home

President's Weekly Address And A Question About His Resolve On the Public Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:24:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President's weekly address:

Helen Thomas asks if the President will offer more than pretty words and concern:

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Saturday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President's Weekly Address And A Question About His Resolve On the Public Option | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh crap (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by kmblue on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    I heard "insurance exchange"  I heard "tax credits"
    and worst of all, I heard "compromise".

    He's not going to fight for it.

    Thank God for Helen.  I know she's a figure of derision among the younger media folk, but she's the only one in that briefing room with a pair.

    Helen T and Craig Crawford are writing a book (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by DFLer on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:07:07 AM EST
     together:

    From Crawford's blog

    Our working title is "Listen Up Mr. President: Everything You Always Wanted Your President to Know and Do." (Publisher: Scribner, an imprint of Simon and Schuster).

    From the publisher: "Brilliantly culling advice and cautionary examples from recent and historical Presidents. Helen Thomas and Craig Crawford let former occupiers of the White House provide the best lesson plan for running the country -- for this and future national leaders."



    Parent
    Giving the untaxable tax credits :) (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 10:05:21 AM EST


    Parent
    "I want your conscience to bother you." (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by kempis on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    Absolutely.

    Go Helen.

    entrepreneurs, our businesses, & economy (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by katiebird on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:49:14 AM EST
    This one was addressed to the Chamber crowd? ::

    "... insure that our entrepreneurs, our businesses,  & economy can thrive in the years ahead" that's his final thought.

    People & families not so much, I guess. And the public option not mentioned at all.

    I'm thinking that..... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    the democrats who vote against any reform that does not include a public option (robust or otherwise) will have an easier time winning re-election than the president who signs a bill that costs the American people more than they can afford and hands the win to private insurance.

    Parent
    As long as the question is answered with wiggle (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by kempis on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    words like "the president believes in competition," the writing on the wall is clear. No, this administration is not fighting behind the scenes for the public option. This administration is setting the table for a declaration of victory when the public-optionless bill is passed.

    What we'll end up with is change the insurers and PhRMA can count on.

    But, hey, maybe that will mean more corporate support for Dems in 2010, and thus less loss of Dems in Congress-- whatever that's worth.

    sure (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    and more corporate support for democrats for acting like republicans insures more republican behavior from democrats. Doesn't sound that great to me.

    Parent
    me neither (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kempis on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    My eyes rolled so hard I got a headache last November when I read posts at DK and elsewhere proclaiming that a Democratic Congress meant a more progressive America. One person I know was giddy because Dems won in the South. Of course, the ones who won were conservatives.

    I really do wish we had multiple parties. I think that if we did, we'd be harder to fool. Of course, this is why it won't happen.

    Parent

    We need ranked choice voting. (none / 0) (#47)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    We need more than two parties and their candidates.  We need more independents to run. Unfortunately our winner take all system allows the candidate with the highest number of votes regardless of whether it is 50%.  The third party candidate now is a "spoiler" often throwing the election to the least popular candidate.  Two popular progressives can turn an election over to the right wing.  I see too many older Democrats not letting some younger more progressive candidates in.  And this is when it hurts the progressives.  Of course it can work on the Republicans too, but they often have more discipline in their elections.

    Parent
    More Corporate Support (none / 0) (#16)
    by The Maven on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    for Dems in 2010 who can be relied upon not to cross their corporate financiers whenever push comes to shove.  I'm not advocating a purity purge of the party, but this kind of wink-wink agreement seems to be a Faustian deal that could well neuter the Democratic Party's strong advantage on the ideas front, locking in cynicism and tamping down any enthusiasm among potential voters.  Short-term "win", perhaps, but a certain long-term loss.

    (And I also have to think Obama and Axelrod are banking on those unleashed, post-Citizens United corporate donations for his re-election campaign, too.)

    Parent

    What would be wrong with a purity purge? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    Or at least primary opponents for the Rockefeller Republicans who have infiltrated the Democratic Party over the past two decades or so?  Just because these "moderates" are wise to the increasing insanity of today's GOP does not mean they are progressive, they aren't.  Any New Deal Democrat has to be disgusted with the state of our party today.

    I do not fear a GOP resurgence, they offer no new or helpful ideas.  The battle for the next generation or so is on the left and it is high time our political experts and leaders recognize that.  Stop catering to the right or always measuring the potential response of the right to whatever issue is being discussed.

