Who does Arianna Huffington think she is kidding?

[One of the 99]

I just read her latest column where she says this:

So for me this election now has two tracks: 1) Obama vs. the GOP nominee; and 2) Obama vs. Obama.

Of course, many things can happen between now and November, and I want to be clear that I think it's crucial for the country -- and the world -- that the president defeat any of his likely opponents. But if present trends continue, and the outcome of the first track appears more and more settled, it's also crucial that we start to focus on the possible outcomes of the second track -- that is, which Obama will be reelected.

She's declaring the election over so she can spend the next 8 months bashing the President. Thus giving all the GOP candidates a pass.

She was a conservative Republican for many years. In 2000 she supported Bush and repeatedly attack Al Gore in her Washington Times column. Now her columns blame everything on President Obama yet there is no mention of the unprecedented obstruction by the GOP and total silence about the Ryan budget plan last year. Does she realy think anyone is buying into her BS anymore?

[dionysus]

1. uh, she's just about making her greedy ass more money. but, if she can bash Obama, it'll

make a lot of people here happy.

[vaberella]

13. Ain't that the truth!!! n/t

[snooper2]

2. She's Sarah Palin with different views and a couple more brain cells...

[arthritisR_US]

10. +1

[wendylaroux]

3. I don't really care what the duchess thinks

she is part of the money party,doesn't give a crap about anything,anyone,just money and her next gala with the beautiful people.

[abelenkpe]

4. Add her to the list of

women bent on bashing the president like Yves from nakedcapitalism and Jane from firedoglake.

[girl gone mad]

22. Oh and don't forget the gays..

like Greenwald and Choi, and the blacks like Belafonte and West.

[abelenkpe]

24. The bigotry is all yours.

You should stick to gold nutty posts

[girl gone mad]

29. Right. You accuse people of having opinions based solely on their gender..

yet you're not a bigot. Uh-huh.

Then you throw in some random nonsense about "gold nutty posts" to top it off. Well, gee, I'm just a dumb female, right? So it must be easy for you to dismiss my years of economic commentary on this board, in which I have never once claimed I own or would buy gold, with an absurd, simplistic and completely baseless put-down.

[southernyankeebelle]

5. She knows everything doesn't she. She should go to Greece and help them get back on

their feet instead of bashing Obama all the time.

[otohara]

8. Good Idea

I can't stand her - she's all about money.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. A block of gold has replaced her heart.

[earthside]

6. She's not kidding.

Here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/president-obama-candidate-obama_b_1340036.html

And I think Arianna expresses very valid concerns.

There are folks here who just don't want to confront the truth: Pres. Obama has not been a bold, innovative, inspiring, progressive President.

He has been a moderate-to-conservative chief executive. He apparently believes in conciliation with Congressional Republicans and conservative Congressional Democrats -- we witnessed that over and over again over the past three years.

Yup, his rhetoric changed a couple of months ago ... he's sounding more populist again, like he did during the 2008 campaign.

I have wondered the same thing as Huffington. When Obama is re-elected, will he, for instance, go back to the technique (that drove so many of us to distraction) of offering his final compromise position as his opening proposal and then negotiate further rightward? Or will he this time keep with the populist, progressive agenda and press for real change?

His track record from January 2009 to February 2012 would indicate that he is more likely to revert to his moderate, placatory style.

But, in my opinion, we'll know pretty quick -- if the Democrats keep control of the U.S. Senate and Pres. Obama supports getting rid of the filibuster, then we'll know that he is going for big change in his second term. If he doesn't say anything or supports the current Senate status quo on the filibuster, well, then we're in for four more years of obstruction and gridlock.

[Ikonoklast]

9. If the filibuster is removed, and the Senate is lost to the Republicans, then what?

Be careful of what you wish for.

[TheKentuckian]

12. It would still create an environment where correction is eventually possible.

Right now elections only have consequences if the Republicans are in control, winning for us only means direction of their agenda, sometimes not even able to prevent its expansion, just controlling the burn of the Reich Wing rocketrather than going unthrottled under piss poor management.

Under our current structure we are stuck implementing the Republican agenda in an insane effort to keep them from doing so and so losing is baked right into the cake.

[Ikonoklast]

15. They would be able to over-ride the veto.

THAT would be a disaster.

There is no other correct answer.

[vaberella]

17. But there would be 4 years where they would wreck havoc...leaving dems to reform.

We'd be right back to where we were. I think you're looking at quick gratification rather than the serious ramifications of what you would want.

[earthside]

18. It is called: Democracy.

You and I may not like to outcome ... but in a healthy, functioning democracy, majority rules.

Not super majority, but a simple majority.

The alternative is more of what we are experiencing now, probably even worse in the future. Tyranny of the minority is by far a greater catastrophe than one political party or another winning an election and getting to vote on their proposals.

