I find it darkly funny how retail politics makes even enlightened “liberals” use crass, sexist language to describe a female candidate for Emperor: “Hillary’s got balls.”

Which means what, exactly? The fact she’s yet to see a war she doesn’t like? The fact she campaigned on the rather evil mandate that is ensconced in Dole-Romney-ObamaCare? The fact that as a personal friend of Wall Street she’s eager to “make tough decisions” like making granma dine on cat food? Or perhaps she’s ballsy enough to be openly corrupt in handing the “environmental review” of Keystone XL to a former campaign operative of hers?

If that’s what “balls” are about, then I would suggest we neuter all politicians as a precondition for taking office.

A far more useful poll would be one that plumbs Democratic voter sentiment, GOP voter sentiment and attitudes towards third party efforts. Generic ballots are worth less than nothing this far out and are worth roughly nothing at the height of the election cycle.

Public perceptions, attitudes and beliefs, etc., are much more interesting, since those things will impact on turnout. Also too, any fund raising numbers would indicate strength of commitment.

There won’t be any “crushing” going on in 2014. I’m betting turnout will be very low, as the ruling elites toss their own legitimacy out the proverbial window. Unless they can figure out a way to coerce people into the voting booth, I’m guessing support for our post-democratic regime will continue to decline over time.

IF Kaine and Van Hollen are the resistance to austerity, then it’s just a head fake. Both are diehard Neo-Libs who understand perfectly well how their class is being enriched at the expense of everyone else.

I expect more crocodile tears from the Democrats as their polling continues to slump into Bushian territory. But that’s all it is. They need the window dressing to avoid looking inhuman.

With this, you just summed up the whole thing. In this context, I don’t think the hearing or surrounding kabuki is even newsworthy. It’s just bullshit.

But it’s useful bullshit. This way, liberal Dems will come to support a very Right-Wing Republican. So I’m sure McNasty will remain on the White House Christmas card list. This shit works every time.

Missing from the discussion is the fact that Hagel with be a competent defense secretary who will faithfully implement policy. In other words, if he’s told to invade Syria or attack Iran, he will gladly comply. He will continue to fan the flames of war in Africa and anywhere else there are profits to be had. Oh, the China “pivot” as well, as that’s the new Cold War they need to maintain their obscene budget.

Aaaaand Carl Levin comes out officially opposed to Majority Rule and democracy more generally.

Awesome. Why don’t they formally form a Quisling Party? Because the word “Democrat” no longer applies.

Next up, I’d like to see statements from DiFi, Boxer, Reed… and we can forget Manchin as we already know his line of “reasoning.” Also, what percentage of Senate Democrats are also of this position?

Lastly, I believe the term for this behavior is “Corruption As Duplicitous Exclusion.” See this essay on APSAnet.

In this country, committing war crimes isn’t a problem, but exposing those very same war crimes is punishable with a prison term.

What a country!

All very true. While we were looking elsewhere, the Dems renamed the Big Tent, the Goldman Sachs Pavilion.

They don’t want us. In fact, they despise us. Why anyone would persist in the notion that there is something worth fighting for in the Democratic Party is beyond me… and I’ve been a registered Democrat for 35 years. I was, anyway.

Until a lot more people up and leave the Party to go somewhere else, we’re going to be stuck on this downward spiral into dystopia.

This is an incomplete, but otherwise useful description of Neo-Liberalism:

In no debate is this divide more clear than on entitlements where Corporate Liberals have decided to swallow right-wing talking points whole despite all evidence to the contrary. They also have, to an embarrassing degree, embraced Wall Street’s worldview on debt. After bailing out the banks – making private debts public debts – the Corporate Liberals have sided with the Republicans to now extract debt payments from the lower classes to pay off that odious debt.

Look it up and note who the leading lights of Neo-Liberalism are: Hayek, Friedman and so on. Also too, a nice bit of Leo Strauss thrown in for good measure. IOW, they are the very antithesis of LIberalism, unless you count 19th century Bourbon Democrats as being terribly Liberal.

Personally, I don’t know where this claim of conflict within the Inner Party is coming from. I see no evidence of it at all. Is the AFL-CIO down with cutting Social Security? Why, yes it is. Did Keith Ellison, co-chair of the CPC, vote for the Fiscal Grift package? Why, yes he did! In fact, only six Dems voted against it.

So where is this conflict residing and who is actively challenging party leadership in a serious way? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, because we all know the answer is “No one.” If “Progressives” are willing to go along with throwing millions of old people into poverty, then I would suggest that label no longer applies to them.

Until that gets cleared up, there is no “conflict.” Only duplicitous press releases.

Yes, because his priorities are far more in line with the GOP than “Democrats” (or really just the Democratic “base”) generally. With DADT, he didn’t want to do the right thing, so he used “bi-partisanship” as an excuse for doing nothing. That’s one of many examples. If you don’t want to do what your base wants you to do, you find political cover for doing nothing wherever possible. Bi-partisanship is the perfect foil against one’s own “base.”

Notice there are lots of areas in which bi-partisanship exists: Building out the police state; Endless wars; Cutting social programs; Destroying public education; Destroying anything resembling environmental protections; Warrant-less surveillance; Hollowing out the federal government; Letting criminal banksters get away with economic murder; Hounding dissenters to their deaths; Further entrenching official corruption…. so on and so forth.

Where bi-partisanship does NOT exist is where most Americans’ priorities lie: Sound economic policies; creating jobs; raising wages and the standard of living; sound environmental policies (like clean drinking water); less war… and so forth.

Bi-partisanship then, is the foil Obama uses against the people who voted for him. This ought to be clear by now.

I can think of two reasons why Maddow would avoid the topic of drones:

1) The WH doesn’t like anyone talking about it, except at arms industry conventions, meetings with industry lobbyists and such.

2) GE is a part of the drone industry and they may not like that kind of PR on MSNBC, where it might receive more critical attention from the audience. Also too, she would have to admit her paychecks are signed by one of the biggest “defense” contractors on the planet.

Lastly, the nearly adolescent manner in which she promotes interviews that say nothing of real import to the audience just goes to show she’s in showbiz, not journalism. For a pseudo-wonk like Maddow, Johnson is a good “get.” But beyond that, it’s just filling up airtime that could be used more productively.

Per the framing of Obama (or Democrats more generally) “caving,” “capitulating” or “lacking spine,” I humbly request those terms be jettisoned from the Progressive lexicon. Please see Jane Hamsher’s excellent post on that this very day.

They’re not caving or capitulating. They are serving their own interests and incentives. When Nancy Pelosi (net worth $180 MILLION) says she can live with fucking over the elderly, she means it.

Of course he’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth. That’s his entire political career, in a nutshell, as that’s all he’s ever done.

Obama likes these fake crises. That’s what gives him the cover he needs to kick old people in the groin and still manage to get away with it. So his “caving” is not only predictable, but from his standpoint, it’s bloody well necessary.