Obama's Scolding Dems Strategy

It is obvious now that this is a concerted strategy:

Admonishing his own party, President Barack Obama says it would be "inexcusable" and "irresponsible" for unenthusiastic Democratic voters to sit out the midterm elections, warning that the consequences could be a squandered agenda for years. "People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up," Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday. The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

While I agree that voters should vote Dem (yes, they are largely the lesser of two evils, but here we are), I strongly disagree that the strategy of scolding voters is a smart one. In fact, I think it is an idiotic strategy. Here is the main problem:

In his attempt to light a fire under supporters, Obama comes across as fired up himself about how many backers fail to acknowledge the progress he sees.

(Emphasis supplied.) A politician whining that voters don't recognize how great he is and how much he has done for them is a losing politician.

Speaking for me only

< Is The Starter Home Health Bill Safe From GOP Hurricanes? | Contribute To Feingold >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a joker... (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    The people need to buck up?  Give us a reason to buck up by bucking up yourself, instead of your usual buckling...how 'bout that?  Ya buckled on healthcare, ya buckled on Afghanistan, ya buckled to Wall St, buckled on taxes...more big buckles than Texas you lot!

    Until then I'll keep buckin' up for the also-rans actually sellin' something I wanna buy.  

    You're a political party, not mandated auto-insurance for christs sake...though I bet they would pass a law mandating our buck up if they could.

    bizarre (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    How did the excellent political machine that got him the nomination and the Presidency fall so far, so fast? This would be funny if it weren't so awful.

    It really, really is bizarre (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    He kept so many players from his election campaign, so it doesn't make sense really that they all of a sudden suck at marketing him.

    The messaging here is indeed shocking if not unforeseen.  Cue John Cole and Kevin Drum going "he's right."  The same folks who told us not to get all upset about a fundraiser comment to the same effect.  It was pretty obvious even then that Dem scolding was intentional/strategic.  Maybe that's why Cole likes Obama so much, they share tactics.


    that's because they are now trying to market (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    an actual product vs a mythical one. this product now has moving parts that we can see and not just dream about . . . . not many folks want to buy a product that doesn't do what they want and then tells them to quit whining about it . . . and they usually return it if they did buy it . . .

    Probably because... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    they basically told the grassroots Obama supporters to get lost after inauguration day...people offered their time and we're basically told "the insiders will take it from here".

    And a lot of that support was from the youth too...when I voted for the first time in '96 I was ready to go to bat for Brand D too and vote Brand D forever.  Then around 1998 it hit me..."Brand D wants to lock me up and outsource my job, same as Brand R.  I might not be able to stop them, but I sure as hell don't have to vote for them."

    Aside from a Kerry relapse in 2004 I feel the same way today.


    And he buckled on civil liberties (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    his targeting a US citizen for summary execution and telling a court it has no business assessing this policy and decision is an absolute disgrace.

    If this guy is a terrorist/criminal apprehend him (and yes use lethal force is he resists and puts others at risk of life), charge him and put him on trial.  It's called the Constitution.

    Obama greatest and most long lasting failue will be his ratificaiotn of the worst of Bush and Cheney's attacks on our civil liberties.  For that reason alone he will never get my vote again.

    And what about Social Security? (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    As A New Deal Democrat am I suppose to support my so called "own party" when it will announce in December cuts to SS?  The GOP can attack SS all it wants and everybody knows it the same old same old.  When Dems do it cuts are going to happen.

    Some Dems.

    And by the way (5.00 / 17) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    WTF is on the agenda for the next two years?  There's no new stimulus plan.  The climate change bill has failed...  I truly have no idea what they are planning to accomplish.  Which is something that I am supposed to know if I'm expected to vote in about a month.

    Problem is (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    going on the past record, there would be no reason to believe what they say about their "agenda" for the next two years.

    Oh forgot one of the other main agenda items (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    continue to roll back civil liberties and women's rights, pass and enact new legislation to mandate that the U.S. Government have access to all forms of communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype, and continue to harass peace activists under the guise of pursuing terrorists.

    Some of the agenda items for the (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    next two years:

    Campaigning and fund raising for the 2012 Presidential elections.

    Pass and implement the recommendations of the Cat Food Commission which will include not only benefit cuts but lowering capital gains and corporate income rates even further.

    Campaigning and fund raising for the 2012 Presidential elections.

    Reducing all domestic spending while maintaining or expanding tax cuts for corporations and the top 2%.

    Campaigning and fund raising for the 2012 Presidential elections.

    Replacing more public schools with charter schools and firing teachers in mass.

    Campaigning and fund raising for the 2012 Presidential elections.


    They plan to accomplish cutting SS (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    That's why the Catfood Commission report is after the election, and why Pelosi guaranteed a floor vote for it.

    So, now we know what (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    gets Obama fired up: a threat to his power.  


    I have news for him - I'm not lethargic, I'm angry and frustrated; what would get me to the polls is not the same-old, same-old of "the other guys are worse!" and "be afraid, be very afraid," but some actual policies that address the problems and issues with strength, not this weenie-world of "oh, how can we make this weaker so (1) the Republicans who won't vote for it anyway will let us sit at the lunch table with them and (2) the corporations that fund our campaigns keep writing us checks?"

