Off The Rails

Digby d-day writes:

The upshot is that this [stimulus] bill, with the entire goal of stopping a careening disaster in the economy and putting people to work, is seriously off the rails. And I've got to say, a lot of it is because the Obama Administration isn't answering the critics with any kind of force or action plan.

I disagree with Digby d-day. The entire plan went off the rails from the word go, because Obama put the post-partisan unity schtick as a higher priority than the actual efficacy of the plan from the beginning - meaning his own timid and inadequate initial proposal.

So the question is this - how's that 11 dimensional political chess working out for you now? It's not so easy when Clinton Derangement Syndrome is not in the mix.

Speaking for me only

< Another War That Never Was | Wednesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Attempts continue (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    Fresh baked cookies are now involved.

    Ms. Klobuchar dismissed the Washington chatter about how no Republicans supported the president's economic stimulus bill in the House last week, despite considerable efforts by Mr. Obama to reach out to them. She said the talk oversimplified the calculus by the White House as it figures out how to deal with the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    "They are looking beyond one vote," Ms. Klobuchar said. "They want a new kind of culture in Washington. He really means it."
    And that, she said, may explain why the president was personally serving a platter of oatmeal raisin cookies to his guests the other night.

    The ponies are coming! The Ponies are coming!

    Look what is really wrong here (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    ""They are looking beyond one vote," Ms. Klobuchar said. "They want a new kind of culture in Washington. He really means it.""

    This is NOT just "one vote." this is the most important program politically Obama will enact in his entire first term.

    Not realizing that is the political malpractice that is going on right now.

    I could give less than a sh*t that Judd Gregg is Commerce Secretary. And I see a lot of grumbling about it in the blogs. They do not realize that Commerce means not a damn thing.

    The stimulus plan is everything politically. Everything.


    Indeed (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    And everyone should have recognized that the Republicans would play pissypants no matter what. They've been ranting about earmarks all week, as they always do. So starting from this timid point was unconscionable.

    Look (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    the Republicana were going to do it no matter what for 2 reasons - 1 they are that stupid on policy - they really are.

    And 2 - politically there is nothing in it for them to help Obama succeed. Nothing.


    Their best chance is to destroy (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    Obama and his program immediately. And they are winning. Americans still like Obama personally, but as soon as he is unable to offer an answer for the economic crisis (and that is the direction we're headed) he will deflate like a burst balloon.

    Instead of focusing on bi-partisan politics (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by joanneleon on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    Obama needs to be getting tough with Republican senators right now.  Other Senate Democrats need to be out there selling the stimulus package instead of undermining it -- that means Ben Nelson.  Ben Nelson needs to be pressured and told that on this vote, the caucus has to stick together.

    Also, the stimulus should be broken up into pieces, IMHO.  He needs to get a win politically and get something passed.  And he needs to make it clear that this is the first of many stimulus packages.  If the Republicans weren't thinking that this is their only chance to get their digs in, and their amendments in, I think they would back off a bit.

    But most of all, this is not the thing to test out your bi-partisan schtick on.  Obama shows no sense of urgency.  Neither does the Senate.  That's a major problem.  On this issue, we need to see a sense of urgency and an indication that Obama is taking control of the situation.  Right now, the Republican minority in the Senate is controlling the stimulus bill.


    something surprising about this? (5.00 / 11) (#146)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    apparently Obama, his geniuses, and his flock are the only ones who didn't know that republicans would want to destroy Obama.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    And ironically Obama admits that is how he get the economy going is the one thing he will be judged on in 2005 or 2009.

    One thing that I do not understand is why the democratic senators are picking apart the bill as well. Blue dogs I guess..

    Proponents of the bill say that there are not enough votes to pass iin the Senate.


    Obama needs to stare them down (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    And right now.

    It Is Amazing (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    GOP gets trillions for the Iraq war, based on bogus WMD's. Bush Co gets $800 billion blank check for banks and wall street no problem. They even had the gaul to say it would be bad if there was transparency regarding distribution of the money.

    But bubkis for saving the country from a depression that could make 1930's look good. What are these democrats thinking?

    Barney Frank was right when he said that the largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the war in Iraq.


    Cramer was on MSNBC (none / 0) (#83)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    He was saying that the bill is really short of actual stimulus projects (a concern echoed in many other places.)  I agree with Joe Scarborough that now is NOT the time to set fire to one trillion dollars and see if ponies appear.  It has to be DONE RIGHT. Without Politics.

    It's really a joke that Democrats discuss the politics and optics of the issue.  The biggest WORLD economic threat in our lifetime, and you think no matter what the bill is, Obama should stare down Senators, b/c it's good politically?

    The stimulus plan should be simple.  IIRC, the Bush first tax cut was 200 billions, whereas there is more than 300 billions worth of tax cuts in this bill.

    Well, anyhow, it's screwed up already. So I really don't care how the perception management is going to work.


    Cramer Cramer Cramer (none / 0) (#130)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    He is interesting and sounds as if he really knows his stocks. BUT, every time he encourages people to buy a stock, it goes down and vice versa. We always say if Cramer says to buy more, sell immediately.Heh

    Obama warned of "catastrophe" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    if no stimulus bill is passed. He's done his part.

    Huh? (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    He hasn't done his part until the bill PASSES. But you know what, that still won't be a victory, because what's on the table isn't nearly enough.

    I hate having to use the (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    snark tag.

    Whining catastrophe is just stupid (3.00 / 1) (#132)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    Obama needs to attack republicans. that is the ONLY way to get through this.

    Attack Republicans? (5.00 / 10) (#137)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    You expect Obama to attack Republicans?  I think it's more likely that he will take Democrats to task for not being willing to listen to the good ideas of the Republicans than that he will attack the Republicans.

    Oh, sure, tonight he got a little testy and reminded the Republicans that they lost the election, but I'm sure his blood sugar was low, he was tired of being in the WH, but I'm sure after he has some din-din, he will be sending 'round platters of cookies with a little "J/K! You're still my BFF!" tag attached to the pretty ribbon.

    He needs to get over the fear of not being liked - not something I think he's going to do; his window is closing.


    I didn't say what Obama would do (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:43:08 PM EST
    I said what he needs to do.

    I agree there is no chance of Obama doing what needs to be done: go on the attack against republicans and make "Blue Dog" democrats heel.

    What Obama will do instead is continue to argue how wonderful his bill is and that people can disagree. This wins him no votes and loses the American people as the crisis gets worse while Obama fails to lead.


    When do you think it will dawn on him (5.00 / 10) (#159)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    that his strategy isn't working?

    Who will emerge as the leader, and will it be a Democrat, or will it be a Republican?

    I just have a really bad feeling about this, on just about every level there is; mostly, I am just sick about what Obama's failure is going to mean for millions of people.


    At this point... (5.00 / 10) (#160)
    by otherlisa on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    I just want to change my name to "Cassandra."

    I mean, how many of us knew were were in extremely perilous times, examined Obama, expressed our concerns, pretty much predicted this was how he would govern and were shouted down for it?

    I can't even enjoy the schadenfreude, because it's too freakin' serious.


    Okaaay (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    Isn't That One Voter's comment (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    essentially saying this?
    The entire plan went off the rails from the word go, because Obama put the post-partisan unity schtick as a higher priority than the actual efficacy of the plan from the beginning - meaning his own timid and inadequate initial proposal.

