Most Blue Dogs represent conservative districts, some that used to be offices held by Republicans, and the reason they were voted in was because they were moderates that represent the constituency, rather than just a liberal agenda.
Despite that, groups like MoveOn.org and blogs like Open Left, with a variety of others have made it a goal to hinder the moderates chances of reelection.
As a quick reminder, first they set out to "profile" what they called "Bush" Dog Democrats, then they speak of "Bush Dog" campaign against Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies," and they continued.
You can find more examples of the left eating their own, here, here and here, on my previous pieces about this.
Caught up now? Good.
I bookmarked something I saw yesterday titled "Reid to Liberals: Back Off."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation.
"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”
Reid, who said he hadn’t seen or heard the ads, added that "most of [the groups] run very few ads — they only to do it to get a little press on it."
The last line of that piece made me laugh, where Reid also says "I think that our success is tied to Obama’s success."
That brings me to a piece I saw today, via Memeorandum, showing that The Economist, who endorsed Barack Obama for presidency, is none to happy with what they got and are disappointed.
HILLARY CLINTON’S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world. Might Mrs Clinton have been right.
Not altogether. In foreign policy in particular Mr Obama has already done some commendable things. He has held out a sincere hand to Iran; he has ordered Guantánamo closed within a year; he has set himself firmly against torture. He has, as the world and this newspaper wanted, taken a less strident tone in dealing with friends and rivals alike.
But at home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
Considering Obama had no experience to begin with when The Economist endorsed him, one would wonder why they seem so surprised that he doesn't seem to know what he is doing.
Oh, and just for the hell of it?
Here is a flashback of Hillary Clinton warning people Obama did not have the experience to be president:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Said That While She And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Had Crossed "The Commander In Chief Threshold ... You Will Have To Ask Senator Obama With Respect To His Candidacy." Sen. Clinton: "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on day one to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a president who passes that test, because the first and most solemn duty of the president of the United States is on protect and defend our nation. And when there is a crisis and when the phone rings whether it's 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 a.m. In the White House, there is no time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator Mc Cain will be the nominee for the party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold. And I believe that I have done that. Certainly Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy." (CNN's "Newsroom," 3/8/08)
Video of Clinton saying this, found at YouTube here and shown below:
Just for shits and giggles, let us also remind everyone what Joe Biden said, you know, the Vice President of the United States of America, the man Obam chose as his running mate?
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Reaffirmed That Obama Was Not Ready To Be Commander In Chief. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's "This Week," 8/19/07)
Sen. Biden: "Having talking points on foreign policy doesn't get you there." ("Biden Lashes Out At Obama," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)
The Economist and others that are now pissing and moaning about being disappointed in Obama's performance as president, should have done their homework before the election.
If Reid is counting on their success being tied to Obama's success, then things are definitely looking up for the 2010 and 2012 elections..... for the Republicans.
.
