home

On President Obama

While Jeralyn and I were swamped in real life for the past week, there has been a lot of back and forth (to put it charitably) about President Obama in the threads. It made me want to describe my thinking on the President's performance thus far in his term.

I have made it clear that I am disappointed that the President did not achieve more in his first year in office. I am even more disappointed that he did not TRY to achieve more, even if there were no guarantees of success. I said it at the end of the 2008 Presidential campaign and at the beginning of his term - Obama was an incredibly gifted politician with terrific policy instincts who was given a political climate (especially after the September financial crisis) open to transformational change. What seems clear so far is that these gifts have not translated into strong governing skills and certainly he has not delivered transformational change. More . . .

On the issue most completely under his control, foreign policy, my view is that the President and his team have performed masterfully. I give him an A+. (Remember I heartily approve of the President's Afghanistan policy. YMMV.)

It is on the domestic front that President Obama has seemed most trapped in his Post Partisan Unity Schtick. This mistaken governing philosophy has been coupled with the Bystander President concept when it came to formulating specific policies, particularly regarding health care issues. The President decided to make health care the signature issue of his first year (make no mistake, it is the President who has made health care the front burner issue, not Congress) and then left it in the hands of Max Baucus and Co. That was simply an unfathomable mistake. Perhaps it was spurred by memories of Daniel Patrick Moynhihan (Lawrence O'Donnell was a top Moynihan hand at the time)and other Senate Dems blocking the President Clinton's plans. If so, President Obama learned the wrong lessons. President Clinton's problems were of his time, not Obama's. Obama had the political power and mandate to push for the plan he wanted. He chose not to. (I understand there is some dispute on this, but I personally believe initially the President had a more ambitious health bill in mind, including one with a public insurance program.)

The Village Dems will try and tell you that the Senate health bill is the "most progressive legislation since 1965." We all know this is laughably ridiculous. There is no real, effective reform in the bill. There is no real check on the insurance companies. There is no real check on health care costs.

The best that can be said about the Senate bill is that it does include a large increase in Medicaid funding (no small thing) and it may provide a framework that could, in some distant future, be used as a platform for real reform. (To be clear, I think the affordability credits are close to being a joke.) All that said, it is better that it be passed than not be passed. But in terms of substance, not passing it is not that big a deal. (One could argue that this will doom health reform for 40 years, but I doubt that. I imagine some bill with most of the elements in this bill could be passed, even with a GOP Congress after 2010.)

In terms of the economy and regulating Wall Street, President Obama's performance has been mediocre. Here it is not clear to me what Obama actually believes. Particularly with regard to regulating the financial industry. His stimulus proposal obviously was better than no stimulus at all. But it was also obviously not good enough. And it was obvious WHEN IT WAS PASSED.

President Obama's major failing, both in terms of politics and policy, has been his inability to grasp the problems of Main Street and to use them to forward policy and political goals.

It upsets the Village Dems when Obama is compared to FDR, and really, it is unfair to compare any Democrat to the greatest Democrat. But I thought Obama could approach those heights. But he has not even tried. As John Judis wrote:

Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

(Emphasis supplied.) Some attribute Obama's reticence to the need of an African American President to not appear threatening. Perhaps there is something to this. I do not think this is a sufficient explanation. Obama has never shown a fighter side. It may not be in his nature. In the end, Obama's political skills may not match the times. Time will tell.

Speaking for me only

< Enquirer Claims John Edwards Indictment Imminent | Stupak Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Which, for the most part (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    Was what many of us were saying around here yesterday, (before, during, and after) being wrongly and insanely accused of "reliving the primaries."

    I do disagree with part of this statement, though:

    Obama was an incredibly gifted politician with terrific policy instincts who was given a political climate open to transformational change.

    I think he's an incredibly gifted politician...who was given a political climate open to transformational change.  Where I disagree is that I don't think he has terrific policy instincts - he had never shown that skill, and has instead shown that he is willing to adopt policy that is the path of least resistance and that won't make too many waves.  And before the haters come back out, it has nothing to do with him personally - I just don't think he has real passion for any particular policy issue, so as a consequence, it would be hard for him to have ""terrific policy instincts."

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:58:24 AM EST
    We disagree.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:02:35 AM EST
    But I'm sitll not sure what bold policy instincts or positions he ever held to make you think that.  I can think of the entire 2008 campaign  - I can tell you the main (or of the main) policy positions of just about every candidate, except Obama.  What was he for?  What is he for?

    I'm curious as to why you think he has good policy instincts?

    Parent

    Hopey. Changey. (4.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:10:57 AM EST
    That's all I can remember from the 2008 campaign.  Like many of us said back then, it may be his "time" but it's still too early for him as a leader.  Why oh why couldn't we have Hillary as President and Obama as Vice?  Now we're looking at a republican president in 2012.  

    Parent
    Because she lost (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Its like asking why we couldn't have had Jerry Brown as President in 1992- because he lost the nomination.

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#69)
    by wrensis on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    It was the perfect match and our lack of understanding allowed her to be discounted.  Her reputation as a hawk looks a little silly now with the new war, and bombing in Pakistan and Yemem.

    Parent
    Gotta love (none / 0) (#185)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    how Obama's bank ties are red flags yet people are completely ignoring Hillary's massive funding by the Healthcare Industry.

    Parent
    "we're looking at a GOP Pres. in 2012" (none / 0) (#190)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    Huh? Under what metric is this likely- argue all you want about Obama's performance on Policy, but Politically he's still in the 50-53 range, which would make him an odds on favorite, and in the division and frankly weakness of the opposition party and you've got a perfect storm- at this point I think Obama's probably looking at a 75-85% chance of re-election- the only GOP canidates who appeal to moderates (Romney, possibly Pawlenty) actively disgust the base, while the favorites of the Base (Palin, arguably Huckabee) scare not just independents but moderate Republicans as well.

    Parent
    The same (2.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:20:06 PM EST
    thing you are saying about Romeney could be applied to Obama. So far Obama has really not shown that he can turn out anybody to vote. The fact that he was intrumental in helping the party lose a Senate seat in MA is much more telling than any of your silly predictions of 75% chance of being reelected.

    One thing you dont seem to realize is that voters prefer strong and wrong vs. weak and right. Spineless jellyfish don't inspire anyone to come out and vote for them. Right now Obama is running in the weak and wrong category. Obama had a lot of advantages in 2008 that probably won't be there in 2012 and for once he is going to have to run on his record not vote present during the campaign.

    Parent

    so much logic (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    you should be careful.  you could hurt someone.  you need to ease them into it.


    Parent
    Reminder (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    Interesting point.   You reminded me of the debates where it seemed Clinton usually went first and Obama was portrayed as 'me too.'

    Parent
    was discussing Obama with a colleague yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by kempis on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    During the primaries, she was the most gung-ho Obama-supporter on campus. There are still Obama posters up in her office, but she is bitterly disappointed in him, largely because of his poor handling of HCR and his general "naivete."

    I reminded her that Obama had only had four years experience in politics at the national level. Four years.

    Yes, he'd worked in politics at the state level since the 90s, but that is simply not the same thing as dealing with the GOP national machine and its relentless message control. They are nuts, and they've succeeded in making an uncomfortable number of our fellow Americans nutty, too. But they are effective propagandists who have no interest whatsoever in some kind of pragmatic bipartisanship. They just want to win elections and keep Democrats from governing effectively. So far, Obama is helping them. I guess that is a sort of bipartisanship.


    Parent

    I see where so many Obama supporters are (none / 0) (#176)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    "disappointed" in him yet they won't admit they were wrong in their choice of him over Hillary.  And before anyone starts piling on:  NO, I will NEVER get over the way Hillary was treated by Obama and the rest of the Democratic establishment.  NEVER.  

    Parent
    Disagree with "portrayed as." (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    At one time, he took the politically (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    risky position of supporting Palistinean peaceful goas.  Yes, he did backtrack during the campaign.  I am talking about before that.

    Parent
    He has had alot of switches of position (none / 0) (#133)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    in his career. In this respect he is George W. Bush's polar opposite. Instead of being dangerously stubborn on changing his mind when new information becomes available Obama appears to do the opposite. His mind is constantly processing the new information and shifting. I remember reading about his switch of position on gun control, seeing his shift on FISA and reading about his politically motivated "present" vote on choice and thinking that while he may be nice and charismatic that he would be out of his depth in today's political climate.

    I still feel that way.

    I do give him credit though for attempting to make bold changes. Clinton had said she likely would not address health care until her second term. He's trying to tackle it now. (I think from a timing standpoint he would have been better to attempt finance reform or jobs first)He has attempted to make changes to how the poverty level is addressed(Something no other politician has dared because they knew it would show that many are straddling the line. He's done better on Guantanamo where if anyone had done their research they would have known was going to be problematic. Many countries were balking at accepting people back. Getting these people on US soil may go a long way in stopping abuses from occuring.

    Make no mistake the fact that I can say that I don't see him as a complete failure does not make me his "fan". His behavior during the primaries was abyssmal and as a result if he wants my vote in 2012 he will have to work harder to earn my vote. Playing footsies with the Republicans makes it that much harder too. I'm inclined to make the person advancing Republican ideas a Republican. If he can't be equally inclusive to liberal ideas or at least as open to them then I may very well vote for his opponent.

    Parent

    I think the only way to get into the (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    "gifted" class as a politician, you have to be good at BOTH campaigning and governing/legislating.

    Obama is a good campaigner.  A Gifted politician would have delivered more this past year; a gifted politician would have used every tool they had to get the job done; and when that politician couldn't have delivered because of the opposition, the public would be enlisted to beat the opposition up.  We would not be looking at potential losses on any great scale, if at all, were Obama really a gifted politician.

    A gifted politician would never have bought into the idea that he or she could finesse growing unemployment in a democracy as if it was something that he or she could just talk people out of worrying about.

    They seriously believed that good news from Wall Street would make average people experiencing epic economic destruction feel better.  They seriously think - it seems still - that they can get away with spending just $15 Billion for jobs after having given away $3+ Trillion to Wall Street.  300 Million people get $15 Billion - and a handful of global financiers get TRILLIONS - that is a HUGE discrepancy that even a village idiot couldn't miss - and the great irony is that the GOP is already starting to use this line against the Obama Administration.

    Thinking that they can get away with that scale of inequity of "service" - that's just downright crazy thought.  It is not "gifted" political thinking.

    Parent

    While this is wrong they had (none / 0) (#191)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    a reason to think it would help- prior to the collapse in 2008- the Stock Market was largely used as a metric for the economy- in the 90s we had low unemployment but a stagnation in real wages that was papered over by a skyrocketing market.

    Parent
    jb, check below (2.33 / 3) (#141)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    some Hillary supporters did not get the memo about not re-living the primary....

    Parent
    The fact that Obama is African American (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    has very little to do with his governing faults, just as Reid's race has very little to do with the poor job he's done as Majority leader.

    It all boils down to Obama and the Democrats deciding to completely and utterly ignore unemployment for a solid year. They still barely give it any lip service whatsoever.

    True about the jobs issue (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:59:02 AM EST
    It is incredibly baffling.

    Parent
    My question is (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:11:22 AM EST
    who was it on Obama's team that did not forsee the severity of the recession?  It makes no sense to me.    It doesn't seem like the people who DID forsee the severity of the recession are any closer to his team than before.  

    They f*cked up, but there's been no change in course (and they are now buried under DEFICIT DEFICIT rhetoric which IMO was a huge mistake).  What's up with that?

    Parent

    It's like they didn't even believe their (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    own campaign. Did they think they were exaggerating about the 'badness' of the economy? Well, it turned out to be at least as bad as they themselves said it was when campaigning against McCain.

    And yes, if you are a) going to be afraid when the deficit hawks start screaming and b) afraid to talk seriously about raising taxes, you pretty much eliminate any bold solutions for unemployment.

    Parent

    Sumners and Rubin (none / 0) (#73)
    by wrensis on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    He hired them even knowing that they had been a part of the deregulation of banks during the Clinton final term.  What did he think they would advise???

    Parent
    Why not use Occam's razor... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    ... and work through the implications of the idea that getting Americans used to a higher level of unemployment is a desired policy outcome?

    Parent
    They (Obama, his advisors, his centrist (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    and conservative Democratic supporters) are operating from different set of assumptions than their liberal critics.

    They don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the economic policies we've been pursuing over the last several decades.

    Consequently, they see our present problems as the short term result of the actions of some bad players in the financial markets, not the long term result of misquided policy that has fundamentally and, unless corrected, permanently, altered the economic prospects of middle class and working class Americans.  

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    This is the guy who believed handing everybody a check was going to fix the economy. He had Goolsbee on TV mocking Clinton for suggesting money should also be spent on infrastructure. His economic advisers leaned more toward let the market do what it's gonna even as far back as the primaries.

    Parent
    The only reasoning I can think (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:17:18 AM EST
    is that they bought into the story that shoring up the banks was going to unleash lending to businesses and that would help unemployment.

    Parent
    Why assume... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    ... that what we laughingly call "public policy" is made with an concern for the American citizen?

    Isn't it simpler to assume that it's straightforward looting, with the press managing the optics?


    Parent

    Assumptions (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    One can assume whatever one wants. When we state whether we think a glass is half-full or half-empty, when se conclude that someone is good or bad at the outset, when we claim someone or some system is either helpful or hurtful...we say more about ourselves than about what is ostensibly the subject. (Trans: Can you rein in the cynicism just a bit, Lambert? After all, there are those of us who may seem "pollyanna" to you who read here too. Maybe, we could have a cynics thread and another optimists thread...and two echo chambers.)

    Parent
    I think that is because (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:27:24 AM EST
    Larry Summers sits at the big table and he keeps screaming that nothing can be done, and as far as Larry Summers' understanding of financial reality and what is best for Larry's economic belief system goes...that is true.

    Parent
    Nothing *should* be done. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    That's Summer's policy position.

    If the things that would help people were to be done, then Summers' constituency would cede some portion of their aggregate wealth to the masses.

    The globalists think in terms of their global power.  There is nothing in it for them to preserve the wealth of this particular nation or any other for that matter.  

    Parent

    I really agree with you on this part (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:00:20 AM EST
    Perhaps it was spurred by memories of Daniel Patrick Moynhihan (Lawrence O'Donnell was a top Moynihan hand at the time)and other Senate Dems blocking the President's plans. If so, President Obama learned the wrong lessons. President Clinton's problems were of his time, not Obama's. Obama had the political power and mandate to push for the plan he wanted. He chose not to. (I understand there is some dispute on this, but I personally believe the President had a more ambitious health bill in mind, including one with a public insurance program.)

    He has been so difficult for me to understand because, like you, I believe that he started out with ambitiously progressive ideas (not just on health care, but on other things like the environment). But then he seemed transformed upon taking office, and backed away from progressivism on nearly all domestic issues. Perhaps because he didn't want to risk failure.

    It is all incredibly frustrating and disappointing because, as you said, his election was a unique moment in time filled with the possibility of some real change. Not much realized though, and the moment is now lost.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    That being said, I think we are still moving further in that right direction domestically than we were a few years ago.  Which is a low standard, I realize.

    It's just that everything is happening at a snail's pace, and as incremental change (health care, the environment, dadt, the economy, military trials).  And the country can't really afford that right now.  It's incredibly frustrating.  But I do feel that in a few years we might be better off because of it.  It's just hard to tell right now.

    Parent

    its not hard to see why they are (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    being somewhat cautious.  the country has lost its mind.  when idiots are showing up at presidential events with signs that say "we came unarmed, this time" and no one in the so called opposition says a damn thing about it its not hard to understand caution.

    the country is literally becoming a tinderbox.


    Parent

    and you respond (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    to the crazies to defuse them by saying "oh, you're right"?

    That's what Obama is doing by constantly blathering about tax cuts and deficits, instead of our shared responsibility to one another.

    Parent

    You get to something I was (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    just trying to express. One of my big criticisms of the first year is the ineffectiveness of the  dealing with the opposition, from birthers to tea partiers to the media to congressional Republicans, etc. I thought that after all the years of dealing with the noise machine, the political pros had come up with some ways to combat it. They have lately gotten better - the two meetings with congress, and the responses to Bunning were effective.

    If I were Obama and looking at cleaning house I would start with my communications team.

    Parent

    I'll add... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    Obama himself is the main communicator. I'd like to see more of the sharp and on point Obama and less of the conciliator.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    communication has gotten better.

    The deficit stuff is pure poison though.  How can you argue spending/the stimulus worked when you are also embracing the notion that we should no longer spend?  It is a really sickening state of affairs and IMO does not bode well.

    I don't remember Obama's exact words, but at some point he said about climate change "even if you don't believe in it, we have to do something about it."  Oh it's from the SOTU:

    I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy.  I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.

    WTFFFFFFFFFFF??????

    Wingers can come up with a million ways I'm sure of leading the American economy - bombing China or restoring our values or cutting out Medicaid or god knows what.  You can't get climate change done in a climate of ignorance.  You can't get it done if you don't prove to people that you're right.  People that don't believe in climate change are an insidious force - the kind that in January say "it's warm today, guess global warming is a hoax after all!" - and they have new converts everyday, in part because of weak pushback.  They epitomize the noise machine.  It's insane.


    Parent

    I honestly think part of the problem (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    is that Obama and his team give the "american voter" to much credit.  
    perhaps because they elected them.  
    from climate change to the general tea bag nonsense they seem to expect a little to much rationality from people. they dont see the need to respond the the insane nonsense.  I think thats a mistake.
    particularly in the economic climate we are in.


    Parent
    They need to start (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    calling crazy "crazy".  

    And remind people that you can't solve our current problems by doing exactly what got us into this mess.

    And remind people that conservative ideology is what got us here.  Not just Bush, the entire party platform.

    But that doesn't fit in with "bi-partisnonsense"

    Parent

    Short Term Memeory (none / 0) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    They also seem to fail to realize that many Americans suffer from short term memory loss! Obama owns the problems of the country now. His bipartisan schtick kept him from laying the blame squarely where it belongs. (Granted, many  Democrats were enablers but the situation still rests at the Republicans feet).

    Parent
    Obama and his campaign team had (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    no trouble responding quickly and sharply to whatever they deemed potentially harmful during the campaign.  Why don't they do that now?

    Parent
    Could it be... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    SATAN?

    Parent
    What is that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    referencing (none / 0) (#86)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    this

    On a serious note, in parrying attacks during the campaign, the Obama team always stuck to "I am a uniter" "she is divisive" "Republicans support me" etc.  So now that apparently means that he has to get Republicans to support his initiatives and agree with their attacks on him.

    Parent

    Why don't they do that now? (none / 0) (#74)
    by wrensis on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    It doesn't fund campaigns

    Parent
    Tax Cuts and Deficits (none / 0) (#193)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    are the mantra all national Democrats adopted after the failiures of the 1980s- balance the budget and all that.

    Parent
    Of course, I hope you're right. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    But I don't see any evidence of it.

    Here's a good example of what I mean when I say I can't figure him out:  On environmental issues... he appoints two top policy advisors early on that are extremely strong on the environment (Holdren and Lubchenko), plus a good EPA appointment. Between these signals and some comments he has made, I get dizzy with excitement that some real progress is going to be made on the environment, and perhaps some of the backward steps during the Bush years will be rectified. But he has backed away completely from every promise, and capitulated to republicans and corps on almost every environmental issue since taking office.

    Hence my confusion. And it extends to the other issues that affect all regular Americans like health care, jobs, etc.

    I just don't get it.

    Parent

    what I mean (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    by small incremental change:

    on the environment, there have been huge investments made by the federal government on alternative energy.  And they also got a pretty substantial commitment by the private sector.  The EPA is also making moves to start regulating greenhouse gases.

    on healthcare - it's an expansion of medicaid, it bans a lot of the nasty habits of the insurance agencies, and it subsidizes low-income healthcare.

    on military trials - they're making the right arguments about trials despite all the crazy winger-noise.  I don't think we are torturing anymore.

    on dadt - they seem to be making real noise on this issue, we will see what happens.

    on the economy - there was the stimulus, and the worst of the bush tax cuts will expire.

    Obviously a lot of this is still in motion and has not come to pass.  And it sure would be nice ot get a much bigger commitment on those issues.  But he is not anything like the last 8 years on any of these things.  I think some of that gets lost in the disappointment.

    Parent

    Can't say I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    with this.

