Surprised That Obama Is "Not A Fighter"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:24:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Too funny. Via Drum, M.J. Rosenberg -- proving to be the anti-Claude Raines -- is surprised, disappointed and upset that President Obama is not a fighter:

I do not know a single person who is not disappointed by Obama's first year in office. [. . .] And the reason for their disappointment is that they wanted a fighter, someone who would implement campaign promises (at least the ones a President can do unilaterally like gays in the military) and challenge the right's lies. Instead they have a conciliator. [. . .] Michael Jackson said: "I'm a lover, not a fighter." In a President, we need the opposite.

Apparently, Rosenberg was too busy demonizing Hillary Clinton to notice Obama's Post Partisan Unity Schtick.

Speaking for me only

< Redistribution | Pre-Thanksgiving Football Open Thread >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- 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.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Surprised That Obama Is "Not A Fighter" | 104 comments (104 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:29:40 PM EST

Let's just ignor the fact that Rosenberg is a little late to the party and instead just celebrate the fact that he showed up at all.

Sheesh.

kdog will never forgive you (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:50:58 PM EST

for misspelling M.J.!

: Thanks (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:56:48 PM EST

Parent

Fighters. (5.00 / 12) (#3)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:52:31 PM EST

Apparently, Rosenberg was too busy demonizing Hillary Clinton to notice Obama's Post Partisan Unity Schtick.

And too busy to notice that, of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton WAS INDEED the obvious fighter. If he wanted a fighter, he should have backed Clinton. He's got nobody to blame but himself.

Yeh, but it was all about "judgment" (5.00 / 11) (#4)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:54:52 PM EST

and not about experience. See how well that worked out for Rosenberg, et al.

Parent

:) And, to judgment, they had one very (5.00 / 8) (#14)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:03:09 PM EST

empty example, "[I] opposed the Iraq war." No proof he would have voted against it, but he says he gave a speech. What other event was ever showcased as proof he had good judgment?

Parent

Ummmm....his choice of (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:32:00 PM EST

pastor/mentor? Nah...

I'd give him points for his choice of life partner.

Parent

Why? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:42:38 PM EST

I can't recall anything other than fashion assessments being said about her. I haven't been too impressed with the things she's said. Then, maybe she's working hard for a worthwhile cause I am unaware of.

Parent

WH organic veggie garden. Teenage (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by oculus on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:44:49 PM EST

girls leadership program.

Parent

He chose someone who would (none / 0) (#67)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:31:25 PM EST

support and enable him to do and be what he wanted...and look where he is!

Parent

So did John Edwards (none / 0) (#68)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:00:43 PM EST

.....twice.

Parent

: And look where HE is! n/t (none / 0) (#72)
by oldpro on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:12:02 PM EST

Parent

'Talent', 'Brilliance', not being 'Divisive' ... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:03:57 PM EST

... 'Awesomeness', 'Impressing Sarah Jessica Parker's Toddler-ness' and being everyone's cool new black bestie till the checks cleared.

All nebulous qualities, passive descriptors that say more about the describer (media, fans) than the described.

His rise reminded me of how the media used to gush over Madonna's every new event by calling her a "smart business woman" because she got the media to gush again about how the media was gushing again. NB, Madonna's no slouch in her field. Outside her own, tightly controlled staging, though -- eg, as a 'team' player in films -- she completely blows.

Obama wasn't ready for prime time but might have been in 2012. Without the Romanesque imperial stage trappings and rock-concert hooey, he just comes off as affably boring.

His own statements / actions and those of his handlers, aides, inner circle and WH Anonymice keep illustrating the unfortunate reality that their primary mission was getting elected, but in doing so they arrived at the office more in debt than having anywhere near the political capital to pay it off (which you need to get things done.)

I'm not laughing about this or even smirking, but it still astonishes me that Team Obama seemed genuinely to believe that once Obama won the primary, he'd automatically pull all of (Sen) Clinton's voters -- and other under-bus'd factions -- into his column (as if the election was another Iowa caucus.)

I didn't sign on for post-partisanship but would have given SUPER MEGA TURBO partisanship a whirl if Obama had indeed been "wink wink" just leading the RW along to reveal his true self once ensconced in the WH.