    I.e., even a timid and inadequate plan is off the rails.  So the plan we need is even farther off -- and since we need it, and desperately, and now, the result is . . . catastrophic.  To the economy, to us.

    Btw, BTD, your last two sentences are killers in their concision.


    I can't understand why they can't see that (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    What other bill coming up is going to be this important, both from the political angle and substantively? And what makes them think making nice with Republicans and blue dogs on this bill is going to make the next one any easier?

    I feel like they were not even paying attention for the least 10 years. I also get the feeling they think they have a lot more time than they do.

    You are sure speaking for me on this issue BTD, and very well.


    re giving a sh*t about Judd Gregg (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    Many presume Sec of Commerce a key player in selling the package to Congress.

    Gregg could help sell it - assuming he buys it.


    Obama needs to lead, and sell the plan! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:32:34 PM EST
    That's his job!  Leaders lead.  He needs to sell this plan to the public, let them know what's in it for them, so that they will put pressure on the Senate to pass it.  Obama hasn't done that yet.  I hope that he will.

    I do not like the threats, the doomsday stuff.  I would prefer some optimism from the President.  I hope that he tells us why this plan will make things better for ALL of us, positive stuff about the plan without the threats and doom and gloom.  



    I wonder (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    was Obama watching Fox News when he won?  Does he think America is a center-right country?

    The problem is.... (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Shainzona on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    ...this Greatest Stimulus Plan Eveh is not Obama's - it came from the Dem congress - so (i) it does not reflect any policy (e.g., conviction) on the part of the "administration" and (ii) Obama's shuttle diplomacy is triangulation at its worst...take a little, give a little and what's left?

    Nada.  Zip.  Zero.

    Not True (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    a dem Congressional bill would never have been 1/3 tax cuts out of the box and a pitiful $10 billion for mass transit. This is Obama's bill through and through. Other than the few morsels going to contraception and the like, the dem Congress was doing what the geniuses of the Obama team told them to do.

    A depressing though: (5.00 / 15) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    Obama was not "ready on day one."

    Some of knew that in advance! (5.00 / 12) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    A depressing ... (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:20:35 PM EST

    At any rate (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:22:22 PM EST
    I want some of the oatmeal raisin cookies.

    Two things (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:40:17 PM EST
    First, it's now day 15, and he needs to get the eff ready. (I'm sure you agree, I just felt the need to say it.)

    Second, who tries to woo anyone with oatmeal raisin cookies? Chocolate chip cookies are the all-purpose, hard-heart melter.  


    Or Martinis ... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    preferably FDR's recipe.

    If there's ever been a response... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by EL seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    ... that screamed "Include a link"... I think this is it.



    According to his ... (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    his grandson Curtis:

    He'd also put in two or three drops of absinthe

    Which is now legally available... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by EL seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    ... in 21st Century America.

    mmmmm yummie (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    Sounds trippy. Always wondered why absinthe was never illegal in the US.

    In the United States, Absinthe was banned in 1912, following the French ban three years before, but the current US Customs restrictions on the importation of Absinthe only are dated from 1958 while the USDA and FDA regulations still ban the sale or importation of any beverage containing wormwood.


    loophole FDR could drive a citroen through..


    Here's the recipe (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:07:41 PM EST
    FDR's Martini Recipe

    2 parts gin
    1 part vermouth
    1 teaspoon olive brine
    Lemon twist
    Cocktail olive

    Rub the lemon twist around the rim of a chilled cocktail glass and discard the peel. Combine gin, vermouth, and olive brine in a cocktail shaker with cracked ice and shake well. Strain into chilled glass and garnish with olive.

    Sounds terrible to me, no offense to FDR.  


    Heh. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    probably explains why the Democratic party lost so many long-standing members last year.

    We need a fighter (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    I'm not giving up all hope he can learn to be one...but I never wanted this learning curve.

    You mean somebody like this? (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    Watch as the esteemed senator from California (not her, the good one) eviscerates John Thune's  disingenuous arguments in opposition to the stimulus bill.

    CSpan link

    Click the phrase and the video clip should play. Make sure you watch through her request for an extra sixty seconds to respond to Thune.  

    Why is she not on TV more often putting the hammer to these gooper thugs?


    Sheesh (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Spamlet on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    If it takes that long to give Barbara Boxer another 60 seconds, no wonder we're so f^cked.

    Happy to hear that (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    The link hangs up, I'll try it again later. Maybe a lot of hits on watching a rare sighting of a fighting Dem.

    I'm hoping the more progressive Dem Sentaors have just been hanging back for fear of stealing Obama's limelight. If so, they need to follow her lead and get out there and call BS on these idiots.


    Obama's limelight (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:13:03 PM EST
    I'm afraid you may be correct about that. One thing Boxer does that someone like McCaskill will never, ever, ever do is call out the Republicans for their blatant hypocrisy because blunt talk like that runs counter to Obama's post-partisan unity crap. Blunt talk like that might just make Senate Republicans feel uncomfortable!! Just who the hell does Barbara Boxer think she is?!

    If the video doesn't play (none / 0) (#82)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    you can go to this page and either type in the text search yourself ("I am astounded") or simply watch the flash video on that page and ff to the 02:13:00 mark, give or take a few seconds.

    Hey, 'happy' anniversary of Super Tuesday (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    You remind me of the dread I felt last winter and spring, the feeling that he was just not ready for this. I 'got over it' enough in the summer and fall to support him and be glad he won - obviously (to me anyway), McCain just was not an option. But I felt that way a year ago for a reason. I'm not prone to irrational dread.

    "This is no time (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by weltec2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    for on-the-job training."

    I'm glad someone finally said it... (5.00 / 12) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    I've been avoiding it because it would only have brought out the inevitable "you're a PUMA!" accusations, and we've had about enough of that nonsense.

    In other perilous times in American history (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:28:26 PM EST
    the right leaders have emerged. FDR and Lincoln and their colleagues come to mind - it does take more than just a president. I fear this is not going to be one of those times. Even if Obama was doing all the right things, he is stuck with Reid and Pelosi and other 3rd tier talents. This is really bad.

    perilously true (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    reid and pelosi are sickeningly awful, bringing nothing to the table: no fight, no policy, no skills, no leadership, no pizazz. Obama (and us) is on his own and we are effed.

    Per Krugman: (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    You know, it was widely expected that Obama would have a stimulus plan ready to pass Congress even before his inauguration. That didn't happen. We were told that this was because the economic team was working flat out on the financial rescue.
    In fact, when it comes to bank rescue it's hard to see much evidence that anything was accomplished during all that time; the team is still -- still! -- running ideas up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. And the ideas look remarkably bad. (Welcome to the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill, Yves.)

    Meanwhile, when it came to stimulus legislation, when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP, which voted against the plan anyway. (And Obama appears, in the name of bipartisanship, to have thrown away a Senate vote he may well need.)

    As a wise man recently said, failure to act effectively risks turning this slump into a catastrophe. Yet there's a sense, watching the process so far, of low energy. What's going on?

    I thought Krugman's post was interesting, and I posted it on Taylor's blog earlier.  Unfortunately, the Obots flamed both me and Krugman, calling Krugman "peanut gallery", "monday morning quarterback", "back-seat driver", etc.

