The Age Of Nelson, Collins and Obama

Earlier today, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

This is not the Age of Krugman . . . It is the Age of Collins, Nelson and Obama.

I'll forego the easy point that for the past 8 years, Paul Krugman was right about everything and Andrew Sullivan was wrong about everything and accept his premise, based on the result today on the stimulus bill (if the Nelson/Collins/Snowe/Lieberman Stimulus plan is indeed now the Obama plan.)

The Age of Obama will be a failure if we will follow the precepts of the neo-Hooverism of these so-called Centrists. Obama talked a lot about the urgency of the moment. But his acceptance of this inadequate policy is a terrible harbinger. [More...]

In the end, this is the result of Obama's post partisan unity schtick. And I believe, unless this changes, the Obama Presidency will fail to solve our economic calamity. This stimulus plan simply is woefully inadequate and will fail. We needed an FDR in this moment. Obama did not deliver. This has to be marked down as a failure of the Obama Administration at this time.

Speaking for me only

< CNN: Tentative Senate Deal On Stimulus | Time to Boycott Kellogg's Cereal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • We threw (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    a 20 foot rope to a person drowning in 30 feet of water.

    Worse (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    We threw a rubber ducky and called it a life raft. So "centrist!"

    One alteration. We're the ones who are (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by tigercourse on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:05:01 AM EST

    if misery loves company (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:12:40 AM EST
    we're about to experience more love than we ever hoped for.

    or obama's schtick (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    is no schtick but what he believes.

    The unity schtick made Obama a media darling (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    and being a media darling got him elected and now that he's elected we see that he actually meant the unity schtick - ergo, he governs (thus far) as an ineffectual centrist.

    For the life of me, I don't know why anybody ever bought into the any aspect of this whole predetermined process.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    He is born to be a media darling. Just like JFK. It has nothing to do with his bipartisan schtick.

    You are so right, (none / 0) (#44)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    The media doesn't give a hoot about unity.  They just fell in love, blinded by their awe and devotion, like a bunch of middle school girls in love.  

    Now they will unmake him, as per their agenda from the outset. Unfortunately, the ill-intentions will also extend to any good that remains in the Democratic party.

    You may be right (none / 0) (#87)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    The media does love wielding their power.

    Conflict allows for laziness. (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by lobary on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:11:18 PM EST
    The Ken and Barbies aren't interested in educating the public about the specific policies being debated. They want gamesmanship, they want conflict. Earlier this morning Noron O'Donnell was downright gleeful about McCain's comments from the floor of the Senate in response to Obama's speech last night. Shorter Noron: "Yippee, it's like the election all over again!"

    True... (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    But the MSM doesn't use its influence in a random manner. The MSM is a corporate entity that uses its power to promote overall corporate interests. They favor any political party that puts moneyed private interests before the public interest - i.e. the GOP.

    I say: send in Michelle. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:38:44 PM EST

    To do what? (none / 0) (#150)
    by joanneleon on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:16:27 PM EST
    What could she accomplish in this situation?  She has no influence with Republican senators.

    She doesn't duck a fight. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:26:55 PM EST
    I am so frustrated (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    I can't even post without wanting to scream.

    I KNEW IT.  I knew education cuts would be first....they always are.  Rich people have private schools or own charters or want to own private/charter schools and want public ed to fail.

    I am retired.  This will not affect me personally but my heart breaks.  After decades of the right trashing public ed, trashing public works of any kind, trashing unions, and still they are given trust to be fair and bipartisan?  HUH?  Are people just stupid?  Do they honestly believe this republican party, still run by extremist neocons, gives a damn about the people?  They don't and yet the president and some of the dems are reaching out to them.  Screw Nelson, screw the blue dogs, screws the idiots who believe that the right gives a damn about Obama, about anything remotely related to regular people.

    I am so frustrated (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by lobary on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    I can't post anything remotely substantive because I'm too busy screaming.

    My escape from this powerlessness is watching Network again. And reading BTD's high dudgeon.


    Re: "high dudgeon" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:57:30 PM EST

    Origins apparently murky, although "dudgeon" appears in Macbeth.

    Query: is there such a thing as "low dudgeon"?


    I think that's where Cheney kept his soul locked (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:00:12 PM EST

    Bludgeon Is a Bigger Stick (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:08:03 PM EST

    1. The root of the box tree, of which hafts for daggers were
          made. --Gerarde (1597).
          [1913 Webster]

    The current meaning seems to stand for the roots use and the root has fallen out of use.


    Jj, the so-called centrist Dems have been (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:27:18 PM EST
    sleeping with the enemy for as long as many of us can remember. Both parties are equally beholden to corporate interests, with a slight advantage to the GOP. Change, schmange. The Democratic establishment intends to even the odds by currying equal favor with the GOP's political benefactors. Clearly, the public has no formative role in this process.

    It will affect me personally (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Coral on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    Sadly, my husband will probably lose his job (public school teacher in the arts). There goes the health insurance, and the house.

    I'm in a state of shock.


    No, no, that won't happen (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    Nearly all school funding is from local money.  I know that it's difficult, but try to not let them scare you, very little of this money would ever have trickled down to local schools.  :(

    Public schools in CA are (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    funded by the state, which closed many offices this Friday--DMV, for example.

    DMV doesn't have the support of the NEA (none / 0) (#140)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    Teachers unions won't let their pay be cut like the other state workers.  Or so I hope!  

    Where do you live? (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by jussumbody on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:57:31 AM EST
    Unions won't have much to say about anything when the counties and states are bankrupt.  Don't you read the papers?  There's a real estate bust going on.  That means the tax base for most school districts in the country is evaporating, and there will be no moeny.  When times were good they lowered tax rates (at least in my state), so the taxes stayed pretty much the same.  Now they will have to raise tax rates in the middle of a severe recession, and those rates may not kick in for another year or so.

    Aren't you just the sweetest thang? (none / 0) (#199)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:31:29 AM EST
    In every county around me they've raised real estate tax rates for the last two years and will again this year.  Last year we were up to $1.14 per $100 of value, with no end in sight and no prediction of how high it will go this year. Not a single teacher has lost a job.  Real estate tax rate increases are immediate, they have to be, to balance the county budgets.  