    Novel idea, I know, but it might be the only thing they haven't tried - dealing from a position of strength.  Of course that would require majority leaders in both Houses to start kicking ass and taking names with the damn Blue Dogs - what are the chances?  Yeah, slim to none.

    Hey, here's another idea: give us better candidates, people about whom we don't have to refer as the "Republican with a (D) after his or her name."

    How about, "sure Mr. President, we'll be good little girls and boys...right after you dissolve that odious Cat Food Commission that lurks in the background, sharpening its knives to go after our safety net in the middle of terrible economic times."  Sounds like a good deal to me.

    Garry Trudeau is on it, as usual, via Doonesbury...


    I could go for this deal (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    How about, "sure Mr. President, we'll be good little girls and boys...right after you dissolve that odious Cat Food Commission that lurks in the background, sharpening its knives to go after our safety net in the middle of terrible economic times."  Sounds like a good deal to me.

    Biden said much the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    yesterday to another group. It is obviously a concerted scold-the-base strategy.

    I'm all for a scare-the-base strategy of reminding people what is in store with Republicans back in charge, but scolding people because you think they aren't 'getting it' is just ridiculous and patronizing. and, moreover, counterproductive.

    Ah, the beatings continue (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    as if finding out yesterday that the only one of our five progeny who had full employment, so we thought, actually had not wanted to let us know that has not been so for months.

    Please, Mr. President, do kick us more when we already are down.  And if we're really lucky, when you come back to our state today, you'll scold us in person.  Yeh, that will work.

    ugh (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    he's coming here to stump for Boxer at some point. . . .

    sorry to hear about your progeny. my sister lost her job last month.


    cx -- and about the state of this state (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    Make the above "as if it was not enough, finding out yesterday. . . ."

    And fyi, here's the state of the state to which Obama will bring his beneficence today, in stats just reported in the state's major newspaper -- with the latest national stats, too:

    In yet another measure of the toll the Great Recession has taken on Wisconsin, household income fell and poverty rose in the state between 2008 and 2009, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.  Real median household income in the state declined between 2008 and 2009 - decreasing by 3.8 percent from $51,942 to $49,993. Wisconsin was among 34 states that showed a decline during the period. Nationally, real median household income decreased by 2.9% from $51,726 to $50,211.

    The poverty rate rose in Wisconsin, from 10.4 percent in 2008 to 12.4% in 2009. There were an estimated 570,583 people in poverty in the state in 2008 and 683,408 people in poverty in 2009. Wisconsin was among 31 states that saw increases in both the number and percentage of people in poverty.  Nationally, poverty increased from 38.3 million people in 2008 to 42.8 million in 2009.

    1933, anyone?  Heading to 1935, even worse?


    Interesting -- UW classes not cancelled (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:06:23 AM EST
    for Obama's pep rally on the Madison campus today.  Fortunately, the site -- Library Mall -- is not bordered by classroom buildings.  

    Also interesting that's the site, not very large -- and certainly not in comparison to the almost-20,000-seats (Senator) Kohl Center, the site of the 2008 primary pep rally.  

    Btw, the weather is great today for an outdoor rally -- sunny and autumnally cool.  No rain, at last, after the floods that have made a nearby area national news about an imperiled levee.  


    They haven't been filling up rallies (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    Better to have smaller spaces that look fuller than half or three-quarters empty arenas like they had last month at George Mason U, just outside of DC

    Why should a tax payer (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    funded, citizen owned university be shut down for
    a political rally?

    Dunno, but campuses usually close (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    for presidential visits.  (I watch this tidbit of presidential blahblah, especially since a presidential visit to my campus, since Obama visits to nieces and nephews' campuses, etc.  All closed.)

    You mean like this? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    From the Savannah Daily News, a few years ago:

    "I'm a pretty big supporter just because he's the president," said Sheridan Bushey, while waiting outside Hanner. "He's made some mistakes, but I think he's done a good job despite it all. I'm going to be pretty excited if I get to see him."

    "I wish they'd get out of the war, but I would probably still vote for Bush again," said Adam Brooks, who walked over to the field house while on break from class. "I think he's done a pretty good job."

    About 200 Bulloch County students from various grades also attended the rally. Dianne Bath, the school system's assistant superintendent for teaching and learning, said the rally and protest taught students a good lesson.

    "I think this was a great teaching tool," Bath said. "I think it's important to show that while we hold the president's office in high esteem, not everyone agrees with everything he has to say. That's an important lesson to learn from all this."

    Click Me


    I see that you are a (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    member of two wrongs make a right crowd.

    But don't worry. Lots of company there from both sides.


    Nope, because Obama's rally isn't (none / 0) (#76)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    shutting the school he'll be at(please re-read what Cream City wrote), while in the case I linked to is specific to the question you posed.

    Okie dokie (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    My original comment remains.

    Schools should not be shut down for political rallies!


    Heh, glad to clear up your confusion. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    I understood you perfectly.

    Let's see (none / 0) (#146)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 06:30:05 AM EST
    You expressed disapproval of taxpayer-funded public university shutting down when a political figure arrives to campaign(which wasn't the case with Obama, as Cream City mentioned above), but given a case where it did happen(the Bush visit in Georgia, again above), you won't say anything because why?



