gleeful, smug ‘I told you so’ declarations.
At the Huffington Post, blogger and MSNBC analyst Craig Crawford rocked the boat with a cross posted article provacatively titled ‘What If Hillary Had Won?’
One of the comments from a PUMA: “Would it have made a difference if an inexperienced unqualified pilot had landed in the Hudson instead of Sully? Of course it would have made a difference.”
Another: “I agree, you don’t send your young,cool guy with the smooth words to tackle a major crisis. You send the Bitch!”
But a counterargument from a Clinton-hating Obamacrat doesn’t buy it:
“We’re WAY better off with Obama than we would be with any of the alternatives! I shudder to think about version 2.0 of Whitewater and Travelgate were Hillary in the oval office. Not to mention Bill on the prowl for all the interns he can eat. No, thank you.”
At Matthew Yglesias’s website, things turned profane when a Hillary supporter with a long memory called out Yglesias for suggesting that Obama has governed with the exact even-keeled pragmatism he allegedly promised during his campaign:
“Oh. My. God. Please stop this revisionist bullshit…
One candidate demonstrated through her rhetoric that Republicans were to blame for our current crisis, and that she would be taking a tough (partisan, in fact) approach to the Democratic agenda: identifying allies and villians, issuing threats, knocking heads in Congress…
The other candidate, the one Matt supported, said that that approach was doomed to failure; rather, the country needed someone to transcend partisan divides in order to find common ground on those issues where consensus could be reached. In essence, this candidate argued that really everyone pretty much agreed with the Democratic agenda, it will just take someone fresh and nice (not that old “likable enough” bitch) in order to get it through Congress…
That this approach actually held sway with half of the Democratic primary electorate is maddening. That people like Matt want disingenuously argue that this didn’t happen is infuriating.”
A sample response from a rabid Obamabot:
“We’ve got PUMA’s talking about Hillary again? Seriously? Now I now things are totally fucked. The last thing people should be bitching about is the g-ddamn 2008 primary. This is a full on meltdown.”
And the great Obamacratic Party explosion continues.
To subscribe to DK’s articles: Click on the “Subscribe” button underneath the headlines.
For more info: Supreme Court finishes what Obama started, destroys campaign finance reform ; Throw the bums out 2010: 71% of Americans angry with federal government