Mandates And A New Hundred Days

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:15:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I spent the better part of three years arguing against Barack Obama's political style - the Post Partisan Unity Schtick. The reason I did so was because I believed that in order to gain a real mandate for progressive change, Obama needed to run on a progressive platform and use the politics of contrast to gain a mandate for progressive change. Clearly, that is all irrelevant now. Like Herbert Hoover before him, George W. Bush has handed a Democratic President the mandate to try whatever he thinks will work. David Broder, as is his wont, misunderstands the politics of it all yet again:

For now, Obama can benefit from the plausibility of his contention that this is "the final verdict" on the policies of the Bush administration, supported for the most part by McCain and other Republicans. But in a few weeks, the winner of the election will take custody of the problem and his name and reputation -- not Bush's -- will be on the line.

(Emphasis supplied.) [More...]

This has it exactly backwards. Bush will forever be blamed for the problems he created - he clearly will be remembered as the worst President in history decades from now. Obama will have a freedom of action (and one hopes an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress) to enact bold progressive solutions. He has the chance to build his mandate while governing - a chance to have his own Hundred Days. Let's hope he grasps this historic opportunity with bold progressive action.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The New Right: Fighting For The Middle Class By Blaming It | The Polls - 10/12 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Mandates And A New Hundred Days | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hope (5.00 / 7) (#1)
by lentinel on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:23:11 AM EST

We can all hope that Obama will undertake progressive action when he is, as expected, elected.

I for one, do not hold out any high hopes.

He hasn't sounded like a progressive lately - if ever.

All we really know about him is what we have been told.
He is charismatic, we have been told.

I, for one, have never found him to be so.
I have never noticed him being a leader of anything, let alone anything progressive.

So, we are left with the mantra of the beginning of his campaign:
hope.

Keep your fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath.

Hopin' along with ya (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:56:48 AM EST

Lentinel. My one consolation is that it will be fascinating to watch it unroll. Since we have no real idea what he's going to do, there will be abundant opportunities for "Told you so" from one side or the other, probably both. Maybe we should keep a tally.


"Let's hope."? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by oculus on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST

I'm confident if Hillary Clinton were the Dem. nominee we'd be able to do more at this point than "hope."

But, yes, I'll vote for Obama (is it still necessary to add this assurance?).


: change.giv (none / 0) (#64)
by Palli on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 07:38:22 AM EST

Hillary has an important role in the re-building of America...but I am more than comfortable that she is not the building contractor. The wars loom over us and I am grateful that the person closest to the decisions always knew the war was an illegal act of aggression. The traps of this criminal administration are myriad and my view is not Obama's. I will be patient and take heart in the new model of government presented in the organizational chart at change.gov.

It feels like I am back in Church on a Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by feet on earth on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM EST

morning: Hope, Faith, Charity.

There is a major difference between voting for someone and voting against someone. I would have voted for Hillary with a smile on my face. My vote is not for hope, my vote is against the certain catastrophe of a McCain's presidency. I know that what my voting Obama is going to feel like: swallowing a brick would be easier.

Just give him a chance (none / 0) (#7)
by WS on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST

I was disappointed with Hillary's loss too and this endless backbiting and cynicism from some posters here doesn't do anyone any good.

We may finally have a Democrat in office after 8 years of disastrous Republican rule and with a strong majority to boot. Push for progressive change instead of sitting back and reminisce over what could have been.

Besides, Hillary has another chance in 2016 and if you don't believe that, well I would think that you've lost hope in Hillary.


What folks like you refuse to get (5.00 / 6) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST

is that it isn't about Hillary or "disappointment" at her loss. For most of us, it's been about Obama's inadequacy as an, at best, lukewarm advocate for progressive change from the very beginning. Hillary was the best alternative, and got better than I think any of us ever imagined she could as time went by. But honestly, for all his flaws, I'd rather have had Biden than Obama because he's able and willing to run as an outspoken leader and proponent of liberal values.