    Purposeful obuseness (none / 0) (#148)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    When you're just plain factually wrong as often as Jim is, ...

    ... you learn to ignore them and pretend you don't understand.


    It just seems that given what Jim wrote (none / 0) (#150)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    he complimented Obama in this instance, and as the landlord said to the sharecropper, "That can't be right!"

    I imagine (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    if they did shut down it would be primarily for security purposes.

    ya mean like they do with (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    the streets?  

    public (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    tax-payer funded streets at that.

    Uh the solution is simple (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:20:23 PM EST
    Stop having political rallies at public universities.

    Malaise? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by souvarine on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    Meanwhile, household income plunged in 2009. Might want to do something about that.

    It's more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    of the abusive base syndrome--you better do what I want or else and things are going to be worse if you leave my house and go to a shelter. Frankly, this is just the new updated version of what we heard in 2008.

    The lashings will continue until the (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:39:00 AM EST
     morale improves, says Captain Bligh.  Works every time.

    Bravo (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    10 points on that one.  I knew we'd heard this song before somewhere.

    "People need to buck up!" Oy. Now (5.00 / 15) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    that's a campaign slogan we can all get behind. Soon to follow, "Stop Crying, or I'll Give you Something to Cry About!"

    Buck you, Obama (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:45:16 AM EST

    This is like watching a train wreak from (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by BTAL on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    the other side of the aisle.  Am slack jawed at seeing both Biden and now Obama acting this way politically.  

    Not only does this hurt the upcoming election but also provides some very powerful campaign fodder for 2012.  

    Un-friggin believable.

    Has Obama ever been unemployed? (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by observed on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:54:58 AM EST
    On policy he's better than Republicans, barely, but even Bush projected more empathy for the common man than Obama, whose "I'm so glad I'm not you" aura is more reminiscent of a Dick Cheney.

    I just don't get this (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    I don't get what, from their point of view, they think this will accomplish.  I don't get how any sane person can think this is a great motivational tactic.  It's now clear this isn't just random outbursts of whining, it's a deliberate, concentrated, thought-out campaign.  I don't get it.

    If (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    what Obama really wants is a moderate republican agenda (Little Ronnie Reagan), then a lot of this falls into the rational category. As does his insistence on a "catfood commission", and using Republican framework for health insurance reform, prioritizing rescuing Wall Street while doing far less than adequate for main street, repeatedly dissing the left, keeping and expanding Bush's State's Secrets doctrine, deprioritizing or displacing both single payer and "public option" aspects to health care, escalating in Afghanistan, saber rattling against Iran, focusing on "deficits" as the primary concern, while doing less than adequate on job creation, increasing domestic spying capacities, giving an executive order to restrict abortion access, expanding "faith based" activities by the government, appealing DADT, ordering by Presidential fiat the assassination of an American Citizen without due process, etc.
       The list is pretty long, and there's not much a "non-crazy" Republican would disagree over. In fact, I suspect the major reason Republicans hate Obama so much is that he's coopting the better parts of their agenda. Just like (applause to Squeaky) he coopted Hillary's agenda.
       Left on his own, Obama is showing he has no ideas of his own. He's only good at screwing other people. That's why there's no clear agenda for the next two years, other than the Republican Party's agenda. And the Democratic Party leadership has bought this as the change they wanted.
      I wont vote for Republicans, with or without a "D" after their names.

    More condescension from (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 06:13:46 PM EST
    leader knows best, IMO.  THe rest of us don't have the gray matter to understand how good we have it.  And, more evidence the Prez & his admin don't get the fact that too many Americans are truly hurting.

    I know.. what happened to the (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    tried and true strategery of painting your opponents as racists?
    With Republicans, it's even true, some of the time.

    Between this being a (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    universally agreed losing strategy, and the suspicion of part of Obama's base that he is a closet Republican, what play in dimensional chess could he be making now :)?  I mean, is he trying to make Democrats in the Congress he has to put up with lose or what?

    Closet? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    He's doing everything he can do to make sure republicans take back the house.

    It would seem so (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    If I were an 11th dimensional chess player, that would be my call as why anyone would do this now.

    Hey, here's an idea (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:49:39 AM EST
    Instead of Obama - Biden telling Dems to stop whining, why don't they stop whining about the big mess they inherited and how hard they're working?  I don't care about either.

    The country as a whole is unenthusiastic (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:53:33 AM EST
    Wonder if everyone is willing to buy into the fact that their lack of enthusiasm is inexcusable" and "irresponsible."

    Consumer confidence drops to lowest since Feb.

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Americans' view of the economy turned grimmer in September amid escalating job worries, falling to the lowest point since February.

    The downbeat report, released Tuesday, raises more fears about the tenuous U.S. economic recovery. It also further underscores the disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street; consumers' confidence fell further even as stocks rebounded in September.

    Is he daring me to vote Republican? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by mjames on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    Cuz if I hear about MY "whining" one more time, instead of voting green or socialist, I'll vote R. Then O and his team can take their ball and go home. Please.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    I didn't vote for him, and the whole Democratic Party can go far far away, as far as I'm concerned--my one exception is, I will vote for my incumbent D governor, and that's because he happens to have voted the right way on two or three issues that are important to me/the state. See, Dems? Only two or three is all it takes--really!) All the rest of them can go the hell they're busy creating for us, their "voters."