    Maybe that's just how it works in the states around here, Maryland, Virginia, DC, West Virginia, PA.  


    Me too..... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by sallywally on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    my retirement nest egg has gone away by at least half, and I hate to think what will happen to my state pension and health benefits if things keep deteriorating like this.

    I have been in denial....right now my sister and I can probably keep our house, but if the health benefits go I'm not sure where we'll end up.


    For what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:45:38 PM EST
    It takes about two years from the time you miss the first mtg. payment to final judgement and eviction. And a good lawyer could stretch that out somewhat by making the bank produce originals of everything.

    Also, the banks don't want your house and will be making truly here-to-fore unbelievable offers to compromise.

    It's no fun, but you won't be homeless any time soon.

    Good luck.


    One bit of good news, (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:56:14 PM EST
    You get $15,000 if you buy a house, any house.  Since house prices are down, mortgage rates also way down, and you will get a check for $15,000, you just might find a real deal on a house.  

    Good point...n/t (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    I am so sorry (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    I have fought and screamed to keep the arts in the schools.  But ever since that a**hole Reagan came to office, the right wing has used the arts as a whipping boy, and convinced communities that poor children just don't need the arts. In the richer communities, PTAs and fundraisers keep the arts in their schools but the kids who need the exposure to the arts the most, lose.....and so do the dedicated people in public schools that try to enrich the sometimes dismal lives some kids have.

    Maybe your hubby needs to get certified for the regular ed classroom....as a back up.


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    There is a real emphasis now on reading, writing, and arithmetic in many public schools.  Teachers are still being hired where I live, and starting at $46,000 a year, right out of college.  That's not too bad, for 9 and 1/2 months pay.  Most other college grads don't start out making that much.  Or maybe that's just my family graduates who like liberal arts.

    I don't know if you meant this (4.91 / 12) (#92)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    That's not too bad, for 9 and 1/2 months pay.  

    But this misconception frustrates me.  We get a yearly salary.  And we do one part of our job when our "clients" (children), are available.  Is a lawyer ONLY working when he/she is with their client?  Is the doctor ONLY working when he/she is with a patient?

    Most teachers put in long hours during the school year, much longer than most and with much shorter lunches.   We don't get to work on the golf course, or anywhere else but in school or at home (grading papers, preparing, reading, talking to parents).

    And for much of my career my summers were spent going to school to get required course work for re certifying, paying for the course my self, eventually getting two MA's (again paying out of my pocket).

    And please tell me where you live.....
    starting salary here is still low...maybe $32,000....


    Tough job. Thanks for doing it. (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    I loved my years (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    in the classroom. Kids thanked me in so many ways and amazingly some still are.

     But politically, I was always frustrated.  


    That is part of why it is such a (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:34:44 PM EST
    tough job, isn't it?  

    P.S.  I once opined how much I admired teachers but also sd. I couldn't do it.  My former spouse thought that was a pretty poor attitude for a mother to have!


    Actually I don't necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    think it is.....
    teaching is not parenting.........and parenting is not teaching.  Not in the school sense...though parents teach so many things, good and bad, sometimes without knowing it.

    I know parents who thought I had the patience of a saint....and I don't.  I taught mostly middle school, and I have a great sense of humor which is much more of a virtue when working with that age group.

    Parents have a lot more on the line. That child is theirs for life....mine, and only partially, for a year. A teacher can care about them, love them but not be so easily blinded or fooled by them.  Teachers can go to each other and whine privately about how so and so is "driving me up a wall" today with no guilt at all.
    And kids interact differently with their teachers.  They (mostly, but sadly not all) know they have their parents unconditional love which gives them a little more nerve to push limits.  Not so much with teachers  (well the good ones, the ones they want to respect and like them).  

    So really, not wanting to be a teacher is understandable.  Me, I never really wanted to be a parent, but loved being a teacher.


    Different skill set, for sure. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    I didn't say I agreed w/my ex-spouse's appraisal!

    Please accept this (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    in the spirit it is intended.

    First, a preface: I believe, for the long term health of our country, a state of the art, world class, education system/program is essential. Without it, nothing else matters, and we will be relegated to third world, indentured servitude to those countries that take education seriously. And, if we were successful in constructing such a syestem, and we produced graduates capable of competing successfully with the rest of the civilized world, I would gladly support 6 figure incomes for teachers.  

    But, and you knew there would be a "but," we don't have those graduates, and we do spend an unsustainable amount of money on a failed system.
    The education system is a cartel, a special interest, and as such, its growth, power, and entrenchment are Job #1; student results, an afterthought.

    Please understand, I'm not talking about specific, individual teachers, but the system and what it's evolved into. How do you explain that our graduates score below that symbol of poverty, Bangladesh, in math and science? Some Asian countries have pulled out of international competition out of fear of embarrassing the U.S, as they've done year after year.

    Most people know what the answer is; you can't have an artificial system, lacking competition, lacking fear of failure, and lacking the power to address those issues which make teaching so difficult today. And also, you can't have a system that demands more and more money, year after year, higher than the rate of inflation, and paid for mostly by local property owners, while producing results that are simply unacceptable.

    I've said enough for now, and I welcome your response.


    You're comparing apples and oranges (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    by using countries like Bangladesh, where school is not mandatory after the age of ten.  And it has one of the highest illiteracy rates in Asia.  Are those really your goals for the U.S.?

    Find a huge country that mandates education for all of its children to at least the age of 16, and that provides education through high school for all of its children, and then tell us how it compares -- when the entire populace is the basis of comparison.  Not just the children privileged by family wealth -- or by intelligence, with only the A students allowed to continue schooling.


    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:42:06 PM EST
    You want to nit-pik an example?

    You really want me to bury this site with countless studies, and statistics confirming my point?

    This isn't even in contention.

    As Al Gore said about global warming: "This isn't even debatable any more." "The evidence is in, the conclusion irrefutable."


    And Bangladesh was your example (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:54:46 PM EST
    not mine.  So I was curious and looked up more about it.  Only took a couple of minutes to see that it is not a useful comparate from which we can learn.  

    So give us just some studies from some useful example, another country that attempts to educate all of its citizens -- and thus ends up with not only A students and B students but also C students and D students and, yes, F students.


    If our guide was correct, (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:00:46 AM EST
    whether secondary education is compulsory in India depends on the state in which the kid resides.  Yes, literacy is high--if you are lucky enough to live in a state with compulsory schooling.  

    Do you have a serious comparate? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:51:57 PM EST
    Apparently not.

    Yes, a more open system (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    Would help.  Monopolies rarely encourage the best performances.  

    Our educational system is failing us.  In some inter cities they are paying nearly $15,000 per pupil and less than 20% of students graduate from high school.


    Yes, doctors and lawyers (none / 0) (#139)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:02:36 PM EST
    Only get paid if they are seeing patients and/or clients.  If they don't have patients and clients, if they aren't working for them, they don't get paid.   If a doctor only works part of the year, he only gets paid for that part he works.  He can only bill clients for the time he is actually working for them.   If he takes off the summer, his income is cut by 1/4.  Just like teachers.  They don't make the same pay as someone who works full time, year round.  Maybe they should work year round and get that extra pay, but they don't.  

    Have you ever examined a lawyer's (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    billing records?

    Back in the early 90s, the Chair of (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:05:59 PM EST
    my Art Department cited a statistic that spending on the National Endowment for the Arts cost each taxpayer the price of one postage stamp per year. I'm sure that figure has decreased considerably in the interim.

    Probably less under Bush II. (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    BTW, has Obama appointed anyone as arts guru yet?

    Re: NEA Chair: (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:06:10 AM EST
    link  (Acting chair.)

    Worse still (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:11:14 AM EST
    is that these Republicans would gladly sacrifice the nation in hopes of regaining power. Only this group thinks it's perfectly all right to use Leninist tactics.

    I too am retired and this has no direct effect on me but it certainly does effect my children and grandchildren and watching our nation willingly continue its decline is as you say, heart breaking.


    "Are people just stupid? " (4.83 / 24) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:08:07 PM EST
    You tell me.

    We had the absolutely best prepared, hardest working, most knowledgeable candidate we could have prayed for, and we allowed her to be trashed by Claire McCaskill's children.

    She TOLD you she knew who, and what, the Republicans were.... and are.

    She TOLD you the other guy made speeches....period.

    She TOLD you she'd be ready on Day 1.

    And I'm telling you that Hillary Clinton, weilding the scars that will never heal, would have ripped the Republicans' intestines out with her bare hands, for all Americans to see, by now. And I can just dream  her telling Mitch McConnell, "You wanna filibuster? I got your filibuster RIGHT HERE!

    But she wears pant suits....so you wanna ask that question again?


    I think Hillary Clinton, if elected, (5.00 / 15) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    would have been a bunch less starry-eyed about working with Congress, including any expectations of backing from all the Dems. in Congress.  I suspect she learned quite a lot about expectations of Congress re her health care reform plan when Bill Clinton was President.

    Doubt It (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    She was known as the bipartisan senator, the one GOPers would come to when they needed a deal struck.

    But hey who knows, she could have changed her reputation as dealmaker if she was elected POTUS.


    You don't understand the (5.00 / 13) (#32)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:19:23 PM EST
    difference between the ability to make deals, and blind devotion to the idol of bipartisan comity.
    Obama didn't understand that difference either, until now (hopefully).

    And (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    You don't understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

    In reality, this is not a grade school (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    playground. Your behavior is preposterous, given the near disaster which looms.

    lol (2.33 / 3) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:30:05 PM EST
    What a joke. Having your knickers in a twist doesn't seem to be helping the looming disaster, or does it?

    Is your solution unending flagellation until it all goes away.


    My "solution" is to face reality, (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:33:08 PM EST
    rather than pretending that Ben Nelson does not epitomize the kind of politics which Obama promised to bring to Washington.

    I'm afraid it is you who does not understand. (5.00 / 16) (#49)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    Fantasy is a world where you can send a pre-compromised bill to Congress, and get good results.

    Reality is that you need to brace for a tough fight, so you give Congress a bill that aims very high, in order to get a workable result.

    Bipartisanship is a means to an end, not the goal itself. Unfortunately, Obama seems to have made that serious mistake. I do have some hope that he'll learn from this experience. And, of course, there is responsibility that lies with the Senate Dems, who refuse to play hardball.


    And perhaps (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:25:09 AM EST
    those Senate Dems aren't playing hardball because the White House isn't using the hammer.

    Re: "She was known" (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:20:35 PM EST

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:22:00 PM EST
    Extraordinarly neutral <snk> (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    Co-sponsored w/Frist a bill to put medical records on line.  Everyone seems to be in favor of that idea now though.  Flag-burning?  Probably not her best effort, but, hey, Obama is still wearing that flag pin.

    One mention (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by miguelito on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:13:57 PM EST
    of the just awful possibility of Hillary as POTUS and Obama's first misstep-- and suddenly the daggers of February 2008 come roaring back full force.

    How long til someone calls her Billary in here?


    Um (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    How long til someone calls her Billary in here?

    Haven't you noticed? Billary, as you so humorously call Hillary, had already been called, She has responded and now is seriously on board.

    And (3.50 / 2) (#61)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    Do you think that such a fighting partisan Democrat would be invited to be a regular member of the Family, weekly DC breakfast prayer meetings?

    THere are only three dems including Hillary in that ultra right wing group. Nelson, Lieberman, and Pryor


    I don't give a flying fack what (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    prayer meetings she goes to.

    OK (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    Everyone does not have to be curious about power in the US, and how it plays out.

    Some just go on faith.


    Some look at records. Those who (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    supported Obama understandably may use other methods of divination.

    You are the master of the (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:08:00 PM EST
    non-sequitur.  Who sd. anything about prayer breakfasts?

    Also (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by miguelito on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:14:40 PM EST
    I had no ideas Republicans alone were allowed to have faith in God.  

    Squeaky (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    You're confusing the personal with the political.  Getting along with people, even political opponents, is important.

    Working with the other party on non-ideological matters is also helpful.

    Getting the respect of other Senators would be helpful in getting very partisan legislation enacted. Respect means being taken seriously, respect means power. LBJ knew everyone and knew how to talk to every Senator individually.  His legislative accomplishments while President were staggering.

    Clinton certainly wouldn't have submitted legislation that contained concessions in advance the way the Obama team did.

    I'm betting right now that the GOP has little respect for Obama, they know they can roll him.


    Hillary would have been ready on day (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    one. Apparently that mattered.
    Obama is about ready, on day 17 or whatever.

    YES! YES! YES! (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:27:13 PM EST
    Hillary is way smarter than Obama and she understands how Washington works much better than Obama.  She would NEVER have let this happen.  She really would have been READY ON DAY ONE!

    What a bunch of garbage!  Ben Nelson and Susan Collins?  Give me a break!  

    The crazies have taken over the asylum and Obama's gone to the Opera!  Rome is burning while he's got orchestra seats at the Kennedy Center!  

    I am SOOOO angry at him and his whole darn crew.  So much for Rahm's great abilities on the Hill.  


    Did Obama really go to the (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    opera at Kennedy Center?  If so, that's a good thing!

    Yes, he and Michelle are at the Kennedy Center (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:35:43 PM EST
    How is that a good thing?  If he was LBJ, he'd be working the phones, twisting arms, and taking names, to get his bill passed.  

    Support for the arts by (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:00:08 PM EST
    a President and First Lady is a good thing.  But, maybe his timing was off.  Depends.  What was the opera?

    how much money for the arts (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    is in the stimulus bill? I really don't care what he does in his spare time.

    No info. Did see a pice on (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:34:37 PM EST
    Huff Post urging reinstatement of the Writer's Project from WPA.

    Forget the opera (5.00 / 8) (#188)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:55:34 AM EST
    his job is President of the United States.  He should have been on top of this continuously without let up.

    As Brasstacks said "If he was LBJ, he'd be working the phones, twisting arms, and taking names, to get his bill passed."


    I doubt many would confuse Obama (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:12:29 AM EST
    w/LBJ.  But, would it be politic for President Obama to flake on his announced plan to attend Alvin Ailey anniversary concert at Lincoln Center?  

    Not opera--Alvin Ailey. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:14:20 PM EST
    plus it is date night:  link

    P.S.  One factoid I learned from listening to Team of Rivals:   President Lincoln attended 100 plays during his Presidency.  


    No, the people aren't stupid... (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    Remember, if you count ALL the votes, the majority of the electorate chose Hillary as the Democratic nominee.

    OK (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:44:08 PM EST
    Sounds like you have a case.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:10:40 AM EST
    Sounds like you have a case.

    of cult disorder.


    I know, I know (5.00 / 9) (#72)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    one of the reasons Hillary was my first choice is because she learned the hard way what b*stards the rethugs are and I do believe she would have welcomed the chance to rip those jerks a new one.

    I don't dislike Obama....never had. I just think he and many of his supporters are sadly naive.


    Experience counts (5.00 / 8) (#183)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:29:03 AM EST
    One of the reasons I chose Hillary:  We didn't know if she would succeed, but we did know that she would fight.

    One of the concerns I had about Obama: He would have a learning curve that could be costly.

    Guess what: It just cost.

    I have to give him credit for pushing harder and toughening up his rhetoric about the Republicans over the last couple of days, but I wish he hadn't made the initial mistake (even though I more or less expected it).


    All her life, (4.63 / 11) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:28:14 PM EST
    she was devoted to issues related to the "forgottens:" Children and Women.

    Becoming President for her, more so than for her opponent, had less to do with Power than finally being able to do something about the issues she believed were her calling.

    I know, I know; the primaries are over.


    Perhaps you overstate Ms. Clinton's (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    selflessness.  IMO, she is as ambitious for her own purposes as anyone else running for PResident.  

    Make that SoS Clinton ;-) (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    IS that what the NYT calls her now? (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:13:02 AM EST
    It's not a (5.00 / 10) (#190)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:03:31 AM EST
    matter of selflessness.

    The point that I believe NYShooter was making is that Hillary Clinton's reason for becoming President was related to policy.  There was substance behind her ambition.

    Based on what I learned about Obama, I concluded that there was no substance behind his ambition. So far that conclusion holds up.

    For the sake of the nation I hope he changes.


    We can parse, (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    I suppose.

    I didn't think "it's a question of degrees" had to be explained on this site.


    You wish! (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by jussumbody on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:51:43 AM EST
    And so did I!  But realistically Hillary would not have been all that great.  A heckuva lot better than Mr Obambi-partisan for sure, but unless she was going to step out of Bill's MO and assert herself as a true progressive, probably not the FDR or Eleanor we need.

    One scary thing about all this was not how right Krugman or wrong Sully have been, but how right I have been since teh Gingrich revolution.  If this keeps up, we're doomed.

    And the scariest thing of all is something Jane Hamsher and now Digby have been floating:  that this failure was part of Obama's plan to let the centrists take control of the agenda in congress so they can get their dirty mitts on "entitlement reform".  Even W got burned by that 3rd rail, but Rahm and Obama might suceed if they bankrupt the country first.  And you have to wonder.  After all, NO ONE is naive enough to have honestly believed bipartisanship could work with the Rs for the last 15 years.  OK, a lot of Obama supporters are that naive.  But no one in politics could be that naive.  He's definitely earning the Obama ben Lieberman tag.


    No comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:46:09 AM EST
    On your "entitlement" mystery.....

    But your first paragraph; I believe most "Progressives," at this stage of the game, would welcome an experienced, hard-nosed, pragmatic, Liberal that knocked our trajectory 15-30 % towards fairness, function, and a hopeful future.

    A functional FEMA, SEC, Justice System, et al would be a very welcome down payment right about now.  


    Take that, Squeaky. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:10:58 PM EST
    Its Obvious (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    And yet I see no way to get to 60 in the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    no matter what.  Between the Republicans still left and some of those conservative Dems, it just doesn't seem to matter what economists or business headlines seem to say.

    Think about it--we could probably have a $1.2 Trillion stimulus if we only needed 51 to 54 votes.  Yet to get that "marginal" 60th vote, the package has to be reduced dramatically.  And there's no in between.

    I don't think bully pulpits matter since obviously today's jobs number didn't matter.  It's the nature of getting to 60 in the Senate.  The bill has to appeal to Senators 58-61 and who cares about anyone else.

    Sen. Reid (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    needs to call their bluff on this. The Dems should make the GOP filibuster something rather than just back down due to the threat of it. I know making them filibuster wouldn't be polite and sufficiently post-partisan, but this is politics, not a tea party.

    I am also a true believer in a real filibuster (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by steviez314 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    If they believe in something that strongly, make them act on it and expend some energy.

    Think Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington--now THAT was a filibuster.


    In 2009, a real filibuster (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:06:43 PM EST
    is achieving 41 no votes. Cloture is therefore not invoked, and debate is not limited. So say the Senate rules.

    So let them continue to debate (none / 0) (#56)
    by Coral on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:37:33 PM EST

    Um, no (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    That just means you don't do anything else. If you can't get cloture, a bill is dead.

    I am admittedly ignorant about this (none / 0) (#68)
    by ap in avl on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    I thought that cloture meant "filibuster-proof" and that less than 60 votes meant that there could be a filibuster but that a bill could still eventually pass.  Please tell me more.  

    Everything you could want to know (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:02:57 PM EST
    and more.

    Unless there's unanimous consent otherwise, you need 60 votes.


    Thanks, I will read it (none / 0) (#98)
    by ap in avl on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:16:25 PM EST
    There's a lot I need to understand here and I seriously appreciate your help.  

    Just one hypothetical though:  If Dems were to propose a solid bill that only had 51 votes and there was a filibuster that dragged out for several weeks and the message was received by public that the bill was good and necessary to save their jobs, homes, etc and enough pressure was put on the naysayers to stop the filibuster due to political pressure.......

    could such a bill still pass with 51 votes?

    I really want to understand if that's a possibility.


    Well, I think that's a question (none / 0) (#120)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    of public pressure. The Republicans could be shamed into giving the measure an "upperdown" vote. In an extreme case, the Democrats could simply amend the rules of the chamber through the "nuclear option" (Though that's typically associated with the judicial fillibuster, which many consider a special case. There's also the Nixon ruling PDF.)

    Exactly (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    Aim high. Go for the bill that you know will get 51 votes. And if the Republicans want to filibuster that, fine. While they're doing that, you go on all the networks telling people on how the Republicans are playing politics with their income and their jobs.

    Unfortunately, Obama's misguided post-partisanship had a big hand in delivering a pre-compromised bill. And Democrats are, as always, not willing to play hardball.

    Republicans need 51 votes to govern. Democrats need 60. It's crap.

    I can only hope that some people will learn from this. I have some hope that Obama will learn, he has some time to learn. However, he was in the Senate long enough to know that this is how it goes. Republicans dig in their heels and play hardball. Democrats need to do the same to get anything done.


    He should have made them start tonight (none / 0) (#195)
    by jussumbody on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:20:24 AM EST
    so they'd have a sh*tty weekend and be nice and softened up by Monday morning.  And the gasbags that actually showed up on press the meat would be nice and hoarse.  If Reid had any fight in him at all, he would have "brought it" Friday night.  Of course, the Vichy Dems will always appease.

    They are saying they have at least 60 votes, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:49:23 PM EST
    Every single democrat plus Arlen Spector and Susan Collins.  By the time they vote, they think they can peal off a few more republicans.  

    I hate to say it, but it's over.  Stick a fork in it, it's done.  

    Obama actually thinks that he has 'won'.  

    Sheeze.  He is so out of touch, just like the rest of them.  


    Right, he passed a bill, so it's (none / 0) (#71)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    a victory.

    Daily Kos front page has approval (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:43 PM EST
    ratings for the President, Dems. in Congress, Republicans in Congress, etc.  All ratings have gone down.

    The Republican numbers are so low it means (none / 0) (#12)
    by steviez314 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    that even the people who voted for them hate them.

    No spine or brain (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:18:03 PM EST
    And yet Democrat's still continue to cave in to them.

    Leadership? (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:58:31 PM EST
    Obama was willing to sacrifice his integrity in order to prove just how bipartisan he could be. There are times when a president has to hold his ground. This was one of those times. If this is any indication of his strong leadership, we're going to be dealing with a long and frustrating four years.

    He wants republicans so that he (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    Has someone to blame if it doesn't work.  That's NOT what leaders do.  They do what is right, do what they believe in, convince the country that they are right, and roll the dice.  

    We have elected a wimp who isn't even trying to sell his program.  Or perhaps he just doesn't care.  Afterall, he has a date at the Kennedy Center and he's "exhausted" after being President for TWO WEEKS.  Sigh.................


    Bob Corker is an as*. (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:28:54 PM EST
    He was all for helping the bankers, opposed to helping the auto companies, and then he really stepped in it and opposed Lamar Alexander in wanting to get federal funds to help clean up the sludge disaster from TVA.

    Even the Republicans I know regret voting for him.

    For some strange reason, what (5.00 / 18) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:29:19 PM EST
    keeps coming to mind is,
    someone left the cake out in the rain; I don't think that I can take it, 'cause it took so long to bake it, and I'll never have that recipe again.

    We may never again have the chance we had, with all the elements in place, to push an aggressive, bold and big plan to set us on a path to economic recovery.

    Why anyone would entertain for more than a nanosecond the idea of placing this in the hands of the Milquetoast Mob is just beyond my ability to comprehend.

    Perfect Anne (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by ap in avl on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:34:29 PM EST
    I will always remember this as the "MacArthur Park Stimulus Package".  Almost makes me laugh.  If only I could stop crying.

    Yes, we blew it. I almost hope if fails (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    and we can start all over with a President who sees how those guys will not work with him.

    I read that Diane Feinstein said she may vote no because it is watered down with so many tax cuts. I hope she does.


    Feinstein won't do that, unless (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:00:54 PM EST
    She knows for certain that they have the votes to a pass it without her.  They're all playing their little drama game.  



    "We" didn't blow it, they did... (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    That being said, like you, I do wish "we could start all over".

    Anne, I feel like the cake has been left out (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    in the rain for the past two years.

    Milquetoast Mob (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    I like that.

    Next year when everything sucks really (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    really super bad we will have many more social programs that we MUST have.  It won't be a choice anymore and these idiot Republicans stalling all this are going to eat it in an unbelieveable way.  The year after that we will have more and the year after that more and more.  I don't think people understand how bad the hit is going to be that we are going to take overall.  It is going to send us reeling.  The economy hasn't even felt the layoffs yet and we have even more scheduled, when the economy feels those layoffs it will trigger more layoffs and down the spiral we will go.  We won't feel anything wonderful from this stimulus for at least a year after it begins to be acted upon, and after that this stimulus will not be what brings about our recovery. Only investment in people will bring about our recovery.

    MT, I don't hear anybody saying (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:14:06 PM EST
    that the GOP actually intends to make the overall economy a lot worse but, imo, that's exactly what they are doing.

    I have this awful feeling that they're willing to run us off a cliff in order to justify an eventual money grab from the only source of money we have left: the Social Security fund.


    We all know they'd love to get rid of (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:25:19 PM EST
    that SS entitlement program :)  It's going to be hard getting rid of programs though when people are hungry or homeless or cold or all of the above and that's exactly where we are going quicker than we can even fathom at this point in all of this.  What the Republicans are doing IS going to make the economy worse though and it's already going to be a sad sight and really suck.  Sadly as well, it seems nobody in the beltway can see past the beltway until a hurricane or something of that nature slaps them upside the head and people start dying on Fox News.

    They may manage to grab the SS funds (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:56 PM EST
    before we're all homeless and jobless and furious enough to stop them.

    Yes, I do suppose that is a possibility (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    Stranger things have happened. (5.00 / 11) (#168)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:45:49 PM EST
    Just recently in fact there was this guy elected to be president who said that this was the worst crisis in the history of this country in 80 years and then all he could come up with was a plan to embrace a number of his precessors' economic policies in order to make the opposing party feel like they were relevant on the exact issue that really made them lose all of their power in the first place.

    Some parents have the good sense to take the keys away from their kid who has wrecked three or four cars.  Others feel the need to get a fifth car and let the kid drive them around knowing full well that they are risking their kid's as well as their own lives because they are afraid the kid would get mad at them or get their feelings hurt if someone told them that they just sucked at driving.


    And the winner is (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:37:28 PM EST
    This was Obama first chance in the ring and the Republican's (and the Republican Lite Blue Dogs) scored a TKO. Not the best way to set the tempo for his administration. Wait until they tackle Iraq and "entitlement" programs.

    You're right on the money... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:16:58 PM EST
    Sorry, I'm a little late to the party - I ragged about the impending raid on social security in comment #95.

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:31:54 AM EST
    Obama is now considering changing the Iraq combat troop withdrawal from 16 months to 23 months.

    It was only about getting elected.  There was no substance behind that ambition. None.


    Obama's half way there on SS--- (none / 0) (#60)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:39:23 PM EST
    hasn't he referred to it as an entitlement?

    Abraham Lincoln, FDR -- Not (5.00 / 11) (#58)
    by Coral on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    They were fighters. And they didn't underestimate the strength or meanness of the enemy.

    I do NOT want to hear one more comparison (5.00 / 11) (#84)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    to Lincoln.  Obama has not done ONE SINGLE THING that warrants a comparison to Lincoln or to FDR.  It's rather grandiose for a man who has accomplished exactly nothing, other than win political offices.  

    You want to know the worst of it? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:05:18 PM EST
    Obama may be lauded for a great success in getting this bipartisan garbage passed, and the only way to get satisfaction is if the bill fails, which I certainly hope does not happen.

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:42:11 PM EST
    Because our media is just plain stupid. Here's how the AP calls it:

    Whatever the price tag, the compromise marked a victory for the new president, who has veered between calls for bipartisanship and increasingly strong criticism of Republicans in recent days.

    Well, no. The price tag is the difference between the success and failure of the actual policy, you morons. We are looking at a one term president because this "stimulus" is going to fail miserably.


    Dumb as a sack of hair! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:22:58 AM EST
    They're still giddily in love!  

    Makes me sick.  


    He appointed his former rival, (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:22:31 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton, to a cabinet post.  

    oculus (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:41:48 AM EST
    that's attempting to impersonate Lincoln.  That's not showing the resolve to see a difficult task through to a proper conclusion.

    In appointing Clinton SOS he may have removed a progressive force from the Senate.

    Which makes his Lincoln impersonation all the worse. Lincoln actually accomplished the principle task of preserving the union.

    At the rate Obama's going he'll fail in what should be his principle task, preventing a major depression.


    Sullivan (Vomit Alert!) and the other conservative (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by AX10 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:00:42 PM EST
    who backed Obama did so knowing that there was a good chance that he would be mealy mouthed and would not play hardball like Hillary would have done so.  She knew that this was a dirty game and we are in need of strong leadership.
    Sullivan and company most likely wanted to see Obama come in, compromise with the extreme GOP and fail, ushering in more Republicans/Conservatives.
    Hillary would not take this BS from the GOP.

    Susan Collins (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Donna Z on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    is my senator. She is not a moderate...I watch her votes very carefully. She often gets a "pass" if the republicans don't need her vote and Mainers are againt the bill.

    However, Susan Collins is stupid. A hill staffer once called her the stupidest person on the hill. There's plenty of stupid there, so who knows?

    She is advocating cutting education and the state stabilization money which would save educators jobs. Like every other state, Maine is in trouble.

    If this is the age of Collins, we are screwed.

    I always wondered about that (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:44:16 PM EST
    so glad to get the confirmation.  When I've heard her interviewed, I've been really impressed by her apparent lack of, um, acuity, but it seemed unlikely for somebody in her position.

    Snowe, otoh, seems pretty bright, but misguided.  I always get the sense with her, maybe false, that she knows she signed up with the wrong camp but doesn't have the guts to switch.  She'd be a blue dog if she switched, for sure, but it has always made zero sense to me for her to have stuck with the modern GOP.

    IOW, Snowe really knows better, Collins doesn't, seems to me.


    Snowe is a NE conservative (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Donna Z on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:53:32 AM EST
    She is the more thoughtful of the two; however, she too will stick with the republicans more often than not. Snowe's first husband was a republican congressman who died in office. Olympia took his place. Later she married Maine's then republican governor. After he left office, he found a republican establishment job in DC. Snowe watches their backs.

    BTW, her husband raided the teacher's retirement fund to pay the state's bills. Much later the court said that he shouldn't have done that but there was no need to restore the system.


    How does her stupidity (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    compare with McCaskill's?

    Tough question (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Donna Z on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:36:10 PM EST
    I actually had to think about it for a minute.

    I assure you, as bad as it is, Collins is a frackin' idiot.


    Obama should have taken gloves off (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    Why didn't Obama just take it to the GOP?
    He should have put out the most progressive plan possible and dared them to filibuster it. He could have made the GOP cave to his demands and the demands of the voters. There is no way they would have filibustered because they would look like fools if they did. Now the GOP gets what they want and they can still vote no. The cuts in this thing are not acceptable.

    Who do you think Obama is? (5.00 / 6) (#170)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:49:26 PM EST
    Nothing he has ever said could lead anyone paying attention to believe that he would ever do any of the things you suggest.

    What is needed (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by eric on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    as much as the actual spending, are open and obvious manifestations of the spending.  People need to have their confidence restored.  People need to see this stuff being spent - as in, trucks with project logos, advertisements or the projects, and witnessing actual projects in the works.

    The WPA, CCC, and other FDR programs did this.  People knew that roads and parks were being worked on - they saw people at work.  It would probably be a little different this time, but this is necessary.

    I don't think this bill is big enough, or will accomplish this.

    Well looks (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    like the Reagan babies will get their first grownup taste of Reaganomics.

    Some columnist, probably in (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:22:59 PM EST
    INt. Herald Tribuen, wondered where the grass roots Obama supportsrs are on the stimulus bill?  Are they paying attention?  Are they contacting their representatives in Congress or the White House?

    They like whatever Obama likes (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    They have no stance on issues whatsoever, as far as I can tell.

    Not Available (none / 0) (#157)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:25:09 PM EST
    Non-responsive. (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:31:53 PM EST
    Reply to comment #191 (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 02:09:29 AM EST
    I doubt many would confuse Obama w/LBJ.  But, would it be politic for President Obama to flake on his announced plan to attend Alvin Ailey anniversary concert at Lincoln Center?

    Yes. Working to bring about an economic recovery is politic.  Skipping a night at the opera to do so is politic.

    And. Would that he were another LBJ, but apparently God doesn't like us anymore.  

    we will pay a huge price (4.42 / 7) (#133)
    by pluege on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:50:03 PM EST
    for electing a not yet ready for prime time guy for president

    for electing a guy more infatuated with his own theories than understanding the criticality of what needed to be done and the nature of his, and our enemies.

    for having super delegates that did exactly the opposite of what they were charged to do

    for having a craven caucus process that was easily manipulated by the most clever, to undermine the most qualified.

    its all very unfortunate...

    the additional unnecessary suffering that will be incurred

    the squandering of this opportunity to make real fundamental change

    I think Obama is ready for prime time (5.00 / 7) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:56:04 PM EST
    He's just not ready for this time.  We will never know exactly where Clinton would be right now in this fight if she were President.  All I know is is that she would have come out swinging on this by comparison.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by pluege on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    the "stimulus" would not be anemic and it would not be 42% tax cuts - no how, no way.

    And that is why we like her (n/t) (none / 0) (#178)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:08:03 AM EST
    Oh Noes!!! (3.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Oliver Willis on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:10:56 PM EST
    OMG, all hope is lost, just like how you said there was no way Obama could get the nomination, or how you said he couldn't win without HRC, or the other 9 million things you've been wrong on. Less than a month in and you declare the war loss - are you French?

    So you embrace the ascendancy (5.00 / 10) (#97)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    of Collins, Nelson, McCaskill and Lieberman?
    You are rapturous at having them chart the economic policy at this juncture?
    Then you really are a true blue Obama man.

    BTD said that Obama was the most (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    likely candidate.  I don't ever remember him saying that Obama couldn't win without Clinton either.  He did say that with Clinton Obama would be unbeatable.  Pointing out that Obama is starting out in office by easily rolling over and believing that this isn't a good thing isn't calling the war a loss either.  It is pointing out that one thinks that ground and power has been lost in fighting for what the people need.

    Look, you can infer from his (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    preferences that OW isn't particularly concerned with either getting the facts right or with examining the record closely.

    Heh (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:26:57 PM EST
    Here's what I remember: (5.00 / 8) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    Obama is the most electable of the Dem candidates because he is the media darling, there isn't a dimes worth of difference on the issues BTD cares about, and Obama wins by a larger margin if he selects Clinton as his VP.  

    As always (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:35:06 PM EST
    you have a court reporter memory.

    Not really. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    I did read carefully, as I couldn't really understand why BTD stuck with Obama to the end.

    I was always just sad that he wouldn't (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:43:43 PM EST
    desert the most plausible and path of least liberal resistance for the dream of the screaming PUMA :)  He is usually so flippin sensical.  He could even get boring if there wasn't so many effin things we can't afford to be and won't enjoy being idiots in the end about right now.

    Not sure how to reply. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    Thinking I would rather Obama deomonstrate the qualities so many have credited him with having.  

    Oops. Forgot about FL and MI (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:24:29 AM EST
    BTD said all along Obama would win. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    I know you like to lie..I've read your posts on DKos, but you're stretching it here.

    Wow... (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    I thought only the Republicans made jokes about the French.

    Are you a Republican? Like so many of Obama's supporters?


    I know, and squeaky was talking (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:26:01 PM EST
    about my knickers being in a twist---isn't that something Republican troglodytes usually say?

    Good catch. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:47 PM EST
    "ouille!" (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    That was so sloppy, (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    that I figured he used it intentionally. No idea why, though.

    Good one, but in case anybody's forgotten... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    Repubs supported Obama in the Primary...In the GE? Not so much.

    I'm sure you recall the whole "Dems for a Day" movement, whereby Republicans switched their party affiliation in order to vote for Obama in the Democratic Primaries; then switched back to the GOP to vote for McCain in the GE. That's where all the fabled Obamacans have gone.


    Good to see your concern for (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:48:44 PM EST
    substance remains at the same level as ever.

    What a pathetic comment.


    Bow Before Armando (1.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Oliver Willis on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:23:32 AM EST
    Why don't you just become a Republican? Then you don't have to hide behind all the posturing when you attack Obama.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 5) (#184)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:40:07 AM EST
    Were that you showed the same concern for the Obama strategy that allowed Ben Nelson and Susan Collins to attack the American people.

    Zomg. (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by lobary on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    Wow, that was like...how do they say in France?... kryptonite to stupid.

    I'm giving you a 2 for that crack about the French (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    Boy, they sure gave up easy at Verdun (not to mention Yorktown).  

    So, how do you think Obama's first 2 1/2 (none / 0) (#115)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:30:07 PM EST
    weeks compare with FDR's? Just curious.

    you are an idiot. (2.33 / 3) (#194)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:16:47 AM EST
    More than that, I am tired of white folks patting themselves on the back. It's not over and we aren't done just because we have a Black president.

    that pres. obama is following in the footsteps of candidate obama has nothing at all, zero, nada, zilch to do with anything in that statement. it has to do with the fact that, unlike sen./candidate clinton, sen./candidate obama was an empty suit, with nothing significant of substance to recommend him for the job of president. he only looked good next to mcain, which didn't take much. heck, my cat looks good next to mcain! my cat turned the job down.

    the absolute only reason i finally voted for obama, was because i feared a mcain/palin win in va might be significant, and there seemed a hope that obama might pull it off.

    so take your reverse racist/sexist bs elsewhere, it's no more wanted here than the ususal suspect.

    if pres. obama doesn't get his act together, quickly, and stomp down on the republicans, do not be surprised (as i noted elsewhere) if SoS clinton resigns.

    why put up with the grief, for an inept administration and congress?

    This is (2.00 / 1) (#205)
    by JThomas on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 03:00:12 AM EST
    the first of a number of hurdles for this bill.
    There was nothing for Obama to do tonite on it.
    These comparisons or fantasies about how Hillary would do things is a waste of time. She lost, folks. Accept the reality that if she was so talented, then Obama is even better. She would have had an even harder time getting anything done because she was never as popular with the voters and without that leverage she would have faced an even more resistant GOP. You need 60 votes in the senate...and she probably only gets 50. Obama is our best shot, quit trashing him and support the guy.

    Thirteen jobs each minute (none / 0) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:36:36 PM EST
    Katie Couric just told me that the economy is losing 13 jobs every minute. If my arithmetic is correct that  comes out to 18,720 jobs every day. Perhaps we should send violins to the President and Congress.

    Maybe he'll say scrap it and start over (none / 0) (#6)
    by masslib on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    with a new bill.

    Just so (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 08:47:42 PM EST

    TIme for War Mr President (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:00:00 PM EST
    Time to take off the kid gloves. These f'ers deserve no respect. They are out of touch and need to be made to own it.

    Obama entered office out of touch. (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    That was the problem. Does he have the largeness of spirit to completely repudiate his past views on bipartisanship? I hope so.

    Pampered Politicians! (none / 0) (#36)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:24:19 PM EST
    Way too many in government are totally out of touch with reality. They haven't had to deal with the real world for years. Hardship to most of them is having to work in DC more than 100 days a year.

    Are some not voting on these (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    amendments? I don't think the last one hit 90 so is everyone even there to vote on the stimulus?

    Fine Sully, next year when we are all (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    face planted in the age of Krugman we will remember how much Krugman told us all this stimulus would fix ALL THAT AILS US at this time.  This is a start and a pretty feeble one at that and getting feebler as the days pass.  Without this everything will collapse.  With this everything will only partially collapse.  Whatever man, I'm still holding at my own belief that the markets will hit bottom at 6500.  We haven't even hit bottom yet but this is the age of the few yahoos we can hope to get onboard for this first round of what we MUST do.  Next year Sully, you are going to be kicking yourself for not insisting on much much more than this "stimulus".  On second thought, nope - you won't be kicking yourself, you'll still be trying to make BS headlines while fellow bloggers remind you and everyone else that if you were credible you would be kicking yourself.  And next year, the Republican party will embrace a deeper death than anything I could have ever imagined for it.  Rock on though man.

    Eh, I'm waiting for a steady 5,000 (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jussumbody on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:25:54 AM EST
    (end to volatility) before I put any of my 401K back in the stock indexes.

    Re "The Age of Obama." (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    Good one.

    The First Lady dined (none / 0) (#137)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    on a cheeseburger, fries and a Coke for lunch today at Five Guys Burgers and Fries at DuPont Circle if anyone's interested.

    I'll be Orangeclouds is (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:11:13 PM EST

    Practically Lactating, I must disagree with you. (none / 0) (#138)
    by AX10 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    If Obama failed and he was the only one
    who suffered I could give a damn less, however the fate of billions of people lies here at his feet (unfortunately).  He must be successful.  If not we will have another Bush or worse (i.e Palin) in 2012.
    See my posts above.  I know that Hillary would not let this happen.  She would have controlled the media message.  She would have used the bully-pulpit very well.

    Also, seeing that Ted Kennedy played a sizable role in helping Obama, he should have the decency to step down now.  His vote is needed, if he cannot be there for ANY reason, then he needs to let a replacement come in so that we have the vote of his seat.

    He is "en route" to Washington (none / 0) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:46:46 PM EST
    right now for the vote, according to CNN.

    Teddy will always, always come through on stuff like this unless he's quite literally on his deathbed.


    Okay so (none / 0) (#159)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:27:01 PM EST
    Slow Drip Economics? Drought Economics?

    Obamanomics (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    I predict, and you heard it first here. :-)

    "neohooverism"? (none / 0) (#206)
    by diogenes on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    They took funding that wasn't so good at creating jobs out of the stimulus and that's "neohooverism"?  The word Hoover on the internet is turning into the equivalent of the word Hitler--when it's mentioned, the discussion has jumped the shark.