home

The Mandate For Multi-Dimensional Chess

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:32:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Once upon a time, a President was called irrelevant and he fought back against the charge. And then he proved his relevance, even when the Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

Nowadays, Obama sycophants think they do him a favor by arguing FOR his irrelevancy, even when his party controls the Congress. Kevin Drum pushes back and reminds us when the "formlessness" problem started - during the campaign. The funny thing is Obama had a a second chance after the financial meltdown to capture a mandate for real change, but he appears to have decided he does not want such a mandate.

Instead, Obama has a mandate for multidimensional chess.

Speaking for me only

< Beltway Bloviator Control Of The Military | Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Mandate For Multi-Dimensional Chess | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i'm not yet convinced (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    on how this will play out, either way. but you're exactly right about obama missing a critical moment. the financial meltdown gave him the opportunity for truly revolutionary transformational change. instead, he appeased the bankers. unless we do start seeing some transformational change, that will be remembered as the defining moment of his presidency.

    Turkana, tell me true. Did you read (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    each and every link before you commented?

    Parent
    i had clicked over some (none / 0) (#22)
    by Turkana on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    rather than clicking through. i'm not getting your point.

    Parent
    Just teasing you. This post has (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:06:53 PM EST
    more imbedded links than most.

    Parent
    some are links to previous btd posts (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Turkana on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 06:28:36 PM EST
    which i'm embarrassed to admit to having already read....

    Parent
    No soul (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 03:58:23 PM EST
    has yet convinced me as to why Blanche Lincoln simply can't be arm twisted into voting for cloture on a bill with the public option in it.  This is an absolute once in a lifetime opportunity, filibuster proof majority in the Senate, to pass healthcare reform.  

    And yes, I would think one of the ways you would accomplish this arm twisting is by rallying public opinion to whatever your goal might be.  

    Also - the insider baseball that Obama's Admin is constantly playing seems to be opposite in spirit to what he ran on in the campaign (transparency, people powered gov't, etc.).  He was mandated a totally different style of governing.  If I had known he would be so secretive and that multi-dimensional chess was coming down the pipeline, I would've worked my @ss off for Hillary.  Because frankly the whole style irks me, esp. in domestic affairs.

    Yes, Obama disappoints at every turn so far (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    and Lincoln's arm should be twisted.  But really, what evidence is there that Hillary would have been any better?  We were provided a list of candidates last year the only known die-hard progressive on the list being Kucinich.  Obama had a life story that, to me, indicated he has the capacity to view things in a way that might lead him to be progressive once in office.  At least his election, in and of itself, would and did serve to further one long held progressive objective, equality of citizenship.

    The Clintons triangulated, Obama plays multi-dimensional board games.   Both cater(ed) too much to discredited right wing politics, though there was probably more reason to in the 90s.   We need, and the times demand, an unapolgetic New Deal Democrat.    

    To date, it appears I for one was wrong about Obama and if it were 2012 I'd be praying for a progressive challenger, one who has demonstrated credentials that do not include tough on crime, hawkish foreign policy credentials, and coziness with the corporate powers that be.  All indicators of a desire to impress the right wing.  As it is Obama has two years to show us why we don't need a progressive challenger.  His actions to date, regrettably, render the probability of such a showing increasingly unlikely.

    I stll think Obama's promise stood tallest in the primary field and if now, upon closer examination, it turns out he was simply the tallest midget, well we need a better field of candidates.  

    Parent

    tallest in what fairytale land? (5.00 / 18) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:42:10 PM EST
    The guy surrounded himself by free marketers like Goolsbee, praised Reagan as transformational(and since when was HE a good role model for the economy) and ran Harry and Louise ads against universal health care during the primaries. Anyone who thought he was the best in the field in domestic policy simply wasn't paying attention.

    Meanwhile Hillary actually fought to try and make infrastructure part of that first stimulus, adopted a universal plan and actually had a presidential role model with a record of improving the economy. Yeah I can see why there would be confusion.(rolling eyes)

    Parent

    Sad but true (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    Sadly he does believe that Reagan was this great leader that united the country! I know the Republican spin machine is good, but I never thought it was that good.

    Maybe Obama was still on the sandy beaches of Hawaii during the Reagan era and didn't pay attention.

    Parent

    I just googled to see (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    He was at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and then NYC. I think he was busy 'finding himself' during that time period.

    Parent
    He's got 2 hands, how hard was it to find himself? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:27:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama was in California (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    at Occidental College when the state's former governor was elected president, so one would expect that a future president ought to have been well aware of Reagan's platform -- and even sufficiently politically aware to understand Reagan's policies from his California governorship through the Presidential campaign and into the White House.

    And Obama spent the rest of the Reagan years in the continental U.S., first transferring to the very politically active campus of Columbia in NYC.  Then he worked in NYC for a year, and then he moved to Chicago in 1985 to begin work as a community organizer -- for Reagan's second term, when a community organizer certainly ought to have been well aware of the impact of Reagan's policies on the poor and working class.  And that career as a community organizer was said to have educated Obama even more on politics. . . .

    Parent

    C.C. (4.50 / 6) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    I have been waiting (in vain) for somebody, anybody, to tell me what Obama did as a community organizer. I know he used the time to sniff out "who's who" in Chicago politics, and worked on developing his vision ("sharp elbows") that served him so well as his career progressed.

    While his worshippers always point to his choosing "community organizing" instead of a lucrative career on Wall St, I have another (unanswered so far) question:

    If, as he would like us to believe, his interest was in helping people at the local level, why, during his campaigns, did you never see any testimonials from any of the people he "helped" while he was a Chicago politician?

    I don't know, maybe the Chicago political machine had done such a good job in solving its citizens' problems there was nothing left for Obama to do.


    Parent

    The "lucrative" Wall Street career is BS (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Pol C on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    Obama worked as a copyeditor for a newsletter sweatshop. The money was undoubtedly terrible and probably barely enough to live on. When he first moved to Chicago, he had to borrow 2K to buy a used car.

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#97)
    by Pol C on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    The copyeditor job was in New York.

    Parent
    NYShooter (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:02:55 AM EST
    Two major reasons you didn't see much of that.  First is that our media didn't bother much to go and talk to the folks in Chicago he worked with.  Those that did, found them starry-eyed about Obama's work with them.  Secondly, and related, the people he worked with are poor housing project residents primarily.  They're not the type to shove themselves into the media/political maelstrom.

    Lastly, do go read up on Saul Alinsky and the community organizing method.  It's not intended to produce dramatic victories, but to gradually bring totally disenfanchised people to a sense of some empowerment over their lives.

    As I recall from my reading, the group Obama worked with made some major strides in getting conditions improved in their housing-- toilets fixed, leaks repaired, heat on more consistently, stuff like that.

    It's not headline-grabbing stuff, but it was what concerned them most and impacted their lives most directly.

    Obama was not a great success as a community organizer, even by his own account, and he didn't stick with it for very long.  Far as I can tell, he was reasonably good at it.  But in Alinsky-style community organizing, the role of the "charismatic leader" is shunned.  It's more long, hard, tedious, frustrating work really over decades, involving nearly saintly patience.  Obama was not well suited to it.  He wanted to be that "charismatic leader," so left the CO biz to pursue that role.

    Parent

    Darned if I know, either (4.50 / 6) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:52:46 PM EST
    what he did; I just know his job title then.

    Heck, I'm still trying to figure out how he got into Columbia -- he won't release his transcripts from his first campus -- and then how a guy who didn't get honors there, as that much we know, got into Harvard Law School in a year when, as we also know, many students did not, including some who did get honors as undergrads.

    Parent

    Columbia..... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:26:29 PM EST
       
    Well, he needed a "name" school for his future aspirations, and Columbia had affirmative action openings. (which is fine,) plus, he had befriended a professor at Occidental who wrote a glowing recommendation.

    Harvard? His father attended (Legacy admission)


    Parent

    CC, what is the history on public (none / 0) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    availability of college transcripts for Presidential candidates? I mean, particularly post-nomination.

    Parent
    It seems that most candidates (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    give access to them during campaigns, as I recall, and/or presidents release them afterward.  It just seems that I've read about almost all of the college careers of candidates and presidents -- until now.

    Because of FRPA (Family Rights and Privacy Act), it would be up to the candidates/presidents to release them -- just like birth certificates. :-)

    Parent

    birth certificates, eh n/t (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:04:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Eh? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    C'mon, I was having some fun.

    And isn't it good, considering his flip-flop on FISA, that our president is all for protecting privacy -- when it's his own?

    Parent

    Well hopefully his transcripts will be released (none / 0) (#87)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    with his birth certificate

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure he (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:51:22 PM EST
    registered voters as a CO. Only answer I recall getting.

    Parent
    I believe he registered people to vote (none / 0) (#36)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:51:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Prior (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:20:08 PM EST
    to their burial?

    Parent
    Voter reg is his claim to C.O. fame (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:52:38 PM EST
    ... and he accepted credit for most all the (marked) increase in AA voter registration in the 1992 election cycle.

    The 1992 registration spike couldn't have been affected by the presence of Carol Moseley Braun on the ballot, could it?  Or for that matter, First Black Prez Bill Clinton?

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    during the primaries people that were concerned with his statements about Reagan were just fearmongering. He was just calling Reagan transformational but he meant it in a bad way(multidimensional chess even back then)nevermind that if he wanted bad transformational he didn't need to go back that far. Bush was about as bad transformational as you could possibly get. Preemptive war, Unitary executive, 4th branch, warrantless wiretapping.... I mean geez we're talking quite a bit of bad transformational with no reason to go back as far as Reagan.

    Parent
    Reagan was great at what he did (none / 0) (#88)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:40:29 AM EST

    What he did, unfortunately, sucked.

    Parent

    Reagan was not transformational? (none / 0) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:23:32 AM EST
    W not transformational?

    Of course they both were transformational, for the worse obviously.  Obama was right to say Reagan was transformational but I never understood that to be praise of the actual transformation.

    Much remains to be seen from Obama.  As I said he is like a batter where the count is 0-2 (continuing Bush's big bank bailout - STRIKE 1, retreating on stimulus - STRIKE 2, Health care - ??? but obviously not promising).

    Still, all that said if the only good to come out of the Obama Administration is the fact that a person of color can be elected Presient of the USA then his election was still be worth it.  It will have been worth it to me as a white American and to the tens of millions of people of color alive today and the millions upon millions to follow.   Before 2008 I bet the idea that any child could grow up to be President was a sad joke to many minorities, not any longer.

    I look similarly look forward to the election of a woman and I hope she will be a real progressive.  If a barrier had to fall in 2008 race was the more important one to knock down.  The GOP had been successfully dividing and conquering the body politic on the issue for decades.  

    Parent

    Goolsbee? (none / 0) (#89)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    whereas Clinton had the awe inspiring Summers, Rubin & Co.

    Again, I am not an OBama true beleiver or true believer of any politician,  I voted for him given the slate of candidates presented in 2008. I figured if nothing else the election of an African American would be a tremendous thing for a whole host of reasons.  I still think that.

    I think at the time the statement about Reagan was entirely true, Reagan was a transformational politician like FDR.  They both transformed politics.  To acknowledge that made me think Obama appreciated the resolve it takes to change our politics.

    Is it looking like Obama is not transformational?  Increasingly, yes.  Will he learn to get a spine?  Not looking good but there remains time.  If he doesn't hopefully he will be challenged from the left in 2012.    

    Parent

    Well, one huge difference between Obama (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    and most (if not all) of the rest of the field is that he was the only one who thought the problem with politics is that there was not enough compromise with Republicans 'of good faith'. I don't think any of the others, especially HRC, had the illusion that there were such beasts out there.

    Parent
    Meh (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    Hillary reached across the aisle to work with Newt as well as Frist on health care. I get the impression Hillary is pragmatic. I do think though that she wouldn't be advocating letting the minority party take the lead on a major issue like health care. There's a big difference between letting the minority party have a voice and allowing the minority party to control the debate. Apparently Obama has trouble differentiating between the two from time to time.

    Parent
    Pragmatic, yes (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    But I never heard her advocate for compromise for its own sake.

    Read 'The Audacity of Hope' if you don't think Obama advocates for that.

    Parent

    Well if you have noticed (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    the winning candidates, including Clinton, has all stressed unity during  the campaigns.  No one gets elected advocating civil discord.  

    That Obama would take a standard campaign posture an turn it into his governing divining rod is profoundly mystifying.  Have the GOP tea bagging, August town hall hysteria, Congressional GOP knee jerk opposition changed this approach?  Time will tell.  He has until 2011 to convince progressives to stay on board.

    He has until Nov 2010 to convince independents.

    Parent

    I think some of the (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    objections to Hillary especially in contrast to Obama went along the lines of "oh, she'll be a triangulator, just like her husband" and suspicions that she would constantly be in the back-room dealing and selling the country out.  Hillary was going to be all lobbyist all the time, etc.  Basically, all these things that Obama has ended up being.  Geez...what elected official do those descriptions remind me of right now?

    Hillary's healthcare plan was demonstrably more progressive at the time than Obama's.  That is my evidence.  Her mandates were more comprehensive, she also had a public option in her plan.

    If I'm going to get Rahmbo politics, then I at least want to start off with a stronger hand, and more dedication to the issue I care about, that being healthcare.

    Parent

    It's hard to admit you were wrong (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:13:01 PM EST
    about Obama, but for those of us who saw his "promise" as little more than packaging designed to conceal the emptiness at his core, there is no comfort or consolation in being right.

    So, we're all screwed.  Great, huh?

    Obama's life story was interesting, but not compelling and not indicative of his ability to lead.  What we didn't need was someone who could be convinced to be progressive, but someone who was already there, who had vision, commitment and a devotion to hard work that would not necessarily take place before an audience of adoring fans.

    Who is he was always right there for people to see; too bad for us that so many bought the hype and the hope.

    Now what?  Doesn't look like we can count on the Senate to do the right thing, and after having been fooled more than once by Nancy Pelosi, I'm not ready to believe she can hold the House to a standard Obama is too much of a coward to hold to himself.

    Parent

    Clintons Triangulated (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:46:59 PM EST
    out of political necessity, not weakness. Not because they wanted 80 votes to parade around on some unity pony.

    Parent
    Political necessity vs. weakness (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by NealB on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:48:58 AM EST
    What's the difference? Clinton was weak. He proved it when he got caught getting his dick sucked by an intern in a room off the oval office. He was weak. Period. His political options were limited by his weakness, not the other way around.

    (And no, I could care less that he was into getting his dick sucked by a female intern. If that was there thing, then goodee. But he wasted my efforts to get him elected, and my friends efforts, and the efforts and cash of millions that supported him when he did that. That was his political necessity and he was impeached for it necessary or not.)

    There was no "political necessity" for Bill Clinton; only weakness. Never forget; never forgive.

    Parent

    Bob, it seems you just called (none / 0) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:20:48 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton a "midget", to wit, a "midget" who is more vertically challenged than Obama. That is wrong on soooo many levels.

    Parent
    ON the progressive scale (none / 0) (#81)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    the only non-midget in that 2008 field was Kucinich

    Parent
    OBAMA is MIA (none / 0) (#59)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:38:26 PM EST
    BobT,

    Indeed we have a leaderless leadership.

    We control both houses in congress,and our leader is not fearless. Obama refuses to take a big stand on healthcare and has been dithering,playing chess [as you say], and showing timidity by looking for political cover.

    This is not change. And transparency? Rahm made a "deal" with BigPharma and we know nothing about the details, or the why,when, and how. So Obama's promise of transparency is a hoax. What I'm really observing is some ham handed political behavior. Telling Patterson of NY not to run?

    Obama did not use FDR's example. When FDR pulled this by barnstorming and meddling Presidentwith State politics on the local level, he suffered a huge smackdown, and never repeated his mistake.

    Obama's Olympic gaffe was entirely avoidable. He just didn't "get it".

    We need an experienced progressive leader. Next election.

    Parent

    I agree with all you say except (none / 0) (#85)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    the Olympics thing.  Not a big deal in my view.  

    Parent
    Don't these people know (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    that if he truly is "irrelevant", then what's the argument that he should be re-elected?  If he's truly irrelevant, then isn't the argument that we should elect someone who is and wants to be relevant to help us?

    answer to your qeustion - Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:32:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't agree that he had no mandate. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    Most of the people I know who voted for him believed that he was going to get us back on track with the rest of the world, wind down the wars, protect and defend the Constitution, deal with the economy and fix healthcare.  None have been delivered at the level to which I believe many people thought he would perform.  My true believer Obama friends are starting to crack.  Healthcare is definitely getting under people's skin and I think that is because this one unlike the others seems to have some very straight forward solutions - one of the top being get people access to affordable care.

    My friends who are prone to cynicism are having a field day with this whole healthcare debacle.  One keeps asking me where the unicorns and rainbows are that Obama promised.