Yes (5.00 / 7) (#22)
by ruffian on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST

There was a reason we chose Hillary over Obama to begin with.


Well I was (none / 0) (#20)
by WS on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:22:19 AM EST

crushed with Hillary's loss and I'm sure others are as well. But Obama does have good progressive ideas that I'm happy with although he does need some push on some other areas like health care. Again, give him a chance once and if he's in office. You might be surprised.


: I whole-heartedly wish to be surprised (5.00 / 7) (#27)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST

but I will be surprised if I am surprised. :-)

Gad (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by lentinel on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST

A comment about Obama's lack of passion for things progressive has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. It has to do with Obama.

It doesn't seem that you are interested in what he actually says and does or doesn't do.

Not that I blame you.


That comment was uncalled for, lentinel (1.00 / 2) (#33)
by WS on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST

Shame on you for attacking my liberal credentials and say that I'm just an O-bot.

I'm sorry to crash your pity party, but I think an Obama Presidency is a chance to move the country in a progressive direction. I agree with you that Hillary would have been a better choice but it was not to be. We can start rebuilding America with an Obama Presidency and hopefully, Hillary can have her chance in 2016.


You keep repeating (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by lentinel on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST

things about Hillary Clinton.
I have not mentioned Hillary Clinton.
I have simply said that Obama has yet to express anything approaching a progressive ideology.
I have also said that all we can do is hope for the best.
I would say that no matter whom we were to elect.


I'll repeat what you said about me (none / 0) (#47)
by WS on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST

It doesn't seem that you are interested in what he actually says and does or doesn't do.
Not that I blame you.

That was unnecessary and you questioned my resolve for liberal change inferring that all I cared about was Obama. I don't know why you had to try to put me down in your attempt to slam Obama.


Liberal change (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by lentinel on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 05:36:28 PM EST

I'm sure you are for liberal change.
So am I.

What I questioned was your capacity to focus on Obama's willingness or desire to implement the change we both want.

You kept referring to Hillary Clinton.


: Ok (none / 0) (#53)
by WS on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST

that's good. I have my own issues with Hillary Clinton's loss so bear with me.
And I still think we should push Obama to take more liberal stances especially on health care. He's liberal on some issues but on other issues, notably health care, he could use prodding. Obama definitely shouldn't get abject obedience like the Republicans and Bush.

Hoping that the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Coral on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 02:09:57 PM EST

and other respected progressives will have influence in an Obama administration.

And I hope that Obama will govern as steadily as he has run his campaign in the last few weeks. My respect for him has risen since the beginning of this financial debacle.


: And now especially with Nobel Laureate (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by sallywally on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:48:14 AM EST

Paul Krugman!!
So does anyone expect Hank Paulson to get the Nobel Prize anytime soon (LOL)???

He is a good preacher (none / 0) (#40)
by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 02:57:58 PM EST

He can inspire people. Lets just hope that he knows what the right thing to inspire.

If Obama is going to be a true liberal, progressive, then he will need to do what FDR did and expand the government. That will force the choice of a large increase in taxes OR an even larger deficit. I'm hoping for the later but I know that high inflation and high interest rates come with that. As long as people don't need to buy a house, or car, they'll be ok with high interest rates. That seems better than the alternative of raising taxes at a time when people have lost so much money in their retirement accounts and so many others are facing job loss as their companies go out of business. While Obama and Congress can bailout the auto industries, and all their retirements, he can't bailout everyone who is facing job loss.


Our best hope (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:27:58 AM EST

I think our best hope for a progressive agenda is in Hillary taking up the mantle of the lion of the Senate.

Leadership in the House? Not so hopeful.

Extreme Potterism (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM EST

There's been a lot of debate about the cause(s) of our current financial mess. Surely, there are lots of contributing factors.

But the single most important cause as far as I can see was the 2004 SEC decision to allow the 5 largest investment banks to raise their debt to capital ration from 12:1 to 40:1. Was this a good idea? Well, look merely at the fact that none of these 5 investment banks still exist as investment banks.