    Parent

    I think he is warning the Dems insisting (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    on a public option. Sounds to me like he wants them to accept his insurance exchange instead. His closing remarks on the surface may seem like a message to Republicans, but they apply equally to Dems:

    I welcome any sincere attempts to improve legislation before it reaches my desk.  But what I will not accept are attempts to stall, or drag our feet.  I will not accept partisan efforts to block reform at any cost.

    Instead, I expect us to move forward with a spirit of civility, a seriousness of purpose, and a willingness to compromise that characterizes our democratic process at its very best.  If we do that, I am confident that we will pass reform this year, and help ensure that our entrepreneurs, our businesses, and our economy can thrive in the years ahead.

    I think he's saying he won't accept attempts to block the bill because it doesn't have a public option. He expects those insisting on the public option to compromise by accepting the insurance exchange as a substitute.

    I think you're right, Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by kmblue on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    and in my opinion, it's unacceptable.

    Parent
    While Obama has meet with Sen. Rockefeller (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    and Rahm had a meeting AFL-CIO president, Trumka both strong advocates for a public option, NPR reported that Obama did not contact any conservative Dem prior to the votes on a public option in the Senate Finance Committee (sorry no link-google skills defective).

    I'm more and more inclined to believe this scenario is the closest to what is actually going on.

    Alas, as we've discovered, the public option is part of a strategy, but that strategy is one that keeps the PO floating in a "believe in, but won't insist on" limbo for the listening and dancing pleasure of the Democratic base, while the Rahm Squad plays sweet music for the moneyed interests. In the end, the White House fully expects to ditch the public option, say "Hey, we tried, but the votes weren't there," and then turn to PhRMA, the AMA, hospitals, health insurance companies, and the other benefactor-beneficiaries of the Baucus Caucus and say (sotto voce), "We kept our end of the deal, now you keep yours." That is the administration's strategy; they know it, but they won't say it in an on-the-record press conference. FDL


    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    FWIW, his anti-partisan words have had no effect on the Republicans--predictably. So the question is, are enough Democrats immune?

    Parent
    One hardsell blew up in his face (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    I wonder if he hasn't noticed yet that he poorly chooses what to hardsell when and how?  When he hardsells he does it when nobody is onboard with him that he really needs to have there.  He tries to steamroll people using dazzle.  Maybe that works for a primary caucus situation, but that's about it.

    Parent
    Do you think Axelrod can see what he did (none / 0) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    to the country yet?

    Parent
    Here is info on a play @ Second City (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    in Chicago:

    America: All Better!

    Second City
    1616 N. Wells St Chicago

    Its official - the United States is moving forward. We have a new President taking office, sweeping international economic crisis, and the effects of global warming all around us. It's time to fire up the Rahminator and transplant a little Midwestern charm to Washington making America: All Better!




    Parent
    "ObamaNation: Revised Edition!" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    ObamaNation: Revised Edition!

    Playground Theater
    3209 N. Halsted Chicago

    Barack Obama is our new President, and 4 Days Late wants to know... now what? Once described as "a drunken professor taking a leak on a Norman Rockwell painting", 4 Days Late pokes fun at our new obsession with change in the newly revised and remounted edition of their latest sketch comedy review, ObamaNation. Those who worship Obama, those who fear him, and those who expected just a little bit more, all hit the stage at an absurd angle in ObamaNation: Revised Edition. If you miss this show AGAIN, everything stays the same.




    Parent
    Some very strong Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    that I know are really disappointed.  They are saying they will go elsewhere if he doesn't step up.  Waaa I want an indpendent in 2010.  

    Parent
    The Pres. just spoke to Congress. Black (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    Caucus.  Wonder what they are thinking.

    Parent
    I mean 2012! (none / 0) (#55)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:35:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Civility and Compromise (none / 0) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    As long as it's his way. Has he used the same line to the Blue Dogs?

    Parent
    BTW, have I mentioned (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:41:31 AM EST
    that I get a really bad vibe from Gibbs? He rubs me the wrong way.

    Boy, you said it (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    He's so oily and condescending, he really creeps me out.  Axelrod, too, but Gibbs moreso.  The WH press corps say they love him, but I guess that's more because he's fairly straight with them one-on-one about actual information.  He must stroke them quite a bit individually.  Give me frank hostility and stonewalling a la, say, Dana Perino any day over that passive-resistant goo Gibbs gives out.

    Parent
    He creeps me similar to, yet a bit worse (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    than, what Scott McClellan did.  He could just as easily pass for a press secretary for a Republican administration.

    Parent
    PS's are interchangable (none / 0) (#81)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    seriously is there a single one who seemed so strongly fixed on there ideas that you couldn't see them doing the same for another admin?

    Parent
    Booman (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    has a post up today about PO strategy.  His argument I guess is that the grounds are being paved for budget reconciliation and that this was always the plan.  But I don't know that Obama is willing to do that, and also since Franken was sworn in budget reconciliation has hypothetically been completely unnecessary.  All you need is cloture.  

    So what is the explanation for this strategy continuing?  The key now is cloture.  Is what Obama is doing effective in getting Blanche Lincoln to vote for cloture?  I don't think we are going to need budget reconciliation for this at all and don't know why it's being discussed anymore, honestly.

    Because some people just refuse to put (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    down the koolaid.  They cannot fathom that their hero obviously really doesn't give a rip about a public option.

    Parent
    Colbert on BaucusCare (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    Senator Max Baucus will pay for your medical bills from the $3.2 million he's received from the health care industry.

    Video on C&L

    All Obama Wants Is A BILL! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by tokin librul on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    ANYTHING.

    It doesn't matter if it's a pile of reactionary crap which will benefit ONLY the corporat financiers and insurance companies.

    If it has even the vaguest provision that possibly acknowledges that someday, some, sometime, some piece of it might be good for somebody, it'll be signed with fanfare fitting to welcome back Jesus H Christ...

    This has ALWAYS been the trajectory the kabuki would follow.

    It was NEVER going to work outr any OTHER way...

    Chuy! The naivete in here is SOOOOO thick sometimes...

    clinton may have been a liar (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    but he didn't BS you the way Obama does.

    I wish my biggest lie disgust (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 03:19:27 PM EST
    right now was about a b.j.

    Parent
    Not to bring up the primaries, but (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    I remember how Hill would get flack when she would hedge, while the Lightbringer would go right out and say what they wanted to hear. He was everything to everybody, that shouldve been the biggest red flag to anyone paying attention.

    Parent
    Yes, I found that a worrisome sign (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    of naivete or immaturity or idon'tknowhat, but in business, I learned long ago not to trust the sales guy who promise more than any rational person would expect would be even probable.

    Of course, those who believed it showed even more naivete, immaturity, etc. -- but a real leader does not really lead people on so, not only for their own sake but also for that of the leader who wisely knows that some of us will remember those pie-in-the-sky promises.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    you know... I can't think of anything that Obama actually promised.
    I remember him floating phrases around like "change you can believe in" and meaningless tripe like "we're the ones we're be waiting for...." I pictured myself on a corner waiting for myself to arrive.

    I remember Chris Bowers on OpenLeft writing a stunning headline:
    "We nominated the Black guy".

    Parent

    You are the one you've been waiting (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    for.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    I think we're where we are.
    I don't think we're waiting for anyone. Too much to do.
    I do feel that I would love to have someone to vote for.
    The only one in my memory that I truly would have gone out on a limb for was Malcolm X.

    Parent
    It's not (none / 0) (#63)
    by Left of the Left on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    so much specific promises, although there are the flip-flops now. For example, criticizing Hillary's vote on Iran (which he might even have missed, no?) on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard because thats what the KosKids wanted, and then later in a speech declaring it was a terrorist organization, which was what that vote was all about. Pleasing everyone, who were too drunk on Obamaid to notice.

    Parent
    I don't remember promises either. n/t. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sallywally on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:27:31 PM EST


    Parent
    The (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    biggest red flag to me was when Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 - calling upon Connecticut to have the "good sense" to reelect him so that he could continue to work "in our behalf".

    To me, this was more than just politics.

    This was a matter of conscience - with many lives on the line.
    Progressives working to unseat Lieberman - an architect of the war in Iraq. And here comes Obama - supporting the warmonger.

    And he got away with it.


    Parent

    But he gave an anti-this-war speech. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:02:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, he did. (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:13:05 PM EST
    That was part of what was so troubling.
    Obama's advocates would point to this rather mild speech and ignore all of Obama's subsequent actions that belied his words.

    Parent
    They would point to the subsequently (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    recorded version.  Who knows what he actually sd. at that rally?

    Parent
    Are (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:24:09 PM EST
    you telling me that the transcript that I read of his speech - which begins by assuring everybody that he was not against wars - just "dumb" wars -- is not authentic? Holy Hat Hannah!

    Parent
    It was either an anti-war rally, or a pro-war (none / 0) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    rally...if anti-war rally, he said what he knew the crowd wanted to hear. If pro-war rally....oh, wait, there were none of those.

    Parent
    It was troubling (none / 0) (#83)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:31:35 PM EST
    but basically every major Democratic figure did the same- and most of them did what Obama did post-primary and pulled away from Joe.

    Parent
    He made it clear what his (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:31:45 PM EST
    priorities were.  

    Parent
    Oh yeah totally (none / 0) (#82)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    I mean remember when he said he was a friend of Gay Rights then implemented DADT and DOMA, or when he stood for the working poor and then signed off on the biggest rollback of welfare ever?  Look, Clinton was a good president but to pretend he didn't use the left much the way Obama does as a foil for those on the right who think he's too liberal is just ignoring history.

    Parent
    Not a good example (none / 0) (#90)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    Clinton is very open about how DADT came about. It's worth your time to research it. The most recent event I am aware of where he explains the events that led to it was the bloggers convention a couple of months ago when he was keynote.


    Parent
    "The Great Pretender" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 05:43:49 PM EST
    The red flags were many and totally ignored by the MSM. The average citizen was trusting and  totally manipulated. As far as Healthcare reform is concerned any Bill will do as long as there is a bill. It doesn't matter that this ill-conceived mess of a bill will make healthcare worse especially for the elderly.  Obama will cut the 500 billion from medicare and give us a lot of pretty words and disingenuous concern.

    I hope my fellow Gray Panthers (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by sallywally on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    will join me in the streets in case of any serious cuts in Medicare. Losing Med. Advantage not so much.

    Parent
    Medicare advance (none / 0) (#84)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:32:43 PM EST
    is a freaking boondoggle its what's dragging down the rest of the system.

    Parent
    If Obama were committed to the (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    public option, I think it's reasonable to believe that he would have fought for it from Day One, and would not still, nine months later, be talking about civility and compromise, as if those are more important than the policy itself.

    The man is a cipher, totally hollow at the core, and he cannot and will not lead; that Congress is not able to take the reins and do the right thing means that the best thing that could happen now is for BaucusCare to fail.

    I think the anger that shows up in 2010 and 2012 is going to dwarf anything we ever saw when Bush was president.

    2012 (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:43:13 PM EST
    I think the anger that shows up in 2010 and 2012 is going to dwarf anything we ever saw when Bush was president.

    I totally agree.

    My hope is that Obama will be challenged from within the democratic party and will not be renominated.

    Parent

    What in the polls (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    would cause you to think for one split second that anything like that would happen?  We're sitting in an echo chamber here.  Public support for Obama among Democratic voters is still stratospheric.  His dip in the polls is almost entirely from independents, who were more skeptical to begin with.

    Parent
    Grayson (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    Grayson's forthright comment on the nature of the Republican opposition was so much more forceful and real than Obama's slippery rhetoric - it made me think that perhaps some of the newer members of congress might rebel if Obama continues on his half-hearted way.

    Eugene McCarthy did it to Johnson. When Robert Kennedy saw that Johnson was vulnerable, he jumped in.

    One never knows.

    But perhaps a third party is our only hope.

    But I don't know which is the more unrealistic scenario.

    The only other alternative is to just admit that we are through.
    Our country is owned by giant corporations and there's nothing we can do about it.

    Parent

    I can't imagine any Democrat who wants (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    a future going after Obama in 2011. First, they'd be crushed. Second, they'd be reviled from then on.

    Parent
    Crushed? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:46:55 PM EST
    Perhaps. Perhaps not. McCarthy wasn't crushed. Neither was Rbt. Kennedy. Neither have they been reviled. And they did force Johnson to give up trying for a second term.

    Parent
    None of them were the First Black President (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:37:24 AM EST
    NO ONE is going to challenge the First Black President.  It just won't happen.

    Parent
    I disagree. (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:49:00 AM EST
    Well - assuming you are correct - that Obama's race gives him some sort of immunity from being challenged by a white politician - what you have not considered is that Obama could well be challenged by a truly progressive black politician.

    Also - frankly - I don't see anything that Obama has done for Black people. Jesse Jackson was right when he said that Obama talks down to Black people. And the inner cities are still being neglected. New Orleans is still being neglected. I don't think Obama will be able to count on block voting again. Add to the mix that progressives are getting increasingly disgusted - and Obama is in deep trouble. Unless is he running again against someone who can be portrayed as being to the right of Attila the Hun - the party will "ask" him to consider not running again so that he can "spend more time with his family".

    Parent

    No one will ask an incumbent not to run again, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:03:43 AM EST
    Unless his popularity is somewhere south of 30%.  Even then, I just don't see it happening.  

    Blacks have lived in horrible cities with horrible schools, with Blacks in charge and that doesn't cause them to leave our camp.  They will never desert Obama, no matter how bad things get for them.  We can count on Blacks, rich and poor, to always support the democrats.  They are quite loyal, regardless.  

    Parent

    That worked out really well too (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    Man the terms of McCarthy from 1968-1976 sure were a step forward, can you imagine what would have happened if he hadn't challenged LBJ- we might have had Nixon as a president for godsakes.

    Parent
    What if he pulls an LBJ and decides (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    not to run for re-election? It wouldn't be out of character. What job has he ever stayed in for 8 years before? His people are going to have to make this job a heckuva lot easier on him, or he won't want a second term.


    Parent
    He only quits to move up (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 02:38:21 AM EST
    Unless he can become King of Universe, Obama's not going anywhere.  

    Parent
    Actually, my assessment would be (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton in his current position is much higher than he was as POTUS. Obama wants those $50M books, and $1M speaking engagements. His rank is easily defined in dollars.

    Parent
    To spend more time with the family? (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:11:01 PM EST
    Reasonable.

    Parent
    :) Sure, that's it.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 09:35:52 PM EST
    Actually, to pen that golden memoir of his magnificent days imparting his wisdom to a world that has so warmly worshipped him. And, to turn those teleprompters into million dollar scrolls.


    Parent
    What about a challenge from (none / 0) (#51)
    by hairspray on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    an Independent?  And who would that be?  Any ideas?

    Parent
    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:42:45 PM EST
    I can't think of anyone who is saying what I want to hear:
    Single payer.
    Out of Iraq - NOW.
    Out of Afghanistan - NOW.
    Stop the killing of civilians. Stop the use of drones.
    Repeal the patriot act.

    You get my drift.


    Parent

    Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by good grief on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:14:22 PM EST
    He might not take it (or he might). He's certainly aware of the problems having monitored Obama's pathetic performance on HCR. He's readier for the presidency than he was in 2004. He's a champion of everything on your list. He could win. Only the media could beat him (as they did in 2004 with the mike trick) but he'll protect himself this time and not set himself up.

    Parent
    That was pretty much the Green Party platform (none / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    they didn't really challenge in 2008 though- heck, almost every item on your list was something that the entire Democratic Party outside of Kucinich was against going into the 2008 primaries.

    Parent
    Anne (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by jbindc on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    His supporters won't be angry.  They'll just say that "Hey, he's only been here 4 years - he needs another term to undo the mess of the Bush years." then Obama will give a pretty speech and think it's all better.

    What will be interesting is that, since he won't have to worry about a primary, the news from November 2011 on will focus on the Republicans and their soundbite zingers.  They'll have a whole year to paint Obama any way they want.  

    Picture it - Super Tuesday - all the networks all day will be talking about the Republicans.  They may give 30 seconds to say, "And on the Democratic side, President Obama, running unopposed, won all 17 (or whatever) states."

    Could be interesting - he's not used to being second banana or not universally adored, especially then as he will have an actual record to run on, as opposed to the nebulous "community organizing."

    Parent

    Unless something amazing happens (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    between now and 2012,  I suspect I will be doing what I did on 2008: not voting for anyone for president.

    And I think you have to ask whether there will be as many supporters willing to excuse his lack of leadership - I don't think that's going to be the case.  I think you're going to see widespread apathy as a result of the failure to advance any liberal - excuse me, progressive - policies even with a significant majority.  A majority that I predict will be razor-thin again after the mid-terms.

    And what really kills me is that whatever pressure may be brought to bear on Obama via a real or perceived challenge will just be met with the same kind of BS he spread around in 2008 - whatever he needs to say he will say, and I will lay odds that the media will once again fail to do their job and will overlook the reality that Obama is all schtick and no substance.

    Seriously, if the country is going to entertain the re-election of someone so devoid of leadership and principle, they can just do it without me; I just will not be a party to it.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#86)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:36:24 PM EST
    if the anger against Obama is worse than Bush faced it just shows that Democrats aren't a strong national party- my god Obama could literally do nothing the rest of his term- he could spend it using the White House as a Nightclub and he'd still be less divisive and irresponsible than Bush.

    Parent
    Obama was a community organizer (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:36:02 PM EST
    Not a leader.....
    His time in the senate was very short and at the Illinois state level Emil Jones and Richard Daley lead Obama.

    Just a question... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    I have read that Obama was a community organizer.
    Did he get anything done? Did he pursue any progressive action?
    How many people did he organize and what did they do?

    Parent
    "Getting things done" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    is not what community organizers do.  COs "facilitate" neighborhood residents to come up with their own agendas and their own action plans.  The idea is to "empower" them, definitely not to lead them.

    I've been saying and saying and saying that Obama's whole approach to governing is grounded in that same idea.  He thinks he's "community organizing" the country as a whole and Congress in particular.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 03:56:06 AM EST
    How does he think - could he possibly think - that he is organizing anybody? Who is he "empowering"?I see him as genuflecting to those who are already rich and powerful and then playing golf.

    He's not motivating the populace to do or even feel anything.
    And he has no sway in the congress - even if he had something progressive to express.

    I don't understand what you mean.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 01:12:06 AM EST
    Think of what a really good teacher does in a seminar.  He/she doesn't outright tell you stuff, he/she coaxes you into thinking about it and then expressing your opinion.  That's more or less what community organizers do-- ask lots of questions that  get the group members to think and articulate their concerns, then their goals, then how to go about accomplishing them.

    That's almost point for point what Obama is doing with Congress.  It's an interesting concept, but one which I personally think is absolutely idiotic.

    Parent

    NO and NO (none / 0) (#41)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    He was involved with acorn getting out the vote. Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett created Obama.

    Parent
    Despicable (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    That dumb condescending smile that Gibbs has on his face while Helen Thomas is asking a question of vital importance to Americans. So patronizing. He looks as if he is listening to a 6 year old child at a violin recital.

    And rest of the press corps doesn't look much better.

    And this does reflect on Obama.

    Not even Carter (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 08:38:26 PM EST
    Obama's constant preaching about civility and bepartisanship is wearing very thin already. As the Republican's and members of his own party have consistantly shown, bipartisanship is a myth. He isn't the Pope. He was elected to perform a specific function. To lead.

    His job is to implement the changes that he campaigned for. To accomplish these objectives he needs to realize once and for all that nothing will get done with his indifferent approach.

    The main objection I had to his presidency was, that even as my Senator, I never saw any passion for any cause. He seemed to not truly believe in anything. I can't remember any specific issue that he drew the line in the sand over.

    He inheritted a country that was crying out for leadership and change. So far he's shown neither. And ironically, the people that he's tried to appease the most have been his sharpest critics.

    Obama is a failure (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NealB on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:02:25 PM EST
    Huge failure. He was given the best opportunity since Franklin Roosevelt, and he folded. He's lost his first year. His second will be worse. Unemployment will be at 10% by report. Actual numbers will be 50 million or more unemployed. Many of them who otherwise would vote Democratic won't vote. Many of the rest of us will vote for the Republican out of sheer hatred of Obama and his failure. I'll happily vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 over Obama and I hope he'll be running on repeal the crappy health care reform bill (mandates) that Obama signed at the end of 2009.

    Happily. Vote for Mitt Romney. Just to defeat Obama.

    I suspected he was a loser when he gave his insulting purple speech back in 2004. He was clueless then. He hasn't a clue how to wield power.

    My aunt, god rest her soul, used to say she hated Bill Clinton when we'd go for Sunday Brunch during the years after her husband died. I assumed she meant that she couldn't stand him because he was a Democrat. I think I understood her wrong. She hated Clinton because he was a bad leader. She never said she wished that Bush I had been reelected. She grew up during FDR. She knew what real leadership during hard times looked like and she knew that Clinton was a sham.

    That's how I feel about Obama now. He's a sham, or worse. He's a liar. He's an opportunist of the worst sort. He's a terrible leader. And he makes the Democratic Party out to be a terrible political party for following him. He shames all of us.

    You must be joking (none / 0) (#71)
    by good grief on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    to vote for Mitt Romney. No way. I would rather call Howard Dean back into the running or some other real leader. Meanwhile I'm gonna work on not a third party but a parallel non-party public interest movement for elections reform and media reform, call it Solidarity for Democracy, (for something to call it)  to de-corrupt Congress, de-conglomerate corporate media and develop more non-commercial public information channels and Internet outlets -- clean up the meta-processes so whatever party emerges (third or renewed Dems) can move more effectively on public policy.


    Parent
    Not kidding (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by NealB on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 12:17:26 AM EST
    I'm not interested in the non- this or de- that you're interested in. I'd be happy if Dean jumped in, but that's unlikely. Mitt Romney's almost a given. And it'll be available in my lifetime, so it has an advantage over what you've described.

    Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He's not so bad. He will work to outlaw abortion, but that's not going to matter much going forward. He probably doesn't care about most of the nut-job Republican agenda and he'll have, at best, a divided Congress, like Clinton did. He'll be the new Nixon. And honestly, in my lifetime, Nixon was the most liberal president. Massachusett's has got something closer to universal health care than Obama's plan does.

    So, no kidding. I'd vote for Mitt Romney over Obama in 2012 and I'll do it happily. Not that it'll make much difference, but at least it'll get rid of Obama. Maybe it'll get us a better candidate, whatever party, by 2016.

    Parent

    Wow Neal (none / 0) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    Outlawing Abortion wont matter much going forward- if you're name wasn't a clue this pretty much confirmed that you're a man because seriously that's crap- its the kind of Progressivism for White Males BS that pisses a lot of people off- let me guess Gay Rights, Civil Rights, and Womens Rights are all far less important than Universal Healthcare in the Grand Scheme of things?

    Parent
    Depending on what is in the final (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    health insurance legislation there might be no need to outright ban abortion. If the final legislation prohibits the insurance industry from paying for abortions, abortions will be available to only those who can pay for them out of pocket. Women with money have always been able to get an abortion if they wanted one. It is possible that is where we will end up once again.

    Parent
    Wow the delusion and condescension here (none / 0) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    is something to behold- seriously post-FDR (maybe post-LBJ) has there been a single Democratic President who didn't seem like a sellout to you? Because I'm pretty sure I can go through a list a point out instances where every single Dem President went against progressive principles.

    Parent
    the press secretary... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    ...is a condescending pr*ck, who talks like a bought and paid for lackey without the slightest bit of conscience to ever be bothered by.  He, and Obama, and the whole lot of laughing boobs, need to be hit with a large sock of horse manure on live TV.  

    Useless, thoughtless bunch of empty phucks.

    then again (none / 0) (#15)
    by sancho on Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    that's his job. lackey-for-hire.

    Parent
    Cut of nose to spite face (none / 0) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 05:44:25 AM EST
    Short term memory isn't just an affliction that affects Republican's. It seems to have worked in way into all political preferences.

    After slinking out of the WH with an approval rating in the twenties, GWB and the Republican's are finding a very forgiving (and forgetting) public.

    No one is more disappointed in the performance of the Democratic Party than I am. We let a once in a lifetime situation slip away.

    But showing my disgust by voting the Republican's back in office  isn't the answer. It would embolden the neo con's and evengelical's more than they are already.

    The damage done, starting with Reagan through GWB, is more than enough to convince me that as pathetic as the Democrat's have been, the alternative is considerably worse.

    An independant is an interesting idea, but totally unworkable. We would need decades of independant's winning national elections before they would have any political clout. History has shown that independant candidates only serve as spoilers in an election. (Very rarely) the winner).

    The only realistic option is to give up on the premise that any Democrat is better than none and use the primaries to run the closeted Republican's out.

    President's Weekly Address And A Question About His Resolve On the Public Option | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment