Good lord, people, get a hold of yourselves.
He may or may not be a "Blue Dog" by definition, but my point is he is not, and never has been, a liberal.
I know many folks projected all sorts of shit onto Obama during his presidential run. (And he and his campaign did nothing to dispel those notions.) But he has NEVER been a liberal, dating all the way back to his days in the Illinois Senate. He has ALWAYS been a moderate. A compromiser. Always.
Used to drive me nuts when he was in the U.S Senate. It led me to send him many angry missives.
The choice of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff should have been a tip-off. (Never mind, the economic team...)
But here's the reality (and the context that makes all the hand-wringing so idiotic)...
In 2008 we, as Democrats, were essentially left with two choices: A Blue Dog (Clinton) or a Blue Dog (Obama).
Obama was the better choice. Clinton would have been far worse.
And to those who will now write responses like "But Hillary's a fighter!" or "She would have taken on the insurance companies!" I can only say, "Bullshit."
There are no bluer Blue Dogs than the Clintons.
I guess I'm surprised that the light bulb just went off over so many supposedly politically-astute heads.
I long thought that kos' declaration that the DLC had been defeated was premature. Look at the 2008 election. Our only choices were Blue Dogs! (And no, serial philanderer, John Edwards, doesn't count.)
So this is not a revelation about Obama. It's not news. It has been obvious from the day he announced his intention to run for president.
I can understand the disappointment. But what I really don't get is the ignorance.