And Hank Paulson, Bush's current Brownine? He lobbied for this decision as early as 2000.

I hadn't seen those numbers before. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Fabian on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:41:34 AM EST

They TRIPLED their debt to capital ratio?

Obviously a totally brilliant move. [heavy sarcasm]

Regulation is about protection. Protecting the global economy from the stupidity of a few sounds like a Good Thing to me.


SEC Failed at basic oversight (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST

The SEC allowed them to in exchange for giving the SEC the ability to more carefully monitor their books. Not sure anyone went that high. I think I read that Bear Stearns went to 33:1. Of course the SEC did not take it's monitoring role seriously. Paul O'Neil quoted George Bush as saying that he thought the SEC overreached their authority.

I don't think regulation has to be as complicated as it's become. Just require institutions to report a few basic facts on a daily basis and investigate where indicated.


It would be interesting to see (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST

if more abuse took place after Spitzer left AG's office than before. It seems to me he was the only one minding the store.


: Boy, yeah! (none / 0) (#59)
by sallywally on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:52:46 AM EST

I would like to see an investigation of dirty tricks on Spitzer.
It would be wonderful if he could be brought back into the influence sector - don't hope that could really happen, but he would surely be a good player if it could.

Great Point, BTD (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:44:35 AM EST

that the Bush Admin has to bear the burden for the current messes -- both the economic mess and the Iraq/Afghanistan messes, among others. If Obama is elected, however, people will be clamoring for fixes, and if he doesn't propose and carry out real solutions to real problems, he will be blamed for running for President when he was not prepared for the challenges. Granted, the challenges our new President will face are of unprecedented magnitude, but if the next Admin is not up to the challenges--at least the economic challenges, his administration will eventually be blamed. Surely there will be a honeymoon period, but it will take Reagan/Clinton-like ability to communicate complex issues and solutions to the public to take public opinion from "show me" to "I'm comfortable things are being handled, and handled effectively." And it will take results -- economic improvement overall - to get the next administration 2 terms.

Overall economic improvement? (none / 0) (#41)
by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST

That's a looooong way off. Unless we want to run even larger deficits. Fine by me, but it will eventually cause inflation and higher interest rates.


: Improvement (none / 0) (#45)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM EST

is a relative concept. Doesn't have to be large. But has to be something to point to....

Helen Thomas Can Really Read Those Presidents (5.00 / 6) (#10)
by Saul on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:48:16 AM EST

In January of 2003 She said Bush was the worst president in history. Watch the you tube.

Very few journalist like Helen are still around. She's got guts, style and makes more sense than so many that don't. Kudos to her.

: Yes she does (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Jjc2008 on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST

and she is rarely seen any more.
But part of the problem is that the younger and cool pundit boys club who loved them some W has blood on their hands and their own guilt and stupidity to contend with.
I saw Helen on a round table with David Gregory and Dan Rather and someone else last year. And Helen said it: The press corps did not do its duty in the run up to the war; and Dan Rather reminded the the other of how the press corps let W off the hook (as far as his past in the run up to the election). Gregory was in denial phase.
Broder the so called Dean, was imo one of the most guilty. He did everything possible to get the right pedigree (Bush), into office; hated the Clintons for daring to be in Washington (after all, in Broder's view, Bill was white trailer trash).
These jerks were the worst and still are.
They will be looking for how to get W off the hook no matter who is elected. Because in order to get themselves off the hooks (since these jerks benefit from plutocratic rule) they have to get W off the hook.

I have little hope of seeing anything bold (5.00 / 8) (#17)
by Teresa on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST

from Obama. He is the most cautious politician I've seen. I finally saw his new health care ad where he says "both sides were wrong". No, only one side is wrong if we are talking about bold progressive changes. He's right smack in the middle.

Maybe he will win by enough to become a new liberal hero. I'm not counting on it because I don't think that's what he wants to do even if he does get a mandate.

I just saw t hat ad (5.00 / 6) (#28)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:19:53 AM EST

and it made me throw my book at the TV. It not only says both sides were wrong, it describes single-payer as "the government running health care" and calls it "extreme."

Thanks, Barack!!!

Again.


I don't trust him an inch on the health issue. (5.00 / 5) (#35)
by Salo on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST

speaking only for me. He was cool with banks being nationalized but not Health Insurance?

And we will have a few wars nayway no matter what happens.


Why not? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST

There's no evidence that he will be, or won't be, a real progressive. But he's got to pay back those groups who gave him the most support, and that's Blacks and the left. Isn't it?

It is a bit scary to be electing someone we know so little about. We can only hope and pray that he knows what he's doing and knows who to hire to advise him.


: The 5 is for the 2nd paragraph... (none / 0) (#62)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM EST

not the first.
Re payback...he owes Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy and the Daley machine...period. They will be paid back re your second paragraph...'who to hire!' The only people he knows outside of Chicago are the people they introduce him to.
So, another 'decider' dependent on the enablers he owes his election to. Wonder how far those non-change artists will go in managing their wonderboy...and whether, at some point, he will rebel...keeping in mind that Michelle also has his ear. She may be his 'Hillary.' She's smart enough.

I agree with BTD. And I think Obama will be (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by WillBFair on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST

a strong progressive for a number of reasons. He swiped the Clinton policy agenda from day one: strategic investment and regulation, fiscal restraint, middle class tax cuts to stimulate the economy, mild upper class tax inceases to pay for upgrades, healthcare to help the public but also cut costs, green energy, etc... His speeches have shown over and again that this is the agenda by which he'll govern. And he has surrounded himself with the Clinton economic team.
Though it's sad that the Clintons will not be the ones to run their agenda, after all that black folk have put up with in this country, I'm glad that an African American will do it. But I worry that cherry pickers on the left will slow him down, as they did to the Clintons.

Re: your last sentence. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by oculus on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM EST

Please provide examples.


While Clinton was in office, I listened to the far (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by WillBFair on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST

left complain nonstop about don't ask, welfare reform, NAFTA (although at the anti NAFTA protests I didn't see anyone from the left), or that he didn't raise upper class taxes into the stratosphere. He was portrayed in left journals like The Nation as a republican. They completely overlooked his brilliant policy agenda and spectacular governing record.
He raised upper class rates slightly in order to pay down the deficit and leave enough capital for the market to function. Which it did. And though I'm queer, I agreed with the Clintons surrendering on don't ask in order to fight for health care. Given my community's need for health care, medical insurance for all Americans is a tad more important than a five star general doing the triple snap on national television.


You reminded me why it is (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST

so interesting to now read unabashed praise of Clinton's administration. Short term memory loss.


: I criticized him plenty then. But the bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by WillBFair on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST

for me was that he moved the party to the middle and created a governing majority, which the far left promptly destroyed. And the good stats for his admin were off the scale. I often thought he went too far capitulating to the rethuglicans. But on balance, the Clintons always moved policy as far as possible in the liberal direction. The problem with too many observers is that they don't consider what's possible or weigh the opposing forces.

: Make no mistake. Bill Clinton is by far the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by WillBFair on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST

greatest president of our time. The stats don't just confirm it. They scream it.
Given the opportuinity we have now, which BTD pointed out, Obama could overcome that record. But he'll do it using the Clinton agenda.

I hope he does as well on the economy (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Teresa on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST

as Clinton did, but we are talking about bold progressive changes. Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with most of his term and Obama won't, at least for a few years.

How many people who call themselves progressive would consider Clinton's terms bold for progressive changes? They hold him accountable for not getting everything he wanted even though he couldn't do it with the Congress he had to deal with.

If he uses the economy to get FDR-like programs through, I'll be very pleased. I'll also be shocked. And his health care proposal is not bold or progressive in my opinion. Now is the time to get something done on health care. We will never have a better chance and I am positive he won't do it.


John Kerry won't let him. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by oculus on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST

"Off the table". I forgot. Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Teresa on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST

Senator Kennedy can stay healthy long enough to get it done with Hillary. I don't expect her to give up until the very end. I don't know how much help she'll get, though.


The health care issue (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM EST

is what most shocked me about Teddy's endorsement. He's been a lone crusader on it for decades, and then he just-- gave up.


If you look at the record... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Salo on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST

...Nixon had a proposal that was virtually identical to what Edwards and Clinton proposed. Kennedy was instrumental in blocking it. His crusade is duplicitous.


What nonsense (none / 0) (#61)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST

Kennedy was proposing single-payer national health care, Nixon was trying to make health insurance "more competitive."


: Making the perfect the (none / 0) (#63)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST

enemy of the good.
Porogressive should = progress. No?

Well, I know one place she'll get no help (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by lambert on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST

The bold progressives website. Do the name check. And good luck with Steney Hoyer...


Kennedy is one of the guilty ones (none / 0) (#36)
by Salo on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST

His record legeslatively is disturbing if you match the fact of his votes with the seductiveness of his rhetoric. He's been a mojor stumbling block.


We would have a better chance (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST

IF the economy wasn't in the tank and we had some more money. Fixing health care is going to be so expensive. It's going to be difficult to do in this recession/depression.


: Expensive (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by sj on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM EST

It's also going to be expensive NOT to do it. Which path provides an overall benefit?

After Obama is sworn in (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by lilburro on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST

I give the Republicans two weeks before they begin all out screaming about how terribly partisan he is, how he isn't trying to solve the problem, how the problem is all his fault - you know, those two weeks he was President, everything really went to h*ll. Not those past eight years. Nossir.

Obama had better be ready because the Republicans will fight with a passion to make sure they are blamed as little as possible for whatever may be or is likely their fault.

Two weeks? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:22:40 AM EST

My bet is on two nanoseconds.


: Very funny. (none / 0) (#55)
by WillBFair on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST

Obama is ready (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 03:43:52 PM EST

that's why his at best lukewarm "progressive" stances work well - his healthcare package is a compromise, he has faith-based initiatives, his "economic" policies haven't provided for major relief to consumers, he is in favor of drilling, FISA, etc. I don't see how his record shows him to be a solid progressive. That's the current Republican line - that Obama is the most liberal Senator.


The accountability moment is here (5.00 / 9) (#25)
by ruffian on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:46:42 AM EST

That is why Dems will win this election. When it is over, they need to move forward. No one wants to listen about 'how we got into it' anymore, except in terms of learning from mistakes.

I honestly have no idea what to expect from the combination of Obama, the Dem leaders in Congress, and the Republican opposition in Congress. It is hard to believe that trio of actors will produce progressive policies.

disagree (none / 0) (#12)
by thinkingfella on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:52:15 AM EST

I think we are going to get bold action, the times demand nothing less, but personally speaking I care less that the action will be progressive in nature and more that it will be effective in nature.

progressive v. effective (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by txpublicdefender on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST

Well, I think those of us who post at this site believe progressive = effective. Either that or we are big time hypocrites.


: Sure... (none / 0) (#57)
by thinkingfella on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:07:14 AM EST

In a perfect world that's exactly right.

Effectively regressive? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM EST

Is that what you'd prefer?


BTD? (none / 0) (#54)
by cpinva on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST

david broder is stupid. as comedian ron white has noted, with great insight and wisdom: you can't fix stupid.

i don't waste valuable time on stupid people.

david broder is a stupid person.

i don't waste time on david broder.

no thinking person should.

Exactly ... (none / 0) (#56)
by Robot Porter on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 08:47:59 PM EST

he's running to be a public servant. Not our wet nurse or daddy.