The Other One

The Other One

In a service-based economy, we've started to develop a service-based mentality, where we demand instant fixes and gratification. We don't concern ourselves with the nuances of how things get done, and we don't care. All we know is that we are the customer and we want things our way.

This helps explain the meta-commentary about what Barack Obama should or should not do. All this free advice, you might think that either the electorate is full of political geniuses, or it's all just hot air. I tend to think it's the latter, if for no other reason than the service-based mentality we've all adopted. We are demanding that all it takes for Obama to stand up to the Republicans is to follow our advice so that real work of government can be done. For added measure, we throw in phrases like "people are suffering," to underscore the urgency.

Progressives claim they are angry that Obama is not doing what they elected him to do. And that they're tired of defending him. That claim is rather specious since they were far more interested in "punishing" him by not showing at the polls on election day than fighting back the right-wing: the result is 95 new Republican members of Congress who are licking their chops at the prospect of bringing Obama's presidency to a standstill. If this is what progressives had in mind, then they are a crueler species than I thought.

While a president simply cannot accomplish anything meaningful on two years, this reality seems completely lost on liberals. There is no such thing as sweeping change because we do not live in the era of kings and emperors. The system may be corrupt, but one does not dismiss the entire legislative branch to do "what we were sent here for" and satisfy everyone personal political agenda. This is a thinking disorder that affects both the right and the left.

But let me take liberals at their word: Obama is a disappointment and he's been capitulating to the Republicans in one form or another. He's not going to do anything meaningful in the next two years because the House is dominated by Republicans and he's not adept at outflanking them. Why is no one (outside of George Soros) talking about finding a new candidate for 2012?

Why is no one wanting to draft Hillary?

The main objections she raised against Obama have come to pass: he doesn't have enough experience fighting Republicans. She does. She's tested and knows how to fight back. But for liberals, they were more enamored of electing our first African-American president than someone who could deal with the right-wing hate machine. (Remember that Hillary had to fight off liberals more during campaign, from Randi Rhodes who called her a "cunt" to race-baiting generated by MSNBC and Matt Taibi.) And it's particularly funny that liberals derided Hillary as Bush-lite, when Obama has essentially kept most of the Bush-era tactics of fighting terrorism at hand. Not to mention two wars.

But I digress. If progressives see that Obama is not going to deliver on his myriad promises because he continues to deal with the Rottweiler opposition as something that can be tamed, they might as well back a fighter and draft Hillary. If the response it would be too divisive and a distraction, could it possibly be any worse than right now? There is no other Democrat who has higher pols, name recognition and as James Carville would put it: balls. The progressive agenda needs someone who will fight, and Hillary is the only one who can pull it off.

It's too bad progressives will stick with their sinking ship on principle of disliking anyone named Clinton, though.