Remember, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to override a presidential veto, so there are plenty of protection in the Constitution.

[vaberella]

14. There is nothing in the quote you just posted that expresses a valid point.

Unless you can point exactly what that is. I can list legislation after legislation that Obama has signed that would be considered bold, innovative, inspiring and progressive. As Biden's immortal words were in the case of the health care reform, "That was a big fuckin' deal.' Not to mention people are quick to forget the amount of repairing legislations he had to pass from the Clinton era. But no....AH must be right in her little conservative cocoon. Maybe she should spend more time bitching at the Legislative Branch of government for not being "bold, innovative, inspiring and progressive" enough to pass bills that fit those titles. But who gives a fuck about those lot because Obama can WRITE and pass laws.

[gratuitous]

21. Indeed

And the predictable reaction to any expression of dismay to something the President does is (1) You don't understand the subtle, nuanced, 12-level Vulcan chess game being played here; (2) You don't understand the political realities of why the President has to give away the store before negotiations even begin; (3) You don't understand that the President has to court the votes of people who would never vote for him in a million years, and your support is taken for granted; (4) The President is completely powerless to do anything; (5) You weren't paying attention when candidate Obama, in one speech in June 2008 said that this was what he'd do if elected, so it's your own stupid fault; or (6) It's not really what it clearly is, and besides, 1,278% of liberal Democrats approve of the administration; so shut up.

In any case, it's never the administration's fault, and you naive hippies just want a pony, and expecting something else just shows how out of touch you are.

[Ikonoklast]

7. "Dahlink, I keed enough ov zee peeples to make zee MONEY!"

Arianne NEVER fooled me, I always knew she would do whatever she needed to do in order to make a buck.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Huffington is wealthy and politically contrary. Her actions are dictated by those facts.

In practice she is a flamboyant Evan Bayh or an easier on the eyes Joe Lieberman despite vacilating between centrist positions in order to oppose whoever is presently holding the keys.

She got mixed in as liberal when it was decided by both parties that anyone who isn't a radical regressive and/or reactionary is anywhere between liberal and radical Marxist or more extreme.

[MineralMan]

19. She's still a Republican. She always was.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. +1.

[girl gone mad]

23. It was a great column.

Her points were valid.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled tired ad hominem smears.

[One of the 99]

25. You're the one launching a tired ad hominem smear

without refuting any point I made.

[DonCoquixote]

26. she does say this much

"Of course, many things can happen between now and November, and I want to be clear that I think it's crucial for the country -- and the world -- that the president defeat any of his likely opponents."

So at least she is not trying to support Romney, like her good friend Lynn Evelyn de Rothschild. However, let us also be honest here, if she wants Obama to go left, why oh why does she have on people like Mark Penn and Lynn Rothschild, who keep saying Obama's main problem is that he is not centrist enough?

Read this crap and tell me this is trying to get "Candidiate Obama" back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-penn/obama-class-warfare_b_969002.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/lynn-forester-de-rothschi_n_127047.html

The rpoblem is, Arianna,like many others in the party, is a GOP that found herself cast out because the GOP wants to pander to Joe Redneck. Part of the rpice for admission on our boat should have been a repentance from all GOP policy, including the fiscal one. The people who say we can be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" are every bit as deluded as Rick Santorum's people.

[One of the 99]

28. But in a sense she is supporting Romney

or whomever is the GOP nominee because she is giving them a pass, as she did with the GOP obstruction in the Senate and Paul Ryan budget, and focusing her attacks on the president.

[marlakay]

27. She pulled a bunch of people in sounding dem

and now she is pulling back and forth…a ton of republicans are on the comments so its hard to know who actually reads it these days.

[Canuckistanian]

30. Arianna is all about Arianna

She bends in whatever direction the prevailing winds blow. That much is clear.

She's just like Maureen Dowd. Remember her attacks on Al Gore?

[DonCoquixote]

31. M Dowd

is at least clearly anti republicans, whereas Arianna is more centrist, which is to say, 80's era reagan.

[One of the 99]

32. Dowd seems to be anti-everyone

I really don't see the value in anything that she writes. Reading her columns are like reading a 16 year old mean girl's slam book.

[Canuckistanian]

36. She wasn't "anti-republican" during the Al Gore presidential campaign

She was the head cheerleader for sticking Gore's head on a pike in 2000.

And her turnaround doesn't impress me. As Bartcop once famously said, "She hates everybody" meaning she automatically attacks ANY perceived front-runner in a tightly contested race.

[Rex]

33. I read an article on the M$M.com

that said Andrew Breitbart had a hand in creating the Huffington Post? Can anyone verify that?

[excuse not to write]

35. He did

[excuse not to write]

34. Dahling.....

What do you expect from someone who married a man she knew was gay just to get into the commentariat?

[deacon]

37. My nickname for her in the past used to be Bob Barr Gabor. n/t