Best Intentions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 06:44:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It always amazes me that people care what politicians "really" want. Kevin Drum writes:

I never expected to like everything [Obama] did. The reason I'm schizophrenic [about Obama] is that it's almost impossible to get a handle on what he really wants. Did he want a bigger stimulus bill but compromised down because $800 billion was all he could get? Or did he not really want more than that in the first place? Ditto for the public option. Ditto for DADT, which he had to be pushed into supporting this year. And ditto again on financial reform, which is worth passing only because of numerous amendments to the original bill. On all of these issues and more, I don't feel like I ever knew what Obama's real position was. There's a big difference between compromising because politics is what it is and you have no choice, and compromising because the more centrist position is the one you genuinely hold. But Obama never gives me a good sense of which it is with him.

(Emphasis supplied.) Actually, there is no difference between compromising because of perceived political constraints or because you prefer the compromised position. The outcome is the same. It is the insatiable desire, that I simply do not understand, to believe a politician agrees with you on policy, even if he does nothing that actually enacts the policies you prefer. [More...]

It is ridiculous. Pols are pols and do what they do. Trying to figure out if they do things because they think it is the right thing to do or the politically expedient thing to do is a fool's errand. It matters not one whit WHY a pol does something. What matters is WHAT he does. The long arguments on the WHY are simply ridiculous.

Speaking for me only

< No Answers From Kagan? | A Little Red Meat For The Base: Right Falsely Accuses Kagan On Abortion >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Best Intentions | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I can't figure out whether my wife... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Dadler on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:11:38 PM EST

...is really cheating on me, or if she's just sleeping with the other guy because they go to the same gym. I just can't get a read either way.

Ahem.

Insatiable desire (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:14:24 PM EST

: clearly, (none / 0) (#5)
by cpinva on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:42:08 PM EST

you haven't seen the other guy, or his wife. :)

If Kevin understood that Obama functions (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Anne on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:39:15 PM EST

less as a leader than as a facilitator, he might be able to make some sense out of Obama's actions; he facilitates "wins" - when he is not being impotent and powerless, that is. And a win to Obama is nothing much more than getting more votes for whatever "his" side nominally put on the table - even if the end result of that win is nothing that looks remotely like what we have come to think of as Democratic legislation.

In the end, I don't really care if I can understand someone's reasons for doing what I want; it doesn't even have to be for the "right" reasons, either. I would not have cared if Obama fought for single payer because space beings landed in the presidential bedroom and planted little single-payer seeds in Obama's ear canals - what would have mattered is Obama working to get what I - and millions of other people - wanted.

I can't believe that isn't more obvious.

Motivation IS Critical - WHY did (none / 0) (#7)
by seabos84 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:57:15 PM EST

obama appoint rahm and let tauzin in the white house and sell out the public option and single payer and medicare for all ... AND kiss the ___ of wall street with geithner and bernanke ... AND appoint a republican to DOD ...?

cuz he's a sell out - he did what it took to get into the club, he's in, and he don't want to get kicked out.

"the rich are different from you and me"

Why did clinton turn into a sell out? Why did gore and kerry and dukakis run such crap campaigns?

the nice leafy neighborhood professional managers live in a different world, and the go-for-the-throat tactics needed to stop these right wing thieves are just not part of the fabric of THOSE PEOPLE.

Motivations matter - it is time to STOP supporting these sell outs cuz they ain't gonna change.

And after decades of sell outs, given that they're a bunch of sell outs cuz that is what they're motivated to do to fit in their $ocial cla$$, you're right that WHAT they do now matters - in fact, it is ALL that matters.

they're gonna have to fight for a LOT of a LOT bigger stuff than student loans for me to believe that they're gonna fight for me, reliably.

It would be easier to forgive them IF I thought they were actually motivated to fight for peeeons instead of being motivated to generate excuses and more fat paychecks.

rmm.


So...who gets your support? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by christinep on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:25:39 PM EST

I had a bad train of thought today (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:38:52 PM EST

As much as BTD points out that it is pointless to try to figure Obama out and you must argue for your cause, some things do tend to stand out for me. When I was reading everyone's complaining about Obama not caring about troops I went down a list in my head of things that he has done with the troops. I put two speeches at West Point on that list and he also visited Afghanistan, a specific area at Bagram but he was there. Then something hit me, he has only wanted to expose himself to the military elite. He seems to only want to rub elbows with Military rock stars, he wants very little to do with the lowly ordinary Joe in the military. And then it occured to me that has been my past impression when it comes to every sector of our nation and culture and how Obama interacts with it and what portion he focuses on. That's pretty sad, and makes him HUGELY weakened eventually as a CIC.


