The left version of tea-party is just as clueless as the right's...

[Drunken Irishman]

As if last night's results are proof the left is rising up against Rahm and his crazy politics.

What I love about this is that no liberal won last night. Not one. None. Now unless I'm seeing this wrong, just replacing two moderate Democrats (Specter and Murtha) with two other moderate Democrats (Sestak and Critz) is not some liberal wave that should draw the attention of the WH or Rahm as signs progressives are fed up with this administration.

Let's be clear here: The Democratic Party is not any more liberal today than they were yesterday. None of the results change that. Critz might even be less reliable than Murtha, in fact (though I doubt it). The only thing that's changed should be the narrative that Obama's perceived liberalism won't kill him or Democrats in conservative districts and that Democrats went out and voted for a Democrat over a former Republican turned Democrat. Not that Democrats made a statement. They didn't. A statement would have been if a liberal, anti-Obama Democrat (from the left) had won. That just isn't the case here.

[grantcart]

1. Yesterday proved nothing except the Republican Party is determined to

run itself off of a cliff by engaging in even more senseless infighting than we are.

Each of the races had a different dynamic and PA 12 will only mean something if we win again in November.

We were helped by the Senate primary race.

Sestak won't mean anything if he doesn't win in November.

[Cha]

2. Here's to us all coming together and

getting Sestak and Critz elected in the Fall..and Halter, too~

[RoyGBiv]

3. Agreed with you and grantcart ...

Yesterday was more about the internal craziness within the Republican party, which reflects only minimally on the Democrats. The people who voted for Paul, for instance, would never vote for a Democrat of any reasonable variety. They were merely choosing between varieties of whackjobs on the right.

The Democratic win in PA-12 is significant in that it maintains that as a Democratic seat, but there's no ideological shift there. I admit I am clueless as to how that was a referendum on Rahm/Obama except as a general (and mild) *acceptance* of their performance. Had the Republican won, it would have shown more discontent.

And Sestak? Please. The hand-wringers on the far left are going to get a rude awakening if this guy gets into office. I personally prefer him because he's more genuinely a Democrat than Specter was, but his victory had very little to do with any comment on Obama. Obama backed Specter because he had promised to do so as a part of the deal that resulted in the party switch. That's it. I suspect Obama and Congressional Democrats are secretly happy that they won't have to continue to cater to him, or they will be if Sestak actually wins the general.

[Cha]

4. Factoids..I love them..so nice

to be able to discuss what actually went on since Arlen became a Dem and the dynamics of getting his vote bc the other repugs sure weren't saying anything but NO.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. It's interesting the same people claiming this as a win for liberals and progressives...

Are the same people who slam Pres. Obama for not being liberal enough...even though he's probably more to the left than Sestak and certainly more to the left than Critz and the dude from Arkansas.

Not that I have a problem with Sestak. Just interesting how they rail against Obama being too moderate and not liberal enough and yet now all back a guy who's no more liberal than Pres. Obama. Kind of reminds me of the tea-baggers backing Scott Brown.

[Cha]

8. Sestak is for us being in Afghanistan with Troop Increase.

http://washingtonindependent.com/69206/rep-joe-sestak-on-the-afghanistan-war-pakistan-and-the-troop-increase

[Drunken Irishman]

10. There is no evidence to suggest he's a progressive, let alone a liberal.

He was recruited to run by Rahm in 2006 and has proven to be a very moderate voice in the House. Just because he took on a former Republican who most here at DU did not like does not automatically mean he's got the cred to be considered a progressive.

[Cha]

11. It's only because the White House

backed the incumbant for quid pro quo that there's all kinds of pretzel twisting.

Sestak wins..the White House Wins. And, I think Arlen will be just fine.

[CBR]

6. It is all about creating some kind of narrative. It is

the idiotic thing that the media does and people get caught up in trying to create. We all complain about the media's stupid narratives but do not feel bad when we attempt to create dishonest ones ourselves.

[Cha]

9. I got into politics in 2000 and have had 10 years

of the "media"s stupid narritive. In fact, I cancelled my cable and stopped watching corporatemedia in 2002..but of course I still see what they're doing via DU.

I'm really gratified that this White House knows exactly how manipulative and manufacturing they are and tries to do something about it.

This is where I get a lot of my political news from ..and buzzflash.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[NJmaverick]

7. Both the right's and the left's Tea Parties are about anger and rage winning

out over logic and reason.

[Number23]

12. I'm really starting to think that alot of these "leftier than thou" posters here are just playing

I refuse to believe that any thinking person over the age of 9 could be as clueless and rooted to such unyielding "black and white" thinking as many here pretend to.

My husband isn't even an American but watching the coverage of the issues, even he could see that Sestak's win had nothing to do with "going left" and teaching Obama not to ignore his liberal "base" (which also completely and conveniently overlooks that if any group can claim to be Obama's base amongst the myriad groups that supported him, it was minorities and lower income folks that hold claim to that title). To him and to me, the man won because he was the better and more believable candidate.

The idea that some on this board have that a 3-star Admiral, former NSC member and defense adviser under the dreaded CLINTON administration :scared: is going to show Obama the liberal light is so damned stupid and far from reality it is something that I simply cannot believe is said in all seriousness.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. It should be no shock that we have low information voters too.

They tend to be the most radical.

[Arkana]

14. Hey guys, guess what?

Obama is a heartless, cold bastard!

Wanna know how I know? Cause someone in GD told me!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to drink bleach!

[AtomicKitten]

15. You are absolutely correct. Not one liberal won.

It was simply an opportunity to oppose Obama vicariously.

This website has become an embarrassment as a mirror image of the teabaggers.

[stevenleser]

16. Yes to the OP and all comments here.

I'm updating my ignore list. Way too many stupid comments from people just attacking Obama for the sake of attacking him. The two best most recent examples are the OP started that attacked Obama for his 2007 statement where SENATOR Obama said how long he thought it would take to get out of Iraq.

The statement Obama made a year or so later only altered that number by three months but the Obama haters are holding that up as some sort of horrific betrayal.

Second example is the treatment Plshdef (sorry if I messed up the handle) received from a few folks when asking what they thought Obama could do better with the spill that he isnt now. People who have no background in petroleum engineering and have no real knowledge of what is happening were making all kinds of criticism and recommendations. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.

I'm adding a lot of the rabid anti-OBama folks to my ignore list daily. I'm up to 69 distinguished members.