    I voted Green and can assure you, it's easy and fun and will allow you to face yourself in the mirror every morning without shame.

    So... (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by NJDem on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    I guess the President is not taking Clinton's advice about embracing the anger, but doing the exact opposite and turning it around on us...

    I don't think this is some great observation, but it seems to me that the President is having a big issue with his ego--in both admitting any fault and in taking the advice of someone who actually succeeded under similar circumstances he finds himself in now...

    One of the constant refrains from (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    Obama is, "well, we could have fought for X, Y and Z, but then we wouldn't have gotten a bill," but he never explains why being willing to settle for less always seems to be their opening move.

    IF you had been living in a cave for the last 10 years, and the first thing you did when you emerged was read the Rolling Stone interview, I'm sure you would be mightily impressed with the laundry list of accomplishments; Obama, like so many politicians, is nothing if not smooth.

    But the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating, and that's where it all falls apart for me.

    It would be like someone hiring me to clean their house after an interview where I painted a gorgeous mind-picture of gleaming floors and spotless bathrooms and freshly made beds and sparking windows.

    So, you come home and I am beaming from ear-to-ear about the great job I did - best cleaning job ever - way cleaner than it ever could have been before.  You look around...is that dog poop on the living room rug?  Uh, are those dirty dishes in the sink, is the trash can kind of overflowing?  And what's that weird smell...?

    I am crushed that you can't see what I've done - I vacuumed the carpets - yes, I did skip over the doog poo, but it's been here forever and I was thinking that maybe the dog would mind if I got rid of it.  I mopped the kitchen floor, too.  The dishes?  Oh, well...I had to choose between washing the dishes and taking out the recycling, and golly - it's so important to recycle!  I organized all the storage containers and lids - that was hard work!  The trash?  I thought it would be a good idea to study it a bit - to see if all that waste is really necessary.  

    You look less-than-impressed, and I am highly offended that you aren't being nicer to me, more appreciative.  "That other company won't do a better job, so what's your problem, anyway?  And where's my check?"

    Sure, Obama can check things off that list in his pocket, but he just doesn't seem to get that he gave up on getting more before he ever took up the fight, so he really has no idea how much more he could have gotten, and how much better it could have been if he had only believed his own hype that all things were possible.  I'm not even sure, really, what he actually believes, and suspect that he "fought" for exactly what he wanted to.

    Details matter.  Execution and implementation matter.  Maybe not to him, but to me, because that's where we all live - in the details and the execution and implementation.

    I half-expected him to produce a list of all of us who've been naughty and nice, because he sure as hell has the ability to see us when we're sleeping, to know when we're awake, to know if we've been bad or good - so go vote Democratic, for heaven's sake - or it's gonne be coal, people!

    And, seriously, every time this man talks about civil liberties and transparency, I want to throw something.

    and he takes his show on the road (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    Obama both rallies, scolds Dems in campaign trip

    just in case, ya know, we all didn't catch it the first few times {grin}

    Stop Whining, whines the President, day after day (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 01:23:35 AM EST
    Do I have that right?  He whines daily that we're whining just because we have no jobs and worry constantly about when things will get better for us and our children?  We're not supposed to whine meanwhile he whines about us all the time?  We have to buck up?  But he doesn't?  Good grief.  This man couldn't be more annoying.  How DARE he lecture me!  He sounds like a 3rd grader whining about how mean everyone else is to him!  Grow up, BUCK UP, and man up.  We need a LEADER, not a whiny 3rd grader.  

    It may not be good politics (4.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    but rather than a concerted strategy, I see it as honest, understandable frustration.  So we have an uderstandably frustrated base and an understandably frustrated leader.  They need to patch it up quickly or come game time they are going to get clobbered and people will get hurt.

    The base didn't get elected (5.00 / 16) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    Obama did. HE is the one who was supposed to fight for those who elected him.  And he has failed miserably in that respect.  

    You do not win elections by whining at people that they just don't appreciate you enough. IMO, this is clear evidence he has no real plans for genuine change beyond hoping that the electorate doesn't notice. This is as unimaginative and uncreative and empty as you can get.

    It is worse than I ever expected from him, and my expectations were very low.


    Channelling lambert (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by smott on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    ....I would say he is fighting for exactly the people who helped him get elected.

    It's just not us.


    You mean college kids? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#62)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    Corporations and Corporate money. . .

    I forgot the snark tag (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    And forgot to add , "and all those small donors who made it possible."

    To the big wigs, regardless of party, little... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by rhbrandon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    donors are still little people.

    Problem is: enough little people can make for a big defeat. Especially when they stay home with their little votes.


    Yes, Yes, I know all that (none / 0) (#19)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    I am familiar with the grievances on both sides and certainly Obama bears the lion's share of the responsibility.  However, it is important to get past the Obama blame that consumes many on the left. Focus on the issues and not on Obama.

    Unfortunately for Obama and the Dems (5.00 / 15) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    many of us are focusing on the issues and don't like what we are seeing from the Democratic Party.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    we're not gonna stay home because we don't like Obama's choice in neckties, it's not personal...it is issue-based lethargy and apathy based on past Brand D performance.

    By all means (none / 0) (#73)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    run the conservadems out of town.  There is a rational argument that you are better off with a true conservative entremist in their place (althugh as an incrementalist, I don't agree).  The real shame would be if the apathy causes arguably better Democrats to get voted out. I am thinking of Boxer (CA), Murray (WA), or Feingold (WI) for example.  Obama isn't on the ballot.  The Tea Party people are using their anger to drive action.  The left better do the same.  This passive agressive attitude is getting stale.

    The taste (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    of pending defeat is both stale and bitter-- back to my knitting.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    Unfortunately Obama has CREATED some of the issues....this health insurance company giveaway, for instance.  

    Hmmmm (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    Certainly the GOP Faux news people are saying that Obama is talking down to his voters...  

    Maybe it is because I do not have a teevee and I plan on voting D anyway that this type of messaging does not bother me one bit.

    But if you think about who Obama and Biden are talking to, it is not those who have long since decided not to pull the lever for any D until either Karl Marx is elected or Hillary Clinton is enshrined.

    The rest of the mushy liberals who were not bent out of shape by Hillary's loss will respond. The stronger message to that base is:


    IOW the offended group have been offended for a long time, long before Obama or Biden chastised them. Nothing the Democratic leadership could do would appease that group, imo, particularly if they feel the way many commenters at TL feel about the D leadership.

    You can't threaten me with BushCo (5.00 / 10) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    Bush can't be President again in this lifetime, and Cheney doesn't even have a pulse anymore.  Lions and tigers and bears....oh my!  What a bedwetter you are on this :)

    Yeah, ..... that'll work (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    Holy GeeBeeeezus, I hope they're at least slightly smarter than that.

    Hopefully, they'll also be able to come up with something more believable than the same tired, old whining about Hillary and her supporters, ...

    ... unlike some "bedwetters".


    Selling fear (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    was a failed strategy for republicans, and it won't be an any more successful strategy for Obama and the Democrats.

    Selling positives is the only thing that will save them - but first they need to start producing some. So far all they have to run on is "we are not called republicans".


    Yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    No positives... So what is he going to do?

    It is the economy stupid.

    And for me, the only selling point is that they are not republicans.  


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    It is the economy......

    And there is More Than One Truth

    It is Obama's continued deference to the sensibilities of the financiers and his relative indifference to the suffering of ordinary people that threaten his legacy, not to mention the nation's economic well-being. There have been more than 300,000 foreclosure filings every single month that Obama has been president, and as The New York Times editorialized, "Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Obama administration's efforts to address the foreclosure problem will make an appreciable dent."

    The ugly reality that only 398,198 mortgages have been modified to make the payments more reasonable can be traced to the program being based on the hope that the banks would do the right thing. While Obama continued the Bush practice of showering the banks with bailout money, he did not demand a moratorium on foreclosures or call for increasing the power of bankruptcy courts to force the banks, which created the problem, to now help distressed homeowners.

    Evidently at least one Dem congressman (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    is nostalgic about the Bush adminstration.

    Who would have thought that in the year 2010, a member of Congress would be running for re-election on the basis of how well he worked with George W. Bush -- and who would have imagined that the Congressman in question would be a Democrat?

    Red-State Dem's Ad Touts His Work With Bush

    Of course (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:41:53 AM EST
    the offended group has been offended for a long time.  This is due to the stimulus and the health care bill.  All of which happened long before yesterday.

    FDL, for example, was a pretty pro-Obama site.  As was HuffPo.  The only notable Hillary Clinton primary voter among the "Professional Left" is Paul Krugman.

    You are right, there is a stronger message available, "do you want Bushco back."  But even that is not what is being made here.


    If that were the whole message I would (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    not mind. Let them expand on that in all its gruesome detail. Instead they are scolding people for not realizing the greatness of what has already been achieved.

    Seems The Bulk of The Message (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    To me.

    The bashing was an addendum at the end of the interview. Faux news characterized it as Obama (the elitist) talking down to the Democrats, his base.

    Not my take.

    Read the whole Rolling Stone interview yourself and decide.


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    In that case I wish he had just left the room and let it go. I guess he felt the need to bash the base where they would be likely to read it - in Rolling Stone.

    Maybe he thinks he is being cajoling and not patronizing.


    well, as stated above (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    it's part of a general strategy.  If it's supposed to be inspiring it's not coming off that way.  Gibbs, Biden, Obama, this is the party line du jour.

    Then you are not dealing in reality (5.00 / 9) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    It is the whole staged walking back in after the interview was over and delivering the whine that guaranteed it would be the big news.

    And that is how they wanted it.

    You are creating delusions for yourself.


    OK (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    Color me unimpressed. I am not deluding myself as to the current strategy, but am not convinced that it will either backfire or be an empty gesture.

    No opinion.

    Apart from the GOP spin, It would be interesting to see who really takes offense, and who, if anyone, is moved to vote because of the lambasting.


    It wasn't just an "addendum" ... (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    ... at the end of the interview.  He actually ended the interview, left, and then returned to the interview and emphatically makes this point.

    After the interview was officially over, Obama apparently wouldn't let Wenner leave until he got a chance to get real with the frustrated/apathetic left. "Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office," Wenner writes. "A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger."

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt ...


    So you think that (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    because you are persuaded it is a smart political strategy.

    I've never understood that type of thinking.

    We all know politics is stupid. so why are you pretending for this one occurrence it isn't?


    I Do Not See The Liability (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    The only people he seems to be pissing off are those who would not pull the lever for a D anyway.

    If he had not added the newsworthy bit at the end, the criticism would be for being a liar, making believe that he has actually done something for progressives. Equivocating, ect...

    Certainly the GOP spin, that he is talking down to his base, could sting some who may have voted. It would be interesting to know who sits this one out because of the lambasting and who gets off the couch because of it.

    I can't tell whether or not it is a stupid move.


    That's just wrong (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    The only people pissed off are actually people who would (and most probably will) pull the D lever.

    No one else cares.

    This is beyond stupid strategy.


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    how many people are going to not pull the level because of this...but pulling the lever takes about 30 minutes.  Working the field is harder.

    I'm "lucky" because my Dem rep is up against a complete nutjob.  That's motivating.


    I've got Carly and Meg (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    to get my a** outta bed ;)

    Vote naked (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    I mail-in.  Don't have to get out of bed and if you do, just run after the mail-person in your pajamas with your ballot...

    I get to vote to legalize marijuana.


    I forgot I could mail in :) (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    {plans on keeping a** in bed} mail person has already seen da jammies. I'm one of "those" who sits behind a monitor in their jammies . . .  {grin}

    The point isn't (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    seems to me, that all this dissing will make the base less likely to vote than it already is, but that it does absolutely zippo to close that "enthusiasm gap" between R and D that the polls keep finding.

    So it does p*ss off those of us who, yes, will vote because we always vote, but will more than likely hold onto our precious few $$ and not want to bother expending the time and effort for GOTV etc. and couldn't get up the necessary rah-rah-rah feeling to be effective anyway.

    The point, which is obvious to almost everybody here, is that berating your base is an astonishingly stupid and inffective strategy for ginning up their enthusiasm and bridging that gap, which one presumes is what they think they're doing.

    So it's less what he's doing than what he's not doing, IMO.  And then of course, the fact that this astonishing new tactic of base-bashing didn't actually work to increase enthusiasm will no doubt be blamed on us DFHs.


    This may also effect the independents (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BTAL on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    watching.  Polling is indicating their dislike/distrust of the leadership from the WH.  Shooting your own doesn't instill confidence in the allied troops.

    Really? (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    Seems to me that people who were/are going to pull the D lever, will think that Obama is talking to (lethargic) voters who were/are planning on sitting this November election out.

    As a voter, I certainly thought that. This BS did not affect me.

    Not sure who is so thin skinned that they would not vote because Obama called them lethargic.

    The question is: would those who are lethargic, get off the couch because they can be convinced that their vote matters?


    amazing (none / 0) (#2)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    For once, we agree

    I don't like voting for evil... (none / 0) (#5)
    by pmj6 on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    ..., be it lesser, greater, or mid-sized. But if you want to be "strategic" about it, we'd have been better off with McCain/Palin in the White House simply because they'd not have gotten away with half the crap Obama has. Oh, and there would have been no Tea Party, and no danger of GOP taking over Congress. And in 2012 we might have gotten a decent president.

    Obama and all of his minions have to go, and the sooner the better, if the Democrats are ever to return to being a "non-evil" party. Which means I'm voting GOP all across the board in 2010 and 2012.

    I considered sitting out 2008 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    A look at the McCain economic team led by Joe the plumber convinced me that electing McCain would result in an economic debacle of immense proportions.  The same is true this election cycle.  I am convinced the Republican and Tea Party economic ideas would harm the country.  This time around, however, the damage would be less since they don't control the executive and likely won't control the Senate.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#138)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    but with McCain/Palin the idea of democratic leadership would not be tarnished the way its being tarnished now. I would rather have had McCain/Palin with a possibly obstructive Congress, than an Obama whitehouse working to pass historic turds each with an enthusiastic democratic seal of approval.

    SSDD (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    What other strategy is there this late in the game?  Pundits going on about the dispirited base, opportunities to improve the mindset (ala legislation and policies) of the dispirited base long past, what else; short of a seance with FDR's ghost, can the president do?

    Unlike others, I don't believe the president is making these claims in order to boost himself up - here's a shocker, he may genuinely believe the policies to be good ones.

    Fact of the matter is we are a centrist electorate at this time.  The president can't just govern for our side.

    Bush did (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    got re-elected, and saw many of his most awful initiatives enacted into law.

    So we should possibly repeat those same mistakes? (none / 0) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    Personally, I don't think leaders should lead for one side only.  Leaders should try to bring factions together (those that want to participate that is) and come up w/some that is better than what either side wants.

    Regardless of who's ideas are tried, most stuff is a shot in the dark until actually tried.


    Take a vote (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    on the Bush tax cuts.  Motivate the base by showing them there's something to fight for.  They decided to botch a possible winning tactic.  That's not my problem or fault.

    I agree the president should do his part (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    Motivate the base by showing them there's something to fight for

    Personally, I think he did that.  People should at this point, know that no taxes (at least on the middle class) will be raised.  Point is, the strategy didn't work, now we must pivot to something else.


    I don't "know" (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    that taxes will or will not be raised because there's been no vote.  And nobody knows how the parties would vote, because there's been no vote.  You are glib about whether the upper class tax cuts matter or not.  Apparently so are the Dems (after 8 YEARS OF SAYING OTHERWISE).  If the Dems are running on the vague premise that they might adopt a Republican idea then yeah what is the difference between Dems and Republicans?

    My fear is that (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    the Dems will decide to finally stand firm on something in the face of GOP intransigence and pick this, with the result that NONE of the tax cuts get extended.

    Well, I've no crystal ball either but (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    a certain amount of honesty would lead one to believe the likelihood of a tax increase after the election is small.  Neither party wants that.

    The differences between D & R are small on a number of issues.  Nonetheless, there are differences - and we all know what they are.  Again, that these differences can't always be reflected in a vote are indicative of the political climate.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    Let me give you a run down here...

    The Democrats (hypothetically) want a tax increase on the upper class, as it will save us 700 billion and is what they have wanted for almost ten years.  The Republicans do not want a tax increase on anyone and yet they still want to whine about the deficit.  This is actually a pretty big difference between the parties.  And it's an important difference as well.  

    But instead of using this difference to accomplish a progressive policy goal, and boost their chances of keeping the House, the Democrats have decided to push settling this matter aside.  With the result (IMO) of probably extending the tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy.  Which aside from being a waste of 700 billion dollars that could be used to actually jumpstart the economy, just mires us more and more in the Republican mindset of how to fix the economy.

    So yeah, it actually is important and certainly should not be a moment of bipartisan consensus.


    Soooo.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    From a strategy perspective, the House's failure to thus far act is reason to passively advocate Dems losing control?  To me it is not.

    I understand this may be an opportunity lost as well as the deficit concerns, nor do I advocate for bipartisanship on this issue.  OTOH, I don't understand how enabling the election of more Republicans increases the chances for the "progressive policy goal."


    Is that what I'm doing? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:21:12 PM EST
    passively advocate Dems losing control?

    Absolutely not.  I am working to reelect our Dem rep.  But the Dems in power right now seem to have little to no interest in actually helping their own prospects, by for example, having a vote on the Bush tax cuts.  And I don't think the chance they will repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy is something that's going to increase after the election.

    With this Congress, when they act weak politically, we end up with weaker policies.


    No argument from me on that. (none / 0) (#105)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    when they act weak politically, we end up with weaker policies

    To your point

    the Dems in power right now seem to have little to no interest in actually helping their own prospects, by for example, having a vote on the Bush tax cuts

    I too don't understand why they aren't doing it - but then, I don't have access to all the polling and nor do I represent a somewhat conservative citizenry.


    The polling was good (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    there was plenty of polling to this effect.  

    I know nationals were good (none / 0) (#113)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    I meant local ones in conservative dems districts.  Granted I could probably do the research, but knowing a pol is a pol.....figured they had their reasons for balking at only going for the most popular.

    Are you complaining about Obama here? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#107)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    I don't have a problem w/his message.

    You thnk the RS message (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    will help Dems politically?

    Possibly, who knows? (none / 0) (#115)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    If it keeps people talking about what was said, and thus the MSM talking about what actually has been done, it, IMO, allows the contrast between D & R to be further highlighted.

    Honestly tho, folks in the Democratic camp will take from the wording what they will.  Some will be offended, others will not.


    No, he has not done his part (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    These are congressional elections. His part would have been to threaten or cajole or plead ( h/t Lerner and Loewe) with congress to do something the American people could see was helping them. That is what effective presidents do to maintain their congressional majorities, instead he has enabled their worst process-obsessed instincts.  

    I don't think that (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    anyone knows that taxes on the "non-rich" won't be raised.

    I'm actually with him (none / 0) (#27)
    by BWS on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    to a point. Democrats--in office and at the polls--are always rolling over and taking it.

    Frustrating to watch? Absolutely.

    Does the President need to hear about it? Of course.

    If Dems are serious about making good change happen, voters need to call officials out on their failures, but be willing to support the successes.

    It's obvious that we're not living in a Utopian political system. Lesser of two evils? Sure. But, as Big Tent notes, here we are.

    Another Take On the RS Interview (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    Yeah, TPM....  Looks like bashing the base was not the only thing Obama was doing.

    Oh, and here is the whole article. Bashing the base does not seem to be the bulk of the interview, even if FAUX et al seem to think it is.

    perhaps because of this . . . (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    After the interview was officially over, Obama apparently wouldn't let Wenner leave until he got a chance to get real with the frustrated/apathetic left. "Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office," Wenner writes. "A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger."

    and then he goes into bashing his base.


    Yeah but (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    was it his middle finger?

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    Take it how you want to. More words were spoken to the GOP threat, in that closing bit, than bashing his base.

    But some here seem to be more "sensitive" to Obama words, no matter what he says, than others.

    Honestly, the comments bashing Obama today about how he f'ed up politically once again, do not seem any different than ever.

    Quite frankly, I do not see how anyone other than those who have been routinely offended by Obama, would be offended by this wake up call.

    I certainly do not take his bashing personally. Maybe it is because I never had any great expectations from the guy, or the Democratic Party to begin with.

    But unlike many of the radicals here (lol) I plan to pull the lever for the D's in November.


    Sorry (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:18:33 PM EST
    But that is not a reasonable reading of how it happened.

    The President came back in AFTER THE INTERVIEW was over to take those shots.

    He wanted this to be the news. No other interpretation is reasonably possible.


    imagine the reaction to the article (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    if he hadn't decided to go back though. but then, maybe it's all part of the PPUS.   :) i do think some of his supporters who are waffling on their support could be offended. might just be what pushes them to stay home . . .  he needs a lil' honey in his rep towards his base.

    I'll be pulling D and G . . .


    Easy To Imagine (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    imagine the reaction to the article if he hadn't decided to go back though.

    The comments here would be exactly the same.


    And yours as well (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:19:13 PM EST

    The actual occurrence has has had no effect on your comments either.


    The pointed walk back (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    into the room after the interview was over makes it pretty clear that Obama wanted this to be the news.

    He got his wish.


    Yup (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    Although the characterization of what he said, is open to interpretation.

    I do not feel bashed, offended, yet do, believe that Obama has sold us up the river, like any good D would.

    Maybe I am too cynical to believe that there could be a progressive US president.

    Meanwhile back to screaming....


    He said what he said (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    I think it is pretty darn clear.

    And pretty darn stupid.


    I actually think we are whining too much (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lil on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    And I am now ducking for cover.

    Is that the royal "we" (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    or do you think that you are whining too much?

    If you are really judging your own actions rather than actually judging others, you can chose to stop any action that you consider whining.


    Maybe he's laying the groundwork... (none / 0) (#79)
    by EL seattle on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    ... to set up a Third Party if things really go bad in 2012.  (?)  

    I mean, here's a guy who managed to parlay a modest political resume into a pesidential victory and a Nobel Peace Prize.  Who would be in a better position to lead a new Independent (tm) Party.  Think Ross Perot + Joe Lieberman x the power of the Obama Hope campaign.

    Sure, this is just a crazy thought.  But is it any crazier than a smart, talented politician who starts hectoring a large number of his very productive supporters?

    From these comments (none / 0) (#83)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    it is apparent that no group does outrage quite like the left.  Focusing on personalities only serves to feed the MSM narrative preventing serious discussion of the issues.  I realize much of this is venting but at some point isn't it time to get back to work?

    You seem very committed to (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:26:24 PM EST
    describing this as a personality issue rather than issue based. Throughout the thread numerous people have highlighted many political issues that are causing them to be very unhappy with the Democratic Party. Choosing to put a "personality label" on the problem prevents any serious discussion of the issues.

    Oh, and btw, feel free to get back to work.


    Ouch! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    10% nominal, 20% real unemployment, and everybody in the adminstration shrugs and says "What can we do?"

    As I mentioned, I know chapter and verse (none / 0) (#127)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    on all the policy "sell outs" and "not fightng for the people who voted for you".  I share some of the sentiments.  Then again, maybe because I never considered that Obama was "on my side" on the issues, I am not as surprised by what he has done.  Obama is the victim of unresonable expectations (which he helped fan).

    I've been reading Roubni's and Mihm's "Crisis Econmics".  It contains the following quote.  

    ... In 2009, the Obama adminstration passed the biggest stimulus bill in the nation's history which included plentiful tax breaks.  Between monetary policy and fiscal policy, everything that should have been done was done, however imperfectly.

    It is the unwillingness of many Obama critics to give his administration even this much credit that leads me to believe that much of the "issue driven" criticism of the adminstration is personality driven.


    More than one economist disagreed with that (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    opinion at the time and disagree with it still.

    everything that should have been done was done

    Why should I or others give this administration even that much credit when I can see around me the suffering of people without jobs, losing their homes and on the brink of financial meltdown due to what IMO was poor policy decisions

    Also, IMO this is not just about Obama. It is about the current Democratic Party as a whole. Even if Obama was never on as you put it on your side, the Democratic members of Congress had a choice on who they were going to represent. We are seeing the results of those choices. They chose to mirror the Republican Party in putting the interest of corporations and the wealthy over the interests of the majority of the people in the U.S. They made the choice of continuing to allow the dismantling of our civil liberties and continuing and expanding the Bush policies.  


    Very persuasive comment (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to persuade (none / 0) (#128)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    I was just venting.

    Nice to see that at FDL, btw... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 01:56:35 PM EST

    Give it a recommend over there, too, please? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 05:58:18 PM EST

    Done! (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    You want to rec mine there too? Thanks!

    Done! (none / 0) (#147)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    Thanks, scribe... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    Beatings will continue until (none / 0) (#142)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    morale improves.

    Oy. I have T-shirt that says that. Maybe we should make this an addenda to the famous "change you can believe in" slogan.

    Ronald Reagan he is not.

    Makes me yearn for Bill Clinton. Some of his policies went sour, but his rhetoric was sweet.