    I want to add that I also think that (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    Obama is effectively agnostic on what the details of the healthcare bill are.  I get the impression that he and his staff just want something they can call a "win".  Unfortunately for them, they've totally under estimated the level of interest that most Americans have in this topic and even more so the American people's level of sophistication in understanding the problem.  They won't be able to push this piece of legislation and have a blindly agreeable public.  Too many people either know someone who has or have been burned themselves by private healthcare insurers.  Their tactics would have worked ten years ago, but the private insurers have leveled so much widespread death and destruction now that the American public is a totally different consumer than they used to be.

    Parent
    Unfortunately Obama's strongest opinion (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    on any topic is that Washington is 'broken' and politicians have to "work together across the aisle" more to get things done.

    He has been effective in acting on that opinion, and as a result the policies are nowhere near as effective and what he should have and could have claimed a mandate for.

    Parent

    Has he been effective in that working (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    together to get things done arena?

    Remember during the stimulus battle when we were told that we had to make concessions to Republicans so they would get on board with healthcare?  Seems to me that the GOP is pitching a shut out game so far - pretty much no cooperation on anything - which was their well publicized plan from the begining.  Oddly, the Obama Administration didn't call them out on their plan to stonewall him.  Instead, he kept pushing bipartisanship theory amongst the public as if it was more important than saving the economy or saving people's lives.  At a certain point, I think that wears thin - and it makes him look the fool for having been all unicorns and rainbows about a bunch of extremely determined and remarkably well organized Republicans.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    what's crazy? When Michelle Obama declared that we needed Barack to heal our souls I thought she was off her rocker. Now I see that she was unfortunately telling the truth. Obama apparently really thinks of himself as some sort of religious icon that will "heal" us. It's almost like some bad joke.  

    Parent
    We need affordable health care (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    not a faith initiative.

    Parent
    He's not getthing things done that I want (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    done, that's for sure. But he's getting stuff done - inadequate stimulus, bank bailout, and there will be some sort of health care reform bill passed.

    According to his philosophy of governance, he is a success!

    Parent

    oops... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    "effective as what" not "effective and what".

    Parent
    I kinda see him as at bat and the count is 0-2 (none / 0) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    The weak stimulus plan, a result of ridiculous compromise - Strike 1,

    The continued Bush Big Bank Bailouts - Strike 2,

    Health care reform - ????

    Parent

    I realized the other day (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:51:54 PM EST
    that I really don't see him much anymore, that I don't see him as having a significant role, except when he makes his teevee appearances.

    And then I realized that we have an interesting reversal from Reagan, one of the presidents whom Obama said he hoped to emulate -- not in his policies but in his impact.

    However, Reagan was a movie star who became a president, and now we have a president who is a teevee star.  To move toward celebrity rather than significance just seems a commentary on our times.

    Parent

    Am I the only one who thinks he acts more like (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by prittfumes on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    a teevee preacher than a president?

    Parent
    Striking Out (none / 0) (#71)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    So far you're right. Obama has done nothing. He's been negotiating with BigPharma behind our backs, and has MIA re; healthcare,unemployment,and just about everything else while escalating Afghanistan and now wanting to double down.

    His admiration for Reagan is simplistic considering deregulation was activated by Reagan with a vengeance, and he was the Big Daddy who really started the mess we're in now.

    So far Bush's wars continue, and Wall St rules along with the Banks. Healthcare? Obama has been MIA, and he's still waiting for Olympia Snowe the lone republican to give us Triggers?   Really.

    I will not vote for this guy again.

    Parent

    He's not earned being my first choice but (none / 0) (#92)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    I have to reserve judgment until I see the other choices in 2012.  I have never voted to send a Republican to DC, well once in RI for John Chafee.  I doubt today's GOP will nominate a John Chafee for President.

    I mean, Palin?  Petreaus?  Pawlenty?  HUckleberry?  

    Parent

    Rainbows (none / 0) (#60)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    Rainbows gone. Just a lot of talk and no action. On anything.
    Throwing away his political capital.

    Parent
    He's not a fighter (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    There's no mandate possible that can change who Obama is. I just don't believe that he's a man of principle. There's no issue that he would be willing to draw a line in the sand over. Nothing is more important to him than staying above the fray.

    He isn't a fighter. I had hoped that he would find a strong Senator to do the dirty work for him, but I haven't even seen that yet. (I certainly hope Baucus or Conrad aren't his hit men!)

    I expect the next three years will be carbon copies of the first.

     

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    Not true.  See Copenhagen ;-).  He went out of his way to fight for the Olympics.

    See, you gotta know what's important in this world.  2016 Olympics, important; health CARE, not so much.

    Parent

    It wasn't his worst decision (none / 0) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    I don't fault him on the Olympic's. It was a case of d*mned if you do and d*mned if you don't.

    If he hadn't done what he did, the back lash would have been that now that he's president he's forgotten the old home state.

    Parent

    We'll (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    have to agree to disagree on that point.  The president does not have to argue for the Olympics.  He is not president of Illinois.  He could easily have sent a representative....RAHM!

    Parent
    It would have been a regional stimulus plan (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by magster on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:19:26 PM EST
    for IL, WI, IN.  I support Obama having gone to Denmark.

    On health care, though, .....

    Parent

    Well, while he was there (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    the least he could have done was ask them about their healthcare...

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    He could have sent a rep. He didn't need to go himself.  Obviously his presence wasn't necessary because it did no good anyway.

    His ego sent him.  And a good chunk of taxpayer money.

    Parent

    The reason your point is so on the mark is... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jeffhas on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:17:27 PM EST
    because he FOUGHT for it.

    Just like he COULD fight for Healthcare, or DADT, or DOMA reversal, or could've fought for FISA or any number of initiatives that he SAID he would fight for.

    it's a complete wipeout as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent

    Tripped by Ego (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:25:40 PM EST
    Yes, the trip to Denmark was part of the illusion that Obama's charm is irrresistable.

     He hadn't done his homework and  made the trip in what was pure folly driven by ego.

    There was no preparation made with the delicate diplomacy required to understand where the IOC was on this from the getgo.  Our own American Olympic Committee comprised of lackluster dweebs insulted the IOC when the international meetup for all countries' Olympic Committees met in Switzerland.  We were NO SHOW.

    So $50 million later [and perhaps more] Obama schlepps Oprah, the Priestess of Fitness along with Michelle who kept telling us all, "We've got to win this!" And imagine. They were shocked, shocked, to hear we were dumped first. They couldn't believe it.

    This is embarassing. Obama needs to learn that his charm offensive is worn thin and he's wasted much political capital. It's time to stop doing the same stuff that got us into this mess. There are two wars,unemployment, the promised affordable healthcare for all,& negotiation by government on drug prices.  Oh yes, there was a private deal made at the WH by Obama who cut a deal with Big PHarma.  Not that we know the particulars, or anythng else.  You know, just generally leak it after it's done.

    If Obama can get off his Ego and live up to his promises and be seen actually fighting for what he says he believes, maybe we'll have a chance at change.  Otherwise a Jr. Senator having an ego romp will keep wandering about with all of his illusions intact 'cause he's president.

    Parent

    DENMARK? (none / 0) (#70)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 10:44:09 PM EST
    You joke.  Our American Olympic Committe was No Show at the international Olympic meetup in Switzerland.  We snubbed them with the same kind of dweebs at the AOC that we had at FEMA. When the very capable and knowledgable Peter Uberroth resigned, the current group at AOC are no nothing highly paid robots.

    Anyone with 101 knowledge of the IOC knew that Rio was highly favored with Spain as #2. The IOC is known for it's bizarre politics and diva bureaucrats who make the decisions. Real insight and diplomacy like Uberroth's is needed to understand the byzantine IOC methods.

    So Obama, schlepping his Ego, Oprah, and Michelle, felt that this charm offensive could not be overlooked! He would fly in after our presentation [which was understood to be a clunker], smile, make a stirring speech, and Voila!  Chicago would win the Olympics.

    You cannot image how totally shocked,shocked, Obama and group were to get rejected FIRST!

    This embarassing episode revealed a very unknowledgable and gullible guy basically driven by Ego and not by the circumstances.

    And knowing how Obama covets the republican's approval, what would those GOP'ers say if he didn't go on this fools errand?

    With the pile of ASAP issues in front of him it would be good to see Obama do some actual fighting for what he says he believes in.

    DENMARK?

    Parent

    President Snowe might have worked :-) (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:31:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Olympics Fiasco (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:04:17 PM EST
    For openers since Peter Uberroth left our American Olympic Committee, it's been run by dweebs with no sports management or sports experience and trhey've been taking salaries over $500,00 a yr for doing nothing.  Everyone but Obama knew that Rio and Spain were the favored two, with South America in the lead.

    But Obama would be damned if he did and damned if he don't??  If it were the right thing to do, then why be afraid of the critics who hate you anyway? And why was Obama so clueless as to the style and dynamics of negotiating with the IOC?

    Was Obama even aware that we were NO SHOW at the international meetup in Switzerland? We snubbed them and did our Olympic  diplomacy

    Parent

    Olympics. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by sallywally on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 08:41:08 AM EST
    It's not possessive.

    Same with folks who make the plural of Democrats or Republicans into the possessive Democrat's or Republican's. Apostrophes should not be there.

    Editor taking over.....

    Parent

    Thank you - it makes me crazy (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:17:48 AM EST
    to see the misuse of apostrophes, but I usually just grit my teeth and move on.

    Was poised to put my own editing hat on when you stepped in...

    Parent

    He is not a fighter is (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:20:09 AM EST
    the nub of the problem.  That was obvious from the beginning.  When I asked what he did as a CO I was screamed at by his supporters. He was going to bring a "new dynamic to Washington".  So far whatever that dynamic is it ain't working.  His stimulus bill was touted as a major accomplishment.  Other than being too small it was simply giving away money.  When did that get to be so earth shattering?  I just hope that Sotomayer turns out to be as reasonable as Souter.  If not we are in trouble. I knew HRC was going to have a terrible time with the press, so I was ambivalent about her candidacy.  But I saw more populism in her than in BO or JE.  And fight she would, I have no doubt. I think she would have worked those senators hard. They wouldn't have liked it, but we may have had HOLC and a better health care bill.

    Parent
    By the time Obama announced his (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 06:04:35 PM EST
    candidacy, his formlessness was already well-established, and those who chose to look at his record and weren't dazzled by his rhetoric and the always-present grandiose optics, had no trouble seeing that.

    If he is irrelevant, he has brought that on himself, by choosing not to commit to anything and thinking he just had to give speeches and hold pressers and the planets would align and all the problems would be solved with civility and bipartisanship.

    This is it, people - this is who he is - and I would be astounded if he were to become something else.

    Welcome to the Obama presidency - a whole lot of nothin'.

    If only all the people complaining about (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:18:57 AM EST
    had voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and caucuses. Don't blame me.

    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:50:56 AM EST
    Most people overseas have no actual clue as to what goes on here on a day-to-day basis, and are simply judging Obama from what they see on the TV and in his various, frequent, spectacles. Much as we don't tend to have detailed information about what's happening politically and socially in, say, Norway or Uzbekistan. I sometimes talk to Americans who live overseas and I'm astonished at the very different perception they have of Obama than people here do -- they are almost clueless about most of this stuff. It's understandable, this is not a criticism. They aren't spending their time obsessing about this stuff the way we are -- heh.

    Also there's this:

    The global survey, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs & Media, involved 20,000 people in 20 rich and developing countries around the globe.

    Yeah -- they didn't ask any Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis how wonderful our president is. Gee I wonder why not.

    This is Obama's constituency: Whole Foods Nation, International Version. They see the pretty speeches and the reaching-out and a very different style from Dubya, and they award bonus points for style. Fine. They're not looking closely enough to notice that our economy is in the toilet and that Obama is continuing all of the same policies they so reviled under Bush, including more war, more rendition, and more corporate whoredom.

    But if it makes you feel better that rich people in Paris think Obama is really cool, let that be your comfort when you get sick and don't have health care.

    Yes, it has been most interesting (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    for me to see my new relative, an immigrant, as she becomes a resident of this country.  On her visits a year ago, she was ecstactic about Obama.

    Now?  Haven't heard a word from her in months about him, since she came from a country with great national health care and then has been shocked into seeing him essentially denounce and deride the reality she knows.

    Parent

    Did any actual news come out about Health Care (none / 0) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    reform to spur this post, or was it just time to throw some more chum in the water?

    comparative media criticism (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:24:44 PM EST


    Parent
    And none of the other blogs had any news either. (none / 0) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    Maybe they'll criticize this blog tomorrow.  It's like if M.S. Escher ran the internet.

     

    Parent

    Breaking (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:54:00 PM EST
    Tim Tebow practiced today.

    Parent
    Save it for open thread! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    But I'm glad he is back on his feet.

    Parent
    It's 11th dimensional chess. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 06:05:34 PM EST
    News is always being made, you just don't know it yet.

    Parent
    It links (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    to several other articles written today, one from Drum, one from Booman.

    He's commenting on their posts.

    Parent

    Dodd says we'll have public option (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    according to TL sidebar.

    Parent
    A lot of people are saying it (none / 0) (#48)
    by magster on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    should I feel optimistic?

    Parent
    Not until you see the fine print (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    Lots of things fall under the heading of 'public option', including Conrad's co-ops and Snowe's triggers.

    Parent
    Terrible Triggers (none / 0) (#66)
    by norris morris on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 09:35:27 PM EST
    Triggers are an insult. That's very far from the Public Option. Obama has been playing games for political cover on this and has been entirely opaque about his "deal" made at the WH with BigPharma.  We were er, promised transparency?

    Obama is MIA on this and the other important issues.   Olympic bid showed his ignorance [or hubris] regarding the current state of our own Olympic committee, which is run by over paid corporate shills who know nothing about sports.  The delicate negotiating and advance planning crucial in dealing with the International Olympic Committee was missing.  Did Obama know that the American Committee was no show in Switzerland, and snubbed the IOC?

    So with all the important/urgent stuff before him, he schlepps Oprah & Michelle on his charm brigade to Denmark? This cost $50 million bucks from supposed donors? in Chicago. What did it cost 0ur Olympic Committee?

    And they were all shocked, shocked, when we were rejected FIRST.  Obama didn't do his homework anymore than when he clumsily told Gov. Patterson not to run for Gov. in New York.  Even FDR got a smackdown on this when he tried to influence local elections, but then again FDR never did it again.  He got it.

     Obama sycophants  do not serve him well. If they want him re-elected, making lame excuses for his bad calls will hurt him at the polls.

    He's been playing a waiting game re: healthcare, and made a stealth side "deal" with drug biggies we know little about.  Where is the change and transparency he promised?  His dithering and speech making on TV droning generalities will get Obama nowhere.   Right now if he's foolish enough to think Olympia Snowe is pivotal, we're sunk on healthcare. Triggers are not even a compromise. They're an illusion.

    And I'm beginning to think the guy I voted for is an illusion.

    The guys who got us into this mess are still running Wall St.  Credit card interest rates and gouging from the banks still continues along with foreclosures. Unemployment is near 10% if you count at least half a million or more not getting unempoyment, and under reported. No big,bold public works programs to put millions to work in our neglected parks,roads,bridges,etc.

    Wall St, & the Insurance & Drug carels thrive. We are still in 2 wars and about to escalate an unwinnable one. Oh and uh...the Banks aren't making any small loans.

    And Obama still cares about what the republicans think and is shocked to learn that they'll give him a pass on nothing? Yes, maybee triggers.

    Parent

    Sorry, this is completely out of context (none / 0) (#54)
    by suzieg on Tue Oct 06, 2009 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    but just had to share this article my stepmother, who lives in Montreal, just sent me

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/They+oppose+Bush+from+their+very+soles/2069998/story.html

    I'm reposting (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:06:21 AM EST
    your link for you. Jeralyn prefers links to be embedded in text -- otherwise, they tend to skew the site.

    Parent
    Look at Democrats in Congress... (none / 0) (#76)
    by NealB on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:00:19 AM EST
    ...and you can't find anyone that you can say he's friends with. He wasn't in the Senate long, so it's not surprising. But name one friend he has in Congress. Anyone there that understands the game he's playing. There don't seem to be any.

    They're all afraid of him. When he refuses to take sides with Democrats in Congress, how can they trust him? They can't. Same as Clinton. That's how it looks to me. How can he lead when everyone in his party is afraid of him?

    Hard to hope for anything from Obama the way he leads. And the damage he does to tens of millions of his naive supporters is unforgivable.

    Afraid of him? (none / 0) (#78)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 06:12:25 AM EST
    What a joke.
    They're not afraid of him.
    They're ignoring him.  
    And he's ignoring them.

    Funny How The United States (none / 0) (#80)
    by bob h on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    has rocketed under Obama to the most admired nation internationally, while he is condemned and deplored by Left and Right at home.  Truly a nation with its head up its ass.

    This is an important plus for Obama (none / 0) (#93)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    but I fear his Afgan policies cannot help but reverse even this positive trend.

    Parent
    Let me just add (none / 0) (#91)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    that SFHawkguy utterly obliterates the Obama fan club over on Booman. Nice work!

    The Mandate For Multi-Dimensional Chess | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment