The Crush

Kevin Drum:

I've got all sorts of complaints about Obama. [. . .] Still, none of that comes within light years of providing a reason to turn on him. Conservatives gave Bush five or six years before they really turned on him, [. . .] Given the cards he was dealt, he hasn't done badly.

(Emphasis supplied.) Sheesh Kevin. "Turn on him?" What does that even mean? Was some loyalty oath violated? Yes, let's be blind loyalists like the Bush supporters were. Again, sheesh. As Bill Maher says, he's not your boyfriend.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Seattle City Attorney To Dismiss All Marijuana Possession Cases >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How low can the bar go? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    ..."he certainly gave us fair warning about his dedication to reaching across the aisle and trying to work with Republicans. The fact that they've spent his entire first year in a raging temper tantrum is hardly his fault. Given the cards he was dealt, he hasn't done badly."

    I feel sick.

    How about getting mad at (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    Kevin Drum?
    Look, Obama gets people to love him---that's what raw political talent is!
    Apparently permanent brain death follows quickly for some.

    Saying No To Obama Is A No No? (none / 0) (#76)
    by norris morris on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    It's tyranny to criticize Obama?

    I didn't know that being a Democrat made me a member of the KGB.

    Why is it considered even remotely smart not to hold ANY President accountable?

    Without open criticism there is no democratic process. The very science of politics demands that critical inspection and debate are the process.

    Why in the world would anyone or should anyone suspend their critical judgement?

    Because?  Because Obama is a human that has been
    invented and imagined by pure hype and besotted idolatry that has no place in responsible politics.

    Obama should be supported when he should be supported.  When he makes wrong turns it's really important that he along with all others in our government are held accountable.

    Blind faith? Ridiculous.  This is the real world.


    I just got through reading the (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by hairspray on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:32:50 PM EST
    biography of Alice Paul who was a radical activist and was the critical mass needed to get the 19th amendment passed. Until she came along it was slow and tortuous.  She marched, picketed and went to jail.  But she got it done. So playing nice doesn't work.  We know that.  Poor Kevin.

    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:20:52 AM EST
    Now, why is Kevin taken seriously and has a decent gig?

    From Iraq war to everything else, he seems to be a weather vane, looking to echo the 'wisdom' of the 'serious people'?

    Even in blogsphere, why is it that those who have been WRONG time and again, constantly get quoted?

    BTW, Republicans haven't done anything.  They have been completely inept.  It's the Obama team who gives Snow, Nelson, Lieberman, and others the power they have.  

    Kevin doesn't want to admit that Obama owes his position to fat cats and is delivering for them.  Obama has lied through his teeth since he started running.  Blaming the republicans/conservative democrats is just a fig leaf.


    Did you see John Steward (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:03:20 AM EST
    yesterday?  He talked about the bar too and he apologized for setting it too high and said that we should just leave it on the ground and maybe they'll trip over it :)

    I mean John Stewart (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 11:43:02 AM EST
    God I'm terrible at finger commenting sometimes :)

    That write up did nothing other than pi$$ me off (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    First of all, I was never in love with Obama.  I saved my delusional self for Edwards, and I have proof of that love making.  I have never seen Obama through any lens other than this is the man who gets the job.  He has been employed by me.  This is the kicker for me though.....

    Conservatives gave Bush five or six years before they really turned on him, and even then they revolted more against the Republican establishment than against Bush himself.

    Yes Kevin, I aspire to be as politically ignorant as the Republican base!  I have failed miserably!

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    I should have highlighted that part.

    I stole it from you (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    Ah, good -- a different sort (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    of full disclosure!

    ***Sigh*** (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    I never did fully trust Edwards, although his populist message was seductive (if you'll pardon me for the term, given his subsequent problems).  I did like Dennis Kucinich, even though he had his own problems, and never had a national base.  Howard Dean.....yes, I liked him, too, despite some problems there, too.  I only voted for Obama because I considered McCain/Palin beyond the pale.  My Democratic Party is not the one I used to vote for, and I'm sick and tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils."  If I find a true progressive/populist who has even the slightest chance of making it on a national ticket, I'm there, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    Can you see us as Edwards apologists? (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    It was just a little baby :)  The cancer isn't that bad...she's still alive isn't she?

    omigod (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:12:06 PM EST
    That is too good, MT. Or actually so bad, because it's so on target.