    It's unfortunate to see Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, as well as an outspoken and articulate progessive policy advocate, geting trashed by the Obots for daring to criticize The One.

    Back seat drivers ... (5.00 / 11) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    are necessary when the dude in the front seat is heading off a cliff.

    You are HOT today! (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    Spot on, in post after post!  

    Fortunately for Krugman (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    he usually gets proved right. I'm sure he can take care of himself against the Obots. I just wish the rest of us were not going to suffer because Obama had to learn the hard way.

    Obama's reluctance to get to WA DC (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    when the initial economic plan was being formed spoke volumes then, but seems to be more obvious now. He didn't have a clue, and he didn't want that to show before the ballots were cast.

    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:17:06 PM EST
    Um, yeah he did of course participate in the White House meeting and was reportedly well-informed but hey whatever hits Obama.

    Has anyone ever (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:38:05 PM EST
    come out and admitted that the whole "price is right" theory of negotiation was just plain silly?  Has Nate Silver offered his mea culpa?  Because a whole lot of people swore up and down to me that 538.com had nailed the secret strategy yet again, and that the Republicans would be irrelevant in this negotiation thanks to Obama's brilliant plan.

    Heh. (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    I wouldn't wait too long for that Steve.  They fought too long and too hard (and dissed too many fellow Democrats) to do that.  Some of them are as every bit as bad as the Bush deadenders in their zeal for their God.  That's why I don't worship politicians no matter how much I may support them, I didn't worship Hillary so I surely won't worship Obama.  I didn't worship Bill either btw, so it's not personal about Obama, it's just my whole not being a gullible simpleton thing.

    Obama simply hasn't had to deal with Republicans, real Regressives, not the few that were from his one-party state, and I think he thought he could just "wow" them with his Obam-awesomeness and they would knuckle under to him.  Anyone one with a brain knows the Regressives have no shame or morality, so it's utterly pointless to "negotiate" with them.  When have they EVER acted in Good Faith?  That would be a big fat NEVER.  I'm bemused by some in the blogosphere who seemed shocked by this fact.  B*stards that they are, the one thing the Regressives don't do is roll over and play dead, only the Daschles, Reids, and Pelosis do that.

    I'm glad I voted Green last year, at least I have a clean conscience that I didn't vote for a personality cult and instead voted for principles.  (I was in a safe State, if Obama lost my State he wasn't winning anyway.  I would have reluctantly voted for him if it mattered.)



    Shrug (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:10:23 PM EST
    I certainly think Obama is smarter about politics than me.  Maybe everything will work out just dandy.  I guess I'm just a show-me type of person who doesn't want to take it on faith that there must be some 11-dimensional chess strategy, as BTD would put it, lurking behind the scenes.

    I agree (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    that he is smarter at politics than me as well, but that doesn't mean he's infallible.  He is throwing the Regressives a lifeline when they are drowning in their own incompetence.  Obama was good at getting elected, but so was George Bush, it was the whole governing thing he crapped out on.  I do wish Obama the best, but if he thinks the Regressives are rational actors with rational ideas, then he is in deep, deep doo doo IMHO.



    The first mistake the Obama (5.00 / 10) (#58)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    admin made was not focusing on homeowners instead of bankers.  If they had stood up for the middle class blue collar homeowner they would be getting the benefit of the doubt now from rank and file workers.  The President himself should be out with his sleeves rolled up talking about the jobs he wants to create.  He supposedly has that skillset of linking with ordinary people that was developed in his days as a community organizer.  Connecting with them now would blunt the Republican misinformation campaign.

    Spot on; it's homelessness (5.00 / 14) (#70)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    that is worrying and even more devastating, I know from the newly jobless I know.  They know that the jobs cannot be brought back fast, nor can new jobs be created fast -- but the mortgage (or rent) payments are due within weeks.

    They need to know that while they wait six months, a year, whatever, to be called back from layoffs, their employers will not face trouble finding them because the average American has only enough in savings to keep making payments for three months.  Six months from now, their addresses have changed, their kids are in different schools, they have not seen needed medical specialists owing to mounting medical bills still unpaid (and btw, COBRA is awful and no answer), etc.

    This is no time for the Dem version of a "trickle-down" economy.  That's all that TARP was, and it failed to trickle down at all.  The current stimulus bill provides at best only a trickle -- and the timing still is too slow.


    2 different problems (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    Financial bailout and stimulus - TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT problems and solutions.

    The home mortgage/foreclosure problem and credit collapse is one problem with certain potential solutions.

    The skyrocketing joblessness is an entirely different problem requiring the stimulus package.

    it is important to clear solutions not to conflate the two.


    No, you are wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    There is one problem.  Obama is not winning the hearts and minds of the people.  He lost the chance to gain their trust when he mishandled the credit crisis.  And now he is mishandling the stimulus marketing by failing to appeal to the man on the street.  He has made the same mistake twice now.

    No you're wrong (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:23:33 PM EST
    Obama is losing the hearts and minds of people. He had them full stop, but he and his team are letting republicans dribble that away.

    But regardless of Obama's failings on either problem, there remains 2 separate problems with 2 separate solutions. Conflating the 2 solves neither effectively.


    I don't think he ever had the minds (5.00 / 7) (#151)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    of the people, just the hearts. His campaign was entirely too vague to have won people over on principles, postions, etc. It was clear a lot of his supporters did not really know the specifics he was proposing but were going with feel good things like changing the tone in Washington.

    However, this problem goes a lot deeper then just Obama. The Democratic Party as a whole has ceded the ground on issues and principles to Republicans ever since Reagan taught Republicans how to manipulate the media. Just look at how effective the Republicans are right now when they don't even have a leader to sell their positions.

    I just heard Pat Buchanan on Tweety saying that Dems need to boil their goals down to a few important things, build the stimulus bill around them, then get everyone in the administration and Congress on board to go out an sell it using one voice. He is right. This is what Republicans have done so effectively that they have been able to sell the public on crackpot ideas like tax cuts that pay for themselves and a bogus war. Imagine how effective it would be to use this strategy to sell sane, effective policies!


    The people wanted leadership (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    they would have bought anything reasonable that Obama fought for. He didn't do that - he wallowed in his own magnificence instead deluding himself into believing his own shtick that republicans could respect something other than raw power.

    The current bill is more than reasonable to republican sensibilities, but the people are only hearing the republican lies about how bad 2% of it is.


    THAT is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:46:01 PM EST
    If Obama can convince the people that his stimulus plan is the way to go, the Senate will have no choice but to follow.  Threats won't work, but honey might, give the people something to support.  

    I hasten to add (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:03:35 PM EST
    that his high personal popularity ratings do not preclude the necessity of reaching out to everyday people to get support for policies he hopes to enact.

    Except it has dropped already (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    Yeah, it was going to happen anyway, but the people are not impressed with the handling of this financial crises. He needs to get some strong leadership going for him. He is trying to go to the people but they were more interested in why he would nominate someone who 5 days earlier had refiled his tax and paid a nice hefty sum. Obama said he Screwed Up, which he has said before, but the public will only allow so many SUs before turning. He has to do this right and now. People are counting on him. Heck, I am counting on him.

    FWIW, I have a marker down that he crosses ... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:40:02 PM EST
    ... the popular approval "equator" by Feb 24 unless StimPak moves by then.

    My gravest reservation about Obama (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by nellre on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    Was because Obama promised to change how they do business in Washington, and that, I knew, he couldn't do.

    There are some fights worth having (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:01:40 PM EST
    I hope Hillary is reminding Obama of that each chance she gets.  Clinton's first budget required a Gore tie breaking vote.  It's time to figure out what we need and get it done.  At the rate we are going we'll need to nationalize the banks and the auto makers by the end of the year.  Wait, maybe that is the 11th dimensional chess calculation.  Pass a bad bill that won't work so we can take more drastic steps later.  It's brilliant.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by eric on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    flashbacks to 1993.  Obama, call Bill!  After failed health care reform, don't ask don't tell, and a bunch of fake scandals, he eventually figured the Republicans out.  Sometime in his second term, I think.

    Remember SNL spoof? (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    Perhaps Obama is putting calls at 3am to Hillary and Bill already.

    BTD You crack me up! (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    So the question is this - how's that 11 dimensional political chess working out for you now? It's not so easy when Clinton Derangement Syndrome is not in the mix.

    I always look forward to your posts.


    Obama on tv now, putting caps on CEOs (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    and other senior execs in companies that take bailout funds.  They can take stock, though, but with delays in cashing in on it.  All sounds good -- now let's see how long it takes corporate America to find the loopholes and treat themselves to more $18 million parties.

    I'm glad to see what Obama says -- I want to see more fire, though.  (I do think he's capable of it, so I do think it's coming, if -- when -- more crap is pulled by corporate America after this calling them out for it.)

    I understood that the (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by dk on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    CEO caps are only for the banks that get the most money.  I.e. a small handful of banks, but for the many other banks that get smaller amounts of money, there will be no cap.

    In other words, it's probably all just symbolic.  No substance (surprise).


    best quote today (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    I heard on the pay cap was:
    'its a paper tiger wrapped in a fig leaf'


    Sadly it doesnt seem to apply to traders or those making the big dough, only the top 5 or so execs, AND sadly it doesnt clawback from Tarp one,

    AND even more sadly IMO, lol, it only applies to those who take EXTRAORDINARY assistance beyond current govt programs, ie only if you take MORE than your regular share of TARP

    So it would hit Citi and BofA so far only I think...

    Barney Franks plan was IMO much much better on this, AND even McCaskills was certainly stronger if you support it,

    It managed to motivate Golden Slacks to come out and say We Want to Give Back our TARP One money...
    but Paulson told us he didnt WANT the banks to give the money back...

    but it lets the people feel good is I think their thought=...but I dont agree I think it scares more peeps than it comforts and since it has no teeth I say it is an exercise in futility and bad PR attempt and quite transparent for what it was..

    but the first 3 mins talking about it gave Obama a chance to sell the stimulus again, I dont like when our POTUS says do this or it will be catastrophic..

    he should tell the Pelosi Brigade that IMO...


    Even as I voted for him (5.00 / 10) (#90)
    by weltec2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    I told my dad, the Repugs are going to eat this guy for lunch. Usually I like being right about things. This time there's just no satisfaction in it. The post-partisan unity schtick is a spineless no win dance. I'd like to kick Nancy and the Demo leadership and a few people in Michigan where the sun doesn't shine for giving us this.

    this is what nancy (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    wanted. more power for her this way. and she does not have to deal with the president putting pressure on her and harry to deliver. indeed, harry, can recommend a republican for the cabinet and obama says good idea, while nancy looks tough and gets nothing done.

    Concise (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by lentinel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    "The entire plan went off the rails from the word go, because Obama put the post-partisan unity schtick as a higher priority than the actual efficacy of the plan from the beginning..."

    Something is more important to him than our welfare imo.

    Fiddling while Rome burns; (5.00 / 11) (#99)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:10:31 PM EST
    that's how it looks and that's how it feels.  

    He's in way over his head - that's clear.  And the people he has surrounded himself with are failing him.

    I just get this knot in my stomach when I think about what is being lost, and how little energy Obama seems to be expending on this issue.  Cookies and cocktail parties?  What's next?  Pajama parties in the Lincoln Bedroom?

    But, not to worry.  Obama won the battle of the Digital TV switch; I feel so much better now.  

    No, they're all growed up now (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:12:03 PM EST
    so no pajama parties.  Read up a post or two -- they're having house parties this weekend.

    Well, might as well have house parties as long as they still have their houses. . . .


    Do you think we could send a (5.00 / 12) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    PajamaGram to the WH?  I mean, as long as they're going to keep dozing off at the switch, they might as well be comfy.

    Sorry - I suppose that's too snarky, but I don't think these people really comprehend just how anxious people are.

    So many people voted for this man because they desperately needed someone to fix this mess, and Obama made them believe he was The One who could do it; they thought he was going to come in, kick a$$, take names and save them.  They've been as patient as they can be, but the bills are mounting, the pantry is emptying, the kids need the doctor and new clothes and shoes, the unemployment is running out, the house is being foreclosed on and there's nowhere for them to go, the states are slashing services, they can't sleep and more nights now than ever, they're crying themselves to sleep.  

    Obama says there is urgency, but I don't feel that urgency from him.  I'm not getting "Don't worry - I'm calm and I will make it all okay," I am getting, "I have no idea what to do and nothing I do is working and where is the magic I used to have?"


    Obama and his team... (5.00 / 11) (#106)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:16:39 PM EST
    clearly put a lot more thought into their inaugural celebration then they did getting a stimulus bill past the republicans.

    I know exactly what Obama needs to do--- (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:12:15 PM EST
    let Bill Clinton write his speeches on all the economic bills coming up.
    The situation we have today is the one that Bill Clinton excelled at like nobody else---he could show how the Republicans were  heartless bastards whose ideas weren't worth considering.
    Obama really needs some face time with Bill, IMO.

    Still Born? (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't get his a** in gear pretty quick, using his vaunted rhetoric and political skills his presidency is still born. Its THAT serious.

    republicans being republicans, there is no serious discussion to have with them about anything, let alone an actual crisis. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be sinking in with Obama, or at least the magnitude of his vulnerability and the ramifications aren't sinking in. His doing a day of whining about how good the bill is does not cut it. He needs full campaign mode and needs to take a hatchet to republicans.

    Without doubt, republicans have AGAIN demonstrated that Obama's bipartisan unity shtick is a non-starter and a complete waste of an opportunity to actually change the political dynamic. Whether or not Obama can resuscitate his presidency remains to seen.

    House Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by WS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:48:47 PM EST
    are insects, but Senate Republicans still pack quite a punch.  Andy why is President Obama not dealing with the Blue Dogs?  Get them on the phone and ask/demand their support.  

    And for the Love of God, stop with the post partisan crap.  Rhetoric is fine but to reach out to the most insignificant creatures in Washington, House Republicans, who then bit his outreached hand.  Why?  


    Ordinarily, (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Spamlet on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    I would laugh at this on day 16 of a president's first term:

    Whether or not Obama can resuscitate his presidency remains to seen.

    But instead of laughing, I'm pondering the fierce urgency of . . . whenever.


    the reason this isn't working is (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by bocajeff on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:25:40 PM EST

    This is a bad bill. Period. People have sniffed it out.

    This is a housing and credit issue. Nothing more or less. Until those issues are addressed then people will know that these bills are nothing.

    It's easy to defeat a bill that has so many flaws (HIV prevention in an economic stimulus bill?) They must address the housing crisis, stop foreclosures or come up with a plan that will immediately help people. Progressive have to stop blaming Repubs since they have zero control.

    It's up to Reid and Pelosi right now. Good luck with that.

    No it's not a housing issue (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by jussumbody on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    It's a jobs issue.  The purpose of the stimulus bill is to create JOBS while the economy is hemorraging jobs, and to prevent a downward spiral of the economy.  There aint much that can be done about housing - get used to that.  Housing has been too expensive for a long time and that was a bad thing (although everyone in the media and even Barney Frank seemed to think the housing bubble was great).  Propping up prices artificially will just drag out the pain.

    then you don't get it! (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by bocajeff on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    It's very difficult for a consumer to get housing and/or commercial financing. This lessens consumer demand, increase supply, lower prices and lower profits which create a situation where companies are forced to decrease employment.

    Your comment is true except that it negates how jobs are created. Jobs are created by companies when they are selling something. Or by the government.

    Now, when a company can't get access to credit (see the financial bailout bill) then companies can't borrower and it starts a downward spiral.

    As for the housing market, when people see their largest investments tumble in value they don't feel like spending much on anything. A big part of any economy is CONSUMER CONFIDENCE - they have to feel good about the future.

    Jobs are the result of credit, housing, and consumer confidence...


    Right (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    But the collapsing demand issue us critical.

    We need massive gov't spending to make up the huge slack in aggregate demand.

    Catastrophe waits if we do not do this.


    EARTH TO OBAMA (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by CST on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    Pass the Stimulus ASAP.

    Save the parties w/ republicans for things like S-CHIP, where they will actually vote with you.

    I don't believe in 11th dimensional chess, I do believe that you can turn a bad situation into a good one if you are smart.

    So if you're listening Obama, or reading TL, please take this opportunity to salvage the bill from bi-partisan disaster...

    You can even smile to the camera and say "I tried" while passing a straight-up Dem bill.

    It WAS a housing and credit issue (none / 0) (#127)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:05:11 PM EST
    now it is a deflation, job loss, lack of demand issue so we do need a stimulus bill now. Has Bush acted months ago we probably wouldn't need it.

    Listen to the mayors (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by joanneleon on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    I think they better stop right now, listen to the mayors, and break this stimulus plan into smaller pieces.  First, put everything that can pass into "Package A" and ram it through Congress.  Send people out into the media every day and every night and name the names of everyone who opposes it.  Get the mayors involved again.  

    Then, once Package A is through, start working on Package B.  And so on.

    There has been no relief yet and people are getting pissed off that Washington is bickering while people suffer.

    There's no reason why this stimulus package has to be a huge, nearly one trillion dollar thing.  Just get something going now.  If the Republicans believe that there will be a series of packages, they may stop pushing back so hard on the one big monster bill.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by WS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    Splitting the stimulus up will help the public focus on what's in the bill rather than it being called the stimulus or other names the Republicans have called it.  The public has been hearing contraception, NEA funding, and other typical Republican smokescreens and it obfuscates the good parts of the bill.    

    Infrastructure projects should go in one bill.  School upgrades and other spending should go to another and to force Republicans to vote for each spread the tax cuts like the AMT tax fix, college tuition tax credit, Make work pay tax credit into the separate bills.  Let's see Republicans vote against that.  


    And (none / 0) (#153)
    by WS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    the separated bills can be called the "Infrastructure Stimulus Bill" or the "Upgrading Our Schools for the 21st Century Stimulus Bill" and something to that effect.  

    It would then be the stimuli bill.  


    Here's a thought to motivate Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:00:26 PM EST
    He's thinking how he might not be reelected if he doesn't succeed with his stimulus plan.
    That's only the beginning. If he fails, he will be the Herbert Hoover of this economic crisis, even though it's Bush's fault. If that thought isn't galling enough by itself, keep in mind how young he is now. He could live 30 or 40 years in the deepest infamy if he fails.
    Thinking about legacies is what spurs the ego of a President in healthy directions, as it did with Clinton (IMO).

    Digby Says (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:14:59 PM EST

    Wingnut radio has gone completely nuts, apparently, and they have their dittoheads calling the Senate to complain about the recovery plan.

    So, because the democrats are now going wobbly, we need to call them and tell them to do their duty. (sigh....)

    CAF has made that easy for us:


    Step 1)Dial 1-866-544-7573.


    Obama can't do it all for you, now is the time to act and put pressure on your Senators. The CAF link makes it all super easy with talking points and everything.

    I do not like this bill (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    What am I supposed to do?

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    I know, and expect that many do not like it. Unfortunately we cannot re-write it. Not sure what to say. It does seem that it will only get worse, more watered down and less money.

    What do you suggest other than throwing hands up in the air?


    I'm with you BTD (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:02:48 PM EST
    Feel like singing Lucinda Williams' cover of the old Howlin' Wolf song,   "I asked for water, he gave me gasoline".

    At this point, (none / 0) (#155)
    by steviez314 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    the Senate Bill is still about $900B (more than the House), 75% has an impact within the first 2 years (more than the House), and under 30% is tax cuts (more than the House, but still less than the originally thought about 40%).

    Even Nelson/Collins will probably not get thouse numbers lower than the House bill...and then the reconciliation will only make it bigger, not smaller.

    So, what exactly don't you like about the bill?  There is just no way this single bill can get much bigger.  It's more likely there will be additional bills in the future to do more of the longer term stuff.


    500B in tax cuts (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    with half of that not targetted to low income folks.

    The price tag is only good IF the stimulus is in the price tag. It ain't.


    housing 15,000 tax credit/car purchase (none / 0) (#167)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    2 stimuluative amends:

    I like the Mikulski Car Purchase Incentive Amend. that passed last night, it will certainly stimulate me to buy a car, car loan interest and sales tax fees all deductible, covers all earning up to 125k :0)

    and the GOP Housing at least is a start and I do think the 15k tax credit for purchasing a home will stimulate housing..and I would certainly refi for 4.00%....that would give us a start on a bottom in housing

    (I would rather have my dream of HOLC tho' I am hoping something is coming next week from Geithner on housing....)


    I have too many friends (5.00 / 7) (#177)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    who are afraid they're next on the pink slip list.  They aren't thinking about buying cars now.  If they're in a home a house they couldn't sell it to buy another.  If they rent, their investments have become devalued to the point where they couldn't buy a first home.  More than anything, though, without knowing that they will have an income going forward, no one I know in this situation is willing to take a chance on taking on debt.  That's a big part of the problem facing this economy at large.  Tax credits without job creation won't do it.

    Agree!! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:39:23 PM EST
    Well I certainly agree!! I am in no way endorsing the porkstuffed horror show they call the stimulus, LOL,

    but what I mean to do is point out two pieces added yesterday that are moving in a good stimulative direction (as opposed to off the GD cliff like the House bill)

    This helps increase car sales for those who do have work (we are in education),and helps MANY who are close to housing danger to refi to 4.00% and save their axxes (like me!)

    but from the git go, I think it is all about the housing

    for those who dont see the connection, Obama stole Hillarys line, it is the three legged stool

    sadly they gave us a few gangrenous toes instead of the first good leg-the stimulus for job creation,

    then the HOLC, then the financial reregulation

    He is pretty screwed IMO, the TARP TWO is looking to be about another 2 trillion of which only 350 billion has been legislated,

    so Geithner of all frakin people has to go to Congress to ask for another 1.65 trillion for the EEEVIL banks...

    This should rival when Charles I called Parliament back into session after locking them out for years...it will be UGLY
    good luck with that!

    that is why IMO he did the stimulus first, but as BTD has said, he foolishly let Pelosi write the frakin thing and he has been voting present ever since, not governing, not leading


    sorry/word for rant off


    Mikulski Amend.. (none / 0) (#176)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    a piece on the car buying amend here

    The CBO scored it as (none / 0) (#172)
    by steviez314 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:32:21 PM EST
    Outlays $630B
    Revenues ($250B)

    So I get about 30%, not 50%.  

    Now today they added targeted  tax breaks for home buyers and car buyers (which I think is needed to start clearing the inventory out).

    That got the bill up to $920B.  Now, Collins and Nelson are talking about getting rid of maybe $50B....which gets us to $870B, still more than the House.

    I'm not as pessimistic as you, and I'm ignoring all the TV spin for now.


    1993 (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by WS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    The Republicans are trying to do what they did back in Clinton's first term; unite and block everything.  Now, it's clear moderate Republicans like Snowe and Collins still feel comfortable with the troglodytes of their party.  

    Obama needs to get tough and re-think his post partisan strategy.  The day Obama held a meeting to lobby House Republicans was like when Bush entered Capitol Hill to lobby Republicans for his immigration bill. It was pathetic.  Obama's team should start counting and scrape together the 60!  

    Forget the huge Republican support pipe dream because people aren't going to care if it passed with 60 votes or 80 votes.  All they're going to care about is if its passed and if it helped them.  

    Rails? There were rails? (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:28:27 PM EST

    crazy train (none / 0) (#158)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:54:34 PM EST
    we need a linky to Ozzy now!!!!!

    here we go...

    ai ai ai aiiii



    No Negotiations Period (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    I never saw a need to try and negotiate with Republicans and apparently they have not seen a need to negotiate with Democrats for the last 8 years. Most likely longer. Now we are in power and Obama's team put in stuff in the plan so they can concede to the other side and take it out. Nice plan. Like the GOP did not recognize it when it was being discussed on the news channels. The headlines were not that Obama was playing nice. They were the GOP will not allow this bill to pass. The GOP says the bill has too much pork. The GOP says that the bill does not do enough. And Obama serves cookies.Who is running the show anyhow? We need some real down to earth strongarming right now!

    Amendments, Buy American (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    there are positive changes getting made, but Labor will be pixxed, they are voting on a watered down Amendment basically leaving it the way we already had it, LOL

    but it averts global trade wars always nice when we teeter on depression like economy...

    as they make changes I think the public will come back on board

    But Team Obama needs IMO to learn they CANNOT VOTE PRESENT anymore

    post here with linkys galore

    Declawed Buy American amend just passed (none / 0) (#170)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:27:52 PM EST
    well it just passed

    not sure if AFLCIO realizes this leaves things the way they were already!!

    it does not restore us to the 1933 provisions, it leaves all the amends that followed it after 86 in place, it has to or we are out of compliance with WTO..

    lets see if Labor notices

    outcome: CAT happy US Steel sad


    Hey BTD (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by DFLer on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    At the risk of being dense here, I ask, would you please expand a little on this part:
    It's not so easy when Clinton Derangement Syndrome is not in the mix.

    I think I get your point in general, but not sure.

    Do you mean in part, that much of their political strategy was based around opposing Clinton, and no with that out of the mix, they're a bit lost? Or what?


    I'll answer for BTD, if he doesn't mind. (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    Yes.  That is what he means precisely.

    Who to blame? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by wickedlittledoll on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    I don't understand why people are ranting against Obama for not "capturing the hearts of the people" and "mishandling the economic crisis." The guy has been in office 2 weeks! And he has already managed to move things forward and work across the aisle. That's more than I can say for Bush, except if by moving forward you mean bankrupting the economy and starting two wars. Oh and dismantling the constitution of course. But then again, who needs that anyway?

    You praise him for his fault--- (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:09 PM EST
    working across the aisle is NOT what is needed. Total repudiation of decades of failed Republican thinking is required.

    Unfortunately, he has not moved things forward (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    and chasing the elusive unity pony is not the remedy our citizens need at this time.  We have very real problems right now in our country and, yes, these two weeks are may well be the most important in his term.  He has squandered tremendous political capital during this crucial period......for what?  Not us, I'm sorry to say.

    One problem with Obama ... (4.88 / 18) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    and his team:  They're not as smart as they think they are.

    The Clintons are smart but they never expect people will just accept this as fact.  

    They do the homework, the extra-credit, they stay after class and clean the erasers.

    And, when it comes to math, they "show their work."

    I do not know how smart or not they are (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    When it came to campaigning, they were smarter than everyone else.

    When it comes to governing (which BTW, is all the campaigning Obama gets to do now), I am not impressed at all.


    Let's wait until he does something (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by lambert on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:18 PM EST

    Tap, tap, tap (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    Obama already showed his hand... (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:33:59 PM EST
    nothing there. republicans tested and Obama didn't even know it. He's off on his bipartisan, 'new way of doing business' fantasy.

    I wonder if the oatmeal cookies... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by lambert on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:08:24 PM EST
    ... are in the shape of ponies?

    I'm thinking it's time for (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    unicorns - they're really so much more magical, you know?

    Governing, of course ... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    is the real test.

    In the eyes of the public it's a zero-sum game. Especially now.

    And, as you suggest, what will alienate the public in a year will be based on what Obama does now.


    The game has changed (5.00 / 11) (#59)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    Republicans are out in force with their spin and the media is playing along repeating their spin and being tough on Obama and the Democrats. This was not the case during the elections so we never had a chance to see how well Team Obama could do when faced with this level of fierce opposition.

    I agree that Obama wasted time on the unity schtick which is backfiring badly because the media is blaming him for Republican obstruction tactics. But I also agree with Digby that Obama is not selling the plan well.

    What Digby, like most liberals, doesn't get is that it's not just Obama who has dropped the ball, it is all the Democratic leaders. The Republicans are effective because multiple voices repeat the same talking points all over the media. Democrats always wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting.


    it may be that the dems (none / 0) (#180)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    have no good plan and are counting on blaming the republicans when the econ. tanks further. that's been their strategy regarding iraq. and it may be that post-partisan obama plans to pile on against whichever side, dem. or repub, gets the blame when the stuff hits the fan. or maybe obama is waiting for a true catastrophe so he can on the spot roll out the best plan evah! for my part, i doubt it. i think his ace in the hole is a possible foreign policy screw-up he can pin on hillary.

    thank you! (none / 0) (#192)
    by Prithimp on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:33:14 PM EST
    lol (4.20 / 5) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:17:54 PM EST
    His whole campaign was disinformation, dishonesty, and bullsh#t.[editing for profanity mine]

    Isn't that what the "obots" said about Hillary?  I think you have been infected with the same disease as the "obots"


    Well (3.66 / 6) (#92)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:48:21 PM EST
    He said she said, it all boils down to extremism.

    Your comment above smacks of the same cultish behavior aka extremism, from the obots where everything Hillary was bad.

    Oh yeah, the wingnuts also share your view.

    No, it boils down to facts (4.66 / 12) (#152)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    Obama was exempt from factuality during the campaign, but not now.

    Righty (1.00 / 7) (#188)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    Then I'm sorry Obama couldn't be an incompetent hack who classily appealed to "hard-working white people" but he was to busy winning. Maybe in 2012 he can make up some war experiences and appeal to you like Hillary did.

    News flash times 2: (4.00 / 4) (#189)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    There is absolutely no point reliving the primaries by attacking Hillary now;
    on the other hand, if Obama continues to stumble, there will be every reason for the opposite..just saying.
    Your position is lose/lose.

    Whatever! (none / 0) (#96)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    Obots (1.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:18:48 PM EST
    So that would make you a Hilltard then? Seriously, get over the primaries already rhe Hillhadis lost.

    Hilltard, LOL (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:27:14 PM EST
    Good one.  Always wondered what the other side of the obot cult coin was called. Always good to keep up with useful neologisms.

    I haven't used (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    stuff like that since last June, its amazing that anyone who isn't a right winger would use that term.

    "It's amazing that anyone who isn't a right (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:42:55 PM EST
    winger would use that term" - Hilltard, yes.  How droll.

    For once I agree with you.
    Obama won.  He has to lead now.
    Catch up please.  


    Sorry, my bad (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:50:53 PM EST
    I shouldn't be feeding you.
    Time for bed.

    Ok (1.00 / 8) (#185)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    Hilltard please try and get over the primaries.

    Did (1.00 / 9) (#186)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:26:56 PM EST
    the Snipers in Bosnia tell you that one? But okay continue the Hillhad.

    Sheeze (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:53:59 PM EST
    Did you just come here to whine about Hillary, and everything else?  

    You won't win the 'hearts and minds' of many here with that attitude.


    Okay (1.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    Yeah it was like hearing that "bridge to the 21st centruy crap" man I sure am glad you never fell for a line like that.

    Think about it. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    I don't see how it would have been different if Obama would have tried to ram it through either. The GOP would have said he was playing hard ball and refused the bill. So he tried to be nice and they still don't want the bill. Blame this on the GOP not Obama.

    You mean to tell me (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    that they couldn't find a way to buy off two Republicans?

    I think that's what they call political malpractice.


    In the Old Kinda Politics, an earmark or two ... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    ... would nail down those two votes.

    In the New Kinda Politics, they'll just have to raise the goosebumps level a notch or two.


    For crissakes (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    Think about it.

    Suppose you are right on the GOP resisting even if he went agressive on his plan (and I say so what? the real issue is whipping the sh*t out of the Blue dogs anyway. Me, I would go to war with them on this. This is the most important piece of legislation Obama will enact politically for the next 4 years. BAR NONE. He can be nice to them on other things, not this).

    When he has to "compromise," he would have been starting from a much more efficacious point. Now a crappy inadrquate plan will be made even crappier.

    If he had come out with a full bore plan, a good effective plan would have been made less effective, but still effective after "compromising."

    I think Obama needs to make a stand NOW on this bill. I think it is c ritical moment in his PResidency.

    so come on and say it - "he's only been President for 2 weeks." Indeed, and they likely will be the 2 most important weeks of his entire Presidency politically.  


    BTD, was the ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:54:40 PM EST
    capitalizing of "PR" in presidency on purpose or a Freudian slip?



    A typo (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    He is the President and we as a country need him to do the right thing policy wise and as Dems, we need him to do the right thing policywise for our political future.

    I will not lie to you - I am desperately concerned right now.


    Not only am I desperately concerned (5.00 / 13) (#26)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:07:25 PM EST
    I'm desperately unemployed.

    Will someone in the administration please follow the lead of the Barbara Boxers and Barney Franks and learn how to stand up and fight the  intellectual weaklings in the GOP and the MSM?


    "Will someone....?" (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Shainzona on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    That's a big NOPE (and no, that is not hope misspelled).

    I'm so sorry, lobarry (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    I'm about the only left standing and with a job in my family now, so having to help support others, put off hope of retirement by 65, etc.  But as colleagues and I were commiserating about such devastation that we see, we said -- at least we have work.  Heck, tomorrow is a meeting at work that will (details slipped out) inform us that we are so fortunate that we will have more work than ever, taking on overloads!  Fine, we'll do our part -- but it's only because we'll be doing the work of part-timers who will not be hired back again.

    Day by day, it gets worse.  Once again, it will show up in data months from now.  Just as I knew and said more than a year ago, from what I saw around me, read in the business section, etc., that the election would be about the economy, not the war or whatever . . . and only in the last weeks of the campaign did the feds even begin to admit how bad it was.  And now it is so much worse.

    The feds at their desks in DC need to get out more.  I think we already are beyond recovery in anything less than at least three and more likely five to seven years.  In the interim, the widespread devastation will be awful.

    I'll hold hope and good thoughts for you, too.


    Thanks for the kind words. (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    Much appreciated. On the bright side, at least I'm healthy.

    We need more than people in the (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    administration to do this. All the Democrats need to start fighting back. They have had years to learn how to do this - since Reagan. So far they have been nothing but wusses who get rolled time and time again by the propaganda spewing bullies on the right. Don't forget how Democrats stood by and let Gore be savaged by them. Dems are more than partly to blame for the disaster that Bush wrought.

    I am appalled by how many right wing talking point I am hearing - the New Deal didn't create any jobs; giving money to people who "don't pay taxes" is a waste; FDR made the depression worse; we need capital gains and marginal tax cuts, not government spending; tax cuts pay for themselves because the raise revenues......and on and on and on.

    Media Matters has been documenting some of this as has Salon, but for the most part Dems are just letting these lies stand. No wonder the public buys into it.


    Yup ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    but past is prologue.  And these failings were evident in Obama's past (albeit limited) performance.

    His bizarre love affair with the right wing, his silence on HOLC, unity pony nonsense, his fear of specifics, etc..

    But there's more to his economic plan than the stimulus ... I hope.


    Sorry - there isn't more to an economic plan. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Shainzona on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    This package has nothing to do with policy - it's a laundry list of Dem Congressional "desires" and Obama is still trying to push it and pretend that it's meaningful or has a chance of actually "stimulating" anything.

    That means...no conviction, no plan, no policy.

    And we - the People - sink further into the muck.


    I wonder if the people were to (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:36:13 PM EST
    ignore the media and Obama's stimulus package (not to mention Obama's statement that it is going to get much worse), could we create a reality that differs from what they say?

    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    Very worried about who's minding the economic store...if anyone.

    What is WRONG with these people?

    Visiting schools?  "Tired of the White House?"  What the Hell is the message here?  Still campaigning?

    Time to govern.  But do they know how?  This is when it counts, just like Bill Clinton's tax raise.


    He won't make the stand you want (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Support is falling among not only the Senate, but among voters as well.  The longer this drags on and people hear numbers like "$9 trillion" that get thrown around so casually on TV and in the news, the more nervous they get.  And some of those people have been calling their Senators.

    Mix in with that, all the troubles with cabinet nominees, including one about a staffer to Judd Gregg out today (which does not implicate Gregg in anything, but just looks bad after all the bad news out already this week), this is not a fight I think he's up to fighting on multiple fronts.


    Playing tough a good thing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    I won't deny that it would be nice to see Obama and his team be a lot tougher. Perhaps there is a naivete there? He hasn't had many political battles. As you say, he was good on campaign battles but this is different.
    But it comes down to this; If Obama gets tough will it changed minds and create votes? I know many progressives would love to see this stategy. But if it gets nothing done then we can only hang our hats on this kind of strategy but probably not on an actual working plan. [Or one that works to our liking.]

    He just won the election (5.00 / 16) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    If he can not muscle his own plan now, he will never ever be able to.

    His political strength only gets weaker now.

    And, as I fear, his economic stimulus plan is a flop, he will become Jimmy Carter.


    Or worse ... (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    Herbert Hoover.

    Throughout the campaign (5.00 / 19) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    (I was a Hillary supporter) I had this awful feeling in my stomach;  what if Obama gets elected and THEN we find out what some very smart non-worshippers were warning about: "there's no there, there." Or, as Bill Clinton prophetically stated on the Charlie Rose program, something like, "The American people should understand that if they elect Obama, they truly are "rolling the dice." And Hillary, equally prophetic, said something like, "elect me, and I'll KNOW how to deal with the Republicans, elect Obama and be ready for a long learning curve."

    I worked in upper management for a Dow 30 company over 35 years, and in that time I NEVER ONCE  saw an employee whose achievement equaled his/her aptitude......without the requisite amount of time put in.

    When I saw the mentality (think Claire McCaskill) of the people who Obama targeted in his primary run, I knew we were doomed.

    Please spare me the inevitable, "well, we can't wallow in the past." I'm not writing this to wallow in the past, I'm writing this so maybe one of the geniuses around Obama tells him, "we fu*ked up, boss; we need to do a U-turn NOW!)

    The problems we're facing now have such enormous consequences for all Americans, if not the world, that timidity and "consensus" are the only things that should be "off the table."

    Call Krugman TODAY!

    And as for the Republicans, I'm reminded of L.B.J.'s rule, "when you've got'em by the bal*s, their hearts and minds will follow."


    So I assume (1.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    you backed Biden, Dodd or perhaps Richardson then- because the three major canidates were all basically people who rose high without requisite experience- you had the Jr Senator from NY, the Jr Senator from IL and a 1 termer from NC.

    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    and what will the country become? or become of the country?  Where is the sense of urgency, seriousness and--fire-in-the-belly?   Oh, and leadership?

    Blame the Republicans for refusing to be (5.00 / 19) (#7)
    by ap in avl on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:54:35 PM EST
    bipartisan.  Blame Obama for valuing bipartisanship over leadership in fighting for effective solutions to the problems we face.

    Nice. (none / 0) (#15)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    Great comment.

    EXCELLENT. Thanks. (none / 0) (#84)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    Oabam had huge political capital (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:32:15 PM EST
    what you use political capital for is to ram through bills you know you need.

    Now, Obama has dissipated his political capital, removing his own air of invincibility without accomplishing anything he needed to accomplish. The perfect lose-lose accomplishment.


    Oh, I think he's smart enough (none / 0) (#144)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:34:02 PM EST
    to see that his strategy of playing nice with Republicans is going nowhere.

    Hope (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by WS on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:37:13 PM EST
    he sees the consequences of that action.  There's nothing wrong with rhetoric about D and R working together but you have to be prepared to ram through important bills when the chips are down.

    Man! (none / 0) (#36)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    Post-partisan unity schtick, 11 dimensional political chess AND Clinton Derangement Syndrome!
    I think you've set a record for the highest number your little phrases in one post!
    You and David Sirota need to team up. I'd like to see some mention of Dear Leader-ism

    There's the substantive response (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    I've come to expect from some quarters.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    Starting to think that Obama's bipartisan effort are meant to bring in Blue Dogs more than anything else. It is obviously not working.

    There must be some way to force those guys into submission, because it is clear that spending tons of money is not he problem, considering they have enabled BushCo to sack the economy for 8 years.

    for the blue dogs, PPUS has the (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    effect of making them support Obama less---right?

    Got It (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:44:02 PM EST
    Sorry to be so slow with the BTD anacronyms...

    No I think the opposite is the case. Blue Dogs and So called "moderate" dem Senators are seem more responsive to GOP dog whistles. Seems to me that those are the ones Obama has to get on board. And no it does not seem to be working.

    Nelson (D FL) is working with Collins (R ME) to gut the bill.

    The Senate does not have 60 votes. Were all the D's in line then we would only need two or three R's to make it. Not sure what the count is but it is at least eight votes shy.

    If the Dems could be sure that they have over 50, I would argue it is worth letting the R's filibuster. Let's see what that does for them in their home states.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    Pirate Party of the United Statesirate Party of the United States?

    I've read that they have landed in CA and are trying to get enough signatures to register as a US political party. Quite interesting, but not sure what that has to do with the topic.


    It's not over (none / 0) (#69)
    by ai002h on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    Many of you are writing the obituary too soon. Fwiw, today he took a tougher stance and dropped the bipartisan schtick. He also knows that he made too many concessions immediately, as he admitted in his interview with Katie Couric. At least he's recognizing what hasn't worked, which bodes well for the future, if there is one, lol.

    I missed the tougher stance (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    What did he say?

    'some people can be mean' (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    (goes back to staring out the window)

    He said something like (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 07:10:12 PM EST
    the criticisms of the plan that he is hearing are the same ideas that got us into this mess - tax cuts solving all our problems, tec. In his blog today Krugman says he is happy that Obama is getting tougher.

    BTW Bipartisanship works (none / 0) (#72)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    Digital broadcast TV has been delayed.

    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    But only because the people must be given circuses as their bread is being stolen.

    This is interesting ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:05:34 PM EST

    Maybe the monster Obama created won't just sit at his knees in adulation.

    Sure the diary is a bit eager and naive, but it shows that some of Obama's supporters do care about policy.

    Ha! Obama house parties (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    for this weekend is about as far as I got.  It's past time for Obama house parties when he's in the White House, isn't it?

    Sounds like the online campaign has not "morphed" at all, as the diary states.  It still is in campaign mode -- but, yes, some are dimly starting to figure out that the party's over.  Now, it's only harrrrrrd worrrrrk ahead.


    Team Obama (none / 0) (#169)
    by jedimom on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    ahh but they are taking orders, LOL

    Team Obama themselves also sent out emails telling their brigades to have these little get togethers and push the stimulus, Malkin had it on her site, she is signed up for Obama emails LOL


    schadenfreude? (none / 0) (#111)
    by weltec2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    Too many people are suffering right now for me feel any malicious pleasure or desire to gloat over having been right.

    My mistake (none / 0) (#112)
    by weltec2 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:30:08 PM EST
    schedenfreud -- actual joy in the misery of others.

    Interesting post (none / 0) (#173)
    by mapleh23 on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:35:27 PM EST

    Well (none / 0) (#197)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    That much is obvious.