> Precisely. Dennis's and Doug's newfound abhorrence of Obama is at
> best disingenuous, given that both of them know what the Democratic
> Party's function is. Suddenly the Democratic nominee's being a
> corporate shill and a warmonger is a scandal? Now, if they had
> actually worked to get someone like, say, Kucinich nominated, I could
> take their outbursts seriously. But Doug laughs at people like
> Kucinich, and both of them know that the Dems are structurally
> opposed to any sort of positive political change, so their chortling
> is pretty hard to take seriously.
On second reading, this makes less sense than on the first. Why would having worked for Kucinich make any difference in one's evaluation of Obama? Is there some dues requirement for having an analysis? And why would anyone have worked for Kucinich knowing "what the Democratic Party's function is"? Wouldn't that be a total fucking waste of time?
And what "chortling"? Kucinich's UFO sighting is worth a chortle, but the sort of shit that Dennis quoted from Parson Klein evokes groans.
Doug