    Did you consider Hillary Clinton at all? (none / 0) (#33)
    by mogal on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:50:01 PM EST
    Yes, I did, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    although I also realized that she, too, was not as leftist as I would have preferred.  When she lost the primary (during which, BTW, I voted for Kucinich), I voted for Obama in the general election (as I would have voted for Hillary, with perhaps a bit more enthusiasm) because the opposition was just unendurable.

    I felt the same way about Clinton too (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:10:04 PM EST
    I felt she was more of a known quantity as well.  I could have been wrong about that too.  I had respect for the BTD take on the situation, that the press wasn't going to attempt to eviscerate Obama as they couldn't seem to help themselves from doing to Clinton.  In any case, I was hiring a Democrat.  Once I've been able to hire a Democrat then they need to act like a Democrat and they need to represent the Democratic party platform.  Bush started out almost from day one not representing the Republican party's platform and it is not my fault that those voters simply allowed their own party representation to go on and on and on on that insane road they were on until the party imploded.  I can't see myself following that act with a repeat preformance, only this time in the key of "D".

    Forgive me for jumping in... (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    ...but I started off as an Edwards supporter, too. (As I said to someone to someone just today about it -- if I ever need to be reminded that I can be a really poor judge of character, just say, "John Edwards," and I'll shut up.) He was the only one who was really talking about U.S. poverty issues, and that pulled me to his side in the beginning.

    I was in a weird place early in the primaries -- I didn't like Obama's chosen approach to Republican opposition... after the previous eight years, and the latter half of the Clinton presidency, I didn't think "reaching across the aisle" had a hope of actually working. I wanted someone who would fight the sumbishes. And I was reluctant to really look closely at Clinton because I was tired of fighting those battles. I mean, I knew that whatever candidate won the primaries would have all sorts of slime thrown at them, but at least it would be different slime, and I wouldn't have to have the Whitewater argument again.

    It was the debates that shifted me to the Clinton column, and the command of policy details that kept me there. And also, I figured if I was looking for someone who would fight the sumbishes, I could do much, much worse. :-)


    My concern about Obama was his lack (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by hairspray on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:41:24 PM EST
    of experience.  Look at the health care debacle. Who owes him anything?  Who can he knuckle like LBJ did. LBJ was a senator for decades with lots of chits out. Bill had years of governing with the snakes in Arkansas to learn from. This is precisely the reason why the US rarely elects a senator and they should not do it in the future if the senator is a newbie.

    I liked Edwards because of (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    the poverty issues and his stand and work as well.  If anyone wants a really strong country that can pay what needs to be paid to have the best health and education programs, we can't have this level of poverty.  When Clinton was President and welfare reform was in the hopper I took a semester college class when I was bored that the admissions office was talking up.  It was a six credit class, and they told me that the credits would never transfer straight across outside of Wyoming but students raved about the class titled Social Problems.  So I signed up, ended up with a bunch of aspiring social workers.  I had never looked at our social systems before or thought about how they interacted with our capitalism until that class.  I loved President Clinton too.  Decided to do my final paper on welfare reform and how great it was going to be and teach all these bleeding heart social workers something.  But when I really dug deep into it I found the last thing a hard working idealist thought she would find, that welfare did not create or encourage the poverty in this country.  Our social and economic structure does that.  The welfare reform that Clinton was enacting would not cure any poverty in my country and could actually make things worse.  I was shocked.  It had never occurred to me before that policy making is more often not a friend of the people.  And just because a Democrat is hand feeding us something that does not make it magically a good thing.

    Dear Mr. President (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    I love you sooooo much that there is nothing you can do that will drive me away. No matter what you do or don't do, I will continue to support you in every way I can. Do you think you could  please, pretty please do something that will help the people in this country.

    Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. President. You don't seem to be paying attention.  I can't understand why this is happening. :-)  

    Did you open your wallet? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    My finances do not allow me to match (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:25:46 PM EST
    Wall Street contributions.

    J'accuse! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    You, Madame, are an OLINO!

    (obama lover in name only)


    Good one (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:45:27 PM EST
    The problem is that politics is a zero-sum game. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:50:59 PM EST
    Dems win and Reps lose..or Dems lose and Reps win.

    "He's not your boyfriend" isn't the right frame--you are allowed to have no boyfriend.

    Elections and governing always present 2 choices--and they are almost never ever the same.

    At ELECTION time (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    that is true.

    Last I looked, Obama does not face election until 2012.


    Doesn't he face an election tomorrow? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    Last I looked (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:13:51 PM EST
    he is not on the ballot tomorrow.

    As for who is on the ballot tomorrow, I have strongly supported Coakley.

    Jeralyn opposes Coakley. Yelling at her has not worked for me to change her mind.


    Disatisfaction with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    is a sgnificant factor in the closeness of the race.  The MSM overstates it but they aren't entirely wrong in viewing that result as a referendum on Obama and HCR.

    True but (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:26:20 PM EST
    if Obama was running, he would win by 20 points.

    Hey, he'd be good in the Senate. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    Is it close? (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    I have no idea,  but you can find several articles saying that Brown will win in a blowout, and a couple saying Coakley is barely ahead.

    GOTV (none / 0) (#31)
    by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    I think it'll be up to the ground effort.  It may be like the NH primary.  A lot will depend on the turnout profile.  Hopefully a few more people are being scared into turning out to vote in a way that the polss don't capture well.

    Freezing rain, sleet, more snow (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    expected to continue after a rough day in a lot of MA today, per weather reports.  Yikes.  These are not the halcyon days of the Summer of '08.

    Lot of GOTV (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by itscookin on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:10:22 PM EST
    phone calls today. Mostly for Coakley, but my husband in a registered "D" so I would expect that. All Coakley calls have been robocalls, but the Brown call was live. I have not received a live call from Martha's campaign yet. Snow will not keep us from the polls. It's not far to go.

    me too but I got one live call (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:57:47 PM EST
    from an OFA person.

    I don't think there's a major Democrat I didn't get a robocall from.


    Actually, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:07:23 PM EST
    I have been impressed with how polite and restrained you have been in your opposition to Jeralyn on this matter.  You have considerably mellowed since your time at Orange in the old days.  Kudos, bro'.  ;-)

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:45:06 PM EST
    The mental image is very entertaining.  Thanks for the laugh.

    Yelling at us women of a certain age (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:46:33 PM EST
    never works.  Not on us.  Of course, if it makes men of a certain age feel better, then it's working for them. :-)

    At GOVERNING time (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:53:45 PM EST
    the number of permutations are many.

    Pols should focus on elections.

    Citizens should focus on issues.


    But issues are (almost) never on the ballot. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    Pols are.  And one pol will always be closer to you on the issues than another.

    If you believe that even marginal improvement is better than none, then at some point issues become pols--there's just no other way to get where you're going.


    And there are very few ballots (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:12:55 PM EST
    during governing time.

    You make my point.


    Cable news, daily tracking polls, talking heads... (none / 0) (#30)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:41:02 PM EST
    I feel like there's a ballot almost every day.  And I think momentum is hard to stop.

    Look how Tea party August led to NJ and VA which led to more HCR dawdling which gets us to MA.

    Then comes financial reform, climate change and voila, the mid-terms.  

    Governing and elections are more intertwined these days I think.


    Elections are big money to the (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hairspray on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:45:46 PM EST
    news media.  They love them.

    That's on you (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    You should be able to tell that that is not reality.

    I know the difference, but without sounding like (none / 0) (#54)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    one of those fake America elitists, I think most people don't.

    One of the things that has really surprised me the past year was that my estimate of 15% of voters being stupid was WAY low.

    I know many people here are disappointed in Obama, but for me, that pales in comparison to my disappointment in the horse-race media, the elderly who want government out of their Medicare, the useless Senate, etc.

    When Obama replaced Bush, we upgraded the President.  We have not upgraded the electorate at all.


    It's a side effect of consumerism. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:36:56 PM EST
    Trite, but true. I often find that foreigners are much more politically astute than Americans.
    People don't even know the ABC's of politics here---they think appearance is everything, and won't look any deeper.

    I think people USED to be this way (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    My daughter wouldn't listen to a word I said about politics during her entire growing up in my house.  Now she's trying to pay her own bills though, she would like a part time job to make things a bit easier for them but she says the situation is hopeless right now.  She is very angry.  She no longer has a myspace dedicated to Obama with a headline that reads "Obama's got this!"  My son-in-law is in the Coast Guard.  There are many many people out there with situations much much worse than theirs and the whole country is paying attention now.

    your disappointment with the elderly? Really? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by suzieg on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:04:07 PM EST
    Maybe they have good cause not to want government into their medicare when the Mayo Clinic just announced that it would not longer accept medicare patients because of the poor reimbursement rate and cardiologists screaming at the 40% cut in nuclear cardiac tests! How many more excellent medical institutions will do the same now that 1/2 trillion will be cut out of the program?

    That is hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    Mayo Clinic was the model Obama used for providing quality care for Medicare patients at a reduced cost. Well, needless to say, Medicare costs will go down if no one will accept Medicare patients.

    Silly seniors. Move right along. Nothing to see here.


    Is this a result of that fact that (none / 0) (#99)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    Minnesota receives lower reimbursement from Medicare and pays higher premiums than other states, effectively penalizing the state for providing better outcomes and more affordable care.

    Google: Minnesota "medicare reimbursement"


    Most people don't pay attention at all (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:55:19 PM EST
    When Obama is up for election, I am pretty sure I will be grabbing the pom poms.

    That's a ways away yet.


    You won't resort to lying though (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    You'll lay it out there what was worth it, what sucked, and what we can do about it.  You aren't just going to show up here though and LIE like a rug about how great everything is and how much everyone is a bunch of whiners.

    Steveiw that is true...BUT their is still what we (none / 0) (#46)
    by mogal on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:11:48 PM EST
    character and I that will get my vote everytime in the primaries.

    Sorry, what we CALL character (none / 0) (#48)
    by mogal on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:12:38 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    but there's a problem if you agree with the pol on the issues but don't believe that he has the ablity to deliver what then?

    Maybe the problem is the (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    permanent election cycle mindset people seem to be in.  The media, and the pols too, barely get done with one election before they start talking about the next. Maybe some people do feel like they are constantly having to commit to a candidate.  

    That's what the fundraisers tell us. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:52:57 PM EST
    If insisting on effective policies and standing up (5.00 / 16) (#17)
    by esmense on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:04:56 PM EST
    for Democratic constituencies is "turning on" Obama, that tells you something.

    The Democratic Left isn't blaming Obama for the mess he inherited -- they are asking him to start dealing with that mess. And suggesting that he can't start doing so until he's willing to reject, rather than embrace and cater to, the failed ideological notions and narrow, self-interested constituencies that got us into it.

    Wow. That says it. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Coral on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:25:15 PM EST
    Insisting on effective policies seen as "turning on Obama". That's it, exactly.

    The Democrats and those who voted for Obama & Dems in general are a broad swath of Americans who bought the "Hope and Change" shtick, or at least hoped it might make for a modicum of change.

    What always worried me about Obama was his post-partisan rhetoric. I knew that wouldn't work with the hard-right GOP that any Democratic president would face.

    Was he naive? Or duplicitous? My sense is that he was sincere, but incompetent and unrealistic about the real demands required to even begin to make real change.


    I think that he wanted to be president (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:09:15 PM EST
    quite sincerely.  But that he was willing to do anything to make that happen.

    What he wanted to do as president is the question.


    Excellent! (none / 0) (#83)
    by suzieg on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    Whew! (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:48:25 PM EST
    Bravo.  Nailed it.  Well done.

    Bush knew how to fire up the base (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    "Conservatives gave Bush five or six years before they really turned on him".

    Why wouldn't they have stuck with him? He played to his base without any thought or consideration to what the Democrats wanted. It wasn't until his policies hit them in the wallet that they turned on him.

    STFU, you have nowhere else to go (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:49:00 PM EST
    does not exactly "light my fire."

    Sometimes I can't believe someone pays (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    Kevin to write that drivel...I'm almost embarrassed for him.  Is he re-living high school or something?

    When someone comes into office with high expectations that he, himself, established, and then he fails to perform, sells out pretty much every single part of the big Yes We Can lollapalooza, what does Kevin expect?  Can Kevin face the fact that Obama waaaay oversold himself in an effort to kill the competition?  

    Apparently not.  

    That he's willing to keep cutting Obama slack as the clock ticks down toward November, and Obama's political capital loses value faster than my 401(k) did in 2008 tells me that he's just one more still starry-eyed man with an opinion that I can stop paying any attention to.

    The list is getting longer by the day.

    I think Kevin is deeply conflicted (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    because he hasn't been even vaguely consistent on this.  FWIW, he only spends a fraction of his blog on politics, and most of the rest of it is awfully good.  Oh, he also sucks on health care, but so does pretty much everybody other than BTD.

    I can say.. (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by fly on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 10:37:44 PM EST
    I was called every nasty name in the book because I did not support Obama in the primaries..names I thought were out of the english language since the 60's. And married to a minority and having Minority children, I was even called a racist. I did not vote for Pres in the 2008 election, and if i had to vote in the Mass election..I would be sitting home. And sadly many Dem woment I konw feel the same way.
    Oh did forget to Say, I was an elected Dem Delegate in my state in 2004? And that for 4 years I was a rapid responder for the National DNC and a Public Speaker for the Dem Party in 2004 ..and did I tell you I was a co-captain for a caucus in Iowa to make sure caucus's went off smoothly, but I saw massive cheating by one particular candidate?
    And I have since, in a nasty profaine way,been told the party I have belonged to for 39 years, and worked for and volunteered for and given massive $$'s to ..does not want me?

    So now they won't have me..not for a very long time and not without a very sincere apology!

    Where do you start? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:29:21 AM EST
    Drum seems to have projected so much on to Obama that was never there that I can't even begin to get right what he's got wrong.

    That said - I've got a feeling that a significant chunk of the backlash is coming from guys like Drum and the Obama Fan Base that got us stuck with Obama to begin with, and that's irritating.  They bought the ticket, they should take the ride.  It said what it was right there on the sign.

    Are we going to make lemonade out of this? (4.00 / 3) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    Magic 8 ball says, "ask again later."

    Of course not (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    we are going to punch the hippies as usual.

    What gives me pause (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    is that Axe decided to go after Wall Street last week. Let's see if they do something with that.

    Pandering publicly (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    with a special election near, that's all.  Expect such pandering again as the fall elections near.

    In between, the Wall Streeters and insurance companies and big pharma will continue to be regulars on the White House in-list.  Count on it.


    I think they'll get the message (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    Not that long until November, after all.

    I think they're going to get (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:43:43 PM EST
    the message tomorrow.  Question is whether there's anybody sentient at home to receive it.

    In an Election Year? (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by The Maven on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    When the party poobahs are counting on their coffers being filled by those same financial institutions?  I think the administration has made it abundantly clear to the banksters that all they really intend to do is make some noise, wag a finger or two, and turn the issue over to Congress to formulate a proposal.  And Congress, of course, will be happy to let it ruminate in committee for the whole year and never see the light of day.

    Note how the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (a/k/a the Angelides or New Pecora Commission) took six months to get around to holding its first hearing, and it hasn't issued even a single subpoena yet.  That should be seen as a clear sign that both Congress and the administration would prefer not to tangle with Wall Street at all.

    Anyone who thinks that this time we're going to see some genuine follow-through instead of mere jawboning probably also still believes that their pony is due to show up any day now.


    Oh C'mon (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:32:23 PM EST
    "The American people didn't elect me to look backward, they want me to look forward. What possible purpose would be served by spending all our time in a partisan attack against those that caused this calamity? The problem was caused with bi-partisan cooperation, and will only be solved with bi-partisan co-operation. The American people have spoken loud and clear, and I have heard them loud and clear. Therefore, I have asked my staff to formulate a plan that will look into the root causes of the cognitive diversion of disparate views regarding various, and varied, potential macro-economic dislocations that can be used as a basis of a possible framework leading to a re-awakened spirit that will utilize the finest (bi-partisan) minds that our great country, America, once had, and will, with your help, patience, and cooperation, maybe, just maybe, have again.

    You wanted change, you will get change!

    Good night, and G*d bless America."  


    Expect (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    next week to hear that he was never against Wall Street or that was never said. Remember he was never for the public option either.

    Ha. Perfect. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    Are you sure? I heard we were going (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    to sock it to the banks and the insurance companies.

    Everybody wants it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    But I don't think anyone is going to get excited until they see it.  And the banks are threatening to sue the President.  Now that's some theater right there!  I wonder what would happen if he took away creative bookkeeping and we had audits.  I can't even believe they'd dream of making such threats.  I wonder where they find that kind of blind stupid "courage".

    Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    why wouldn't they threaten and perhaps follow through? I mean after all the Republicans in congress can have a toddler temper tantrum and they get obama to cave so this is the modus operandi of everybody now.

    He has all the power to enforce (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    the FDIC regs that are on the books and they have all been allowed to avoid as well as SEC regs.  For some reason they fear him not though.  Do they have a get out of Obama authority free card or something?

    Have they (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    ever feared a President?

    Yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 01:25:58 AM EST

    The Clash Explains Everything (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:42:56 PM EST
    I never thought the Clash explained (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    anything.  My husband says such annoying things, but now I'm thinking lately that the Clash explains everything.

    They really do... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Clang clang go the jail guitar doors...but hush up while Obama's got the wheel.

    I just spoke to him (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    Boy would that song ring true to him right now.  He's pretty tired.  They get no days off, thirteen hour shifts, and he's on day 120 or there abouts I think.  He said he went to the PX today when he wasn't working, but there isn't anything to buy there.  He said that they had leg of beef tonight at the chowhall, and he begged for a part of it that was medium rare.  They won't serve medium rare because of food safety issues but he said that he begged and begged and begged the guy serving it until the server gave up and gave it to him :)  He's ready to come home.

    Reminds me of... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    the scene in "Apocalypse Now" when the saucier talks about the Army boiling all that beautiful prime rib and ruining it.  But sshh...Obama is stirring the pot so it is delicous boiled meat:)

    I hope he is home grilling 'em bloody as hell on the BBQ soon.  And I'm glad the cook had the common sense to break the rules for him...thats what you gotta do to do the job right these days...break the rules.  But I'm sure your old man knows all about that in his line of work.


    BTD would call that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    negotiating hard :)

    Can't agree (none / 0) (#50)
    by s5 on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    The tone and tenor of left wing Obama opposition has very closely resembled the tone and tenor of left wing Bush opposition. It's like we're just used to attacking the president because we've been doing it for so long (and our current movement was largely built on it).

    I also have my complaints about Obama, but left wing opposition isn't producing more progressive policy - it's having the exact opposite effect. It's undermining support for the president, and as a result, the media is reverting to their comfortable framing of "Dems in disarray" and "too much too fast". All they want is to recycle all their op-eds from the Clinton days, and we're just letting them by denying our Democratic president some straight-up victories.

    Yeah, sorry, but the FDL wing of the left is shooting itself in the foot. Rather than taking a victory, basking in it, and building on it, everyone is attacking each other. Result: Republicans win, either at the ballot box or in the Senate. But hey, go us! At least we really stood up to The Man!

    Can't speak for FDL (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    but last I looked, the people who lose elections are pols, not activists.

    The shooting  and the feet belong to them.


    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 08:45:05 PM EST
    So if we'd just STFU and go along with what Obama wants, praise him and cheer him and stroke him even if he doesn't deserve it, then the media will change their narrative, which will make the larger public magically change its mind, and electoral and policy "success" will follow?



    I don't get how policy success (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    follows for anyone other than corporations :)

    It's the (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:12:21 PM EST
    left wing version of the Bushies. Remember how Iraq would suddenly turn in to a utopia if we just shut up and clapped louder?

    Yeah, it didn't matter that it was all a (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:16:28 PM EST
    lie and that deBaathification was just a different kind of Fascism in ways I don't even want to remember.  When we were done you wouldn't even recognize the place.  You would probably get confused and think you were Dubai or something :)

    The problem (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    is a president that promised one thing and has reneged on what he promised them. People don't respect wimps like Obama sorry to say. Having a president who is slavishly dependent on the media narrative is another problem. For some reason Dems thought the media was our friend last year. It's not. You need a president that can beat the media narrative not one that is dependent on it.

    Yes. It's not that the left turned (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    on Obama.  He turned on the left.  The nasty swipes from Gibbs, Axelrove, Rahm, et al., have been escalating.  Drum must be a masochistic sort, begging for more.