Parent

Thank God, (none / 0) (#44)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:31:55 PM EST

people decided not to pick the "fighter". All this "fighting" did not do the country any good; the only thing it did was leave a lot of people in the left and right permanently emotionally scarred with a feeling of victimization.
It is time to move forward.

Parent

people decided? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by nycstray on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:34:01 PM EST

Parent

This is hilarious (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:49:44 PM EST

permanently emotionally scarred with a feeling of victimization

It's just politics, y'know.

Parent

To move forward towards what? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:59:45 PM EST

It is time to move forward.

Parent

Dr. Molly, never fear (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:21:19 PM EST

as the one certainty we have amid all this is that we will move forward. That is, today is Wednesday, and tomorrow will be Thursday, and it will be followed by Friday. And it is now November, and next will come December. Count on it. You read it here first.

But somehow, I suspect that at DKos, we would be reading it as BREAKING! news that we will move forward. . . . :-)

Parent

: Just so tired (5.00 / 5) (#65)
by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:15:18 PM EST

of euphemisms, Cream! moving forward, hope, change, yes we can, blah!
Have a happy thanksgiving.

Parent

Towards building a country (none / 0) (#60)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:44:16 PM EST

where the majority of people start to feel comfortable with progressive ideas.

Parent

Sounds good. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:47:16 PM EST

A majority of people are currently in favor of a very progressive and urgently needed program - a government assist in health care. So why isn't Obama moving forward to push this through?

Parent

I am quite sure (2.00 / 1) (#63)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:08:03 PM EST

that there will be a reasonably strong government assist in health care (maybe not as much as some people will like, but it will be there)
Look, Obama never proposed health care mandates during the primaries, however he did promise some government assist that would drastically reduce the number of uninsured people in the country(without the use of mandates). HRC's campaign lambasted him for not proposing mandates. After the primaries got over, Obama's campaign embraced HRC's ideas of mandates. HRC never told us how much her mandated health insurance would cost people, her supporters also never even bothered to ask her about the costs and fines, they just embraced the mandate idea on blind faith.
Now her supporters seem to be livid about the mandates, their behaviour really does not make any sense to me.
I am just happy that a lot of people who did not have health insurance will be covered once the HCR bill passes. That will be possible only through a government assist.

Parent

Your expectations are just (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:13:59 PM EST

a lot lower than mine, I guess.

This was a once-in-decades chance to do something important for the people; they've squandered it now in deference to the usual corporate interests.

Anyway, happy thanksgiving politicalkix.

Parent

Happy Thanksgiving (none / 0) (#66)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:31:13 PM EST

to you too, Dr. Molly.
I am still not giving up hope on HCR. I still believe that a reasonably strong public option will pass. All of us will also have to push our Representatives, Senators and President a little harder in more strategic fashion to promote progressive agenda, this should be a continuous process.

Parent

: What you believe and what is (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by cal1942 on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 11:43:09 PM EST

are at odds.
You might try to keep abreast of the status of the badly compromised "public" option.
By the way, don't expect Obama to come riding in to rescue your fantasies.

Parent

What's so surprising to me (none / 0) (#103)
by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 12:13:53 PM EST

is that all but Congressman Obey seem silent on the issue that the spending in Afghanistan is far greater than the proposed spending on meaningful healthcare. I'm referring to Obey's proposed tax n the wealthy as a means of having Americans share the cost of our escapades in Afghanistan.

But how come is it commonplace to talk about our inability to afford healthcare and not our inability to afford our overseas adventures?

Parent

I can show you my boo-boo's on a stuffed animal (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:01:44 PM EST

Do you have a Ted Kennedy Liberal Lion or a Shirley Chisholm Alpha-Liberal Lioness?

I ouch a lot in the overall Constitution areas and sometimes my heart has a stomach ache.

And here, on the Shirley-Lioness, I feel not so much unbought as cheaply sold.

Still unbossed though.

Parent

: Well, you can happily say (none / 0) (#69)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:01:51 PM EST

you feel unbot :)

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Steve M on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:04:39 PM EST

How we doin' at getting past all that partisan crap?