: BINGO - Motivation is Key! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by seabos84 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:56:30 PM EST

I'm a high school math teacher in seattle - we're getting nailed with all kinds of "reform" stuff from these cliques of charlatan consultants in with arne duncan & bill gates' foundation & this right wing broad foundation - a bunch of big shots with big powerpoints and big credentials and big paychecks and big titles!
they are doing NOTHING useful for us teachers, and, given your Significant other's military service, I ain't gonna use phrases like "in the trenches" or "on the front lines" BUT - we teachers are NOT sitting at workstations all day playing with the colors of our excel pie chart & the background of the power point slide - we're actually doing something!
Obama, like too much of the rest of the Dim-0-Crap aristocracy, that aristocracy is ONLY comfortable around people like them - people who've clawed and crawled to the top, AND, they think and they believe and they know that they're better than the people they crawled over and clawed over.
The ain't motivated to help us lowly grunts, regardless of where we're a grunt, cuz they don't give a crap about us!
rmm.

One thing is clear me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:47:05 PM EST

Obama does what he perceives that he must do :) Therefore I will be in his face and on his arse about what I want done :)

He's like a bad ex-husband that you have (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:47:36 PM EST

had children with :)


: The kind the leaves the ex-wife (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by observed on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:11:40 PM EST

talking to herself in public? :P

: lol (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:46:16 AM EST

re: Obama & the presidency, somebody said he's like the dog that caught the car he was chasing

If the public doesn't perceive him as a leader (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by BrassTacks on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:48:10 PM EST

They won't follow. The public needs to think they know what motivates him or they won't follow him. That's what leaders do, they inspire people with their beliefs. If we don't know what Obama really believes, or what we think he really believes, no one will be inspired to follow him.

People/voters need to believe that he has a vision for America, not just that he goes along with what most people want. We don't yet believe that Obama has a vision that we can support and work for.

: I agree he's not a great leader; (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by observed on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:07:43 AM EST

but he's a really fantastic facilitator, don't you think? Boy, can he get two sides who disagree about an issue to agree on something---their opinion of Obama!
More seriously, I don't agree that effective leadership requires belief.
It requires visible commitment.
I see a lot of pictures of Obama with his pissy face these days, and it pisses me off!
Is he unhappy things aren't going smoothly?
That's what the expression looks like to me.
If so, someone was lacking some life experience before he took the most important, demanding job on the planet.

I agree that the arguments over (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:10:05 PM EST

figuring out what he wants are pointless, and that what he does is what counts. Pre-election such speculation made some kind of sense because there was not much of a record to go on - even then people twisted themselves in knots trying to convince themselves that the record said something it did not. WORM.

Really does not matter, especially since the presidency is so powerless, right?

: Obama, as far as I can tell (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 11:16:10 PM EST

works hard for what he wants. Example A is the famous public option. He worked hard to make sure it didn't get into the final legislation, despite pretty strong public support and enough congressional support to make it possible if he'd worked for it instead of against it.
I do think knowing what he wants and believes in matters because it does motivate him and it's a predictor of what we're going to get in the end.

Well, I have to disagree. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:42:54 AM EST

If his goals are not the same as mine are, then it is difficult for us to create an effective team strategy.

Turns out he didn't give a damn about th Public Option and probably opposed single payer. That would have been helpful to know - or rather confirm - I sort of knew that when he allowed the single payer and public option folks out of that early healthcare conference - but it sure would have been helpful to know that we had a great divide.

Furthermore, his views on the financial system, as it turns out are completely different from mine. I thought he "wanted" to fix the system. Turns out he wanted to put the status quo on life support and hope for the best.

I thought he wanted to restore civil liberties at least by some measure. Not so much.

What surprises me about Drum's comments is that he still hasn't realized what Obama wants and doesn't want - because as you say - actions speak louder than words. Its pretty clear where Obama stands - no matter how many people claim that he is a "helpless" "victim" of mean Republicans.

People seek to understand... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by kdog on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:14:15 AM EST

the why and the intentions because we all wanna believe in a hero, a champion for the common man...they can win or lose as long as they are fighting the good fight. It's a reassuring belief to have in such a f*cked up world...that there is a heart that is pure fighting for truth, justice, and the true american way up high in the halls of power.

But people with half a brain know that heros don't get out of the starting gate in this here game called politics...damn right it's a pointless exercise to try and see their souls.

I am not looking for a hero, but (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:01:42 AM EST

I do want to know what kind of people I'm in the fox hole with. The reality is that there aren't a lot in our modern day political class with whom I would feel good about fighting the good fight.


It's hard enough to really know... (none / 0) (#35)
by kdog on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:27:18 AM EST

your best friend or lover, never mind a politician. All we know is what they do, we'll never know if their intentions are good or Machiavellian bullsh*t unless we can read minds...to make it far in politics you need to wear a mask or you'll be eaten alive.


I know that. (none / 0) (#36)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56:21 AM EST

But there are ways of knowing - and watching what they do is really the most reliable indicator.

I noted in my original comment that my surprise is that Drum doesn't know what Obama wants at this point. Seems fairly clear to me.


Clear to me as well... (none / 0) (#42)
by kdog on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 01:07:24 PM EST

whether the continued road to oligarchal corporate fascism is what is in Obama's heart, or if he is having the screws put to him by the oligarchs, is irrelevant.


I've always worked on the premise (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:38:27 PM EST

that most people do basically what they want to do. In other words, if they lack the courage to fight for something they believe in their heart, then they probably didn't have it in their heart so much in the first place.

I have no qualms with failure, but I do take issue with not at least trying.


Well then... (none / 0) (#50)
by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:05:26 PM EST

Do people have to do what you deem ok or acceptable or what they deem ok or acceptable? If one is doing what he really wants to do, then, on what basis do you/we find fault...is it because we would do otherwise or something else?


Good question. (none / 0) (#51)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:15:31 PM EST

When a politician tells me they are going to restore civil liberties, for instance, I kind of have to take them at their word don't I. When they don't deliver on same or even make a reasonable effort, I think I can take issue with that politician. BECAUSE if they didn't really want to do it, they didn't have to say that they intended to do it. They make a choice when they make a promise as much as I do in listening to that promise, if not more.


: Good point. Yet.... (none / 0) (#52)
by christinep on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:11:53 PM EST

that tough and sometimes gray area centers around "reasonable effort." In my life, I've seen legitimate disagreement in work, relationships, politics, religion, etc. over what constitutes reasonable steps. Its a tough call.

Heroes... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:51:23 AM EST

...like Huey Long, a truly radical, reforming populist who also happened to be corrupt and dictatorial in power. But the people loved him, and for good reason--he actually did most of the things he promised, delivering real aid to suffering people and instituting an FDR-like jobs program. He was also utterly detested by the rich folks and the banksters and the Democratic party insiders.

Huey Long implemented an unprecedented program of modernization and reform in Louisiana -- building the state's highway system and modern infrastructure, providing free public education to children of all races, expanding voting rights and healthcare to all citizens, creating a fairer tax system, stopping foreclosures and bank failures, and creating economic opportunity for a majority mired in poverty.
Huey Long believed that government should protect and uplift its most vulnerable citizens and provide opportunity for everyone, regardless of race or class. He castigated the ruling elite and their corporate backers in the oil and banking industries for enriching themselves at the public's expense.

We could use someone like that in the WH today. Or like FDR, or Johnson. I'd take any of them, no matter how corrupt. The way I see it, they're all corrupt and dictatorial--what matters is whether they use those powers for good or evil.

http://www.hueylong.com/

No thx. Just because (none / 0) (#31)
by brodie on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:59:30 AM EST

a Dem president is starting out a little (or a lot) disappointing in the first 18 mos doesn't mean I'm going to throw up my hands and opt for the corrupt dictatorial (and warmongering) type, like LBJ.

FDR of course was neither corrupt nor dictatorial, but Obama should be looking to his 1st-term boldness and decisiveness for inspiration, especially for correcting the dangerously troubled economy that threatens his prospects for a 2d term. Johnson of course famously, stubbornly didn't take care to pay for his war, planting the seeds (some experts assert) for the later long-term inflation.

Corrupt dictatorial types tend to be stubborn, often on things that matter. And for whatever good you get from the populist-oriented ones, you tend to get an equal amount (or more) of bad. The LBJ years -- contrary to a lot of ill-informed nonsense I've seen lately on some liberal blogs, who want to portray him as just flawed on the one area of VN -- ended up a disaster for Dems and the country and paved the way for the clearly corrupt and dictatorial Nixon of all people. The notion of gov't working for the good of the people became discredited starting with the deeply flawed and dishonest Johnson admin.

I wouldn't trade the present times under the tepid and timid Obama for either corrupt dictator -- LBJ or Tricky -- from the past.


That's funny (none / 0) (#33)
by BTAL on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:10:11 AM EST

FDR of course was neither corrupt nor dictatorial,

Have you forgotten his little court packing plan for SCOTUS?


No I haven't. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by brodie on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:02:07 PM EST

Not his finest moment, but nothing illegal or unconstitutional or corrupt about it, and I can understand his frustration with the anti-New Deal, anti-progressive Court at the time.

But in the overall 12-yr record of FDR in the WH, he clearly didn't act dictatorial. He could have acted that way upon entering office in nationalizing the banks, but he didn't. He could have probably phonied up a false attack (Northwoods style) on the US in order to rush this country into WW2 in late 39 or 40, but he didn't. He (along with J. Edgar and the military) probably could have gotten away with more sweeping restrictions on people's freedom stateside during the War, but except for the unfortunate singling out of Japanese-Americans, a major mistake, he didn't.

Johnson and Nixon however were always working (usually quietly behind the scenes with Hoover and the CIA spooks) at ways to abridge freedom of speech and assembly. They didn't like public dissent, against them or their war. FDR, by contrast, "welcomed" the hatred of the RW and mostly allowed extremists like Fr Coughlin to have enough rope to hang themselves.

Of course, some people are attracted to the idea of a man on a white horse who'll pretend to be with the people and who offers simplistic solutions -- or methods, as with LBJ's "Johnson Treatment" -- to every complex problem. I understand this longing for a Strong Leader, but I just think a dictator, however much he will quickly make the trains run on time, is not the proper solution in a democracy.


: That's a fair analysis. (none / 0) (#40)
by BTAL on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:22:51 PM EST

Obama's "wants" are crystal clear (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by BTAL on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:11:26 AM EST

They are completely "scorecard" and "checklist" goals which will be trotted out and repeated like a drum beat. One can already hear the speeches now:

I passed HCR
I passed FinReg
I passed X
I passed Y
I passed Z

I have gone where no man has gone before (Insert the requisite Historic and Unprecedented adjectives here).

In fact, listen closely to his sentences and choice of pronouns, very very heavy on I and My, especially when talking about the administration. It is never "This administration we" it is always always Obama first person centric.

In short, the labels in the above list is what he "wants" and is more important than the substance of the items in the list.

I have always felt that he's (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:56:24 AM EST

used far too many I, me, me, my constructions in his speeches.

I thought it would let up after the campaign for various reasons, but he's not a party guy. He's a loner. That much is clear to me at this point.


No kidding! (none / 0) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:14:06 AM EST

And as much as I think "I" statements are a portion of any good debate, he is the most powerful leader in the world. Still it is all I I I me me me. I suppose that is why he sucks on defining goals that are good for all of us or the greater good, outside of book writing. He is either too fearful now that he is the dog who caught the car, or his book writing was only ever meant to glorify his "self" that he HOPED he was :)


: That (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:40:30 PM EST

dog chasing the car analogy is the closest thing I have to seen to describing the Obama presidency. With Obama it's alway been I want to be President and now that he's caught the car he doesn't know what to do. He shows the futility of wanting something just for the sake of wanting it with no purpose behind it.

Yes, this was clear from the list (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:19:23 PM EST

of his alleged accomplishments in the Illinois state legislature . . . which turned out to be the work of others who brought him in at the last, so that he would be able to have a list of accomplishments.


That just chaps me too (none / 0) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:22:00 PM EST

I don't know what it is about me, but such a person is the lowest life form. And he happened to be the only candidate I could bring myself to vote for. But starting out as the lowest life form in my book, I don't know if I can ever be unbiased about Obama but do I really need to? He was glad to steal willfully from others who took the risks, all the while making certain that he was always safe, high and dry. And he still does it to this day. I can't stand people who lack the courage to be authentic and original but want it to be who they are so badly they steal such hard work and try to claim it as there own whenever they can.


: See what you have me doing now? (none / 0) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:37:02 PM EST

Now it is running around in my noodle that that is why he must surround himself by rock stars in all areas, because he wants to steal everyone's actual hard work and never do a lick of it himself or take one risk for anything meaningful :) The first minute he sees that someone could be onto something, he will jump on it swiftly and try to make it all about him! You are just a bad influence

Oh, Kevin (3.50 / 2) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:48:49 AM EST

makes my head hurt along with all the others like him. The reality is that Obama has no core values. Once you realize that it makes your life very easy. No core values along with preemptive surrender are his MO. He's always been that way and if Kevin had been paying attention he wouldnt be surprised in the least.

: Well, not quite (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:04:59 AM EST

Obama has core Republican values. He telegraphed it himself during the primaries but the proggies went "LA LA LA Can't hear you!!" and convinced themselves that he really cared.
But I agree, any discussion about motivations or inner desires is just stupid, pointless, and a waste of valuable time. Nobody should give a rat's behind what a politician "wants" or "believes," it's only actions that should matter.

I think it's helpful to know where a pol (none / 0) (#2)
by observed on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:13:37 PM EST

is knowledgable; IMO this does have an impact on his policy.
For instance, I don't think Obama knows nearly enough economics, which means that he navigates such questions based too much on his political instincts.
For instance, if he KNEW as you did, that the stimulus had to be higher (and you didn't have to be a huge wonk to understand this), then he could have adopted a political approach which would have allowed a "compromise" at a higher number.

obviously, (none / 0) (#6)
by cpinva on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:46:21 PM EST

i missed the amendment in the constitution that states, "all citizens must care about what politicians want".

i expect i'll be arrested any moment, because i don't really give two nanny-goat sh*ts what politicians want, they're supposed to care about what i, the voter, want. i am just such a contrarian!

i think mr. drum has breathed too much of the rarified DC air, and it's adversely affected his cerebral cortex.

If you the voter want (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:29:27 PM EST

civil rights protection, arresting climate change, single payer health insurance, etc. you are in the minority. The pol is listening to everyone else. I don't think we have to care what he wants himself, but we do have to realize that unless he really wants it, he is not going to buck political trends to try to get it.


: that's fine. (none / 0) (#43)
by cpinva on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:32:18 PM EST

we, the voter, have a remedy for this. it's commonly known as elections. the built-in term limits of the constitution.

Lefties have a political wilderness mentality (none / 0) (#11)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:24:18 PM EST

Or maybe it's just me. Rightly or wrongly I think progressive goals are a minority opinion in the country. Single payer, strong environmental controls, civil rights, you name it. For that reason, achieving these goals will take a lot of persuasion and leadership. A president who does not want those things too is not going to buck the political trends to make them happen.

Since 'pols are pols', the default state of the pol is to go along with the majority and not try too hard to change anyone's mind. If our goals were the majority goals, like low taxes, we would not have to worry about what the president wants himself. we think about what he wants because as long as we are in the minority it is the only way we are ever going to get what we want. And even then it would be hard.

And activism needs to be aimed at (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:57:44 PM EST

building a groundswell, not at convincing pols to buck public opinion, even for what we think is the good of the country. The pols already know what progressive activists want. If it's not going to keep them in office, they really don't care.


maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#28)
by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:53:42 AM EST

Rightly or wrongly I think progressive goals are a minority opinion in the country

it seems that these are majority goals when people are asked to describe what they really want - but, one, are those people voting & two, if they are voting are they voting for pols who will further those goals, & three, if not why not

which brings us into questions of media, campaign funding, coin-op Congress etc. - plus the Thomas Frank question abt Kansas (tho i think the way he poses that question does reek somewhat of the "librul elitism" the wingers shriek about)


: Absolutely! (none / 0) (#53)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:28:25 PM EST

way #1 to ask: Would you support a health care system, run by the Government, some would call it "socialistic" whereby everyone is forced to pay in and one entity, the Government, pays the medical bills?
Or, put another way
way #2: Would you support a health care system which is far more efficient than the one we have today, and costs approximately half of what we're paying now, and which has been implemented by virtually every modern, advanced country in the world and shown to extend life spans, reduce birth difficulties, and, generally provides all medical services excellently, and covers virtually 100% of the people, and which is overwhelmingly approved of by it's users?
Just simple salesmanship....
"Death Tax" anyone?

you truly believe (none / 0) (#44)
by cpinva on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:35:42 PM EST

that the majority of people in this country happily drink polluted water, breathe poisoned air, are hauled off to jail with no right of due process, etc., etc., etc.?

go ask 10 random folks on the street if they're good with all that, and report back to us. i suspect your "majority" turns out to be merely a republican hack's wet dream.


Never have agreed more with a (none / 0) (#25)
by BobTinKY on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 09:28:20 AM EST

BTD post

I think what Kevin is getting at (none / 0) (#38)
by masslib on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:15:55 PM EST

is what are Obama's core principles? And, I disagree that one can never see the core principles that drive a politician, whether or not they always adhere to those princples.

: Hee Hee (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by cawaltz on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:18:29 PM EST

A year and a half into the Presidency and people NOW want to know about Obama's core principles? It's a little late in the game to start along that garden path. The guy is in office. Short of treason or high crimes, he's gonna stay in office for another 2 1/2 years. What motivates him should of been the question asked BEFORE the lever was pulled for him.

Oh please (none / 0) (#47)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:03:10 PM EST

Of course, some people are attracted to the idea of a man on a white horse

Lay that one on the Obama followers, or the Bushbots. Not on those of us who are disillusioned by our "representatives" on both sides of the aisle.

As for "warmongering," how's that Nobel Peace recipient working out on that front?

Best Intentions

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment