The Reality of "Progressive" Thought

I was struck this morning by the latest column from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post and just how much it reveals about the nature of Progressive discourse in America.  Milbank is not exactly the deepest of thinkers.  He's a lot closer to Charlie Brown than to Charles Krauthammer in his level of analysis.  Nevertheless, Milbank is a widely known and widely read columnist who spouts the Progressive line as that appears inside the Beltway in DC.  Today, Milbank wrote about Leon Panetta and the other former Obama cabinet officials who have penned tell all books about their time in power.  Former Secretary of Defense Gates was brutal in his analysis of Obama's leadership (or more precisely, his lack of leadership).  Former Secretary of State Clinton was clear that she disagreed with Obama on Syria and that she still disagrees.  Now, Panetta, who was both head of the CIA and Secretary of Defense, has really landed a major blow to Obama by revealing the many instances in which Obama proved unable to act in the best interests of the nation.  These are all major stories which deserve careful analysis.  After all, Obama's leadership is needed to get us all through the next two years safely.  If there is a problem with that leadership, America needs to know so that the problem could, perhaps, be solved. 

And what is Milbank's take on all this?  His entire column is about the "stunning lack of loyalty" by these former cabinet officials.  He doesn't address the substance of what these folks had to say.  Milbank only cares about why they "turned on" Obama.  Once again, winning the political battle is the key, not doing what is best for the USA. 

I have to add that it was hysterical that Milbank criticizes Gates and Panetta, but cannot bring himself to even mention Hillary Clinton by name.  I guess her criticism doesn't count because she is the likely candidate of the left in 2016.