Why There Is No Progressive Movement For Obama

E.J. Dionne asks why there is such a heated Tea Party movement against Obama. In the process, he indvertently explains why there is no progressive movement fighting for Obama:

Most of the left simply doesn't see him as especially liberal [. . .] Obama, after all, is the man who saved the banks and the capital markets. Now the bankers are secure and most of them are still rich.

His health-care proposals stopped far short of the single-payer system that so many liberals have long sought [. . .] Obama put absolutely no political muscle behind the progressives' backup idea: a public option that could have served as a beachhead for a single-payer system.

The president is also decidedly moderate on budget questions. His stimulus plan was, if anything, too small. And Obama [. . .] endorsed a bipartisan commission to reach a deal on deficit reduction. The idea originated with centrist Democrats and moderately conservative Republicans -- and most liberals opposed it.

Sort of explains the progressive reaction to Obama don't you think?

Speaking for me only

< Anthem Blue Cross And The Selling Of The Health Bill Regulations | Will The Village Dems Be "Radicalized"? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    it BEGINS to explain it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:28:36 AM EST
    there are about 100 more chapters or contributing ways he has shown over and over that he is a progressive only when it benefits his re-elections chances.  
    after all, there was a reason for all those "present" in IL.  dont you think?

    present VOTES (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    I mean, of course.

    couching these peeps (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    as reflexive anti-statists means he's not looked at their funding.  What a Lazy reporter Dionne is.  Ron Paul (inventor of an earlier incarnation of Tea party antics) has been primaried by these guys, has he not?

    They are funded by Ailes and Murdoch. Not grass roots at all.


    Dionne is a villager (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    sometimes it show up more than others.  I think the whole column is sort of silly.  take the first sentence:

    The ferocity of its opposition to President Obama is mystifying to political progressives.

    bull.  I am not "mystified" in the least.  he is a democratic president.  does anyone remember a guy named Bill Clinton and how much they hated and lied about him?  and on top of that he is black.
    there ya go EJ ole buddy.  you could have just asked me.


    I wish he would name who he is talking (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    to that is mystified.  Probably one of the folks who was sure the Clintons just got dumped on because they were the Clintons and somehow especially divisive and deserving.

    As a lot of us said a looong time ago, the Republicans would dump on Obama no matter what.  If he did not present them with a legitimate issue, they would make one up (see: Birthers).  It is not mystifying in the least to anyone without a vested interest in misrepresenting the facts of the Clinton years, when the press was as guilty as the right for making up things about the Clintons, and the left was as idiotic as anyone for believing it.

    Sooo infuriating.


    But (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    But the difference between Clinton and Obama is that "it's me" (Obama)....(or whatever the h*ll he said when he was asked why he could pass the health insurance company bill when Clinton couldn't).

    Anyway, my tee-hee got lost in the long explanation.  But tee-hee anyway.


    I can only repeat my mantra (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    He's not a progressive. He's barely a Democrat.

    I know many harbored beliefs that he was secretly very progressive and a very committed Democrat...against all evidence they believed these things.  They were bound to catch on eventually.


    Re Election Is All That Matters (none / 0) (#16)
    by norris morris on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    Thanks for your post. The Chicago cadre around Obama are only concerned with his re election.

    Nothing else seems to matter.  And Dionne wonders about Tea Party and Progressives both at odds with Obama?

    Dionne seems to be carrying so much water, he's drowning in cluelessness.


    The sad thing is that Obama probably (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    regards the lack of support from liberals to be a good thing, and a sign that his appeal is where he always intended it to be - in that mushy, mealy-mouthed center, edging to the right to pick up those reasonable Republicans he likes so much.

    The inside-the-beltway writers must all have snow-brain; Glenn points us to The Liberal Media:

    Today, Broder pens a gushing love letter to Sarah Palin -- decreeing that we must "Take Sarah Palin seriously," admiring her "pitch-perfect recital of the populist message," and warning that she will be difficult to stop as a major political force -- on the very same day that his own newspaper published a poll reporting that Palin's "political standing has deteriorated significantly"; that "fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling"; that "there is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey"; that "even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House"; and even that "Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans," as "forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall."  Could Man of the Regular Folk David Broder possibly be any more out of touch with the Regular Folk?

    But look at what else is on the Post Op-Ed Page today.  The Post's CIA spokesman, David Ignatius, writes a column arguing that Europe is in desperate need of a "tea party movement," which would do all the great things for Europeans that it is doing for the U.S.   The pro-war Post Editorial Page excitedly announces a "Showdown in Tehran," calling -- yet again -- on the Obama administration to do more to confront and subvert Iran's government.  George Will touts a GOP resurgence in California.  And earlier this week, it was revealed that Post editors actively solicited someone to write an Op-Ed complaining that liberals -- unlike conservatives -- are arrogant, condescending, and smug.

    Snow brain...

    On Kos I pointed out that Tea Party (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    should be called the Tea Company.  Tea Company sounds right.

    In Germany they could be called "Der Tea Korps."

    In France "Le Corps Du Charlemagne."  Or "Code Bonapartist".


    was no one conscious (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    during the primaries? those of us not awed by his aura expected only a "not bush" from a pres. obama. by "not bush", i mean he can speak in whole sentences, and he's clearly an intelligent guy. beyond that, nothing.

    anyone not foolish enough to be taken in by the glitter, isn't at all surprised by this turn of events.

    not surprised (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 11:09:36 AM EST

    primaries - health care - not a liberal (none / 0) (#14)
    by noholib on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    As soon as I saw his Harry-and-Louise inspired ads on health care during the primary, I knew he was not liberal enough for my taste.  Many people thought I was crazy for saying that he struck me as less liberal than HRC. How he handled the bill in Illinois about companies having to tell the public about their disposal of toxic wastes told me everything: he talked tough, then got everyone around the table including the polluters, then was satisfied with a watered-down bill, and touted this great accomplishment!  Sound familiar? I was never quite sure if his incessant bi-partisanship unity schtick was merely tactical or deeply-felt.  Now we know the answer: deeply-felt. His calls for bipartisanship and clean government, that is, supposedly new ways of doing things in Washington DC, are clearly what he holds most dear.  In his own person, as a person of color, he represents something radically new and progressive for this country; but, in his policies, he is not a progressive or a liberal -- he is a centrist, plain and simple.

    Obama Is Centrist Right (none / 0) (#15)
    by norris morris on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    Obama clearly is centrist right. His position on BigPharma and the deal he struck with them to abstain from proposing that Medicare buy drugs directly offering large benefits to the people was an obvious 180 degree turn from what he promised. Also Obama denied he ever endorsed a public option inspite of many videos from the campaign trail to the contrary.  YouTube has a some of them, and his website touting public option in HCReform has been scrubbed.

    Obama's Chicago cadre is basically running him for re-election and crtainly not for governing. Rham,Axelrove,Jarrett,Gibbs are in charge of Obama and what and how he does things. The wedge of secrecy around this group speaks to other administrations.

    It will come as no surprie that Obama will be a tepid,safe,unimaginative, and right centrist president.


    The truth only happens by accident. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    And those spills are generally ignored.