    I don't think we are torturing anymore.

    I think we are most definitely are...just not bragging about it like a certain Oswald Cobblepot look-alike.

    And this...

    on the economy - there was the stimulus, and the worst of the bush tax cuts will expire.

    They stimulated (aka propped up)the wrong sector of the economy, the phoney paper passin' sector...and tax cuts expiring doesn't do much for the economy if the government doesn't spend the money right.

    Other than that, I hear ya...we're getting all we should have expected to get...a couple bones while major problems continue to be ignored, or worse...worsened.

    Parent

    regarding torture (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    I don't know if we are or not.  But there is something to be said for not bragging about it/ promoting it.  At least our federal government is making public arguments against it rather than for it.  That's something.

    On the economy, I have to disagree.  I work in transportation, and I would not have a job if not for the stimulus.  And I am certainly not a paper passer.  They threw the banks a lot of bones, but I got mine too.  I probably should've done a full disclosure there, since I realize not everyone is in the same boat.  Also, I know a lot of recent college grads who are paper passers.  And those jobs are real jobs too.  Although I do think the money should have been spread to other industries as well.  I also remember how close we came to not having any auto industry at all.  And we are not there anymore.  That's also a lot of "real" jobs.

    But yea, I realize my place in the Stimulus is the exception not the rule.  I have a lot better reasons than most to support it.

    Parent

    Fair points... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    Perhaps I'm thinking too long-term...I wonder how long an economy increasingly based on passin' paper around, turning money into money, without making much of anything of actual tangible value can sustain itself.  This recession/"too big too fail failure" was an opportunity to take a long hard look at what we're doing wrong...and we let it slip by because a life without AIG and Goldman robbin' people blind was too scary and uncertain for some people.

    I'm left to think all the central planners are concerned with is squeezing another couple decades outta this puppy before we really fall hard.  Go down with caviar type of thing.

    As for the torture stuff...call me crazy but I prefer honesty.  The Obama way of speaking against it with a wink and a nod to our torturers only allows the American people to easier delude themselves.

    Parent

    I'd like to think we're not torturing (none / 0) (#202)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    at the very least we seem to be back to the pre-Bush norm- publicly condemn torture, privately outsource it.

    Parent
    Why be confused? (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    1. The personnel were for the optics, and to buy a little time.

    2. The policy outcome is the desired policy outcome.


    Parent
    On Climate Change (none / 0) (#198)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    the big shift happened at Copanhagen where it became pretty clear that the US wouldn't be able to fufill treaty obligations and thus backed down to save face- its a different story if Cap and Trade had gone through and we could have come to the table with confidence (the Chinese have it a lot easier here- the leadership just declares it will be better and all industries must respond).

    Parent
    Pardon my tin-foil hat.... (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    But then he seemed transformed upon taking office

    Maybe the actual shadow rulers of our nation only make themsleves known after the hand comes off the bible at the inauguration...and proceed to geld whoever we elect.

    Parent

    I don't think you even need the (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    tin-foil hat, though.

    During the campaign, there were many Obama's.  For every white paper touting a public option, there were his accolades of Ronald Reagan, the discussion of "reforming" social security, the "constitutional" argument of marriage between a man and a woman because god is in the mix, etc.

    Of course, all that really matters are his actions now, but it was there to see at the time.  Many people just chose the parts they wanted to believe he really meant, and it turned out those were not the rights parts.

    Of course, almost all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths.  It's not unique to him.  

    Parent

    Preachin' to the choir friend:)... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    which brings us to the next question...why I am one of only a handful of knuckleheads who voted for Nader?

    My best guess...my theory above is too daunting a prospect for many to believe, so they cross their fingers, plug their ears, cover their eyes and foolishly hope the next D will somehow be magically different than their predecessors...paying no attention to the men behind the curtain.

    Parent

    Kdog, I voted Nader in 1996 BUT (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    he lost my support in 2000. He bacame a ranting narcissist, IMO. And he totally betrayed women on reproductive rights! I remember well his interview on ABC This Week. He said it would be no big deal if the SCOTUS struck down Roe because "then it would just revert to the states." When the interviewer (I believe it was Stephanopolous) pointed out that there would be states that would certainly prohibit abortion in even the first trimester, Nader said something like, "Oh, I don't think there would be too much harm. There will always be a place for women to get abortions if they need them."

    That exchange left me so angry I immediately got on the phone to the local Nader campaign office. The guy on the phone had no idea his candidate was even on the TV, had no idea what he had said, had no idea what Nader's position on reproductive rights was. Then he started screaming at me. Really screaming.

    That's what I remember of Nader and his campaign in 2000.

    Parent

    Touche, kdog! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    Demonstrably true (none / 0) (#54)
    by NealB on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    He should have started office with the executive equivalent of a coup d'état; basically ousting as much of the pre-existing government bureaucracy as possible within the first few months. The country was in a crisis, he had a mandate to act as virtual dictator for the first six months of his term to get rid of as many of the problems as he could. He did pretty much the opposite and we got stuck with Gates and Bernanke, and replacements like Emanuel, Geithner, Summers, and Sibelius.

    Obama the Submissive.

    Parent

    I'll pardon it (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    but still gotta laugh at you about it.

    Parent
    C'mon old friend... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    in your paranoid fantasy you can think of them as Kenyan fascists intent on implementing Sharia law upon us...don't be a killjoy:)

    Parent
    Still not surprised (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    Disappointed?  Sure.  Surprised?  Never.  There were too many signs Obama was center-right.  As I view him as center-right, I am never surprised by what he does.  His war policy, his willingness to bail out the banksters, his tax cut/free market approach to the economy are not a surprise.

    I expect more center-right policies of: charter schools, trickle down economics of tax cuts, Bush policy retention, cutting MCR and SS.

    It was interesting to see Tweety have on Ryan (Tweety calls Ryan Obama's favorite Republican) and assistingcelebrating Ryan in pushing his 'Kill SS' position as pragmatic and centrist, all the while Ryan insisting it is not necessary to cut the military budget as it is at a low as a percent of the budget.  I expect Obama to jump on this bandwagon.

    Parent

    I've never understood why people presumed (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by esmense on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    Obama to be more progressive than his backers?

    No one with Obama's experience could have made a serious run for the White House without heavy duty establishment support -- and the establishment that first and most encouraged and supported Obama's run was very "centrist" and, by my standards, conservative.

    I always, in fact, saw Obama as a proxy for Daschle. Mid-western centrist like Daschle have never done that well in the presidential sweepstakes because they lack appeal to urban voters. Obama, because of his race, provided a unique opportunity for Midwestern centrists, who most often found themselves having to take a back seat to the Clintons and/or Northeastern Liberals like the Kennedy's and Kerry, to take control of the party.

    Parent

    And now they have it all.... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    presidency, house, senate, Democratic Party.  Quite a stew...all that they could have imagined when all three presidential losers drafted and backed Obama.  Problem is, as recipes go, it lacks flavor.  No spice.  Not a comfort food.  Bland and boring and disappointing.  If this government were a restaurant, you'd never go back.

    Parent
    Midwestern centrists in control? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    Emanuel?  Obama just doesn't seem a Midwesterner nor want to be seen as one, not with "bitter" and "clinging," etc.  He became a Chicagoan, but Chicago -- as the capital of the Midwest -- is inherently atypical of the Midwest.  And you don't have to be a centrist to win in Chicago; it seems not about ideology there as much as it is about tactics.  (Btw, I'm halfway through an interesting New Yorker piece on the current Mayor Daley. . . .)

    What I found fascinating, actually, was that East Coasters so embraced Obama, apparently owing to a few years in Boston. :-)  And, of course, to Hawaiians, he is a Hawaiian; to Westerners, he is a Westerner owing to a couple of years in California, etc.  Fascinating.

    Parent

    I agree with most of this (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    although I would give him an A- on foreign affairs and I would give him that mostly based on the improved image of the US in the world not on Afghanistan or Iraq.  

    Although I wouldn't wish for you the schedule you had this week on a regular basis, I always like your posts when you have some distance from the day-to-day ups and downs of process politics and look at the big picture.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:28:18 AM EST
    with you on your first point - on that promise he has definitely delivered.  He just hasn't brought the same confidence domestically.  I mean, if he was handling foreign affairs like he is domestic affairs , he would've sunk that North Korean ship, bombed Iran, etc.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    This is an excellent post.

    BTD should add it to the portfolio in case someday they stop paying him to make lawyerly house calls.

    Parent

    He also should archive in an (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    reasily linked-to location.  Maybe with the FDR and Lincoln posts.

    Parent
    Heh, that's not a bad idea (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    plus (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    one

    Parent
    This says it well (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    h/t Scarecrow

    It remains for the rest of us only to wonder within the now narrowed field of inquiry how to account for the fact that the Obama Presidency is seriously failing by both policy and political measures. If they're so good at this, how did the President's Party come to face the possible loss of one or even both houses of Congress?

    How exactly have they managed to alienate intelligent and responsible leaders and experts on the environment, energy, climate change, health reform, financial reform, labor, immigration reform, civil liberties/rule of law advocates, and other core elements of their own base? It's not like they did that by holding on to independents, who now oppose them only slightly less than the Republicans do, even though they still haven't done much of what they were sent to do (or accused of doing).

    We've already seen the Administration's energy/climate change initiative so watered down in the House that it caused deep splits in the alternative energy/environmental community. Those who pleaded for pragmatic patience on the House Bill are now tearing their hair out watching the Senate become a bastion of delay and denialism, with little effective push back from the Administration.

    That mirrors the debate on health care reform, where more hopeful reforms were either forbidden topics or promises to be broken and bargained away -- and yet what did we get in return beyond a deal for PhRMA-paid ads? Many hopes have been dashed and once-united reformers are left to argue with each other over whether what's left is worth risking political blood and treasure.

    We're now watching the same thing happen to financial reform. A watered down but still worthwhile House bill languishes in the dysfunctional Senate, along with 290 other House-passed bills.

    Meanwhile, Senator Dodd careens from absurd compromise to absurd compromise searching for some way to mollify the rapacious, unrepentant bankers and even one Republican Senator, to no avail. It seems we can't even have an independent Consumer Financial Protection agency or even a viable consumer-protective division within any existing agency that didn't already fail dismally, as the Fed and Treasury did, to protect consumers.

    And just like the real reform champions on climate change and health care, Paul Krugman is about to give up on Obama and Congress on their financial reform efforts. What passes may be worse than nothing, he fears. Welcome to our dilemma, Professor. We suggest you wear the flak jacket.

    So I remain puzzled by the Beltway wisdom that in the Obama White House, whatever you may think about its political vs policy debates, we shouldn't worry too much.



    The Dems are the Washington Generals (none / 0) (#48)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:58:56 AM EST
    They are doing their job!!

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#206)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    but if enviromental policy experts view the Cap and Trade bill as too watered down, then they are either entirely ignorant of the political reality or would rather have a strong bill that never left comittee than a decent bill that at least got through the House.

    Parent
    Timing is everything (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    I think your comment on his skills not matching the times hits the nail on the head.

    GWB and company left this country in a total shamble. From the economy to every agency and department of government.

    By 2008 the country was begging for change. The Republican party and it's policies were in ruin.
    Bush's 70% disapproval rating should have been used as a catalyst to drive the engine of change.

    The times demanded bold leadership if we were to  correct the damages done over the last eight years.

    The time for a bipartisan president should have been after the mess was cleaned up, not before.

    He (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    reran the Bush 2000 campaign that works if your party is seen as threatening and the times are basically good. It was the wrong campaign for the wrong time.

    Parent
    Where (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    did you get the idea that he had terrific policy instincts? I got the impression that he had horrible ones to none from the primaries.

    Obama IMO will never do well by main street because he lacks empathy. He sees the middle class not s real people with real problems but as sociological test studies.

    I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:33:38 AM EST
    That is also the belief of those who he chooses to hobnob with in the economic sector, we are little more than an ongoing social experiment....rats in the wheels.

    Parent
    There was a time (none / 0) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    He did show great instincts during the election cycle. That's one of the puzzles for me. His campaign was a very well oiled machine. They didn't miss a trick. I was thinking at the time that if they run the administration as smooth as they did the election we were going to be fine.

    Then he won!

    Then came the botched appointments and they've been flat footed and out flanked by the Republicans ever since.

    Parent

    As true today... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    ...as it was back in Will's day.

    "The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal--they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats."
    --Will Rogers



    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    Reminds me of a joke that was circulating in Moscow when I was there just after the Soviet Union dissolved.

    "Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of man by man.  Communism is the exact opposite!"

    Parent

    What HCR "mistake"? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    HCR is a bailout for the health insurance companies that makes failure to buy junk* insurance a Federal crime. HCR is also an illegitimate process, whose dishonest advocates in the administration and elsewhere** make the Orwellian claim (still!) that everything is "on the table" when the only policy option on offer that can be shown by evidence to work -- single payer -- has been systematically excluded and censored by our elites, including, sadly, "progressives."

    And here we are. Now the chance to get medical care after losing your job and your house has been moved up the income ladder through Medicaid expansion. Yay!

    However, this policy outcome is only a mistake if you imagine that the needs of the American people have any impact on policy as currently made in Versailles. From the standpoint of the health insurance companies, and the financiers who own both them and Versailles (including Obama), a $300 billion bailout is a tremendous policy success. (And what outcome did we expect, pray tell, after Obama put Baucus in charge of the process, and a Wellpoint executive on secondment as a Baucus staffer drafted the bill that became the baseline for reform?)

    Mission accomplished!

    NOTE * Since, as BTD admits, there's no check on the insurance companies, can anyone imagine that the insurance will be anything other than junk?

    NOTE ** No such claims have been made here, so far as I know.

    Thank you Lambert (4.33 / 6) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    Someone who has shed the idea that Democrats are doing anything for human beings anymore.  You are speaking the raw truth.

    We're getting this policy because it is the policy Obama wants.  The reason why he didn't fight for other policy is he didn't want another policy, he wanted THIS policy.  This policy will make him rich on the back of we lowly little citizens. It is the Chicago Economics-slash-Randian way and it's all someone with so little human empathy cares about.

    Parent

    Where are his good "policy instincts"? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    On the economy and job creation?

    Seems he's got a fine mess on his hands that is going to have an effect on this country for at least a generation.

    Oh goody.

    And now he and the Democrats own it. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    I think that on issue after issue (5.00 / 10) (#63)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    over the last year, it has been nearly impossible to grasp what it is that Obama actually believes in or wants; he says one thing, then says another, and then something else, his actions don't seem to dovetail with what he's said, and the constant tap-dancing between and among some very diverse policy positions is giving the impression that he's unable to lead because he has no core beliefs.

    At some point, though, I think one has to consider that what is happening is what is intended to happen, that the policies being advanced are the policies intended to be advanced, and it isn't just ineptitude at all, but part of a plan.  The money is all flowing uphill - to the banks and investment firms, to the health insurance industry, to the war machine, and then back to the people who made it possible: the politicians.  We are out of the loop on so many levels it isn't even funny.

    I don't know that there is much more that can be said about the unholy mess that has been made of the health care issue.  It's industry-friendly, it's too little that will take too long to get going, the whole process suffered, I believe, by the freeze-out of the single-payer proponents, it's been oversold as the answer to so many people's prayers, it's a perfect set-up for the GOP, which, if it passes, will get so much of what it wants without ever having to vote for it, and it seems to matter more to Obama that he be able to claim that he is the president who finally solved the problem - even if that is about as far from what is happening as it is possible to be.

    But it isn't just health care.  It's the whole Bush/Cheney package of surveillance and accountability for torture and state secrets and indefinite detention and Bagram.  It's being utterly passive on Dawn Johnsen.  It's the DOJ that has given the torture lawyers a pass.  It is the lack of support for reproductive rights - and yes, failing to speak out on Stupak/Nelson is lack of support.

    There is little in Obama's record, pre-WH that suggests he had the skills to govern.  Little to have indicated he had much interest in the work of whatever elected position he held; we do all remember his indifference to his Senate subcommittee, right?  His pattern was to begin positioning for the next higher office from almost the moment he won an election - so where is he headed from here?  The mind reels.

    If there is disappointment in Obama, there is as much there for the Democratic Congress, which could have taken the bull by the horns and acted like the independent branch they are and worked their own agenda and ignored Obama's obsessive need to always split the difference and make sure the other guy was happy.  

    And speaking of Obama's obsessive need, how politically tone-deaf is it to pursue a policy of bipartisanship that always throws your own side to the curb - unless it isn't so much bipartisanship that is one's ultimate goal, but the policies that the other party normally represents?  Democrats are going to pay dearly for that and it shows no signs of stopping - which shows even less skill and a killer inability to learn from one's mistakes.

    That there seems to be no one who does have the skills AND the political oomph to get things on track, under control and moving in the direction we thought we were going to go is pretty much terrifying.

    I don't think the issue is "skills" (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by cenobite on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    I agree with you for the most part, but there's a simple way to look at it:

    Ignore what he says.
    Examine what he does.
    Ask "Cui bono."

    Parent

    bingo (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by sj on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    it's a perfect set-up for the GOP, which, if it passes, will get so much of what it wants without ever having to vote for it

    Parent
    My biggest concern, (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by mg7505 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    is, as you say, Obama's complete and total lack of effort. I expected him to give some speeches on issues he cared about (whatever those were) and avoid any specifics en route to passing some weak tea reforms. Then reality struck. I simply cannot fathom how and why he could bring out thousands to hear him promote his own campaign, but failed to give even one memorable speech to promote a single issue in the past year. Where did the Obama of the Greatest Speech On Race Ever go? (not that I relished the speech, but at least it got people's attention) Policy aside, he could at least have tried to use his charm and media savvy to promote HCR in SOME coherent way. But all we got was one flash-in-the-pan confrontation with the Repubs and zero game-changing speeches.

    He baffles and frustrates me.

    He has had one really great game-changing (none / 0) (#208)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    speech, unfortunately it was in the arena where he's been the best (foriegn policy) not in an arena where it could change the country (domestic policy)- his Nobel acceptance was a clear and eloquent a defense for liberal interventionism as you will ever hear.

    Parent
    two questions: (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    1. on what basis do you ascribe to obama the appelation of "politically gifted"?

    2. on what basis do you assert that obama has "terrific policy instincts"?

    frankly, i've seen little to no evidence of either. with regards to his afghanistan policy, how is inserting an additional 30k troops there any different from his predecessor?

    i've seen nothing so far that leads me to believe that pres. obama has been any more successful, in either afghanistan or iraq, than was pres. bush. prove me wrong.

    he's gotten a couple of things marginally correct, the economic stimulous bill (which should have been doubled, with little of it in the form of tax breaks or credits) among them. unfortunately, he's no FDR, with the strength of his convictions to steamroll the republicans.

    this seeming ambivalence will ultimately doom all efforts at real healthcare delivery reform.

    He is politically gifted. See ability (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    to wipe out opposition in IL before a vote was cast.  See ability to gain Dem. presidential nomination after a short, inactive stay in the U.S. Senate.  See ability to shrug off the tarnish of The Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and sympathy for Palestinian cause.  That is politically gifted.

    Parent
    You forgot caucus fraud (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Getting away with that was truly a gift!

    Parent
    He may yet grow into the job (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    He's theoretically got the services of the entire federal government at his disposal to help him succeed and majorities in the the House and Senate.

    I could link easily to 2007 pieces I wrote calling him an empty suit or a cup of nothing. He simply isn't up to the job. That said, others haven't been, either. Gerald Ford springs to mind.

    I hope he quits smoking and lives a long a fruitful life. Joe Biden might be the brightest FP person in authority in this WH. Think about that for a moment. On the domestic front he's been a complete and utter failure. Dems lost key elections while he tried to figure out what he's supposed to be doing and are looking at an extremely grim November. And so they should.

    The fact is Dems have given next to no indication that they care or understand the problems of their own constituents. The left blogosphere has sung from the administration choir-book for the most part and there have certainly not been any discussions about hcr by Dems that involve forgetting the whole idea. Just weeks ago the message of the moment was J-O-B-S.

    Now it's just B-S.


    Buyers remose? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    I never liked him, never wanted him and still don't. But, there was one thing he could have done that would have changed the country and that, of course, is Single Payer National Health Insurance. And I was hopeful he would do that.

    (We can argue over how to pay, etc., later.)

    But instead of taking on the insurance industry and fighting he just gave'em more money and more customers IF his plan does pass.

    Which I hope it does not.

    Otherwise he has shown he is just another Democrat from Chicago.

    Pass the tin-foil hat please (none / 0) (#107)
    by dead dancer on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Because i almost totally agree with PPJ's comment; have i been transformed?

    I did want him, by process of elimination.

    Parent

    'Gifted'? 'Brilliant'? 'Talented' politician? Nope (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:36:53 AM EST
    Not seeing anything in his past performance -- anecdotal to the point of legend -- or current role as Prez that in any way fits these attributed qualities that are so often smacked on without being tied to an actual action or accomplishment.

    The best anti-war speech ever? No links, no footage, no text (just a lot of hooey that he did it and was awesome.) 'Amazing' community organizer? (Okey-doke.) 'Brilliant' Constitutional prof/expert with no law review articles on his guiding passion? (Yeah but Stoopid Palin doesn't have any either. Plus, we hate her.)

    A+ in foreign affairs? I'll give him that when he gives the Sec'y of State her proper due in the area. Even if he can't (or won't) govern he's about as 'talented' a politician as GWB was supposedly a brilliant, kick@ss 'wartime' CinC. This riff off the Hammond Cheesemaster 2000 doesn't match the Wurlitzer for raw power, but the cringe-factor is just as bad:

    The White House later put out a picture of the two Nobel Peace Prize laureates in the 45-minute meeting and issued a statement backing the Dalai Lama's goals.

    (actual forehead-smacking overreach). Yep, who wouldn't have a tough time distinguishing between the accomplishments and risks taken by the two Nobel laureates, particularly when one bravely hid under his Oval Office desk when the other was last in town (so as not to p!ss off China.)

    And yet in a Rahm-like preen of self-congratulation that brakes like a Toyota hybrid, the White House locutus shamelessly added:

    "The president commended the Dalai Lama's 'middle way' approach, his commitment to non-violence and his pursuit of dialogue with the Chinese government," Gibbs said. The Dalai Lama, who fled his homeland for India in 1959, advocates a "middle way" of seeking greater rights for Tibetans while accepting Chinese rule.

    Which is just like Obama's bi- post-partisan schtick. I'm glad Team Obama laid it all out for us, because an uncaptioned photo might just as easily have read:

    Obama lectured the Dalai Llama to switch from traditional saffron dyes to ones like the golden yam and butternut vegetable dyes Michelle mixed herself in the garden. Using the Dalai's under-tee to illustrate, Obama said that not only would yam dye make the beet-red "This is what a P*MA looks like!" pop more, but provide nutritious yam mush for starving Tibetans.

    Passive attributes like gifted, brilliant and talented are nothing more than marketing phrases. What I'll keep an open mind to is that those qualities are dormant (rather than purely gratuitous hagiography), and that Obama might fulfill them at some point.

    He has to try, though, and I haven't seen any signs of that.

    Ellie, do you have a link for the dye recs graf? (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    The embedded link goes to a photo, and link above doesn't have that paragraph (that I saw, at least). Would like to see source -- thnx in advance.

    Parent
    I guess Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    is part of the problem too.....

    No end to this stuff....

    Parent

    Obama had no problem doing it to all his opponents (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    ... regardless of what level of govt, or what race he was running. It was a major (and quite nasty) weapon in his arsenal.

    Calling foul play against a long-time knee-capper won't earn any sympathy points.

    Parent

    The idea was to not revisit the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    but you recycle the same old arguments....going back to even earlier races too.

    And now you take a veiled swipe at Michelle Obama....Just pure bile and venom....

    Parent

    No, that's Obama's entire career (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    ... and the topic alluded to his talents and gifts as a politician.

    I think you should get out of primary / campaign mode and see what's outside the blinkers.

    Parent

    And the shot at Michelle? (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Just for fun?

    Parent
    Jawbone, read this line... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    I'm glad Team Obama laid it all out for us, because an uncaptioned photo might just as easily have read


    Parent
    Isn't that Jawbone's point? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    Just make up stuff to criticize Obama....

    Parent
    No, I didn't make stuff up just to criticize (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    You can't dismiss without disputing what's there, linked, and everyone saw with our own lying eyes while it happened.

    No more free passes, no more ponies.

    Parent

    Hmm, you take creative license to a (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    a new level.

    The reference to the two Nobel Laureates was not written by Obama or his staff--it was a news organization....

    The other "substantive" point you make is just a photo of both the Dalai Lama and Obama.

    You may have a valid point about tepid support of Tibet--but it is lost in your unrelenting spite.    

    Parent

    Gibbs isn't a 'news organization' but Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    ... official spokesperson. If you're claiming that Obama has no idea what hiw own communications team is saying, he's doing even worse at his job than I thought.

    And my swipe at Michelle and her garden yams wasn't veiled.

    Parent

    Just openly vicious? (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    Please address if Obama knows what Gibbs is (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    ... telling reporters in the White House briefings and whether Gibbs is or isn't some random "news organization" and then we'll get to the emotional group-therapy talk.

    You can't just keep swatting away facts to complain about whether I'm vicious before your grasp of reality makes me think I might be the bestest sweetest gal evah and not even know it.

    Parent

    I have already answered this question (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    Perhaps you can admit that Michelle Obama is not really relevant to this conversation.

    Parent
    No, that is misleading (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:17:27 PM EST
    I was talking about your reference in your post to the "two Nobel Laureates."  The article that you link to does not have that as a Gibbs quote.  Gibbs did not say it--the news service said it in the article.

    Gibbs talked about the Dalai Lama's middle way.  

    You have implied in your original post that Obama himself, or Gibbs, referred to him as a Nobel Laureate along side the Dalai Lama....That was the overreach that you rant about.  

    That was very misleading....perhaps you missed who said it because of your hast to slam Obama.

    There is an interesting discussion that could be had regarding Tibet and the unwillingness to cross the Chinese because of economic issues.  But you did not go there....you misread an article and used that misreading as a basis to criticize Obama.

    Parent

    Take 'Might just as easily have read' to mean ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    ... 'Might just as easily have read' and slowly proceed from there.

    Otherwise, look for the link somewhere in the neighborhood of where the ones are for the Best. Anti-War. Speech. Evah &c.

    Parent

    Ellie, why do you hate? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    <snark>

    Parent
    "No law review articles" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    Oh boy....That does reach far back...

    Tribe did say he was one the two most gifted law students he has ever taught...

    Parent

    What on earth are you talking about? (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    Ellie rips (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    into Obama in the post you comment on, mocking his academic career in part because he did not author any law review articles....

    Obama's status as a very bright, or brilliant, legal mind is vouched for by his law professor Laurence Tribe, who has said that Obama is one of the two brightest students he ever taught.  Tribe has been considered one of the leading liberal legal minds....was under consideration by Bill for the Supreme Court but thought to be too liberal to be confirmed...

    Parent

    Obama was EDITOR of the Law Review (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:31:08 PM EST
    ... and didn't write any articles. Had he been on the masthead as the only member who knew how to change the fershlunginah toner on the copier, it would have been one thing.

    But to be EDITOR you have to DO more than have a fawning prof say you're 'gifted' to make that universally acceptable.

    Parent

    And this is relevant how? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    This was an issue in the primary....

    You don't have to publish an article to be named Editor-in-Chief, or President at Harvard.  

    This was a standard line of attack on Obama during the Primaries...

    Parent

    face it (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    the primaries will never be over as long as Obama is in office.

    Parent
    You and your pal are revisiting the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    I'm addressing his whole career, as mentioned in the topic.

    You can make it about the primaries if you like and lick each other's wounds. I haven't mentioned them at all.

    Parent

    Nice one Rush (2.33 / 3) (#213)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    can you tell me about how he's an "affirmative action President" next?

    Parent
    Actually, he was not the editor (2.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    according to a lot of sources about what was happening at the Harvard Law Review then.  The editorship was changed to being "head" of it, and Obama was the first with that title, as I recall.  Apparently it came with different expectations, as editors are expected to be authors of articles as well -- and the position has returned to that since.

    Parent
    Actually, he was the president of (none / 0) (#204)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    the law review, not the editor.

    BOSTON, Feb. 5-- The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.

    The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    [snip]

    Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

    That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.


    Link

    Parent
    I just happen to be Talented, Gifted and Brilliant (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    ... in the Playah Hatin' Liberal Arts. [/hem-crumpling, toe-digging modesty]

    Parent
    re: (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    particularly when one bravely hid under his Oval Office desk when the other was last in town (so as not to p!ss off China.)

    well, Obama is in the same room with the Dalai Lama in that picture, no?  It seems to undermine your point.

    Parent

    No, Obama avoided the Dalai Lama's previous (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    ... visit to DC because Obama had an upcoming photo-op with the Chinese. Made the papers and everything.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#212)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    but as ridiculous as the President's Nobel is, it pales in comparison to the Dalai Lama's- what the guy won because he's a cult leader who Peacefully adicated his throne? Awesome, hey if the Pope fled Vatican City would he get a Nobel? (Seriously, the Lama was the leader of a theocratic regime within a feudal state what exactly did he do to deserve the Nobel Prize- its almost as bad as Mother Theresa winning one).

    Parent
    Not buyer's remorse here either (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    I expected Obama to be mediocre. Just that, mediocre. I figured our foreign policy would be exactly the same no matter who was in charge, from either party (except in the unlikely event that Kucinich won), and I never for a moment bought the dreamed-up notion that he was a "peace candidate" the way his supporters did. So my focus was on domestic policy. And I expected that in this area he would institute some changes to the status quo--not major sweeping changes, but enough to keep his supporters happy enough and in line, and I thought certain issues--like the environment--would show marked improvement. Again, not anything huge but just some small, welcome improvements.

    I thought he would be what even his supporters are saying he is: "passable." What astonishes me is how hideously bad he's been, how far from "passable" his first year has been. It's been an utterly disastrous run of one bad decision after another, failed policy initiatives (the homeowner "help" program that doesn't, the jobs bill that won't create any, the healthcare reform travesty). On the environment, we have the Copenhagen debacle and oh, West Virginia, you voted Hillary in the primary so here ya go, have some mountaintop removal. (Note: I don't give a rip about a pol's personal qualities, but I do think Obama has a long, nasty, and very petty vindictive streak that occasionally informs his policy decisions and his reactions, which is dangerous. An experienced pol doesn't do this.)


    The environment (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    is an open question right now.

    As to what has actually been done, Salazar cancelled a lot of oil and gas leases on federal land in the West.  Control of the BLM and the Inteior Department matter.  So far, so good, with some minor qualms.

    There are rumblings that Obama will designate a lot of federal land as monuments, similar to what Bill Clinton did.  The Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico is among the potential designations.  What makes this an inviting tack is that Obama can act unilaterally without Congress under the Antiquities Act.  

    Copenhagen had no chance during a worldwide economic downturn.

    The talk of off-shore oil drilling frankly concerns me more than strip mining in West Virgnia.  The oceans are in bad shape....and need help.

    As to not taking a personal swipe at Obama, but yet saying he is petty and vindictive, I am not sure what leads you to that conclusion--or even why you think that is a bad political trait.  Many Obama critics hold up LBJ as the model that Obama fails to measure up to, and yet LBJ didn't twist arms because the recipients thought it was fun.  Obama is charged with naivete and being too mean--at the same time....

    Someone said here that no one fears Obama....You cannot have it both ways on that score....People would fear a pol that could punish them--i.e., be vindictive against those who step out of line....I am not sure this is what Obama is doing in any event.  

     

    Parent

    Strip mining (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    has a horrendous effect on streams and stream organisms due to the erosion of mine tailings.

    But mountaintop removal is what the poster was referring to, not stripmining - and that is 1000 times worse. The administration will not take that on. Not yet anyway.

    The American people allow their leaders to enable corporations to destroy THEIR environmental legacy, just like they bend over and allow them to enable corporations to destroy their opportunities to a decent middle-class life. Go figure. Masochists I guess.

    Parent

    Horrible, I know (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    The problem with the oceans I think are very, very big--and largely ignored....

    One side note on climate change:  The sea lions have left Fisherman's Wharf at Pier 39.  A famous site--it was great fun to watch the big guys just bark and jostle each other for the best sunning spot.  The warmer ocean temperature apparently caused the anchovies and herring to move north, and so did the sea lions--north to Oregon.

    The Wharf is empty--no sea lions at all....

    Parent

    Ick (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:47:15 AM EST
    Some attribute Obama's reticence to the need of an African American President to not appear threatening.

    "Some" attributed Obama's many turns to the right during the campaign to the same "need" - excused him, and went on supporting him.

    I considered that to be a patronizing and racist sentiment then, and I consider it as such now.

    I also found this troubling (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by Spamlet on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:18:35 PM EST
    Some attribute Obama's reticence to the need of an African American President to not appear threatening.

    And I've seen the same statement made time and again by certan commenters here.

    Believing that Obama has a "need" as an African American president to appear nonthreatening is tantamount to believing that when the times call for an assertive president, it's a good idea not to elect an African American president.

    And on the other side of the coin, I know a lot of liberal white people who don't associate with actual black people but who were gung-ho Obama fans during the campaign, not because they actually read the policies on his famous website or listened to what Obama was saying during the debates but because they automatically assumed that Obama, being African American and by definition "oppressed," had to be "progressive," just like them.

    Racism comes in many guises, one being "the soft bigotry of low expectations," as somebody once described it.

    Parent

    Very well said.... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    Racism comes in many guises, one being "the soft bigotry of low expectations," as somebody once described it.


    Parent
    I've (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    wanted to say to the people who says that Obama can't do this or that that he's black then they were wrong in supporting him for President knowing the situation the country is in. And focusing on skin color avoids the real problems Obama has.

    Parent
    It's a disservice to multitudes of black leaders (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    ... in politics and other areas of community, and votership of all races / creeds / colors that elected them.

    I was simply appalled by the presumption that no one ever before saw or could possibly imagine an African American holding a prominent public office.

    I just happen to prefer leaders who are unbought and unbossed.

    Parent

    Obama and Baucus and Messina make three -- (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    The President decided to make health care the signature issue of his first year (make no mistake, it is the President who has made health care the front burner issue, not Congress) and then left it in the hands of Max Baucus and Co. ~~~BTD

    I think that was the plan: Obama gets arms length deniability, but close control and coordination.

    When I learned that Obama had Baucus's former chief of staff (health insurance emphasis) on his WH staff as an ass't chief of staff (health insurance emphasis, with reelection added very recently), I was worried about the direction of health care legislation. Baucus was hardly interested in disturbing the Big Health Insurers.

    If Obama wanted universal care, comprehensive care, why didn't he have someone from Ted Kennedy's staff brought on board to assist with coordination with the Senate?

    Instead, he brought on Baucus's guy, Jim Messina. Baucus and Messina describe their relationship as being "like family." Very close, so coordinating WH and Baucus's actions was very easy.

    The Senate bill was what Obama wanted: No public option, mandates to ensure continued profitabiity for the Big Insurers (they were actually draining the financial life blood out of their current customer base and needed a larger host body), subsidies to let people think their parasitic insurers were not quite as bad a before....

    Obama got what he wanted from Baucus. The rest is all flimflam and bamboozling the voters.

    It is a house of cards and will collapse, but not before Obama is out of office and thousands more die form lack of insurance and junk insurance lack of coverage, many more bankrupted by medical costs. There are bandaids on offer, which, I feel, are designed to keep enough of the public thinking there's been progress so they will not revolt. The coverage of children to age 26 will be helpful (unknown how expensive); doing away with pre-existing conditions will help (again, cost not known).

    What we need is health CARE, not health insurance "reform."

    Medicare (Improved!) for All...with a robust private option could have achieved with the mandate and Congressional numbers Obama had. He did not want it.

     

    Gotta love all those "..ah s" (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:24:37 PM EST
    how about a couple of more, so we get the point..whatever it's supposed to be?

    Lawrence Tribe is the most fawning Law Professor evah; that'd be a good one. Whether Tribe's ever had anything like a reputation for fawning, or needed to do it with anyone - like an unknown law student - in the last twenty years, is the most irrelevant point..evah.

    fair and balanced (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:39:13 AM EST
    as usual.

    If intended as a Fox like insult (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    Well, we all have our opinions.

    I think I explain mine pretty clearly here.

    You are entitled to yours as well of course.

    Parent

    it wasnt at all (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    Im sorry you took it so

    Parent
    I'm glad to hear that (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    But "fair and balanced" is a pretty well known Fox slogan.

    Parent
    more (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:58:30 AM EST
    I basically agree with everything you said.  keep pushing.  

    one thing tho.
    I cant help but admire the Don Quixote aspect of taking on health care and gays in the military in the first term.

    I admit I did not start out as an Obama fan.  but he is growing on me.


    Parent

    The decision to take on health care (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    was indeed bold.

    But the follow through was the opposite.

    Very strange.


    Parent

    I "cling" to the idea (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    there may still be surprises

    Parent
    How is bailing out the insurance companies... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    ... by guaranteeing them a subsidized market through the mandate not "bold"?

    I think it's quite "bold" and moreover, quite "successful."

    As soon as you surrender the idea that anybody serious in Versailles has a constituency made up of actual voters, things become much more clear.

    Parent

    Did anyone seriously believe (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    that there was a possibility that a hundred billion dollar industry, that's spent decades spreading grease in every direction, was going to be completely cut out of the deal?

    Parent
    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    apparently some did

    Parent
    Though I'd bet... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    Nader woulda at least went down swinging...at the greasers and the recipients of the grease alike.

    Parent
    Ooh, a Nader slur! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    Just reflex action, or short hand for a serious point?

    Parent
    There's a point... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    you can judge how serious...we've elected cats with D's and R's after their names exclusively for over 100 years...are we being served?

    Parent
    Maybe? (none / 0) (#136)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    It might be time to consider a third party president. Someone in the WH with a veto pen may be the last hope for the middle class.

    It's apparent that the two parties we have now are too wrapped up in raising money and improving the quality of their own lives to worry about the people.

    It seems DC has been thoroughly convinced that big business has to be protected at any cost. They've all bought into the trickle economy fairy tale.

    Parent

    Now you're talking (none / 0) (#161)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    Both legacy parties need to be destroyed, and we shove the Dems over the cliff first, then so be it.

    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#173)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    I admire your passion on this but good god- remember 2000- remember "How bad could it be if we vote for Nader" because I do, I also remember the Bush Presidency- guess what its not worth it, maybe it'd be worth it with a sane GOP (say Bush I), or even a paranoid but competent GOP (Nixon) but risking a President Palin or Huckabee no, sorry I'm not willing to do that to the women who'd die in back alleys or to the men and women who'd die on foreign shores maybe you are but I can't- I can't view thousands of my fellow citizens as merely an acceptable toll on the road to a brighter future.

    Parent
    Still say the REAL (none / 0) (#181)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    problem is that we have tens-of-millions of people who wouldnt think twice about voting for another coked-out, blueblood inbred as long as he had the right accent and said he was born again.

    Nader was the least of the problems that year, imo.


    Parent

    "went down" (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    being the operative words

    Parent
    Perhaps its true... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:28:54 AM EST
    that no prizefighter can knock out the champ...the health-industrial complex...at least Ralph wouldn't take a dive and make them work up a sweat.  And who knows...David won one time.

    As of now we don't really know if we can beat them...everybody we elect joins 'em before the 1st round bell rings.

    Parent

    its not (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    over

    Parent
    Hope you're right... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    I think it was over before it started.

    Parent
    I just want him (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    in the debates. I think people would be surprised at how many times they'd hear "Ralph is right" - followed by a long, obfuscatory tap dance - similar to the way they tried to deal with that other outsider Perot in '90.

    Parent
    Honestly... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    who it is matters little, as long as they're an outsider...we've seen what insiders get us...a government by, of, and for insiders.

    Parent
    The usual method (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    for dealing with outsiders is to set the Wurlitzer to spin-them-as-nuts mode..as in, that craaazy little man and his craaazy running man in 2000..publicly asking Kucinich about that time he saw a ufo..or, the immediate guffaws you get now if you mention the name Nader.

    Welcome to the machine. Only vetted members of the club need apply.

    Parent

    Truman in 1948 (none / 0) (#177)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    Winner of World War 2, arguing to an American that had just lived through rationing and was now reaping the benefits of government largesse in education (GI Bill) against a far less organized Health Industry- couldn't pass National Healthcare- a third party President would have no choice- we joke about Presidential Impotency with regards to Legislation now- but for a third party guy it'd move beyond the normal "can't introduce legislation" to become- "introducing legislation actively destroys your own party"

    Parent
    I honestly think he would have (none / 0) (#171)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    how he would have become President in this or any or other hypothetical US is another question though- Kucinich would have been elected President before Nader.

    Parent
    Remind me why we have representative democracy? (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    Oh, wait...

    Parent
    Sometimes a "gain" (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    can go in a number of ways. I'm reminded of a lesson my dad helped me learn years ago about my tendency "to cut off my nose to spite my face." That is, the reality that someone--who or what I don't like--may gain does not negate my gain OR the fact that my adversary hasn't been eliminated/awfully maimed/brought low should not cloud my forward movement.  Yes, it did surprise me that a number of individuals early on thought that quick magic (and thats what it would take in any Congress) would completely build a brand new healthcare/educational/banking/housing/etc. in place of what our society practiced for generations. While I would have wanted a bit more (read: genuine competition via a genuine public option), I believe that one could easily and unemotionally chart out and describe the gains for most Americans that would be realized by the WH's preferred legislation at this point. And, I say that recognizing full well that the scumbag insurance groups will reap quite a bit moneywise from the mandated larger pool...and that same arrogant bunch, tho, are on track to be more federally regulated than they ever have before.  After venting about the insurers, lets take a deeper look at the gains that those estimated 30 million plus who will be newly insured will realize. Sometimes (at least initially) we have to allow for the adversary's gain if we also want to gain...negotiated "gains" are fascinating critters.

    Parent
    Ah, the "magic" talking point... (none / 0) (#164)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:35:21 PM EST
    Point is, Obama was elected by a faction of the Democratic party that basically promised that. Greatest orator of his generation, transformative figure, blah blah blah.

    So, now that hasn't worked out, and that same faction wants to airbrush their own history by claiming anybody who wants the Dems to accomplish anything other than bailout the banksters is indulging in childish fantasies. Governing is hard work, and all. (Not that the entire project wasn't deeply bogus from the beginning, since the post-partisan schtick was, and is, an exercise in pure wish fulfillment).

    Parent

    The White House is being run by (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    campaign operatives.  If you look at it from that perspective, it isn't all that strange.  Obama throws out the topic - "Leads the discussion" if you will - and then leaves it to others to either live or die on the sword for him.  Perhaps, more than anything else, Obama's failure to focus the public on the merits of Democratic Party governance is where I am particularly unhappy with his performance.  But because it is all about him and making sure that he is re-elected in 2012 at that White House, they've made certain choices that basically either nullify or undermine the importance of a strong Democratic caucus.

    Honestly, it would impossible for me to argue the merits of Democratic rule at this point given what we have working for us in terms of lack-luster "talent" - and even harder when the President who is supposedly the de facto head of the party doesn't seem to care about the party as a whole anyway either.  Obama is likely to find out what it is really like to have to do bipartisan deals after 2010 and that will not be pretty.  The GOP won't cut him slack because he was "nice" during his first two years - they'll just be more emboldened by their progress in winning power back.  Sigh.  He will regret abandoning the Party if 2010 turns out to be the doom and gloom scenario some are now predicting.

    I really get the feeling more and more that the guy seriously doesn't get the real root of his power in the White House. He's still acting like a Senator - Senators can ignore and often do ignore constituents - but when you're the President you have two sources of power, the public and your party.  Without either or both, even in the age of the imperial presidency, you're a lame duck.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    The White House is being run by banksters. Follow the money. I've always loved this by Michael Lewis:
    America stands at a crossroads, and Goldman Sachs now owns both of them. In choosing which road to take, ordinary Americans must not be distracted by unproductive resentment toward the toll-takers. To that end we at Goldman Sachs would like to dispel several false and insidious rumors.

    Rumor No. 1: "Goldman Sachs controls the U.S. government."

    Every time we hear the phrase "the United States of Goldman Sachs" we shake our heads in wonder. Every ninth-grader knows that the U.S. government consists of three branches. Goldman owns just one of these outright; the second we simply rent, and the third we have no interest in at all. (Note there isn't a single former Goldman employee on the Supreme Court.)



    Parent
    Other to fall on their swords... (3.66 / 3) (#68)
    by wrensis on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    You nailed this. He will always let other people take the fall and keep his hands clean.
    It is and always has been about being elected or re-elected.  
    I keep remembering the campaign remark."God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians"
     He is an elistist. Always has been, always will be.  

    Parent
    It is not just him. (none / 0) (#97)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    I am less and less inclined to believe that he personally has the breadth and depth to fully comprehend the dynamics of his situation.  I am not convinced he is an elitist as much as he's simply following directions from a group of people who are pretty out of touch - many of whom ascribe to the DLC junk that lost us election after election.

    Parent
    Taking on HCR, yes, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    ... but there's nothing particularly bold about taking on gays in the military, now.  The vast majority of the public (including most Republicans) now support allowing gays to serve in the military.  Even the Pentagon now favors it.

    Parent
    thank you , BTD (3.75 / 4) (#35)
    by sher on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    for your strong analysis of Obama's first year performance.  It demonstrates/models that it is possible to critique/evaluate Obama without insulting his intelligence, integrity, or virility (or lack thereof for his detractors.  Criticism of Obama is not objectionable and is frankly warranted in some instances; what is not warranted are the all too often ad hominem attacks on both Obama and his supporters.  Reasonable people can choose to disagree.

    What integrity? (4.25 / 4) (#51)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:02:33 AM EST
    Of course, as a "little single payer advocate", one of those censored from White House transcripts and a process that claims to have "all options on the table" ... I may be unduly influenced by evidence and experience.

    I guess I'm old-fashioned. I just don't associate censorship and dishonesty with integrity. YMMV, of course.

    Parent

    Last I looked (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    you had the ability to comment here.

    What censorship are you referring to?

    Parent

    White house (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    censorship.   Another example on tamping down on public knowledge of issues might be this (David Sirota).

    Parent
    This link goes to important move by WH -- More (none / 0) (#112)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    evidence of Bush's 3rd Term actions.

    If the information is not available, how do we know what's happening?

    Do read this: It will be important in the future, especially if they get away with this. Dems stood up to Bush -- can they do the same to Obama et al?

    Parent

    Check the links! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    This is not a reference to TL, whose policies have been honorable!

    Parent
    He has done as well on (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    Afghanistan in my opinion as anyone could.  He came into the situations of Afghanistan and Iraq though after so many lessons and so much devastation that he reaps the profits of the factual and reality based arguments yelling at each other at the big table.  I suppose the American people will have to become as devastated as the U.S. military had become while still having the same old terrorist/economic problems unsolved before the factual and reality based arguments at the people's table are even spoken.  Hell, the "economic Generals" need to all be fired because they aren't anything other than self serving idiots who made it to the top of the food chain without having to deal with a "real" problem or ever have to be accountable for much.  It reminds me of the first three years in Iraq.  

    What's an "economic general"? (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    Very interested in your perspective on Afghanistan, MT.

    Parent
    I think Afghanistan is a toss up (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    But never before have we put forth such an honest effort to begin to encourage the evolution of a fellow society.  I read though that one of the old tribal leaders told McChrystal to his face in Marja, that if we back out on them and not follow through that they will all be killed and we all know this right?  We own what we clear and hold now until the day it can exist without us.  We are nation building.  Sort of funny in a way as our nation travels down a path of financial lawlessness that we decide to "help" a different society and culture with their own wild lawlessness.  It is THE lawlessness on the table though today, the unregulated financial Wall Street wild lawlessness isn't really lawlessness....that's capitalism.

    Parent
    An A+ is a grade not given often and (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    one not given lightly, and on foreign affairs at that.   My inclination would be to not only be a tougher marker but also to give an Inc. on efforts, and, certainly, on results.  A "B" would be a consideration, despite my disagreement on Afghanistan strategies, in light of the new tone in foreign relations.  While our foreign affairs seems focused, primarily, on our several wars the grading prospects on efforts alone would be improved if our foreign affairs spokesperson would more often be the Secretary of State, rather than the Secretary of Defense. The change in tone so desperately needed and enthusiastically welcomed  after the Bush years may be quickly dissipated with sentiments like those expressed by Secretary Gates in response to the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan--that the Europeans are in a crisis since that are not warlike enough.  President Obama can easily secure bipartisanship for wars and troop increases, so he  deserves to have a new team, no holdovers, the worst seeps out when not looking.

    Most posters appear to be naive in the extreme... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yes2Truth on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:04:58 AM EST

    unless a smoother version of the same right-wing
    domestic and foreign policies of every president since Carter is what you expected.

    Obama was vetted and found to be "on the team", so
    why anyone would expect him to be an inch different than he is, is beyond me.

    And it's naive in the (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    extreme to not see that all the other candidates under serious consideration get subjected to the same vetting process.

    Those coffers aren't being filled by enlightened philanthropists.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    You think he had it the hardest as far as vetting is concerned?  Every other candidate got a pass and poor ol' Barack had it so bad.

    O-kay.  I hear the weather is nice on planet hopey-changey....

    Parent

    I thought you weren't talking (3.00 / 2) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    about the primary anymore.

    Parent
    clearly they are not (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    but Obama is starting to talk about taking on trial lawyers.

    you would think he would be given some credit for that one.


    Parent

    You couldn't have a better plan (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    for bankrupting the Democratic Party than 'taking on the trial lawyers.'

    Reminds me of our Vietnam policy explanation by one of our more creative military thinkers:  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

    Parent

    I keep hearing this here (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:39:34 AM EST
    does it matter at all to you that it is the right thing to do?


    Parent
    Depends on what you mean by (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    'the right thing!'

    If you mean get rid of ambulance-chasing junk lawsuits, fine.  If you mean putting caps on penalties for pain and suffering, you need to rent a copy of "Erin Brockovich" or read up on Love Canal...or even read some Steinbeck to grasp the missing quality in this president:  empathy.

    It's the basic quality that used to make one a Democrat.  It's what made FDR a great one.

    Parent

    Caps don't work (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    Medical malpractice reform--the kind that the Republicans talk about, i.e, caps on awards for pain and suffering--passed in California a generation ago.  If you look at malpractice verdicts out of downtown LA Superior Court--a plaintiff oriented venue--most of them are defense verdicts....

    Texas enacted tort reform years ago.

    Tort reform has not had any measurable effect on health care costs....This is a Republican myth.  

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    It's been a right wing talking point for years - corporations love them some tort reform.

    Parent
    Texas health insurance premiums have (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    gone up almost 92% since 2000. Since IIRC they have some of the strongest tort reform legislation, I would think that they should have a lot lower health insurance premiums.

    Parent
    if you think being (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    a democrat means embracing ambulance chasers we disagree.

    the tort system in this broken.  if you want to save money fix it.

    Parent

    Ummm....Capt.? Reading comprehension (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    is a skill.  Slow down and try again...

    Parent
    "Tort reform" doesn't save money (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:31 PM EST
    It's been tried in several states already, but the costs (including the many legitimate suits/costs) are just a tiny fraction of the overall costs.

    Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law:

    It's (tort reform) a red herring. It's become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn't accomplish the goal of bringing down costs...

    As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it's part of the medical price inflation system, but it's not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice...

    According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That's a rounding error. Liability isn't even the tail on the cost dog. It's the hair on the end of the tail.

     

    Parent

    You know what the"tort reform now" (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    argument is really about, don't you?  It's about trial lawyers and the money they give to Democratic candidates.

    Parent
    speaking of (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    bankrupt

    Parent
    Oh goody (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by sj on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    Let's just continue crippling the advocates of the individual.

    Parent
    Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    Uh...... I thought you watched and admired Maddow.  She covered this last night and what a joke the statistical argument is.  The number of suits that make it to trial are a pittance, the failure rate against plaintiffs are astronomical, the number of high awards are so rare as to be a unworthy of mention.  The average award is well below state limits. She refuted this and showed it for what it is.... the embracing of another irrational Republican talking point.  

    Parent
    doesnt mean I agree with everything (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    she says.
    what you say may be true.  it may save nothing when it comes to health care. I dont think it is true but it should still be fixed.

    Parent
    The "make it to trial" (none / 0) (#211)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    thing is as misleading a stat as pointing out a prosecutors conviction rate- most legal actions be they civil or criminal will be settled prior to trial.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#210)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    but with the exception of extreme outliers such as Paul, Kucinich and Gravel- who exactly that was running for the presidency would have represented a back from the post-Carter center-right continum?

    Parent
    Much depends on the data released tomorrow (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    If we continue to lose jobs in February (distinctly possible, especially given the bad weather), then there will be no health care bill.  

    If we add some jobs, even just 10,000, then there will be "a" health care bill.  

    If we add a lot of jobs, then a health care bill with a public option is possible. Sherrod Brown appeared on Rachel Maddow last night to discuss various scenarios in which a public option could be enacted.....

    It really boils down to the economy and that really means jobs.....With a good economy, a much greater progressive agenda can be enacted.  Republicans understand this and that is why many of them are turning to the deficit (which will not turn around in the short term no matter what) and also hot button issues such as the use of military tribunals and giving Miranda warnings to terrorist suspects.  Scott Brown's campaign admitted this was a very big issue that helped them.

    So, the musings about the primary--and, yes, they appear here yet again by former Hillary supporters--and the views of Obama's experience, I think, really miss the mark.  With 10% unemployment that is not seen as improving after a year in office, no amount of experience or assertiveness can muscle a progressive agenda through Congress in an election year.  It's the KISS principle....If people don't feel good about the economy, a progressive agenda has little chance....
     

    The thing is, there's nothing wrong (none / 0) (#152)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    with voters being inspired by Obama's Hopey Changey talk in the campaign. This country is in desperate need of a heroic leader, heck the world is desperate for one. The problem is that we get fooled over and over again by liars who are in it for themselves and their true constituents - the masters of the universe. Hence, Bush, Shrub and now Obama.

    The only way we're going to save our nation and our planet is if we reestablish the people's control over our government. And I still think we have a chance with Obama if the left steps up to the plate and demands change. The health care debacle would be a perfect place to start. If progressives came out en mass against this faux reform and demand the bill be reformulated replacing the individual mandate with fee-based Medicare, I think our Dems in Congress might do what we want for a change. We're experiencing the biggest corporate coup in our lifetimes, and we won't have a chance of enacting true health care reform in our lifetimes if it goes through. The Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank because they get to claim ObamaCare is a government takeover of health care in spite of the fact that it's actually a corporate takeover. In the process, our progressive clout is being squandered by our elected Democrats who are also in bed with the insurance industry. Yet MoveOn and other groups are scurrying to let our Dems and the media know we're fully behind it.

    I really think the solution is to blanket all of our progressive groups and blogs right now with a different plan - one that blocks corporate interests, that can't be called socialist or welfare-healthcare by the right, and that clearly supports Main Street for a change.


    Right, if HCR "reform" as is passes, (none / 0) (#158)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    Obama is probably protected for 2012, even if Congress takes a big hit. If it doesn't pass, he definitely shares the blame, and will need to do make some major changes to his style.

    Parent
    Well, it's gonna pass (none / 0) (#209)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    and it's gonna sink our Party unless progressives come out against it RIGHT NOW and demand no bill without the public option. I mean real protests, real demands, calling it corporatist and demanding the mandate be changed to full public option before passage.

    How do we get our side to wake up?

    Parent

    I would argue the opposite (none / 0) (#214)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    if this Healthcare bill passes, then it can be amended in the future, if however it fails- then Healthcare Reform is done for at least a decade if not a quarter century- the lesson Dems will take from Healthcare failing is that is a pointless issue to try- it will become our Social Security Reform and our politicians will decide that there is no upside and massive downside to even attempting reform.

    Parent
    Where is the evidence that he has (none / 0) (#154)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    good policy instincts in the domestic arena?
    I see literally none.
    He was tone deaf in the primaries when he opposed a 30% cap on CC interest rates because that would be "too high" (as opposed to nothing?!); he's been all over the place on HCR. What about his repeated use of the words "health INSURANCE reform"? I actually thought that when he asked the Congressman, "what if you made $40,000?", that was a very weak moment for him! That point needed to be driven home by giving the budget of a family of 4 on a $40,000 income. Bill Clinton or any other number of well-prepared politicians would have nailed that point much better.
    This is representative of what I call his "bad professor" style: he leaves details to the listeners which he assumes are "obvious", making his presentation weak and lacking in punch.

    I have to agree that he is a gifted politician.
    Why? Because people really love him and love listening to his voice---unfortunately that holds no matter what he says. When I read him, he's just boring, cliched and NOT good at the details of domestic policy, ever.
    On foreign policy he seems much better. I have to laud him for his new proposals on nuclear disarmament. That was his signature issue in the Senate and very high priority today.
    His Afghanistan policy will go nowhere, IMO, but I don't know what would be better.
    I would say he has been weakest on the Israel/Palestinian problem and Iran. He's really allowing the possibility of war with Iran, IMO.


    Iran and Afghanistan are almost (none / 0) (#215)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    intractable issues- with Iran he's taking a reasonably brave stand just by not attacking already- it'd be a massive political win (and foreign policy blunder) to launch airstrikes against Iranian nuke sites- he'd jump 10-15 points in the polls at least, as for Afghanistan- there's no good solution in terms of policy or politics- leaving would almost certainly lead to total anarchy, while staying has a high cost and no certain benefit.  

    Parent
    About foreign policy: what about (none / 0) (#159)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    global warming? This is absolutely the most important foreign policy issue, and the one which is most like a wonky, domestic policy issue where he flails around helplessly.
    Do you really believe that Senator Exelon/President Clean Coal is going to have a global warming policy you approve of?


    FDR? (none / 0) (#205)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    Obama wants to be the a democratic Reagan - a President who (sometimes) cuts deals with the opposition

    I have only one question, BTD (none / 0) (#217)
    by bridget on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:04:51 PM EST

    You wrote:
    ..."Obama was an incredibly gifted politician with terrific policy instincts ......"

    What did he say and do as a candidate to make you believe that? What?

    The linger with Baucus not a mistake? (none / 0) (#218)
    by good grief on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    The President decided to make health care the signature issue of his first year (make no mistake, it is the President who has made health care the front burner issue, not Congress) and then left it in the hands of Max Baucus and Co. That was simply an unfathomable mistake. (emphasis mine)

    This didn't strike me as unfathomable at all, or even a mistake from Obama's point of view. I'm unaware who orchestrated it (perhaps Rahm?) but it appeared to me a crafty bit of political deception to pretend "hands across the aisle" via Baucus and his GOP buddies on the Finance Committee (and conservadems)and all that Shakespearean footwork with Snowe (every minute of which made Obama look noble to average Americans, although dumb to most of us in his left base) to burn up months of time to shed the public option (and public excitement for the PO) and not let himself (Obama) look too liberal in the long run of this HCR puppy.

    The bill we're ending up with is essentially the Baucus/K Street bill (with a few touchups -- waiting to see if PO gets through by some miracle and how strong/useful it really is; will we get national or state exchanges; what shape will premium oversight board take; and will McCaren-Ferguson anti-trust exemption get dropped). According to that whistleblower from Cigna (or was it Aetna?) the PO had to be dropped at all cost and Obama has done his best in the most subtle way possible to make sure it's dead while seeming to be its champion in principle to let his base down easy. It's FISA all over again, although then he said in effect, "Tough. You won't always agree with me." With the PO he hasn't been that honest.

    So maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me Baucus was a cunningly arranged "cutout" for Obama, a channel through which Obama could signal to corporate cronies of Baucus on K Street (to whom Baucus was said to have sent the first draft of the Finance Committee bill -- without PO): "Look what a good boy I am to play your game. I'm pretending to appeal to Republicans as though it were political when in fact I am appealing to you, the corporate guys (who care zilch about politics), and presenting to you my credentials as a reliable corporate guy myself, worthy to receive large chunks of your hot cash when I need to run again for President. Just drop it off with Rahm. Meanwhile I look bipartisan (even if I don't get many GOPers, I get credit in voters' eyes for trying) and not too liberal as we lose the PO (whew, that was close!) but it doesn't look like my fault and that's good for my base problem."  


    Bottom line: (none / 0) (#219)
    by good grief on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:54:59 PM EST
    Mainly the message via Baucus is, "I'm your man."