Wrong About Obama

Apparently, the only person who was wrong about Obama was me, judging from this Balloon Juice thread. I knew that his policy positions were like Hillary Clinton's (or any mainstream Dem, as Kos puts it). But I thought, despite my disagreements with his political style, that the historic opportunity he was presented coupled with his immense political talent would lead him to become our FDR (who did not change politics, he changed how we think about government, much more important.) I wrote that a lot here, especially after the financial meltdown in September 2008.

It seems pretty clear that I was wrong. Apparently, I was the only one. Everyone else knew what they were getting -- small bore, incrementalist, Beltway centrism. Of course this is "better than Bush." But I thought we would get something bigger and better. Yes, I am pretty darn disappointed.

Speaking for me only

< DNA Frees Man After 28 Years for Rape and Murder | The New "Very Serious People": Our Village Bloggers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Even (5.00 / 20) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:02:14 PM EST
    people who expected absolutely nothing from Obama are disappointed.

    Yes.. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    I didn't expect much, but then, I didn't expect this.

    Oy (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    ya hit the nail on the head there . . .

    lentinel (none / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    well put

    My thoughts, in a nutshell n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by Coral on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    Sometimes being right ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    can be pleasurable.  Being right about Obama isn't.

    I did briefly hope the financial crisis might help him become better than his instincts.

    But so far it hasn't.


    Agree (none / 0) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:27:49 PM EST
    Being right can be pleasurable but this certainly is not pleasurable.

    The temptation to say 'I told you so' is strong especially in view of treatment by his supporters, but, the possible disastrous outcome for the nation's future tempers everything.  This is really a very serious situation.


    Gee (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    I distinctly remember the term "transcendental" being used at least once....if not a BILLION times..... to describe "teh One".

    Gee, and the term "the One" was used at least once if not a BILLION times as well...

    Scratching head.

    LOL. Revisionist history, gotta love it.

    obama achieved his peak by (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    being elected. First Black POTUS is great. His actual policies and governance, horrid. And frankly, for my money the boost in diversity is not really worth the opportunity cost of squandering the once in 3 generation opportunity obama is so methodically destroying.

    This reminds me as to why (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by AX10 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    I am fully opposed to affirmative action.
    If the USSC eliminated affirmative action in all forms, I would actually agree with the conservatives on something.

    Diversity? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    I guess the AA's got a bump. Other minorities - gays and women (power not numbers)not so much. I think the first woman President would have done better on all counts.

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    actually the latter term was used in jest.

    Why bring Hillary Clinton into it? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    Also, why does this admission re backing Obama make me feel better?

    And why do I keep thinking of FISA?

    I expected nothing and (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by iceblinkjm on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    frankly am horrified that we got Reagan in black drag. Hillary cave to LIEberman?!?!? I don't think so. It's apparent that the Obama's live in a bubble.

    I was "hoping" I was the one (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    who was wrong . . .

    Hard to forget the (5.00 / 14) (#11)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    brochure photo that made it appear as though he had a halo.

    Those of us who were banned from so many sites for stating our disbelief that the hollow nature of his promises couldn't be seen by the masses are not enjoying having known that .... disappointment has been a regular part of life now for almost 2 years.

    Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Richjo on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    that he was going to bring the country together and help us turn the page in the divisions of the past 15 years, because obviously they were the fault of liberals and Democrats and not the far right wing fringe.

    I bought David Plouffe's book and tried to read it and had to stop after about 2 chapters because it made me sick to my stomach. I am sure Plouffe isn't disappointed at all in Obama's performance.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    This is all just a wankfest for a bunch of cynics who want the world to know that no, of course THEY weren't fooled.  This much I know, Obama did not ride to the presidency on a wave of cynicism.  More like a wave of casual poetry.

    Of course I expected to be disappointed to a degree, but I like to think I'm perceptive enough to recognize that a lot of people didn't.  An awful lot of voters didn't take "change we can believe in" to mean "small-bore, incremental change that doesn't disturb the conventional wisdom too heavily" or "change provided we can get 60 votes in the Senate without Nelson and Lieberman and whoever else."  It's those people who we're going to have trouble bringing back to the polls again.

    The people who believed the most (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by esmense on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    were those who were the least politically experienced, and for whom political and economic change is the most vital; younger voters. I can take my own disappointment in Obama in relative stride, but it really hurts my heart to see my son's disillusionment.

    I think a lot of people (none / 0) (#131)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:37:48 PM EST
    who consider themselves politically experienced believed and are now disappointed.

    BTD, I admire your honesty.


    thank you (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    he is not like HRC and never was
    not like FDR either
    HRC was our FDR

    2 HUGE issues (4.83 / 6) (#20)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    where HRC and Obama were miles apart was this health care, when it was clear he was wishy washy and wouldnt fight, and on HOUSING

    HOUSING where he is to the RIGHT of John McCain
    HOUSING where credit suisse helped him and he pooh poohed HOLC and still does, no cramdown, no principal writedowns, nada

    these 2 issues alone were enough to choose the PROGRESSIVE, that was HRC


    to whit: (none / 0) (#23)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    housing will continue to drag us down for the next 3 years-reuters

    Foreclosures could escalate to 4 million in 2010, RealtyTrac Senior Vice president Rick Sharga said.

    "Unemployment, negative equity are driving factors, as is credit availability," he said. "We don't believe we will get back to normal levels of foreclosure activity on a month-to-month basis until probably the end of 2012, and we will still be going through the shadow inventory well into 2013."

    They were/are also on (none / 0) (#132)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:40:02 PM EST
    different sides of helping homeowners in trouble and interest rate ceiling on credit cards, as I recall.

    Yeah okay (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    keep believing in that despite basically all evidence from votign record on making that not the case. Its cool though that's the one benefit of backing a loser you can keep pretending they would have had a glorious future.

    FISA? (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:21:53 PM EST

    The key difference is not in their few months of overlapping voting records, but what they did in other areas. Hillary quietly helped drive through any number of issues for children, for example the Adoptions Assistance Program, that helps disabled children have adoptive homes. It not clear that BHO has ever taken a stand for anything of significance ever. Anyone who thinks HRC would have been weak or passive on access to public insurance either hasn't been paying attention or isn't being honest with themselves.

    Someone else mentioned Stimulus and Housing, but the other core Dem stand where she was superior was k-12 ed. Obama's consistent ed policy has been GOP-lite, relying heavily on NCLB testing. HRC stood clearly against that, and btw, also was significantly more progressive with federal college aid.

    It's not hard to see who is having problems sleeping at night these days.

    (Note to HRC people. Don't watch my link unless you want to be filled with remorse for the rest of the day).


    Backing a "loser"? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    I'm guessing she backed Hillary, ....

    ...... not Obama.


    His policy positions and record (5.00 / 23) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    weren't the same as Clinton's. What primary were you watching BTD? In the one I watched the guy you voted for put out Harry and Louise ads to combat a national health care plan. He said national care would mean forcing poor to choose between rent or health care.

    On the economy, Clinton wanted to spend money on infrastructure out of the gate. She wanted to provide money to programs like Oil for Seniors. She wanted a freeze on foreclosures. Ol' free market Goolsbee and his candidate ridiculed her for it.

    On choice Obama's notable accomplishment was voting present. When exactly did Clinton do that? I'm trying to think of a single time she abstained from taking a stand in order to score political points.

    The idea they were the same was a made up pipe dream. These same people would have some of us believe that someone like Nelson is the essentially the same as Franken because after all they both have Ds after their name(and any D is better than an R even if it means that electing that D causes other Ds to lose later on).

    For what it's worth I'm sorry you're disappointed. I would have preferred to have been all wrong about his charecter for the sake of the country.


    He didn't have any policy positions (5.00 / 15) (#40)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    He had campaign rally slogans, whistlestop speeches and grandiose topical speeches. He almost always was second to answer questions in the debates so he could revise and add his personal blip "I'll get bi-partisan support" when I do that. He was straight from the big screen.

    The only reason anyone would think he shared Clinton's policy positions is because he was constantly borrowing them and pretending they were his. What she said, plus my greatness in bringing people across the aisle. That bi-partisan schtik was the only part of his campaign that he was really married to...and look at what we deal with because of it! Snowe, et al are writing the D Administration policies.


    Except for mandates. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    Was this after she did the same with Edwards (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    you know taking his Health care plan and all?

    LOL - you so sure Edwards didn't take (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    hers? She's been working toward universal access to quality healthcare for all since the early 90's. But, you go right on believing Hillary needed to steal someone else's idea.

    Was that before or after Obama and (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    Edwards ganged up on her at that debate?

    uhm (none / 0) (#145)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:16:41 AM EST
    you mean the one Breck Boy took form her 1990s plan??


    denial a river in Obots heads


    I <3 Franken! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by goldberry on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Can we vote for him in 2012 if we can't draft Hillary?  

    I know you do ;) (none / 0) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:59:08 PM EST
    I'm withholding my endorsement of him though until I get more information. I need to see him in the Senate a little longer to get a feel of whether or not he can be bought and sold like a good bulk of them.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    if we're going to be honest lets be honest- half of the rapidly adopted in the waning days of a losing campaign stuff was interesting, laudable and completely unworkable if you don't think Hillary knew that.

    Of course it's unworkable (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    because if it was politically achievable, we all know Obama would have been for it!

    That is YOUR OPINION (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    and you are certainly entitled to it. However, I disagree with your ascertain that her plans were unworkable. Of course, we'll never know if you or I are right since Hillary isn't the President and we don't get to live in some alternate reality where she is.

    Well, no use getting out the hair shirt. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    If it's any consolation, I thought you were the most reasobable Obama supporter I ever came across, with the most intelligent reason for supporting him (he's a media darling, so he's more likely to win then Clinton.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:47:13 PM EST
    was winning the Democrats only primaries in all big states in spite of the fact that the media pounded on her.  She was comfortably ahead of McCain in the state-by-state polls when Obama was behind and that was right up to the end of the primaries.

    McCain led Obama until the meltdown.

    But the biggest clue of all should have been the fact that the Village loved him.

    That should have set off alarm bells in everyone's head.

    In the primaries there was never a good reason to back Obama.


    What is intelligent about voting for a (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    candidate simply because the media tells you to?

    And then there are those of us who (5.00 / 19) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    really, really wanted to be proved that we were wrong about Obama because we knew that to be proved right would mean the kinds of failures we are seeing on health care, the kinds of betrayals we are seeing on privacy rights, state secrets, detention policy, and the inexplicable laissez-faire attitude with respect to the retention of Bush US attorneys, would be the reality of an Obama administration.  

    There is no comfort in being right about Obama.  None.

    Could you imagine (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    them handing Hillary a health care bill with new restrictions on women?

    No I couldn't (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    Then again I couldn't see her as as hands off as Obama has portrayed himself during this debacle. Like her positions and opinions or not, she at least seems to have them and is willing to fight on behalf of them.

    There is a chance she would have been (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    hands off to a great degree. But, differently. She would have met with the D's in congress and told them exactly what HAD to be in the final bill and when they needed to get it to her. Then, she would have stepped back and let them do it. She probably would have waited until the economy was stablized so "who's paying for this" wouldn't have had such a negative impact.

    Hillary would have found jobs and the economy to be a greater priority, I believe. She would have kept her D majority by addressing what is truly important to the people of this country.

    The striking difference between Obama and Clinton was that she listens and can easily grasp the whole of what she is being told. She recognizes the emotional aspect of being unemployed, underemployed, dealing with serious health concerns, feeding and housing a family. I would have enjoyed having her in the WH, but I do fear that congress and the media would have multiplied their criticisms (both real and created) and made her presidency almost unbearable for all.


    The media wankers (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    are going to wank regardless of who occupies the WH. Unlike BTD I have felt our best strategy is to figure out a way to work around them.

    By hands on, I didn't mean she'd micromanage. I meant that she has and has had a clear vision of where she saw health care in this country. I'm also imaging her time with Gingrich working on health care would have provided illumination into what kind of things she would have faced opposition on in pursuing that vision. If health care was a priority the party squandered it's resources because Madame Secretary has had her eye on its reform for almost 2 decades. That's 2 decades worth of information that was flushed down the toilet(shaking my head at the absurdity).


    Had Hillary (none / 0) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:57:22 PM EST
    Addressed unemployment aggressively and shown results as a first priority HCR would have been an easier sell.  Getting people back to work would have borne the fruit of high approval ratings.  

    Congress people are seldom eager to oppose a President with high approval ratings, especially those in the President's own party.

    HCR should not have been addressed until unemployment was tackled and foolish trade agreements addressed.

    Remember that Johnson got Medicare through when the economy was booming and before the domestic turmoil over Vietnam.


    Wasn't that big an issue back then (none / 0) (#140)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 02:16:48 AM EST
    If the debates were held today, Obama would be toast and no one would give a flying F about his non-vote=no vote on the war.

    One other major difference (none / 0) (#151)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    Hillary cares about people.  I really believe that she and Bill cared.  I do not believe that Obama cares about anyone.  He doesn't want to make things better for anyone but his big old self.   I have ZERO evidence that he cares about anything other the Obama image.  He's all about the image, how he looks, with his nose so far in the air, to telegraph his superiority over the rest of us peons out here.  He may be Black, but he's not a brother and knows NOTHING about the Black experience in the US.  He went to private high school in Hawaii!  And then Columbia and Harvard!  He knows nothing about how 99% Blacks live in this country.  He doesn't care either.  Doesn't care about anyone but Obama, 'THE ONE'.  Makin' me sick.  

    Which people do they care about? (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    That's the question. Not Iraqi men, women and children. Bill especially dosnt like Iraqi kids -- that is, if his actions vis vis the UN sanctions in the ninties speak louder than misty, neoliberal greeting cards about caring do; and I believe they do. They-he also dont, IMO, care all that much about the fate of welfare-to-work mothers,(after all, what have they done for the warchest lately?), or the 80%
    of American workers who's wages stagnated to adjusted-for-inflation early seventies levels during Bill's tenure. The NAFTA - WTO agreements subordinated concerns for the on-the-ground reality of workers rights and the environments and communities they work in to an autocratic, secretive, system of transnational governance gamed to benefit the interests of the few (and trickle on everyone else).

    American politics has become a giant roach motel for hyper-ambitious, hyper-cynical narcissists, and Obama has great company.


    She was there there first go 'round (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    I would certainly expect Hillary to be far more hands on than Obama is, and more effectively hands on as well.

    Experience counts for something, even if it means having your @ss kicked by the big money lobbyists.

    When it comes to Obama, I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm leaning closer to LIHOP every passing day.


    Unfortunately Obama is performing (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    much as I expected. About the only area that surprises me is on job creation. I thought that he and the Dems would be more politically savvy than to do such a poor job just for the sake of self preservation.  

    kudos for admitting (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    you were wrong.
    dont see much of that going around.

    john aravosis (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    he doesnt see the irony that we had a fighter and he helped push her out:

    It's not about the votes, people. It's about leadership. The current occupant of the White House doesn't like to fight, and the leadership in Congress has never been as good at their jobs, at marshaling their own party, as the Republicans were when they were in the majority. The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up.

    I never heard about anyone (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    holding a gun to her head and forcing her to stop being a fighter and a leader.

    Apparently the temptation to latch onto some more power coattails was enough.


    jondee (none / 0) (#146)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:18:16 AM EST
    since u r all about the bombs

    tell us how you feel that the light worker Obama refused to sign on to promise no more landmines?

    tell us alllll about it?


    Soooo, we elect wimps (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    and republicans elect leaders.  Too bad we didn't figure this out earlier.  I noticed that our lead wimp, (the one in the White House as opposed to the lead wimp in the Senate) is running around claiming that he's not a wimp.  Anyone who has to do that probably is a wimp.  

    What a waste of political capital (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    Majority in the house, Majority in the Senate.  

    Elected on a grand scale for real change

    All this and all we will get is a lousy water down version of HC

    Huge majorities in both houses (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    may I add.  Can you imagine what the Repubs would be doing with majorities like this?

    I dare say they would not be whining about needing 60 votes -- they would have been arm twisting to get them, and failing that, they would have used reconciliation; they would be getting their legislative agenda for sure.

    Perhaps too many Dems really aren't Dems as we had come to know them. Perhaps they're all what would have been called moderate Republicans (not moderate Dems) before the Contract with America.

    The Dem party no longer has a moral compass. For that matter, does the country?  


    Right about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by souvarine on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    I'll quote myself from February 2008
    As president he has been crystal clear that he will make progress on areas where he can find common ground with Republicans, and avoid divisive culture war issues. I know that but I'll still vote for him, he won't advance choice or gay rights but he won't abandon them either. I know he prefers market approaches to health coverage and income inequality, I know he wants a larger military and that he is an American Exceptionalist.

    I knew Obama's ideological commitments would prevent him from adequately addressing the financial crisis, I hoped his pragmatism would force him to the left. I hoped pressure from the left would force him to the left on health care.  I failed to factor his pragmatism into his commitments on civil liberties.

    I did not support Obama in the primaries, but knowing what I know now I would still have happily voted for him in the general, and I'll be happy to work and vote for him in 2012. I'm not disappointed, and I'm not worried about Democratic enthusiasm.

    Although, maybe next time people won't TR (never here) me when I point out who Obama is. Then we can have an honest conversation and organize to shift Congress and Obama to the left.

    If he hasn't (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    moved to the left yet,
    he never will.

    Why are we talking about moves 'to the left" (none / 0) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    Is it 'to the left' to believe that free passes for big financial institutions the taxpayers bail out are wrong?  Or is it just common sense equity?

    Why is everything that does not favor wholly inappropriate favoritism to big business considered to the left?  

    I'd like to start a movement to stop using terms like "liberal" and "to the left" which have become tantamount with "suspect" and "partisan"; it seems that it is not partisan to move to the right, but partisan to support measures that help the majorities, without taking away anything from the minority super-rich other than the opportunity to rob the poor.  Anyone listen to Elizabeth Warren talk about the all-but-vanished middle class?  Is it "to the left" to believe a strong, and growing middle class is good for the economy?
    Sorry - the "massive" tax break just given by the IRS to Citibank today has got my goat, along with the utter destruction of meaningful healthcare.

    But even my non-pissed off self thinks we need to change the way we speak about meaningful public policy.  It's those who accuse "lefty" Dems of being partisan who use & benefit from such terms.


    because we need to be partisan to win (none / 0) (#143)
    by souvarine on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:32:00 AM EST
    Yes, left and liberal mean being for the people rather than the powerful, they mean common sense equity. They mean limiting the privileges of the powerful so that we can have a strong, growing middle class.

    Right, and conservative, mean protecting the powerful and the status quo.

    We have to embrace the terms left and liberal, and be partisan, if we want to change this country. Striving for the appearance of bi- or non-partisanship obscures the difference between left and right, between the tiny number of powerful people and the rest of us, and makes it easier for the powerful to implement policies that hurt most people. We have to be partisan because these are different choices, and people will not see the differences unless we highlight them.


    Agree about being partisan to win (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    But the side we should be the champions on is the side of the people, not the "left".  We should be championing the needs of most Americans as opposed to the powerful few.  I'd like to see the discussion relate and thereby appeal to the people who would benefit.  When we champion healthcare for all Americans and go along with descriptors such as "left", we play into the hands of the right who have succeeded in making "left" a dirty word.  Let's get down to the every day meaning of what we're saying, & not get distracted by labels that hurt rather than help us.  The issue is how we frame the discussion to appeal to the very people who support our positions.  IMO, this is what Bill Clinton was so great at.

    Nope. You have plenty of company (5.00 / 13) (#51)
    by goldberry on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    But someone must have slipped you rohypnol if you truly thought that Obama had the capacity to be the next FDR.  
    I kinda understand why people were fooled by Obama, not that you were ever fooled by Obama.  But if you really thought he would rise above the nasty, brutish and underhanded way he ran a scorched earth campaign through the Democratic party to become the new Four Freedoms president of the 21st century, you must have pulled that idea from thin air.  
    Since I was paying close attention to his rhetoric, I regret to inform you that in no way, shape or form did Obama even slightly insinuate that he would model his administration after FDR.  In fact, he barely mentioned that he was running as a Democrat.  It seemed like he was trying really hard to overcome his party affiliation.  
    Sorry, BTD.  They manipulated you like a chick flick director.  
    I had a brief rush when I saw the post election party in Grant Park.  I was fantastically elated for African Americans.  I'd waited my whole life to see it.  
    But then I remembered that this was the same guy who brushed the dirt off his shoulders after Hillary trounced him in a debate and I sobered up real fast.  
    It only took you a year.  You'll recover.  

    Obama ran as a Reagan-ophile, the opposite of FDR (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:44:42 PM EST
    Under-qualified, overmatched, and with no experience, empty phrases like "talented" and "brilliant" were granted to him as if he'd earned them.

    Talented? In what way? Good judgment? He spent all his political capital gilding his image long after that was unnecessary and showed up to work the first day in the red.

    That's not brilliant, it's plain stupid.

    Obama wasn't too "bored" to deliver his explicitly stated promise to serve a term in the senate (he barely showed up), he just doesn't give a sh!t. The too "bored" explanation just pads the idiocy that the more this mess screws up, the more brilliant he must be.

    He dined long and large off the legendary Best Anti-War Speech Evah -- that no one can quote or even find -- but promptly escalates the war in Afghanistan once he promises to earn the Nobel Peace Prize he was granted as a sop.

    His Best Speech on Health Care Evah was delivered behind closed doors so as to be unquotable, but breathlessly described by Congresscritters as inspiring them to -- ::drumroll:: -- meet a pointlessly arbitrary deadline that serves HIS purpose of a fraudulent "win" for the State of the Union address, but screws everyone else.

    I hope I never again hear comparisons of this chickensh!t catalogue mannequin to FDR, MLK and Gandhi, who were all brave visionaries and dragged society forward. Obama can't see past the next fashion shoot, and even there he's out-matched by Michelle.

    New deal? Deal me out. I'm not even mailing it in next go-around.


    The black guy from Hillbusters (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    Face it Ellie, the only thing that would ever have a remote chance of making Obama a success in your eyes would be if both he and Biden resigned in order to make way for the Obama-in-Lady McBeth-drag show,((minus the icky Palestinian-looking guy)

    Btw, I've noticed that you havnt mentioned Iraq in like..ever. Whats up with that? Saving a few thousand men, women and children from the clusterbombs wasnt a "progressive" enough cause for you?


    I call bullsh!t on your Psychic Friend cr@p (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    Why not stop deflecting from Obama's pathetic gap between words and deeds?

    On the topics of this thread, he sucks. When the topic is Iraq, I'll outline the way he sucks there.


    They all.have that pathetic gap (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    as in, sometimes it takes an obliterated village.

    Call him on it all you want, just drop the pathetic vestal torchbearer for Our Lady crap. Or at least let us know when she resigns in protest and goes back to an activist career that lasts longer than five minutes.


    Huh? If this is a demo of inference jacked up to (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:45:27 PM EST
    ... brain-frying delusional levels, it does explain why some people bought Hopey Changey hook, line and sinker.

    Me, I scratched my head and compared words vs. deeds for all the candidates.


    It's just that Iraq (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    never registered on the radar, is that it?

    Must've happened when you were on vacation.

    I was strictly a lesser-of-two-evils person. And it's working out better than the alternative, which is all I expected.


    WTF are you babbling about? Obama's a failure (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    Obama stinks:

    • by his own standards,
    • by neutral ones, and
    • by worst case scenario ones, even.

    My view of SoS Clinton or declining a shot at the shifting goalpost of Iraq has nothing to do with any of that topical stuff.

    You might as well be complaining that I didn't approve of Michelle slapping on some new, odious accessory (to indulge your drag-queen non sequitur.) I'm done here.


    Because Iraq isnt topical (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    ever. I got that. A non sequitur.

    And Obama stinks. Now and forever.

    You might as well be Bill Kristol.


    Right back at'cha (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    Kristol was a Clinton-hater long before he ever heard of Obama.

    Im not even a Clinton hater (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    even if their narcissists of small difference acolytes are trying to make me one.

    Kristol's fit for the cosmic recycling bin.


    "Lady MacBeth in drag", .... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:11:58 PM EST
    .... "Our Lady" references, false racism accusations, and a continued obsession with attacking her?

    If it walks and talks like a vestal, torchbearing Clinton-hater ....


    More directed at the conceits (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    of her starry-eyed, see-no-evil supporters than at the career of a fairly run-of-the-mill, (theoretically) progressive at home, hawkish abroad, American pol.

    We can do better. And no, obviously Obama isnt it.


    Funny, .... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    .... since there are far more of those "starry-eyed, see-no-evil supporters" in the Obama ranks. Though in all fairness, much of that can probably be attributed to the lack of experience among his more youthful worshipers.

    "We can do better"?

    Uhhhhm, ..... wouldn't the same be true of ANY candidate, from pretty much anyone's perspective?


    You forgot the greatest (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    Civil Rights speak EVAH too.  I can't remember a word of it but I do remember Chris Mathews and the others claiming it would go down in history, right up there with MLK's  "I Have a Dream" speech.  Really, that's what the media claimed.  

    Oh for god's sakes (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    what should his reaction to a debate draw (a debate where both canidates were offered a chance to defuse the slanders leveled against there opponents but only canidate had the class to shut them down) have been should have acted devasted- sorry, but he brushed it off because it was incidental by that point he'd won and the last gasps of a desperate campaign weren't going to take him out.

    Oh for god's sake is right (none / 0) (#107)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:03:45 PM EST

    Oh dear Lord (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    Apparently Obama was just on the teebee, telling us po folk "you can't always get what you want."
    I may vomit.

    No doubt he left out 'But you can try sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    ... to get what you need.'

    He's not even doing that.


    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Prabhata on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    The Democratic primaries were an opportunity, once that opportunity was thrown away, I knew that there would be no change at best, and probably more of the same.

    I can't (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:56:34 PM EST
    understand how you saw them as the same. Obama ran to the right of Clinton on economic policy largely and to the left on foreign policy. His behavior even before he was elected was a pretty big clue that it wasn't going to be pretty when it all collapsed.

    My gawd, better than Bush? Maybe but being a hair better than the worst president in the history of the country is pretty bad.

    Marginal differences in both (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    I personally backed Obama because my concerns were foriegn policy-- I'll admit it was for selfish reasons- I had friends stationed in Iraq who've been home since then- now, its not all that bad in Iraq (for American troops not Iraqi's) they mostly just sit out of the way and chill. I'm disappointed in his domestic policy, however if I look at purely in the terms upon which I made my decision I'm pretty happy.

    Your friends probably owe their thanks to Bush (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by esmense on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:17:32 PM EST
    The drawdown began on his watch. In terms of Iraq, and other issues of war, I didn't and don't see Obama doing anything that wasn't already in the cards no matter who became president.

    I've lived through too many decades, too many administrations, and too many modern American wars, to think that ANY major party candidate was genuinely prepared to, or could, do anything more than continue to dance to the tune of our military/industrial complex. Especially not an admirer of Reagan (who was the wholly owned mouthpiece for and representative of GE, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., after all).

    Nothing bemused me more during the campaign than the assumption of so many Obama supporters that he was some kind of progressive, anti-war candidate. Where did they ever get that idea?

    In terms of Iraq, there was no practical difference between the Democratic candidates. Or, minus the sound and fury, even between Obama and McCain. With this exception, perhaps; Clinton was the only candidate to say she would withdraw contractors (Obama very carefully never made that promise.) I didn't count that for much; I doubt any president could keep such a promise once in office.

    In matters of war the major difference between Democratic and Republican administrations is how they talk. Republicans feel they need to put a lot of energy into appearing strong and fierce Democrats are determined to not appear, and to prove they aren't, weak. It all turns out the same in the end.


    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    Obama has reneged on all that and that's what I figured he was going to do so we have someone who has reneged on that plus someone who's bought completely into supply side economics. What a waste.

    He hasn't reneged though (none / 0) (#77)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    we've pulled way back in Iraq and are basically just counting down till withdrawl, Afghanistan is getting the attention it needed it all along.

    He promised to have (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    all the troops out in sixteen months. Not.gonna.happen. We would already be pulling out not rearranging.

    Now, are you ready to move to the next step? (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by goldberry on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    Now is the time to admit that what his campaign and the DNC did to primary voters in 2008 was unconscionable and should never happen again.  
    If you don't believe that they dehumanized the opposition and delegitimized our votes, you won't get the whole picture of what's wrong with our party.  
    If Obama had won the primaries fair and square, without deep sixxing millions of voters, I would have voted for him without complaint, BTD.  I'd done it for other Democratic presidential candidates that weren't my first choice.  He would have been another Kerry or Dukakis to me.  Not my favorite but I could live with him.  I would have had serious reservations about his experience level and I wouldn't have much liked his bipartisan shtick but I would have campaigned for him and voted for him.  
    But he didn't win fair and square.  THAT'S the genesis of my ongoing problem with him and his presidency.  
    Nothing good comes from a bad seed.  
    But I realize that entertaining the possibility that he made a backroom deal to deprive voters of their legitimate primary votes is hard to accept.  It's hard to believe that he didn't just play a hardball political game.  He participated in a fraud, whether it was by a private party or not, on the voters of many big states to hold sham primaries the results of which were not intended to be honored.  I hold the rowdy caucus goers as less responsible for this than the Superdelegates who got money for looking the other way.  
    That's the party we're dealing with BTD.  
    Are you ready to accept it?  

    Forget it (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    that's not going to happen, we won and just because we won I'm not going to apologize for it- did things get out of hand- yeah sure on both sides, if you think Obama was somehow in the back room when the former president of the United States wasn't you're insane- Obama won the primaries fair and square- once again there were problems on both sides but I fail to see how Obama is in some way a worse actor than his opponent was.

    I recall you being here during all the (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    hoopla re FL/MI, superdelegates, and whatever that televised Dem. committee was doing.  Plus Jesse Jackson, Jr.  Oh my.

    He didn't win it fair and square (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    Once again, he took delegates he didn't earn from an opponent that did earn them in a state where he didn't run at all. He had people manipulate the rules for him in places like Florida and Michigan. Then there's the convention where traditionally people with as little as 1 delegate got a floor vote(funny how that didn't happen this year)and Clinton's delegates magically were expected to vote for him(they even kicked out a delegate who said beforehand that she wasn't certain she would or could vote for him in the general).

    The superdelegates did exactly the opposite (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    of what they were supposed to do. Instead understanding that nearly all of Obama's lead in delegates came from red states and corrupt caucuses, and that as a result obama would not represent democratic interests, the superdelegates piled on like groupies to foist him on us.

    If you think back that obama won the democratic nod on the basis of red state suppport, its kind of logical that he would resurrect the insane republican party and keep digging a knife into the progressive back.


    Revering Reagan (4.42 / 7) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    his Harry and Louise ads, his mockery of economic policy that funded infrastructure and provided funds for programs as well as the incessant need to hand hold with the other side were all reasons I didn't buy that he was going to govern from the left. If you tell me who you are I tend to believe you rather than believe that what you are doing is some eleventh dimension chess game where the prize is the WH.

    Yeah that would have gone over well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    let's see how can I frame this: "For the first time in the History of the United States an African-American is poised to be a major party nominee for president, overcoming incredible odds he has led wire to wire in elected delegates, highlighted by winning 10 consecutive contests in the month of February, now on cusp of the nomination party elders have decided to give the nod instead to the frontrunner before the people began to vote" Yeah, can't see how that would have backfired in a catastrophic fashion.

    It should have gone to the floor (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:01:46 PM EST
    where it could have been hashed out among the delegates. That didn't happen though. As a matter of fact whole entire states that went for Clinton were expected to pledge their fealty to Obama.

    Oh and by the way, having a female President would have been JUST AS HISTORIC and she actually won the popular vote, having won the more populous states and many of the last of the primaries pretty handily.


    sweetie . . . (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    we were supposed to sit back, stfu and wait our turn, don'tcha know! Don't let a little thing like more votes etc get into the picture . . . {head desk}

    Someone was getting (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    screwed either way- I guess that's what I don't get- how can you guys pretend that if the SDs had flipped the nomination to Hillary it wouldn't have been seen as a massive screwjob- and not just be his supporters but by the general public as well-- you know becuase unlike Hillary Obama had been in the lead in elected delegates since the race began- it's one thing to have the lead taken in a race that's back and forth but in a race where the leader in pledged delegates is one person from day 1 then taking that lead away with Supers would have played horribly.

    It probably would have gone to a floor vote (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    if people had just realized it was a formality (like every other floor vote excepting Kennedy-Carter since we went to a primary system) instead of promising to fight it out to the last. That made strong-arming necessary-- the need to avoid a spectacle.

    Yes by all means (4.87 / 8) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    let's usurp democracy if it means we can avoid a spectacle(tongue firmly in cheek).

    It was a formality extended to every single person before her. Basically, the DNC spit in the face of every single voter who voted for her with their own little "spectacle."


    What all the delegates were supposed (none / 0) (#137)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:26:02 PM EST
    to do was abide by the applicable party rules, and they did not.

    You (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    call fair and square taking things you didnt' earn? That's a new one on me. But then that's Obama. He thinks he's entitled to everything simply because of who he is.

    BINGO! (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    We have a winner!  you have nailed it.  "He thinks he's entitled to everything simply because of who he is. "

    Narcissist in Chief!  


    Outraged at being correct (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    obama is being exactly who I thought he was: a center-right insider wannabe with a big ego.

    being right about obama does nothing to lessen my outrage at the epic opportunity cost of his being elected and the resulting massive, unnecessary human suffering.

    most of my rage during the primaries and now was/is focused on the simpleton obamafans that foisted this disaster on us by being so outrageously stupid as to buy into the load of cr*p team obama was shoveling.

    Notwithstanding all that, I voted for obama, because I had no other choice: mcinsane would have been even worse. US society and its political system is in a very bad place from which I see no recovery for the foreseeable future. The struggle is endless. American ideals are being strangled by charlatans.

    McCain would have been worse how? (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    With Obama you get a two fer because he not only is advancing right wing policy but in the process is destroying the democratic brand doing so. If McCain had advanced what is now being advanced as health care de- er reform it would have meant that the GOP would have taken the fall for it. Guess who gets to take the fall for the disaster being touted as reform? I'll give you a hint, it ain't conservatives.

    Gotta love single issue voters (none / 0) (#84)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    I mean sure Obama's been far better on Foriegn Policy, and sure he's changed the standards on various Science issue, and sure he lifted the Global Gag Rule, and sure he nominated a progressive supreme court justice, and sure he signed a ton of bills that McCain would have (and Bush did) veto, and sure he's made moves to close Gitmo and now appears to be on the verge of doing so, and sure he's banned the use of torture by American Forces once again, and sure he's instructed the AG to back off of on Pot prosecutions- but hey McCain would've been better.

    Oh and single issue is a misnomer (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:33:17 PM EST
    He had NUMEROUS opportunities to impress me on a variety of issues. At the end of the day I felt that if I was going to have to vote for a conservative, I'd be better served to vote for the one who was selling himself as one.

    Far better on foreign policy (none / 0) (#91)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    You're joking right? He's kept most of Bush's policies in place. State Secrets, FISA, illegal detention one and all STILL policy.

    Science? Okay, let's see. We still have a conscience clause and we are more steeped in faith based vodoo then ever before. He actually expanded the faith based program.

    Yawn on Gitmo. let me know when it's actually closed he's poised to miss his deadline revision-again.

    Are you saying McCain would have continued torturing?  That flies against his actual record on that issue. Citizens for Global Solutions, a non profit whose mission is to abolish war, protect freedoms and rights and solve problems that no nation should have to solve on its own, called him one of the "staunchest advocates against torture" and chronicled his behavior on the issue. Funny, I don't recall Obama speaking out or going to the WH in 2005 to try and get the WH to change its actual policies on torture- oh right there wasn't anything for him to gain by doing so in 2005. Oh and let's not get started on how he has declined to pursue justice against those who actually perpetrated the policy to begin with right?

    Yes, I still believe McCain would have been better. If only for the fact in a year our policies wouldn't be mocked as just as bad as the oppositions. Way to go progressive team you squandered an opportunity faster than even I could have imagined.


    Clarification (none / 0) (#78)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    I voted for obama in the general election, not in the primary - I preferred HRC over obama once the race was down to 2.

    Human suffering (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    like thousands of Iraqi men, women and children having their lives and bodies apart.

    Maybe this the root of the racism accusations; none of you apparently ever heard anything about the Iraq invasion and occupation (especially noticeable during the primaries)

    I guess SOME human suffering is more equal than others.


    President Obama = Worst. iPhone App. Ever. n/t (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:09:43 PM EST

    If this was a mistake on your part (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 02:20:36 AM EST
    You can find some solace in your own very well worded parenthetical distinction.

    [FDR] did not change politics, he changed how we think about government, much more important.

    if there's anything to be learned from this, it's that anyone claiming they can "change politics" will NOT ever become FDR.

    Small bore incrementalist? (4.40 / 5) (#34)
    by robotalk on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    Is that what Obama ran on?  I vaguely remember him tossing around the words "hope" and "change."  Perhaps he should have elaborated:  "diminished hopes" and "moving deck chairs on the Titanic."

    "last November" (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    however, "last spring" would yield entirely different answers, I am sure.  Obama was quite lucky to run against Hillary Clinton.

    Obama wouldn't have run, with so little (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by esmense on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    experience under his belt, against any well established, well-experienced white, male candidate. He ran BECAUSE his most significant competition would be the first (and only) seriously-financed and (to an historically huge extent for a female candidate but still much lesser extent than a traditional male candidate could expect to enjoy) establishment supported female presidential candidate. And because, in addition to the historical disadvantages of her gender, Clinton had to overcome the unique burden of a hostile media that, for the most part, was very happy to help deny her the office from which they had tried and failed to remove her husband. Obama and his people perceived, correctly, that despite his very brief resume, he would be in a very good position to exploit that media hostility toward "the Clintons" (and their disdain toward the downscale constituencies they saw the Clintons as always "pandering" to). Which the campaign did, masterfully.

    However, you have to admit that (5.00 / 9) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    getting away with calling the Clintons racist -- and many others who had worked harder than Teh One ever did to eradicate discrimination -- was a masterstroke of exploiting liberal guilt that could not be fully foreseen as being so believed by the liberal media (as the others either acted as expected or actually proved less gullible).

    I still think that there may be dues to pay on that one, though.  It may have turned off too many voters that the Dems may need.  Or the dues may not be paid until another day -- when posterity will have its say via Sean Willentz, Bill Clinton, and others come through with those promised books.


    Yes, Race was HUGE (none / 0) (#155)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    The media LOVED the idea of a Black President.  It made Mathews leg tingle.  To avoid ANY chance of being called a racist, and because of their white guilt, they couldn't wait to jump on the Obama bandwagon.  They didn't need anything more than he was an articulate Black man who attended the same schools they did.  The elitists loved him.
    They saw him as one of them only better because he's Black.  

    I never thought Obama represented any Blacks that I know and he sure as heck isn't like any Blacks in my family.  His life was totally different from our's.  At least Bill Clinton grew up poor, in a small town, in a public high school.  Then he and Hilary lived in a poor state and served them in the Governor's mansion. Growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, and always attending private schools, made Obama's life nothing like our lives.  He doesn't know what it's like to be poor and without a job.  He's never lived in that world.  That's why those Ivy League whites love him.  He's one of them.  


    And, how long will it be before (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    the disappointment leaks into Afghanistan policy?

    Which is? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    Succinctly, futile war with (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    an eighteen month timeline when we start to withdraw troops (two troops meets that criterion).  Reform (a good word) of the Karzai government with benchmarks for performance, or else- no more silk capes.  After that, well look, we are working on that as we go.

    BTD you weren't the only one (none / 0) (#12)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    But you may be the only one to admit it.
    I admit I voted for Obama, but I took no pleasure in it.  

    must hastily add (none / 0) (#27)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:33:10 PM EST
    i voted for Obama when it was him or McCain

    FDR was an incrementalist (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    During his time they were bayoneting or sending the "bourgeous" to the gulags in some countries and collectivization was the order of the day. You have to consider the times that people live in. Radicals of the 1930s would consider social security to be small crumbs and FDR doing just enough to prevent a revolution. Thank God, FDR was an incrementalist.

    Right (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    of course we should judge incrementalism from the perspective of the radicals of the day.

    You're like the most horrible apologist ever.


    Politics does not exist in vacuum (none / 0) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    opinions often do (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    Right (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    so of course we must label FDR an incrementalist because his reforms were milder than Stalin's.  Brilliant.

    I'm trying to think (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    of a way to work in the Pope's divisions into this discussion.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:14:08 PM EST

    Vacuum (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    As in, what people may as well be who aparently know so little about the Amercian left and organized labor in the thirties.

    He WAS trying to stave off a revolution.


    FDR's politics existed in a Hoover vacuum (none / 0) (#88)
    by DFLer on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    Not just an "apologist" (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    but a BAD apologist.

    A little historical context can be very instructive, rather than skipping right to the teabagger illogic of why cant Obama be FDR.


    Marvelous. But an increment every week (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    or every day or even every hour, and sometimes a whole batch of increments at once, actually added up to massive (may we say audacious?) change.  That is, according to almost everyone who ever has weighed in on FDR, except for you.  Doesn't that, well, make you wonder even a wee bit?

    CC, You are correct (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    When did I say that increments do not add up? It did for FDR and will for Obama. FDR was incrementalist and transformative! You should also remember that he had 4 terms to accomplish what he did, at a time when socialism and communism were on the ascendancy in large parts of the globe.

    We need them again (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:46:45 PM EST
    if for no other reason than to strike a balance with the mini-totalitarian corporate states.

    I guess I ought to have said SNARK! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    as I consider almost every one of FDR's bills to be more than an increment.  And he did a lot in 100 days.

    Seven and a half cents (none / 0) (#149)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    doesn't buy a heck-of-a-lot
    But give it to me every hour, every week, every year...

    Pajama Game. Lovely song.
    Sorry -it popped into my head and I can't control myself. :)


    Beltway centrism is too right-wing for my taste (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    But, take heart.  Come January, he'll toss a few
    bones (rhetorical & a few small actual chicken bones) to liberals, who will promptly pronounce them the best thing that's ever lapped their lips.

    In the SOUnion address, he'll sing even more (after first beating the war drums, of course).

    Seniors may well be the first group to catch one of the bones he'll toss.  Inflation is galloping along nicely, so a one-time $250 bone will shut that group up.

    Other important groups will also be impressed by his
    liberalish gibberish and the GOP talk will confirm that McCain really would have been a less desirable leader than Obama.

    2012, and it's 1 2 3 4, who yer gonna vote for?
    Why, ahm votin' for the Change Maker, aren't you?

    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    By the St of the Union address (none / 0) (#138)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    Many folk will have turned a deaf ear to speeches -- even eloquent ones.  People know what side their bread is buttered on. Polls will continue to show decline in popularity of this Admin.  

    Not a chance (none / 0) (#156)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    I will not listen to his speech in January.  I've had it with his empty rhetoric.  I'm sick of him being on television all the time while he does nothing to lead the nation or the wimps on the Hill.   His speeches don't do anything for me anymore, except make me angry.  When he actually does something for someone, maybe I'll change my mind.  

    For one of those rare times . . . (none / 0) (#49)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    I disagree with BTD. Obama is no "better than Bush" and may be worse because he appears to be a Liberal.

    you mean is masquerading (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    under the guise of liberal policy. Yep. I make sure to correct folk though and call him progressive. As far as I'm concerned many LIBERALS like myself rejected him and he did everything he could to ensure that he told everyone he was not a liberal.

    Beginning (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    to wonder if Obama realizes he is screwed with this bill as it stands right now...

    nah (none / 0) (#144)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:08:50 AM EST
    he did just what he promised the vested interests he would do, he blocked HRC the true progressive candidate, hell even MAC wouldve cut wall st short shrift

    but Obama was SIGNED,. SEALED DELIVERED he's theirs


    Wow! I feel like it is April, 2008. (none / 0) (#96)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    Everyone is here and all of the same arguments are running true. Hasn't been this much fun in over a year. Heh. I still do want him to succeed. I said that when he was elected. I can say that I am not disappointed because my expectation levels were not set that high. They would have been for HRC. I did what a good Dem would do in the end, but not with a lot of enthusiasm. I am enjoying the DNC calling for $$$$ and getting to say, Sorry, not interested.

    A Republican voter on the phone today was saying how nothing is happening and she voted for Obama. I gave the 'Well, he did inherit a lot of c*ap.' I had no better answer but that should not be the excuse. I would like to see some action on his part. I admit the photo ops have been nice but as usual, after a speech, I am left with the "What did he just say?" Sounds good though.  

    His Outsidey Voice is like the can opener sound (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    ... his pets hear that tells them it's feeding time.

    Still somewhat inspiring, I suppose.


    I never bought into Obama nonsense (none / 0) (#122)
    by AX10 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:27:33 PM EST
    I saw his political slogans and empty rhetoric and knew that we would have mediocrity at best.

    To esmense: I was one of the few young people who supported Hillary and still carry great reservations about Obama.  I will continue to carry these reservations until Obama proves himself otherwise.

    I was never a fan... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    ... but I'm also disappointed. Never really considered him qualified, but hoped he'd grow into it. Unfortunately, he still seems more eager to be liked than to get things done.

    He wants a fan following (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    I doubt he cares one bit if he's liked.

    Yes, he wants to be the exalted one (none / 0) (#157)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    As long as he is THE ONE, he's a happy camper.  Of course he will never see himself as anything but THE ONE.  Our opinions matter little as long as he remains the King.  

    But liked by whom? (none / 0) (#139)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:40:05 PM EST
    Certainly not you and me

    Hilary 2012 (none / 0) (#130)
    by chinaz on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood
    what Hope and Change meant as candidate Obama went on and on about reform in Washington DC.
    No more business as usual. Right!
    In the pocket of Wall St, in the pocket of Blue Cross, in the pocket of Lieberman. How pathetic is that!?!?
    But what the hey at least he's not the worst president ever...
    So what if he and his super majority can't fight their way out of a paper bag without caving.
    Easy to see why their mascot is a jack ass.

    Sure (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    A weapons of mass destruction promulgating, AIPAC enthralled, nuclear sabre rattling, Walmart board union-busting (when the Clintons benefactor Columbia's Uribe isnt murdering them), appealer to "hard working, white voters".

    If that's really the absolute best we can do, we might as well throw in the towel right now.