Given the overall mood of the political blogosphere . . .

[mojave_wolf]

I posted this as a comment over at Anglachel's blog earlier, thought I'd repost it here (for a more positive take, see here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27616) (from an electoral horse-race point of view, NC was about what I expected and Indiana

Comments

Re: Heh, I can't tell if your last sentence was serious or sarcastic . . .

[mojave_wolf]

Weirdly enough, most of the people I've encountered who call themselves Reagan democrats are for Hillary(they mostly are at Taylor Marsh or No Quarter), just as a majority of the people who online call themselves "far left" (or some variation) say they are for Obama, frequently touting his progressive policies, usually w/out saying what they are (because they aren't, for the most part, more progressive than Hillary's; I can think of exactly two exceptions and she is wrong on both, and I don't get why people aware of these aren't willing to do a balancing act comparison).

It is one of the extreme weirdnesses of this race that *democrats* are buying the media narrative of the two candidates without checking further, so no one knows he voted for a gas tax holiday 3 times in Illinois, for example (which seems to have had good results, it should be added), and she gets flamed by either Frank Rich or Rich Cohen-- Iforget which--for voting for a flag-burning amendment, and they declare this is why they absolutely can't vote for her, and they don't mention until a small later addendum that their guy Obama voted for same (and I agree this amendment was stupid and wrong; I'm sure both Hill and Obama think so too).

I dunno what the hell the Chelsea attackers and the "we believed the drummed up right wing scandals of the 90's" people like that Insomnia dude who posted on "progressives" a few time are . . . like I said, I think some are Republicans masquerading as Obama supporters , but I think others are Kos people, and the majority at that place has always been both misogynistic and non-liberal (anti-Republican, yes; truly liberal, no) in its thinking, even tho it did used to be worth checking out just because it became sort of a magnet because of its popoularity--they probably love Obama because he's all about branding and marketing, and so are they . . .

Re: Hillary/Bill working together -- I assume this also. I have always thought she seemed the more genuinely liberal of the two, or at least more committed to liberal economics. Going back to before their joint presidency, she supported micro-lending programs a decade before I'd even heard of them, and once defended a Black Panther, for heaven's sake, both of which entail more than just following the crowd on what is popular.

But ultimately, he got voted in, not her, and it was his views that I'm assuming prevailed when they differed; certainly, my wife and I don't agree on everything (and she almost always turns out to have been right on those differences). I expect her to be better on government regulation in general and on more progressive on LGBT issues than he was, tho for what it matters as an excuse, I'm 100% sure he would have been more progressive on social issues but for having been essentially in a really nasty position where the conservatives were out for his blood and congress was blaming him for their every trouble--still, huge mistake on his part w/DOMA and telecom dereg--I can understand/justify everything else about his presidency--which was on the whole a very good thing, I still think--except those two.