Parent

Not too bad! It is way too early (none / 0) (#57)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:37:06 PM EST

to lose heart. Once the economy starts improving, there will automatically be more pressure on the Republicans to not be "obstructionists". There is no good reason at this time for the President to jump into every partisan fray and get tarred as a partisan. The Presidency still has a long way to go and as I have said many times before, the Presidency is a marathon, not a sprint event.
The President is still a lot more popular with the American people than most issues that are dear to the heart of the far left. If the far left has not been able to make the country believe in their "causes" after 40 years of "fighting", there must be a fundamental flaw in their approach! It is high time we recognize this fact in a honest way.

Parent

Can I haz some of what (5.00 / 5) (#58)
by nycstray on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:41:52 PM EST

ur drinkun'?

Parent

: Heh - (none / 0) (#70)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:02:52 PM EST

first, find out where s/he bot it -- you may not want any afterall :)

Parent

You sound a little like (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by cal1942 on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 11:47:01 PM EST

David Broder.

Not something to be proud of.

Parent

Let's work on our cliches! (5.00 / 6) (#73)
by lambert on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:13:01 PM EST

There are two cliches: "... going forward..." and "it's time to move on." When you write "It is time to move forward," you're confusing them. Do try to keep up.

* * *

Meanwhile, there's that "feeling of victimization." So, it's all about f-e-e-e-lings? As opposed to -- just for example -- an illegitimate caucus process?

Parent

As a Hillary supporter, . . . (5.00 / 10) (#6)
by Doc Rock on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 01:57:12 PM EST

. . . I am doubly crestfallen at the performance so far.

Fighting the Urge (5.00 / 16) (#7)
by The Maven on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:03:38 PM EST

to smash my head against the wall. For crying out loud, Obama pretty much claimed at every single opportunity that he would reject confrontation with opponents, no matter how intractable, and substitute instead conciliation. For many of us, that was a major reason we found it so difficult to generate any real enthusiasm for his candidacy. Perhaps it did make Obama somewhat more electable in November, but for anyone to claim surprise at this "trend" in his presidency is simply willfully rewriting their own version of history and clearly cannot claim to be a member of the reality-based community.

Far too many folks did little more in 2008 than project their own hopes and beliefs onto Obama, despite all evidence that he would be destined to disappoint them at nearly every turn.

It (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:14:26 PM EST

didnt even make him more electable if the exit polls are to be believed.

Too many people drank the kool aid. It has been really freakish to sit back and see Dems act like all the proclaimed they disliked.

Parent

True Enough (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by The Maven on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:31:53 PM EST

but during the primary season, it certainly was cited by more than a few as a reason for backing Obama. What makes it so distressing to someone like me is that things are playing out basically the way I had feared, with lots of his supporters tying themselves into knots of illogic in order to defend his actions. And in doing so, they all too often end up providing retroactive justification for many of the Bush Administration's most noxious concepts.

As I'd said a number of years ago regarding Bush's most hardcore supporters, it's often a matter of insecurity in not wanting to face up to having been so easily deceived, as that potential admission then casts doubt on one's ability to make a proper judgment about anything going forward -- it's just much easier to try to rationalize that earlier decision until such time that the rationalization becomes unsustainable. It's sad to see this apply now to so many of our nominal allies.

Parent

: IMO (5.00 / 8) (#17)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:15:19 PM EST

the worst part of it is the legitimizing Bush's decisions. The fact that they look look like idiots is really just a side note

Parent

Teh One was going to reveal his 'true' self later (5.00 / 6) (#47)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:40:40 PM EST

... or so the skeptics were promised. We were also supposed to be psycho-gamed via handy scripts and on the spot tactics that the wizards texted each other; such tech being unheard of among Typical Racist White Old Bats [/Obama] such as myself for the last fifteen f*ckin years and available on the IR PDA, palm-book and notebook I can still use.

This really was a faith-based, snake-oil lubricated phenomenon. The structure of pulling in new support followed the classic cult model, too, whereby the sheer fervor of adherents was supposed to work magic on the uninitiated.

Did you ever encounter an oPod in campaign mode? Individually, kind of pathetic but in chorus, downright creepy.

Parent

After the financial meltdown (5.00 / 3) (#90)
by cal1942 on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54:38 PM EST

Democrats could have run the mule and won big.

The notion that Hillary would have had a problem beating McCain simply is not backed by reality.

As the primaries ended the state by state polls showed Hillary beating McCain by a good margin and Obama was behind McCain but close.

Somehow people forget that McCain led Obama until the meltdown.

Parent

Sigh. (5.00 / 11) (#10)
by huzzlewhat on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:33:29 PM EST

In the primaries (once it was down to the final three):

Edwards = The system is rotten, and I'll fight it from the outside.
Clinton = The system may be rotten, but I know how it operates, and I'll fight them from the inside.
Obama = The system might be rotten now, but we can change it without fighting.

The sales pitches of the respective candidates were fairly clear... it was up to the voters to pick their poison.

: Which they in fact did (5.00 / 5) (#74)
by lambert on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:15:09 PM EST

The majority vote having been nullified by the Obama-controlled Rules and Bylaws Commitee. And that's before we get to the caucuses.

Parent

Others are surprised as well (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Radiowalla on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:38:47 PM EST

and causing quite a stir over at DailyKos:

Please step up and take control of your government. That is what we elected you to do. Your failure, so far, to exercise the leadership and decision making skill set that I felt you might possess has been a profound disappointment.
You are losing me, Sir, along with many of those whom I encouraged to donate to your campaign, and to show up on election day.

I saw that too. (5.00 / 8) (#13)
by hitchhiker on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:48:09 PM EST

Diary written by the same person who once got all high-drama about HRC's racist behavior . . . that highly recommended weirdness was disgraceful, but this is just pathetic.

Obama himself said that people project whatever they want to see onto him. It gets hard for the true believers to keep doing that when, as someone said upthread, his actions force them to rationalize the same things they hated Bush for doing.

What a sad farce.

Parent

Doesn't it just seem so logical (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:07:36 PM EST

Obama himself said that people project whatever they want to see onto him.

that such a statement needed to end with: "and for that reason, I am the wrong choice to lead a parade, let alone this powerful country."

Parent

: Not so! He is an excellent choice (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:21:00 PM EST

for leading a parade.
After all, that's exactly what he did.

Parent
: I don't know . . . (none / 0) (#85)
by hitchhiker on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 01:06:30 AM EST

the logical end could also be:
"and thank you therefore for giving me a chance to do whatever I like."
I don't despise Obama, because I never fell in love with him. He was always the one you kind of crossed your finger over -- the guy who seemed like he was smart enough to get it right but you couldn't be sure he actually wanted to.
I listened to him read Dreams from my Father recently . . . whatever his faults, it's still remarkable to me (a writer) that this very good writer lives in the White House. We could have done so much worse.
I try not to dwell on how much better we could have done.

Parent

Good comment you gave there (5.00 / 8) (#15)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:05:58 PM EST

but I don't see apologies there yet on the Clintons being racist. So the site still looks like a granfalloon of fools.

Parent

The republicans ... (none / 0) (#12)
by nyrias on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 02:46:40 PM EST

are very happy to hear this:

"You are losing me, Sir, along with many of those whom I encouraged to donate to your campaign, and to show up on election day."

Parent

No doubt (none / 0) (#19)
by Spamlet on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:26:55 PM EST

Do you think Obama should be concerned about that?

Parent

he should ... (none / 0) (#22)
by nyrias on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:37:25 PM EST

However, I doubt that he would unless it is reflected in his latest numbers.

What did his latest numbers look like?

Parent

Obama (5.00 / 6) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:41:23 PM EST

never had anybody's back so don't expect people to have his back outside of the cultists.

Parent

Don't know, don't care n/t (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Spamlet on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:50:32 PM EST

Parent

: 'We Bought Him, He Owned Us' is my suggestion (5.00 / 5) (#59)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:41:59 PM EST

... for what to call the C&W hurtin' song the remorseful buyers and complainers should go write.
Cause after ~2 yrs of being called a racist merely for not lock-stepping, I'd prefer they localize their whining where I have little chance of encountering it.

Parent

The most recent Gallup ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:52:05 PM EST

Poll had him at 49%. That's the first time he's dropped below 50% in their polls.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:55:00 PM EST

I kniow we don't like Gallup, but a poll out yesterday said that only 39% of whites approve of the job he's done so far. Overall he has a 49% approval rating.

Ras says he has a 46% approval rating.

RCP has him at a little over 49%.

Quinnipiac has him at 48%.

A few polls have him a bit higher, but those were as of a week or two ago, so he's hovering around 50 or less.

Parent

And are those all likely voters? (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 04:11:02 PM EST

It's not stated in the link, that I can see -- so the slide could be more problematic in a poll of likely voters (considering which groups it lists as not sliding in approval).

Parent

:) I would guess so, 'cause (5.00 / 4) (#42)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:22:15 PM EST

if it was Christmas shoppers, he probably would come in as the first POTUS to achieve a 3% approval rating within his first year.

Every family with even one unemployed member is feeling the impact on the holidays. It's hard to enjoy Christmas when you have a family member struggling to create an event for their children. I expect his numbers will be even lower by the end of the year.

Parent

Polls (none / 0) (#43)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:25:44 PM EST

at this time really mean nothing. Obama will be seeking re-election in 2012, not next month.
I am actually quite satisfied with how the President has done so far, save on a couple of items. If Obama can fix the economy by the time he runs again, he will get re-elected without a problem.

Parent

Oh, absolutely agreed (5.00 / 4) (#50)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:52:15 PM EST

that if he can just fix that item, all will go well for his incumbency.

It would be good to know just when he is going to do so, and what he -- Geithner, Summers, etc. -- are going to do differently, and other items like that.

Parent

: Fat Chance (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:12:15 AM EST

Didn't he say that we must be patient?
Tell that to the person who's out of work and on the verge of losing everything.
And how about that little gem last Saturday about cutting the deficit.
If unemployment does drop dramatically by 2012, then yes there's a chance but I'm pessimistic about a dramatic turnaround. In the meantime there's a good possibility that there will be significant losses in the midterms.

Parent

Ooops! (none / 0) (#18)
by Radiowalla on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:18:29 PM EST

Wrong link. Shouldn't try to cook and post at the same time.

Here is the proper link

Happy Thanksgiving!

Parent

BTW, wasn't it The Kinks ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:06:33 PM EST

not Michael Jackson who popularized the "I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter" thing?

: And 'Built for speed'! :-D n/t (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:49:14 PM EST

Parent

Maybe not a fighter, but... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Lora on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:32:28 PM EST

I had hopes. They have been pretty much dashed. A few good things have been done (kinda hard not to do a few of them). Whether Hillary would have done better, I dunno. She was my pick, and I knew Obama's "change" would be hard to come by, but still...I expected better than this.

Many did, I think (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:38:16 PM EST

There was a reason why Hillary was always the first to have to answer each question in the debates. She knew it. He simply would parrot her answers to look like a strong competitor. His weak side was always quite visible to millions.

Parent

Yeah (none / 0) (#92)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:15:11 AM EST

Loved those sharp crisp answers to policy questions. 'Um, ah, um, um, well um ...'

Parent

"Um, ah, um, um, well um..." (none / 0) (#96)
by Politalkix on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:00:42 AM EST

Some of the smartest people that I have come across also respond with "Um, ah, um, um, well um..." before providing thoughtful answers to questions.
I however understand that those who are immersed in the culture of superficial television soundbytes (with 15 sec attention spans) may find that to be a distraction.

Parent

: Heh Heh Heh (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 02:21:53 PM EST

Some of the smartest people that I have come across also respond with "Um, ah, um, um, well um..." before providing thoughtful answers to questions.
How many of those smartest people you have come across want to be POTUS? You realize, of course, that your comment could be interpretted as you having never met anyone with greater than an average IQ.
What baseline do you use? That they agree with you, and have a new excuse for this administration's behavior that makes your eyebrows go up?

Parent
: Interesting accusation (none / 0) (#98)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 10:00:07 AM EST

based on no information whatsoever.

Parent

You must have watched a different primary (none / 0) (#95)
by Politalkix on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 07:45:44 AM EST

Hillary's weak side in debates was revealed when she started giving silly responses to numerous policy questions. Examples include her refusal to take nukes of the table while dealing with Pakistan, answers to questions regarding relations (or not) with Cuba, mandates in health care (of course the Hillary supporters loved the mandates then because Hillary proposed it but now think that it is a gift to the insurance industry), NAFTA (she was for it before she was against it), etc. Hillary was status quo personified. It is amazing how she convinced her supporters that she would be able to deliver health care reform and fix the economy when her track record in both areas lacked substance. She FAILED in her efforts to overhaul the health care system in the 1990s, she FAILED to bring the promised jobs in Upstate New York. She also failed in her biggest foreign policy test, i.e. voting for war in Iraq (she also refused to own up to her mistake even when it was clear to most people that she had made a wrong decision, shades of GWB there).
Heck, she could not even manage her campaign finances. How could one seriously expect her to manage the economy when she could not even prevent her campaign from running into the red!
I like HRC and understand that there is a lot of affection for her amongst a sizeable section in the Democratic Party. However, let us not create a "fairy tale" of her candidacy! :-).
Enjoy the rest of your Thanksgiving; I will be away from my computer till Monday, no Black Friday madness for me!

Parent

I had hopes that ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:45:54 PM EST

the financial crisis might push him toward a more progressive course.

Sometimes I just listen to right-wing pundits, and pretend he's as hard left as they say.

That can sometimes work for an hour or two.

Sigh.

Parent

The Afghanistan decision is teaching me (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:51:37 PM EST

mostly that the big progressive blogger Obama backers were not very bright. When you're telling me that Obama is exactly who he said he was, a bipartisan-loving, "culture wars" side-stepping fellow, and that is why you voted for him - exactly what am I supposed to think about your intelligence? Since when was cozying up to the opposition the best way to enact progressive policy? WTF Kevin Drum?

This new Obamapologia is like the b@stard child of 11 dimensional chess, which gratefully seems to be dead now as a theory of Obama governance.

As far as your "Media Darling" theory BTD, that one was quite a bit more interesting than Hopey-Changey. I am not sure if it is holding up though...I can't imagine Hillary in a much different place in terms of polling and media coverage right now. Plus Obama has hardly used his media power - I see Harry Reid more these days.

Obama has actually had more ... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:56:04 PM EST

speeches, press conferences and interviews than any President in recent memory. But it's all been surprisingly bland and devoid of coherent messaging.

Parent

lol (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Salo on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 04:18:00 PM EST

His writing style appeared to have each preceding sentence obliterates the meaning of the proceeding sentence. His speeches do this too. I'm assuming this is intended to keep his options open in walking back pseudo-promises.

Parent

It's how he and his closest advisors (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:59:38 PM EST

think. They absolutely do not have the slightest comprehension of the problems. It's impossible to solve a problem if you can't see it, feel it, smell it, or grasp how it would impact you. So, they revise the problems to be something that interests them and put him behind the teleprompter to make people believe all is better.

Rev Wright was not even sort of about race, but the greatest speech evah was and, from that, the media told us Obama had risen to the cry for answers to what was bothering us. We don't get a second bite at these apples, either. Once Obama has given a speech on whatever he has decided our problems are, that's it...subject is closed.

Parent

If you define the problem ... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by lambert on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:18:00 PM EST

... as shovelling the maximum amount of our money to the banksters and the health insurance companies, then they are doing an absolutely brilliant job.

Do not accept narratives of Democratic weakness! They know exactly what they are doing.

Parent

: Yes they do (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:24:19 PM EST

But when they are done dressing the narrative it does look like what I.G. desribed.

Parent
: The banksters are insiders (none / 0) (#83)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:02:53 PM EST

the problems belong only to the people of the country who are outside with their noses pressed to the glass wondering if they will ever feel safe and normal again.

Parent

See AP sidebar re latest from WH on (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:42:25 PM EST

HCR.

Parent

You noticed that sentence construction (none / 0) (#51)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:54:41 PM EST

too. Yes, he -- or his teleprompter, whichever -- is very clever.

Parent

Well, he stole, cribbed and cobbled from the best (none / 0) (#56)
by Ellie on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 07:23:27 PM EST

... including Sammy Davis Jr.

And, of course, MLK and Barbara Jordan (way too much).

His image-scapers come from a rhetorical school that regards rote-repetition as "tight messaging" (ugh!), "branding" and "meme" without having any f*cking idea of how the underlying mythic supports were supposed to work.

All they managed to do was sell a product which performed dismally and those tend to go stale very quickly.

Looking back at the phenom, I still like this nifty mashup. (The Obama campaign set to Comfort Eagle by Cake).

Parent

The media loves him (none / 0) (#93)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:19:23 AM EST

thing was something of a clue.

If David Broder and the rest of the Village loved him ...

Parent

I don't think I'm too disappointed in Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by tigercourse on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 04:54:58 PM EST

If I recall correctly, things are going about as well or even a little better then I expected them to. Which isn't exactly high praise.

After FISA and TARP... (5.00 / 5) (#80)
by lambert on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:25:22 PM EST

... I had no expectations at all for the guy. On executive power and on the banks, and on zippo for the unemployed and the health care debacle, he's done worse than I thought he would. And to think I imagined I could be cynical enough.

Parent

: I expected him to go BIG (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:28:05 PM EST

in Afghanistan, and he did. I think Independents in the military are the happiest with Obama right this minute. They wouldn't still be in the military if they didn't believe in the fight, they are indies and most likely voted Obama, and they have 100% coverage on their health insurance and they get a raise in January. Yup, my husband is pretty happy tonight.......and almost nobody else.

Parent
: I'm still hoping for . . . (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by nycstray on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:39:15 PM EST

my spotted pony. I could use it for transportation when I get to the mountains :)

Parent

Obama is exactly who he was (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by kidneystones on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:49:34 PM EST

I consider him blameless. Dems looked hard at the last eight years and decided the take-away lesson from 8 years of G. W. Bush was: 'experience isn't necessary'.

Obama is doing his best. Really. Nor is Obama getting much help from Dems in Congress.

Had a long chat with a former HRC supporter who is now on board the Hope and Change express. My principle criticism is the decision by Dems (not just Obama) to embrace the 'trickle down' solutions of Reagan. Twelve months after African-Americans rallied around Obama, 35% of African-American males are without jobs. As Atrios has pointed out: Philly and other American cities need pot-hills filled now.

Rather than put people to work, Congress is borrowing money to pay people to stay home and collect UI. This is insane and Dems are certain to pay the price for this kind of feckless irresponsiblity at the polls.

As they should.

If this is his best (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Democratic Cat on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:04:43 PM EST

gawd help us all.

I'm glad he's going to Copenhagen. I have nothing else good to say about his recent job performance.

Parent

Sad, but true (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:09:24 PM EST

Dems looked hard at the last eight years and decided the take-away lesson from 8 years of G. W. Bush was: 'experience isn't necessary'.

Frightening, isn't it. Millions of us stood firm and fought, though. We saw the take-away lesson as "experience is mandatory to clean up after 8 years of GWB."

As for the congressional dems....those who served under GWB (giving them their thumbs up votes time after time) and are still there, don't know how to behave like dems...and they are mentoring the newbies.

The dems should have won without a blink in 2004. Apparently, they were terrified that would happen again....especially if a Clinton was on the ticket. So, we got the blank slate upon which to write. Marker in hand -- H E L P !!!

Parent

I for one (5.00 / 10) (#46)
by kidneystones on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 06:40:39 PM EST

will never, ever, ever forget the accusations of 'racism' routinely leveled at those of us who argued for competence and experience.

The same pundits who are now 'disappointed' in the man they thought they knew either leveled these charges at us; or stood by while Obama critics were smeared as bigots. I can't begin to describe my contempt for them.

The good news is that the scales are starting to fall from a few eyes. Dems had the opportunity to transform America and (so far) have very little to show for their mandate. That's not all Obama's fault.

The sexist attacks on Palin and the generally venal tone of some Dem attacks on those who oppose Obama's policies from the right are about as far from 'progressive' politics as I can imagine.

The news, published in the Nation, that Obama is now using Blackwater for 'snatch and grab' operations and targeted assassinations in Pakistan has been met with deafening silence by 'progressive' Dems who would have flayed Bush with the revelation.

Parent

Never forgive, never forget, never again (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by lambert on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:23:19 PM EST

The Dems showed that they didn't want me in their party. Fine. So we need to create "somewhere to go."

Health care reform is a life and death issue for 45,000 people a year, literally. The Dems are delivering a band-aid 'til 2013. They deserve to die as a party, and I hope they do so as fast as possible.

Parent

lambert has had enough (none / 0) (#79)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:25:22 PM EST

Parent

: Yep (none / 0) (#101)
by lambert on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 01:14:38 PM EST

I wasn't cynical enough! Pelosi taking impeachment off the table immediately in the 2006 mid-terms was a sign the rot had gone deep, and here we are now...

Parent

That would be impractical ... (none / 0) (#87)
by nyrias on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 08:28:18 PM EST

history shows that it is highly improbable for a 3rd political party to get any traction in American politics and the best showing is Ross Perot who, with his billions, never got passed 20%.

There is a principle in political science called the "central voter theorem" which basically says that a winner take-all system (like ours, as opposed to a proportional system) flavors a two-parties scenarios. So far, there is no empirical evidence to dispute this view.

Parent

The best third party showings of the 20th century (none / 0) (#94)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 12:57:56 AM EST

were Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, George Wallace in 1968 and maybe Robert LaFolette in 1924. They actually got electoral votes.

History does demonstrate the fall of the Whigs over slavery and the replacement of that party by a coalition of some northern Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, Free Soilers, some Know-Nothings, etc.

If the Democratic Party were to fall it would be replaced by a coalition of mostly bread and butter Democrats, unionists, interest groups concerned specifically with just taxation, economic justice, etc.

Left out would be neo-libs the finance, free trade, urban professional, limousine libs, etc. In other words the Obama crowd.

It would be necessary that a fair number of current Democratic office holders jump to anchor a new party built on the ashes of the old party.

That would make the Democrats a 3rd party just as the dying remnants of the Whigs, by 1860, became a "3rd party" that vanished in the carnage of the Civil War.

Not likely to happen though. The odds against are maybe 20-1 (just a WAG).

There are really only two forces in politics. Even in parliamentary governments there are really just two forces.

Parent

LOL (none / 0) (#97)
by Politalkix on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 08:24:25 AM EST

So where would their candidates (if they nominate folks like Saint Hillary) raise money while contesting elections? Hollywood? Wall Street? neo libs and limousine libs in finance? Urban Professionals? Want to recruit Lou Dobbs for this party?

Parent

: Last Laugh (none / 0) (#99)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 10:07:11 AM EST

You're as unaware of the make-up of this world as you're unaware of the history of your own country.
You could use some exercise in reading comprehension as well. You seemed to miss that I doubt very much that any of this will ever happen.

Parent

We can but try (none / 0) (#100)
by lambert on Fri Nov 27, 2009 at 01:11:23 PM EST

The stage set always looks like a real building until somebody punches through a wall....

Parent

Sillies. Of course, Obama is a fighter. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:00:13 PM EST

After all, Dubya never went to war, either, but he was seen as a fighter. Why? Because he sent others to war.

On that basis, Obama is a fighter -- or is about to announce that he is. All is good, Amurrka.

Uh, oops. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Addison on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:35:06 PM EST

In my defense I thought Obama knew it was a schtick, too. I thought we were all winking at each other about it. Oops!

Prime example of why I quit TPM (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by FreakyBeaky on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 01:13:35 AM EST

Followed up by a drivel-laden comment thread to boot.

Guns Are Better Than Baseball Bats (none / 0) (#104)
by melpol on Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 09:04:59 PM EST

We must all be on guard for defense budget cutters and peaceniks. They want to take away our guns and leave us with only baseball bats to defend ourselves. Keeping Americans safe at home and abroad costs money. Soldiers and policemen have to be paid and weapons have to be made. There is no better way to spend a dollar than on our defense. Wars might never end, but real Americans do not fear a long fight.

Surprised That Obama Is "Not A Fighter" | 104 comments (104 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment