It’s an unusual dress she’s wearing, one side lime green, the other side emerald green. A dress with a spilt personality. Just like our congress.

It’s a bi partisan, green dress….

Is bi partisan, anything like double cross?

Oh, I wouldn’t suggest depending on billionaires either. Still, I am glad that the Koch Bros. don’t have a corner on the market.

I also find it of interest that it’s Soros who’s making these noises. It sure isn’t Reid or Pelosi. It isn’t Robert Scheer or Arianna Huffington.

Soros, at least, isn’t just clicking his tongue. He isn’t just scratching his fanny. He’s suggesting open rebellion.

Do you know anybody in the Congressional progressive caucus who’s recently said as much??

Is there a list somewhere of who voted against her? I would like to thank them.

Of course they are clueless fools. Tone-deaf and even their defenders are saying so.  Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne have both said so.

Well, looks like the Democrats really are clueless fools.

As for the comment below on Soros, Alexander Cockburn recently wrote a good article on why depending on billionaires, no matter what flag they wave, is unwise:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10082010.html

This great passage from the article says it all:

“Back at the dawn of the twentieth century Lenin and Martov were organizing their international Congresses and looking for grant money to this end. Martov, the Menshevik, told Lenin he must absolutely stop paying for the hotels and halls with money hijacked by Stalin from Georgian banks in Tblisi. Lenin reassured Martov, and then asked Stalin to knock over another bank which he did, Europe’s record bank heist up till that time. It was one way, perhaps the only way, past the grip of cautious millionaires. Then as now.”

Nothing changes but then that’s not particularly surprising.

What is a bit surprising is Soros’ recent comment. Soros is a banker, true, but in Nader’s recent novel “Only the Super-rich Can Save Us,” he was also cast as a hero, of sorts. He and others like him (Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, for example) have a strong instinct for survival, and they have to know where things are headed in 2012.

I’m not sure exactly what he actual meant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/george-soros-obama_n_785022.html ), but his statement was both strategic and nuanced, at the very least. He seems to be stating that Obama has betrayed the progressive cause. How he could say that without simultaneously pointing to the DNC (along with the Democratic leadership) as a complicitous party?

My guess is that he sees the writing on the wall for 2012, which includes an even bigger Democratic loss and maybe a loss too for the R’s. Though that is purely speculative, it would give the ultra-right even more power, and that’s not what Soros wants.

Speculative too is the possibility that he is trying to seriously move progressives off their collective ass into the realm of action. He isn’t talking a third party yet, however.  He is wanting progressive Dems to assert themselves, but if their leaders are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he probably knows that we’re looking at yet another crash-landing in 2012.

So what is he actaully thinking and where is he going with this? Whatever it is, it’s probably substantive change, and not just a cosmetic one.

The only substantive change that would be likely to pass Soros’s own implicit litmus test is a break-away movement.

He gave money to the California initiative to to decriminalize marijuana. One can only hope he’s willing to underwrite initiative that will undermine the two party system in America. Am not holding my breath nor suggesting that he will, I’m just saying that this his statement portended an interesting and perhaps not insignificant development.