home

Obama Fundraises at Birthday Party

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:14:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama is turning 50. He celebrated in Chicago with friends, at parties that doubled as fundraisers for his re-election.

As to his first term, he told the crowd:

The thing that we all have to remember is, is that as much good as we’ve done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said, “change we can believe in,” I didn’t say “change we can believe in tomorrow."

Shorter version: His first term was such a dud, we should give him a do-over.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Dow Plunges, Stocks Tumble >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Fundraises at Birthday Party | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Even shorter version: (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    Gimme cash.

    Cute, Barack. Well, when I said I'd vote (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:33:40 AM EST
    for you today, I did not say I'd vote for you tomorrow.

    The J. Wellington Wimpy fundraising appeal... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:37:39 AM EST
    "I'll gladly fight for you Tuesday for a contribution today."

    Parent
    HA! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    Well, my new slogan is I'm here to Build a Future not Win a Future.  This isn't Vegas

    Parent
    Come on folks (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    it will take at least until the end of the year to cut the safety net programs and lower the taxes for corporations and the rich. You just have to be patient. I told you I would shift a lot more money away from the poor and the middle class and into your pockets and I will. We are almost there and your large dollar donations will get us there. Yes we can.

     

    I just read on (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by observed on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    Americablog  that Obama really thought the GOP  would agree to higher taxes in exchange for cuts. If true, Obama is stupider than Palin.
    No, Obama is a Chicago politician. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by itscookin on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:36:33 AM EST
    He has "street smarts". He's getting exactly what he wants. FTR, Palin has street smarts, too. It's really too funny when people say that a person who turns a failed bid for the vice presidency into a multi-million dollar career is stupid.

    Parent
    I tend to agree that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by observed on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:51:17 AM EST
    he is getting what he wants, politically. He and Palin are both idiots in terms of understanding policy


    Parent
    His Remark (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by The Maven on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:50:50 AM EST
    "When I said, 'change we can believe in,' I didn't say 'change we can believe in tomorrow,'" also seems to betray an admission that much of his term has been spent as on-the-job training and that he really wasn't ready to be president.  Perhaps when he spoke he was being even more honest than he realized.

    I don't think the training (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:30:38 AM EST
    took or will ever take.  

    He's just not cut out for the job and I don't believe he's cut out for any public office.

    His view of the Presidency, bi-partisan for its own sake,  isn't a proper basis for anyone in public office and, IMO, is toxic at the top.

    Bi-partisan for its own sake may be OK for, I don't know; maybe teaching the 1st grade or maybe community organizer.

    Parent

    When then? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by mjames on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    When we elect a Dem?

    May I have the envelope, please? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by lambert on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    "And for the most pathetic walkback by a sitting President...."

    Oh, we're going to be fully into (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:35:28 AM EST
    campaign/fundraising mode from here on, and I also understand Obama's planning a mid-west "bus tour" as he "pivots" to jobs.  Why, he's pivoted on so many things, so many times, it's like he's...spinning.

    I read as much of the speech as I could get through, but when I realized it was like reading a collection of comments from ABG, I decided I didn't need to bother.  I'll say one thing: ABG really has those talking points down, doesn't he?

    And while I'm just thrilled that there are that many people who can spend almost $40,000 to listen to a canned campaign speech, it got me to thinking that what we really need is a collection of bumper stickers that say things like, "Send your campaign dollars to someone who really needs it: the old, the poor and the sick."  

    Or:

    "Your campaign dollars won't save Medicare: write that check to your favorite senior."  

    "My money won't be going to politicians now that grandma's moving in."  

    "I'd love to write a campaign check, but I still don't have a job."  

    "We're rich enough to give trillions to bankers, but can't afford entitlements?"

    "Billions for bankers, bupkes for Grandma: what's wrong with that picture?"

    What's Latin for: "I didn't, I won't and...you'll vote for me anyway!"

    Ugh.

    he is claiming the bus tour is (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:45:56 AM EST
    administration business and is charging tax payers for it. I know damn well it is a campaign tour.

    Parent
    Of course it's for Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#114)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 02:31:02 AM EST
    What else would a bus tour do?  Create jobs? Unless he's feeding the poor from that bus, it's a campaign bus.

    Parent
    Some perspective (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    When we started this work on reinventing Government, I said, you know, there's never been a single incident when a President or an administration generated any popular support for changing the way the Government works.

    .....I'd forgotten we did half the stuff he talked about.  I say that only half in jest. You know, when I asked Al Gore to become the nominee for Vice President on our Democratic ticket, I did it after we had a long set of talks, and we agreed that we were going into an uncertain time when we had to make difficult decisions rooted in what was best for the United States over a 10- or a 20- or a 30-year period, that might not be popular in the short run, that might not even be able to be easily explained in the short run. We knew that.

    Bill Clinton
    Remarks at a Fundraiser in
    Philadelphia
    September 18, 1995

    Our tax dollars at work (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    Did they really need a study to show this?

    Healthful diet may be too costly for some Americans

    So much for Ms. Obama's idea that getting people healthy is just about showing them the right food! She is just another out of touch rich Conservative politician...

    please (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    you know they also changed the school lunch policy.  And she's got an agreement with Walmart, you know, that high end expensive chain, to cut sugar in thousands of products.  Not to mention the required labeling on restaurants.

    I guess it's better to just sit back and say "oh well" and keep giving kids ketchup with their free lunch and call it a vegetable.

    Not to mention the other big thing she's been pushing is excercise.  Which last time I checked is free.

    Of all the critiques about the Obama's, I have to say I find this one to be one of the worst, counter-productive critiques out there.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    I agree. While not perfect (nothing is) this really is something that she should be proud of doing. It's a positive and the fact that Wal-Mart one of the worst offenders is changing things should be a feather in her cap for sure.

    Parent
    But when you hear or read (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    information like this:

    CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- A record number of Americans are now receiving food stamps, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In May, there were 45.75 million recipients of the aid, up 2.5% from the previous month and 12% from May of 2010. The state of Alabama showed the biggest increase, almost 120%, with New Jersey, Nevada and North Carolina all seeing jumps in the 20% range. Every state posted a percentage increase, save North Dakota, which was essentially flat.

    And you see story after story about ordinary people stepping in with what little they have to provide free meals to children in the summer months, when they cannot get the free or reduced price breakfasts and lunches through the schools, it's enough to make one weep.  

    The story I saw last night showed a woman in the south somewhere, feeding hundreds of children every day - delivering the meals by bus - and the reporter talked to some of the kids about it.  When kids are saying things like, "if I can get food here, that means there's food for my mom and dad to eat at home," you know that on their own, people in this situation cannot afford to eat healthy - they're lucky if they eat at all.

    So, yes, Michelle Obama is right to advocate for healthier foods and more exercise, but I would be further heartened if she were advocating for the end to food insecurity in this country - a situation that is only getting worse, not better.  Makes me wonder how many hungry people could be fed with the almost $36,000 cost of a ticket to an Obama fundraiser - or any politicians's fundraiser - and reinforces for me that whatever dollars I could contribute to politicians will be going to programs that help people directly.


    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:48:36 AM EST
    What is it about her most vocal campaign that says anything about the people who can't afford food?

    http://www.letsmove.gov/kids

    This is about blaming kids for not being healthy and another way to separate the rich from the poor.

    Yes you can eat your veggies, as long as you can afford them.  Help with dinner?  What if there IS no dinner.

    The rest is just fluff to make her feel better.

    Downrate me all you want.  Have fun.  But Obama's government is just simple tried and true conservativism, and Ms. Obama's efforts are nothing more than that.  She comes from the upper eschelons, and that's all she understands....and this narrow-minded program of hers pretty much proves it....

    Someday you'll understand....

    Parent

    riiiight (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    so providing them with vegetables in their free school lunch is all about seperating rich from poor.  So is getting Walmart to cut vegetable prices.  And the school lunch bill also provided increased funding for free and subsidized lunches for the first time in 30 years, and real meals as after school snacks for the precise reason you mention, which is that kids can't eat at home because the parents are broke.

    I downrated you for contributing nothing to the conversation but a condescending personal attack.

    Have you actually bothered to look at that link you provided?  4 out of the 5 things on her list are 100% FREE.  How condescending of her...

    And since when is excercise "fluff" when it comes to being healthy?

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    don't know what you're talking about.

    She added a few pennies to the lunch bill while her husband cut welfare, medicaid, food stamps and is now on the way to cutting social security.

    Wow, what a brilliant woman.  What a great thing to do.

    Austerity, austerity, austerity.

    You also don't get the notion that many of the parents with these kids are working 2 jobs (because our economy sucks) and don't have the time to prepare balanced diets.  They go to KFC and get chicken for their kids between jobs.  Or the kids fend for themselves for diner.  Who cares what Walmart decides to do.  In addition, the inner city where many of people in poverty reside HAS NO WALMART.

    I said what I said because you don't get it.  It is clear to me from what you've said regarding many topics that you have the aerial view, while knowing nothing about the situation on the ground.  And downrate me all you want.  But that doesn't change the fact that you're buying into nonsense that is designed to make Ms. Obama feel nice while distracting from the real facts in the situation.

    Ms. Obama's health initiative is very much like Bush's clear skies and healthy forests.  It doesn't address real problems, only the problems as the rich elitists see them.  And the fluffy title is just insult to injury.

    Parent

    You are full of it (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    There are more people on food stamps today, and the average benefit per person has gone up significantly since Obama took office.  Now the reason so many more people are on is because of the economy and eligibility has increased - which is certainly no good thing, but you cannot say he CUT food stamp funding, that's a blatant lie.  The last year has gone down a slightly from '09 and '10, but it is still providing more money per person and family than Bush ever did.

    Also, Obama drasticly increased medicaid funding in the ACA, and yes some of that went away, but overall it is MUCH higher today than it was under Bush.  Besides, I thought you hated medicaid anyway?  Wasn't that your beef before, that he was increasing funding to a useless program?  Which one is it - you should get your story straight.

    You do not know me, and you do not have some authority on my life experience from a couple comments you've read on a blog.  So cut it out with the condescending personal nonsense.

    You want to whine about the Obama's, go to town, there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had.  But this has got to be the stupidest fight to pick.

    Parent

    Then why (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    did you pick the fight.

    I offered my opinion.  You were the one who answered it with nasty, snarky crap....I just had to return in kind.

    LOL, but once again, you think with your naive blinders on.  Obama increased medicaid funding in ACA while decreasing it in the debt ceiling bill.... and he's also ensured that our economy will go into recession so that the working poor continue to become increasingly poor.

    You have to be able to put 2 ideas together at once to understand.  Liberal elitist Obama supporters are a whole lot less likely than the rest of us to be able to look at the big picture.

    I'm not going to persue this further.  Believe whatever aerial/naive/progaganish notions you want.  I lived poverty.  I know why these things are stupid.  You don't get it...and I've changed my mind.  You NEVER will.  

    Parent

    And BTW (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    Does anyone know if they did end up cutting food stamp further to pay for Michelle's pet project?

    Link

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    The "big picture" you are talking about is completely unrelated to Michelle Obama's obesity campaign, which is actively fighting in the opposite direction.  I believe in fighting for good policy, and this policy is good policy.

    Here's a news flash, you are not the only one on this blog who has ever been broke - I know exactly what it's like to be hungry. I have no doubt that you have been through some rough $hit in your life.  But that does not give you license to assume you know everything about mine.

    I didn't realize that using the word "counter-productive" was nasty.  You immediately came after me personally, and have made that the crux of your argument since.  That's not okay.

    Parent

    Pfffft, let them eat arugula n/t (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:13:58 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    You're funny.  And naive.

    That's all I have to say.

    Parent

    Oh and this (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    From this article:

    Link


    And if we examine each of the above achievements, we realize, that despite their well meaning, they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things:

    1. Awareness is not enough. When the cheapest option for a hardworking mom to feed her kids is to pick up a pizza pie or a bucket of KFC on the way home from the office, what does it help her to know that her family needs to consume more veggies.

    By the way, McDonald's had its best year ever in 2010, with sales growth both domestically (4.4% !!!) and internationally (yes, we are exporting obesity).

    1. The partnership with food manufacturers and retailers is interesting. At the end of the day these corporations are out to make money. And the most profitable products are the least healthy. Partly due to farm subsidies that make sugar-like sweeteners (HFCS) so cheap. Will Michelle Obama tackle the 2012 Farm Bill? Heck, even Barack is not going to touch that can of worms.

    2. It's hard to see how the child nutrition bill, adding pennies a day to an already low cost school lunch will have an impact. Yes, there are some grass roots local success stories, but they are an exception to the rule.

    3. Our entire society is set up for fast food and for junk food. It is obesogenic from the moment we wake up til we go to sleep. Just look at the Superbowl commercials this past Sunday, 12 out of 12 were for junk. While the USDA is telling us to eat less, companies are making larger and larger portions. Just read this recent quote:

    "The bottom line is we're in the business of making money, and we make money off of what we sell," said Beth Mansfield, spokeswoman for CKE Restaurants Inc., which owns the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's chains. "If we wanted to listen to the food police and sell nuts and berries and tofu burgers, we wouldn't make any money and we'd be out of business."

    And thus we enter 2011 with a warm fuzzy feeling in our tummy - the first lady is watching out for our kids. If only she had the real power to do so ...

    But she does have the power to do so, but Austerity is more important to her and her equally conservative husband.

    This is reality, not your pie in the sky notion of how your president is helping "the poor".

    Parent

    so your solution is what exactly? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    Bash the one person who is actively trying to change this?

    That article is actually fairly positive about her efforts, despite your best attempt to make it seem otherwise.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    My solution is stop with the austerity crap

    Pennies for free lunches while multi-dollar cuts in aid is definitely not the answer.

    If you look at only this program, it looks nice.  But if you add it to the bigger picture, it's just another way to insult people who can't afford things by saying that all they gotta do is change themselves, while the government is continuing to ensure that they are less affordable.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    typo queen.

    "while multi-dollar cuts in aid occur"
    and
    "while the government is continuing to ensure that healthy foods are less affordable"

    Parent

    And BTW (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    the article was trying to put the best spin on the topic, while still saying it's fluff and nonsense.  Which it is.

    Parent
    Michelle Obama is not in charge (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    of either monetary or fiscal policy for the United States. She's the first lady, for chrissakes, and her efforts on reducing obesity are not meaningless, they are to be commended. She is also promoting that people grow their own vegetable gardens (a money saving idea!), and as someone who works with homeless kids, I can tell you that those living in the shelter feel a lot of joy and a huge sense of purpose from working in the shelter's vegetable garden. Aside from buying good soil to start with, it doesn't take much money to grow veges.

    I can't see the justification for pouncing on Michelle for focusing on this issue. She is not responsible for the president's austerity policies. Did we hold Hillary accountable for every time that Bill pi$$ed us off by triangulating with Congress?  

    Parent

    You have to own property (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by mjames on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    to have your own vegetable garden. Unless, I guess, if you move to a shelter.

    I think that's the point being made here. Eating healthfully is expensive and time-consuming. Beyond the reach of millions and about to be beyond the reach of millions more.

    Parent

    If you have a window facing anwhere but north (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    you can still put in a window box of organic lettuce and herbs. I did it when I still lived in a studio apartment. I don't know about other cities, but in Seattle we have dozens of community gardens (called "P-Patches"). As for the time-consuming argument, how much more time does it take to tend a garden -- about 20 minutes a day -- as opposed to spending a half an hour or a full hour at the grocery store, especially when you're looking to buy fresh produce? Every neighborhood in this city has farmer's markets.

    I'm not saying it's the easiest thing in the world, but it's not as hard as portrayed by some here. And once you get into the routine of tending a garden, it becomes habit. And yes, it is a community issue, which means it's a political issue and city leaders need to be lobbied to support more community gardens.

    I'm just not hearing many solid arguments in opposition to Michele Obama's program.

    Parent

    B*llsh*t (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    I rent and have a quite large garden in not so large a space. You can container grow on apt balconies, small back stoops, raised beds in yards, or plant an actual garden space. Ever hear of square foot gardening? Community gardens? Year-round-gardening? I'll be harvesting carrots, potatoes and other winter friendly veggies this year, after I get done canning all my summer produce (over a dozen tomato varieties!) which will last me until next summer's bounty. Any bit you grow is something you are not buying with your food budget. And I save my seeds and seed garlic/onions/potatoes for the next season, when I could be making even less money . . .

    one wonders how people ate back in the day, by your comment . . .

    Parent

    there are community gardens (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    in my city for a lot of public housing projects and in low income areas.

    I have no idea what it's like in other cities, but it's certainly possible if you have the political muscle behind it as well.

    Parent

    I honestly don't think that's quite true (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    what needs to be looked at is do people know how to best spend their food dollars and properly utilize what they buy. You can eat healthy on the cheap. Both in NY and CA (and I'm sure other places), your food stamp dollars double (i think that's right for CA) at the farmers market. If you shop farmers markets in lower income 'hoods, the food is cheaper. (it cost the farmers less in my neighborhood to sell at the market than it does in a higher economic area, and if you go the last 45 minutes, they're practically giving it away!). Also, supermarkets and real food availability is less plentiful in lower income areas (thinking cities etc). Knowing how to cook smart and plan is a skill (especially with the younger generations)that isn't as prevalent as it should be. Knowing what to buy bulk/in season, how to stretch ingredients etc, is another area people don't always understand. And for those that have a small space to grow food, in CA at least, they can use their food stamps to buy seeds and vegetable starts. Farmer's market's in the area's I've lived also donate food at the end of markets to the food banks etc.

    I think the real problem is years of big food telling us what to eat and to eat twice as much as we need to. I learned a LOT when I gave up all processed food (and I didn't use much at all!), and I would say that I eat pretty d@mn cheap. Between the economy and the NFL lockout, my income has taken a huge hit this year, but my healthy eating habits are still doable.

    Parent

    The Obama programs to get people (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    to eat healthy is in direct opposition to the rational for changing the COLA calculations for SS because everyone knows when things cost more seniors can chose lower cost items. For most seniors, those lower cost items will be essentials like food and not a smaller YACHT.

    Parent
    Especially if they are diabetics (none / 0) (#112)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 01:21:29 AM EST
    as I am. Many weeks, it is really really hard.

    Parent
    More perspective (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    I start with that because I want to make a point. There are some people who say that our message is not clear or they don't know the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I can tell you one thing--there are two differences: One is, they may talk better, but we do more; we do more. The other is, we try to do what we do in a way that benefits everybody, not just those who are going to do all right if we don't lift a finger anyway. And that makes a big difference.

    Bill Clinton
    Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser
    June 28, 1995

    Consider the rest of US when looking thru the veil of your short-sightedness.

    Ah, if it only were 1995 again..... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:01:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I was 20 pounds thinner. (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:20:51 PM EST


    Parent
    that's nothing! (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    I was probably 70-80 lbs lighter :)

    And at least a foot shorter.

    Parent

    But you were just a youngster then! (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    How were you to know that Pop Tarts would later be downgraded to junk status?

    (I was a 36 yo, and shoulda known better...)

    Parent

    Back when I had a future :) (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:26:56 PM EST


    Parent
    On (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:23:28 PM EST
    a day when the Dow plunged over 500 points, erasing all gains made in 2011, it would seem not exactly appropriate, intelligent or compassionate to tell us about all the good he thinks he's done.

    There he is at his birthday party, clueless as a stone.

    Talk (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:11:18 AM EST
    about a vacuous statement. So it's going to be a retread of "change to you can believe in". Man, this guy is in a bubble and completely clueless.

    I Have Been Trying to Decide... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:46:24 AM EST
    ... if he is really that clueless, or if it's campaign schtick.  

    He can't really believe this, "The thing that we all have to remember is, is that as much good as we've done..."  Given the chance I would ask for whom ?

    He once spoke of blogs and other non-main stream medias in a way that indicated he was tuned-in with that segment, now he acts as if the White House doesn't even get cable.

    Was it all some well crafted campaign tactic, or has he just given up on keeping in touch.  Either way I want to vomit, he is a mirror image of Bush.  He thinks/acts like he is some phenom who is changing the world for the better when in reality, he couldn't be a bigger failure.

    Parent

    Failure? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    If you want to take drastic steps to begin to dismantle domestic and safety net programs and establish the environment to privative everything in sight, Obama is on his way to being a smashing success.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    he thinks that the voters are stupid and will buy his schtick. How many primary voters fell for his schtick back in '08? I mean he's been able to fool a lot of people for quite a while.

    Parent
    Enough voters will buy his schtick I think. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    And he'll be re-elected I think.

    And we'll still be screwed no matter which way it goes, I think.

    I wish I could stop thinking sometimes.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    I agree on us being screwed but I think Obama is probably going to have an uphill battle simply because the voters have given him 4 years already and he's been a failure. Of course, he can rerun the Bush '04 campaign and use fear and make it about the other guy since his own record stinks.

    If he's reelected, he'll be the first to be so with high unemployment so I think the odds are against him right now.

    Parent

    Never before (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jane in CA on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:43:33 PM EST
    has my personal perspective been articulated so succinctly on this board.

    Especially the last sentence.

    Parent

    Got Me.. (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    ... hook, line, and sinker.

    Parent
    OR (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    ... if he is really that clueless, or if it's campaign schtick.

    Or is it a scam to cover up his innate Conservatism.

    Parent

    Wow this is a cynical (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:44:12 AM EST
    bunch this morning and it isn't even 7 a.m. yet here.

    Hey, but Obama is going on a 3 day (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:59:48 AM EST
    bus tour to TALK about jobs. Wow, isn't Obama speechifying a wonderful thing.

    Obama, Obama he's our man
    He can talk about jobs better than anyone can.

    Give me an O............

    Meanwhile back in the real world.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans cut back on their spending in June for the first time in nearly two years and their incomes grew by the smallest amount in nine months, a troubling sign for an economy that is barely growing.

        Consumer spending dropped 0.2 percent in June, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. Excluding falling prices for such items as energy and food, consumer spending would have been unchanged in June.

    Incomes rose 0.1 percent. It was the weakest growth in income since September, reflecting anemic hiring this spring.

    Stock futures were trading lower after the report was released.
    ...
    Declining growth and rising unemployment have raised concerns that the country could fall back into a recession. link




    Parent
    But wait! There's more! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    How's this for bold, imaginative and "robust?"

    From the WaPo [with my commentary in brackets]:

    White House officials are weighing ["weighing:" because, it's the thought that counts, right?] a proposal to offer tax cuts to employers in return for hiring new workers. [Aren't we already doing that?] The administration considered this idea last year, but it gave way to a broader payroll tax deduction for workers in a bipartisan deal in December.

    In addition, administration officials are considering proposing new investments in domestic clean energy as well as renewing tax breaks [is this the only thing these people can ever think of?] for companies using renewable energy -- particularly wind power -- that are to expire this year.

    Also on the table is an initiative designed to help the ailing housing market without the need for more public spending [because God knows, we can't have that]. Under that proposal, the government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would rent out foreclosed properties that they own rather than try to sell them at depressed prices [that's it?  "Call your new landlord at 1-800-FREDDIE!"]. That approach could relieve pressure on the housing market, one of the main drags on the economy [so could application of the billions in unused TARP money that was set aside for housing - oh, wait - that's "public" spending, and we don't do that].

    Former administration officials are pushing other initiatives, such as a program to rebuild and rehabilitate schools as a way to improve education and stimulate the economy [note the use of "former" - that means "no one currently a member of the administration supports it" - or they would have said so]. A fan of this approach, Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist for Vice President Biden, calls the program "Fix America's Schools Today."

    Yeah, this is some "pivot," isn't it?

    Parent

    The home rental thing (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    is a clue about our fate.

    A friend in real estate told me that he was working on a project that would bundle foreclosed homes for sale to investors who'd offer them for rent (with his firm managing the properties of course).

    IIRC Obama made an off the cuff remark a little while back saying people should maybe think of renting instead of buying.

    So there we have it, a nation of renters. A landless proletariat.

    Whatever else we can say about Obama; inept, closet Conservative, unsuited for high office, etc.  It's really unmistakeable that for this point in history he was the wrong person for the job.

    Parent

    Renting (none / 0) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:19:13 AM EST
    Renting will help people preserve liquidity, it will help people to be more mobile. It suits lifestyles of the majority of people (no permanent jobs, majority of people do not even value permanent marriages as an ideal). Renting will prevent housing bubbles and stop people from accumulating large debts. It will empower people, accumulation of debts is the quickest way towards indentured servitude.
    The pitfalls of trying to grow an economy by putting all investments in the home ownership basket should also be clear now. We need more diversified growth. We should also try to decrease the fraction of our consumer based economy.


    Parent
    A majority of the people? (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:27:20 AM EST
    Really?


    Parent
    Very few people (none / 0) (#118)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    have "permanent jobs" these days and I do not think that permanence of marriages is a "liberal ideal".

    Parent
    Maybe not permanent jobs (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:55:17 AM EST
    You said:

    It suits lifestyles of the majority of people (no permanent jobs, majority of people do not even value permanent marriages as an ideal).

    But most people (according to those d@man polls again!), still believe in marriage over things like cohabitating, and I have no idea why you think renting "suits lifestyles of the majority of people".  Maybe in a big city that's true, but since a vast majority of people don't live in big cities, I think your premise is false.

    Parent

    JB, there's something to be said for (none / 0) (#121)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    renting by many people who have historically purchased.

    My mother has lived in the same house for almost 50 years, but all of my siblings save one have moved, on average every 4 years. Either military, relocating for better jobs, etc.

    There is a stability that comes with ownership, but the recent housing crisis suggests (to me, anyway) that a lot of families bought up or traded up, then got entire mortgage issue, then the housing crisis.

    Historically, though, the change in housing has been incredible. My mother's house is three-bedroom, but fairly small, built in the mid '50's.

    Her house, which was considered a very middle class, a 'professor's house' if you will, has about 1200-1400 square feet, maybe slightly smaller.

    House size became important as a status symbol somewhere along the line... bigger is better, hire a yard company, etc...

    So houses grew in size and price, even though in amenities-- a kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms, etc., they stayed fundamentally the same.

    Housing prices, however, grew as the sizes grew. The development of gated communities became more commonplace as the neo-wealthy decided to separate from the masses... and housing size continued to grow.

    the median house size today is 2,224 square feet. 'Median' means that 50 percent are larger, and 50 percent smaller, not an average... not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here. In 1978, median house size was 1,650 square feet. In 1950, the average house size was 1,000 square feet.

    Average family size has dropped, so there's actually more space per person even if size had remained constant.

    Job stability and movement have increased a lot... I can't find statistics to indicate, but IIRC, but before the Lesser Depression started, people changed jobs on average every 5 years. Like I said, that's a recollection, not necessarily fact.

    If people rented 'starter homes' instead saving for the 'final' or semi-final home, housing market crashes wouldn't affect them.

    Ironically, most couples without children still plan on buying a larger house when they start families. I've known a number of professors who bought houses, had either bad third-year reviews or just didn't get tenure, who had to keep making house payments after moving and buying yet another house. Probably similar in other lines of work.

    Now the question comes in on house availability for rent... I don't have info on it, but I'll look and post when I do.

    Parent

    Well, I have solid, current anecdotal evidence (none / 0) (#124)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    My landlord informed me in June that he is selling my house -- the one I've been renting for the past six years. The best place I've rented in the best neighborhood since moving here 25+ years ago. He thought I'd buy it from him outright. I am in no position to do such a thing. I can do the down payment, and I have excellent credit. The hitch: I do not have fulltime work, haven't had fulltime work for three years. Therefore, I cannot get a home loan.

    So... I spent the next six weeks, twelve hours a day, seven days a week, searching for something comparable to what I have.(And before anybody tells me to lower my standards, I am not someone who can live in an apartment without becoming very claustrophobic and unhappy, and that's that.) I had to give up my life and my work prospects during that stressful period of searching. Forget it. The rental market is tighter than a u-know-what, because so many people have to rent (not "prefer to," but have to.) The Seattle metro area has many fewer houses for rent than ever before, and I can assure you that the 42 (yes, 42) places I looked at in a six-week period were mostly dumps! And the few that weren't were outrageously expensive -- we're talking rental rates that look very much like monthly mortgage payments, with none of the benefits. Landlords and property managers are engaging in the newest version of highway robbery, and it's despicable.

    Lo and behold, I finally got lucky and found a nice little house for a reasonable price in a beautiful, quiet, safe area -- in a different city, 30 minutes from Seattle. Far away from all that I love about the city, much further away from all my friends.

    Just a couple of days before that lucky find, I came within one inch of saying "F*ck this noise," packing up a rental truck, and moving back to Cal to stay with family and start again down there.

    I could get much nastier about Politalkix's patronizing crock of b.s., but, hey, I'll just say "everything's a trade-off" and leave it at that.

    Parent

    Ouch. I'm guessing Seattle (none / 0) (#125)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 01:37:34 AM EST
    must have a housing shortage like New York or San Francisco.
    Sorry for your move.

    Parent
    Ha! Seattle has such an insecurity complex (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 02:05:01 AM EST
    The city leaders and developers have been trying to make us into Manhattan of the West for the past 20 years. Our real estate isn't anywhere near as high as NYC's. On the other hand, when I saw rental listings for one-bedroom downtown condos going for $3000 a month I gasped!

    I'll start funtioning normally again once the move is over and I'm settled and can get back to the routines of life. But, boy am I going to miss being able to walk just a few minutes to the bluff for a long gaze at the Puget Sound, the islands, and the Olympic Mountains.

    Parent

    I'm so glad you found something that (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    agrees with you that you can make a happy home out of for yourself.  My spouse is like you, he is so unhappy in apartments.  I have no idea why this person would be military except that maybe outside of the hatred of tiny space living, everything else is what he wants.

    We have had many struggles house hunting near posts because of the high demand in that area.  Colorado Springs was horrible.  It is becoming difficult renting here too because so many people MUST rent now, buying is not an option for them.  Rents have been getting a little wild...while at the same time we have many houses sitting vacant because of the foreclosure mess.  I suppose there will be a lot of work that must be done on those houses before people can move back in.  The climate/weather here is devastating to vacant properties. It is really crazy humid here right now and in the space of 30 days I have one window and the frontdoor too where condensation around the frames have started to grow a little mold so this weekend I have clean, kilz, and paint those areas again.  It is a way of life here.

    Parent

    More voodoo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    We'd be just as likely to get jobs from sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya.

    Parent
    We've got lots (none / 0) (#41)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    to be cynical about.

    Parent
    Messaging and the FAA: Who is to blame? (none / 0) (#11)
    by bison on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    Wittingly or unwittingly, Lisa, a NBC reporter, gave her canned report on FAA on Morning Joe, and it has the potential of skewing the narrative in favor of the GOP/Tea Party, because it did not give the complete account. This is why e-mail Morning Joe after hearing her report.  Lisa's did not mention anything about the labor dispute interwoven in the issue.  She only mentioned the part about the subsidiaries to airport in Democratic Senatorial districts.  Nor did she mention anything about Reid saying that he was willing to close the airport in Nevada to take that issue off the table, but Republicans refused to agree because they wanted to force the Senate to include the anti-union language.  Democrats need to counter the viewpoint that both political parties are equally to blame. If MSM pushes a messaging, everyone else jumps on the horse and pony and rides with it.  The narrative changes.  Unfortunately when every outlet is telling you the sky is really green, you begin to not believe your eyes.  Messaging is significant and Democrats need to counter the viewpoint that both political parties are equally to blame.

    Today Show Earlier (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    Same S, "Those pesky D's won't give up the subsidies".  

    This is the D's fault, they really are inept in the message department.  The Today Show talked to 2 D's and neither one mentioned labor, and both mentioned subsidies.  It's like Boehner slipped them talking points and they are too GD stooopid to realize it.

    Seems like the word 'union' is just one more middle class benefit the D's are too scared to touch.

    Parent

    My brother is one of the FAA people (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    who has been furloughed.

    He is a senior engineer with more than 20 years experience.  He is responsible for installing and maintaining the Instrument Landing Systems at several airports. He supervises younger engineers in their work on the ILS systems.

    He is also a union rep.

    It seems to me that we really do want to have the ILS systems working properly at our airports.

    Parent

    Both parties equally to blame? (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    Now that's an inspiring message.  That will make me go get my checkbook to donate to .... hmm... which political party?  I can't decide... who do I want to help... who will bring back the poorhouse first.

    No.  I think I'll just go watch reruns on TV

    Parent

    Clearly (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:17:56 AM EST
    Obama should be fundraising on the concept of how little he did and how much of a conservative he is and how angry is "base" is at him.

    What on earth do we expect him to say.

    I am upset that he belittled his accomplishments in that statement.  I think the closer we get to election the more he's going to start dropping facts about what he has done.  And it will be impressive.

    All completely irrelevant to some who view the presidency in the lens of 1 issue, but impressive to the objective.

    Perhaps if we can all agree that President Obama is better than President Romney, we should focus on the fact that Romney got a million bucks from a PAC that just vanished without a trace.

    Link

    You remember Romney. The guy who is REALLY going to destroy all of the stuff liberals hold near and dear and the person likely to be our President if we spend the next 12 months bashing our guy.

    Anyway, on to more about how conservative Obama is.

    Outside of Obamacare (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:31:02 AM EST
    Which is a wondertoy for the insurance companies...

    Name me just one.

    Parent

    man I just love this (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    Romney is such a weasel.  He can run, but he can't hide.  While I hate to give him any credit for Mass health, he did sign that bill right before he skipped town to run for president and let someone else deal with actually implementing it.  At least Obama is trying to stick around and see it through.

    And gee, here's one:

    "In his statement, Romney tried to appeal to conservatives. "As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced - not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table," he stated."

    But it's true, it's hard to pin anything on Romney, because he's completely disowned anything he ever said/did while actually in office, and he is such a slimeball that he will say just about anything to win.  In a way, he will be interesting to watch as he tries to thread the needle between the tea party and independents.

    Although it's no wonder he wants to run away from us, his record here was pretty terrible.  While he was governer we had some of the worst growth in the country, now we are one of the top states for growth.  And his vaunted "business experience" was all about cutting American jobs.

    But for me, the most unforgivable part of Romney's tenure was his callous disregard for the lives of city youth.  The murder rate spiked under his tenure.  The murder rate was consistently higher for every year he was governer than the decade before him and the years since - and that increase was almost all teenagers and kids in the city.  Because he balanced the budget by cutting funding for inner city summer jobs and counseling for teens during a recession, since apparently he just didn't give a $hit if that meant kids started killing each other.

    Parent

    one other thing.. (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    he's intentionally driving up the price of gas in order to carry the election by appealing to that nefarious cabal of environmentalists that have so much influence in this country.

    None dare call it conspiracy.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:19:29 AM EST
    Name me just one....

    Parent
    never argue about liberal (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    accomplishments with someone who's still pissed about Little Round Top and Brown vs the Board of Education.

    Parent
    I take that to mean that you can't. (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 09:11:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Keeping his powder dry? Heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    I am upset that he belittled his accomplishments in that statement.  I think the closer we get to election the more he's going to start dropping facts about what he has done.  And it will be impressive.

    He'd better start trying to impress people soon ... people other than you, of course.

    BTW - How did he "belittle his accomplishments"?  Everything he said could just as easily have been pulled from one of your posts.  He inherited the "worst recession evah!", "He didn't say 'Change We Can Believe In' overnight, or next week, or in 2.7 years!", "He can't just wave a magic wand!", "Republicans are worse!", blah, blah, blah ...

    Parent

    I Love It (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    Your post pretty much sums up how this race will play out.

    1. Start with, "He's done a lot of great stuff"
    2. Forgo mentioning said stuff
    3. End with reasons why the opponent is worse.

    When it comes to Obama's pro's and con's, he sucks the big one, his only appeal, and his only chance is that he isn't as bad as his opponent.

    Which IMO is the worse reason to vote for someone, but I seem to be in a minority in that department.  The rest of the party is fine with 'not as bad' and that sucks.  Because right now, there isn't a politician in DC that represents even a fraction of what I want from my leadership.

    In all likelihood, he will get re-elected with record unemployement numbers, with no accomplishments in the jobs/economy column, and with very few accomplishments, period.

    Parent

    Depends (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    on who the opponent is. It's going to have to be a tea partier to sell that message.

    Parent
    Romney is Already the Boogie Man (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    He's going to destroy this or that, ditto for all the other viable opponents.

    I don't see a Tea Partier in the race, maybe the mate, but not as the candidate.

    Parent

    The markets today (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    Are evidence that a double dip recession is likely even if we had taken every liberal move possible.

    The interconnectd global economy makes it so that we are tied to the EU and the EU is about to freaking crash (even the countries that pushed massive government stimulus).

    Parent

    the markets today (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by CST on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    are evidence that a double dip is currently happening.

    There is zero evidence that it would have happened had "we had taken every liberal move possible."

    Because we didn't.

    The global economy is interconnected.  Which also means that if we were doing better here at home, maybe the EU wouldn't be facing this crisis.  In any event, it certainly doesn't change the fact that the consumer spending in the U.S. has plummeted.  Or is that the EU's fault too?

    Parent

    The markets today (none / 0) (#89)
    by mjames on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    reflect the debt ceiling piece of trash that will do zilch to help the economy.

    Parent
    He better tell his "contributors" (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    to write those checks fast, while they still have the money......Dow down another 275 points!

    oops, I forgot whose President he really is. From today's Times:

    "While retailers selling to average Americans are holding near fire sales, a recovery at the top is helping high-end retailers to sell out of their most expensive items."

    Parent

    There it is (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    The story of our times.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    Obama hasn't been working towards the same goal as Romney? You could have fooled me on that. Let's see Obama's HCR is more conservative than Romney's is one example that I can think of.

    Parent
    Hope they got this wrong and he (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    actually did not say this:  (from the cited LA Times article):   President Obama's remarks as provided by the White House:" ......We've got one of the greatest members of Congress in the country in Jan Murkowski in the House (applause). "    Could this be  Jan Schakowski, (D. IL, 9th District, north suburban Chicago)-- a liberal and a member of Cat Food I who voted no way?

    Jan Schakowski is fairly (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    well known and articulate liberal voice.....

    Parent
    I wouldn't recommend O (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    remind people of some of his soaring rhetoric from the 2008 campaign, unless it's to have some self-deprecating fun with it.  It certainly seems politically unwise to reference it then try to defend it with some lame excuse making.

    This guy not only is an embarrassingly poor negotiator, but is now showing signs of having lost his innate political good sense.

    Recommend he drop all references to the past winning campaign since that only reminds people of how much he's fallen short of expectations, and also drop the horrible "Win the Future" nonsense which no one is either inspired by nor believes since he seems to be doing such a good job of Losing the Present.

    Looks like he needs some better political advisers, to go with a new and improved economic team and Treasury Sec.  I'd recommend a few good people from the (Bill) Clinton team, but I think O has some personal issues with some of them.  

    I'd rec Bob Shrum -- a solid O backer throughout who also benefits from being somewhat anti-Clinton -- who probably has far better ideas going forward for the politics and policies than what Plouffé seems to be dishing up.  Problem of course is Shrummie's presidential track record.  

    He needs to get rid (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    of everyone and find the new Carville and Begala. Heck, the whole party needs to rid itself of the Ploufes and Axelrods etc. and look for some lean, mean and hungry politicos that believe in policy the same policy goals that the majority of the American people believe in.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't need a personnel cure, (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    he needs an ideology cure: until he believes in the basics of Democratic ideology, all the new personnel in the world isn't going to change what we're seeing or getting.

    It's not spine, it's not courage, it's not negotiating skills, it's not helplessness, it's not foolishness, it's not bad advice, it's not Geithner - it's that Obama does not believe in the same things Democrats believe in.

    Until he does, it's just going to be SSDD.

    What's Congress' excuse?  They don't have one.

    Parent

    One needs to understand (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    that conservative Republicans want government to fail.

    The Republicans are made up of two basic factions:  (1) those who want government to fail so that their taxes can be cut, and (2) those who want government to fail because they view the government as the enemy in the cultural/religious wars.

    Look at the religious and cultural views of the Tea Partiers.  Michele Bachmann.   Sarah Palin.  Rick Perry.

    Social conservatives have glommed onto the tax issue becasue it is one way to "beat" the bad guys.  They have lost almost completely on gay rights.  Their kids are not religious and more and more atheistic.

    Why did so many Tea Partiers take such an absolutist position on the tax issue....because they view the whole world through this absolutist lens of good v. evil.

    So, even though the discussion was about taxes, it was (for many) really about striking back at government....because it teaches evolution, does not overtly inculcate socially conservative views, because it now allows gays in the military.....

    Until you realize that one cannot really reach compromise with social conservatives--who control the Republican party and browbeat moderate Republicans into submission--you cannot get anywhere.

    You cannot compromise with social conservatives--you can only beat them.  

    Once you win, then the social conservatives will fall in line--because being essentially authoritarian, that is what they do.

    Parent

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    been trying to make this point for years. It's not just social conservatives that you can't negotiate with, it's modern day conservatives in general. They do not have the country's best interests nor the interests of the citizens. They are only interested in the 20% of the country that agrees with them and they are convinced of their own righteousness.

    Parent
    They made thier bed (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 03:00:18 PM EST
    with the social conservatives and have bedded down with them to the extent that now they can't win without them.

    Even the hardcore neocon's rhetoric is shot through with apocalyptic, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it paranoid imagery -- weilded partly in order to bury the pschological hook in a religious right that gobbles up that kind of us vs them, good vs evil language.  

    Parent

    I really (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    should have just said the party needs to rid themselves of these jokers not just Obama. Obama is a moderate conservative and that's something that can't be changed. But the rest CAN be changed by getting rid of a lot of the dead weight in the party.

    Parent
    I'm not sure about that. (none / 0) (#37)
    by sweetthings on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:35:02 AM EST
    As Yglesias pointed out the other day, Democrats are not very liberal anymore.
    People who think of themselves as "conservative" are in a very real sense the "base" of the Republican Party. A politician who positions himself as to the right of Susan Collins but the left of Jim Jordan is doing what most self-identified Republicans want. But "very liberal" Democrats are a marginal block of people, and the median self-identified Democrat also self-identifies as a moderate.
    There's a very real possibility that Obama DOES represent the bulk of the Democratic Party. Guess we'll see.

    Parent
    Polling pretty reliably indicates (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    that the public agrees with traditionally liberal Democratic ideas.....on taxes, Social Security Medicare, the use of the military.....unions....

    Yet, there is this strange disconnect with Democratic elected officials....

    Parent

    Weakened organized labor movement (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    over the last few decades means less influence on the Democratic Party.

    To be competitive in campaigns Democrats have had to turn to finance and big business.

    There are other reasons but the money is the big reason why Democrats aren't what they were.  This is not your father's (or grandfather's) Democratic Party.

    Parent

    weakened oraganized labor.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    a case, if there ever was one, of class interest - on both sides of the aisle - trumping democratic ideals..

    As if it weren't bad enough that pinheads reading the Heritage Foundation script to this day blame organized labor for outsourcing.

    Parent

    They agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    to individual concepts but the big picture is what wins battles.

    Parent
    Talking Point #2 (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:16:38 PM EST


    Parent
    .....uh, that is (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:04:03 AM EST
    ....after he pissed off the true liberals in the party so much that they don't consider themselves Democrats anymore....

    Parent
    They'll vote democratic (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:50:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Translation: (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    "They have nowhere else to go."

    Talking Point #1.

    Parent

    Please do not (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    speak for the liberals; you do not know what they will do this time.  IMO, many more will just not vote for those offices for which there is no Dem candidate that supports their views.  But at least I admit this is a guess.

    Parent
    I suspect O actually has a Dem (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:56:59 AM EST
    side, just as he has a Repub (Reagan-worshipping, deficit-reduction fixation) side.  It's just that the former gets trumped by his seemingly obsessive need to prove to his opponents and the electorate that he's a "reasonable" guy -- i.e., not an angry black guy and not a radical, unreasonable Dem extremist.

    That gets back to more a matter of spine -- getting up the confidence to boldly change course mid-stream because the status quo will lead to drowning -- than anything else as I see it.

    I don't think he needs a private refresher course or two in Demo ideology and liberal politics (though I'd be happy to volunteer to brief him).  I think he might need a reminder that just continuing along the same path is going to lead to possible economic and electoral disaster.  

    Someone smart and experienced coming from the outside who's nevertheless in his camp -- like the Shrumster for instance -- might work both for new policies along liberal-Keynesian lines and for the politics.  He was a Teddy Kennedy guy and so could also not only remind him about what it means to be a true Dem who stands strong for Dem principles, but about the perils to an incumbent should he manage to so botch things and so disappoint his base as to get a serious primary challenger from his left.

    Parent

    How would that work (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    They wouldn't be able to get rich riding the revolving door.  Serving in govt is merely an interview for the real job... serving their corporate masters.  You can't have an oligarchy if you allow politicians to serve the 99%.

    Parent
    Only One Needs to Go (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 10:35:53 AM EST
    Heck, the whole party needs to rid itself of the Ploufes and Axelrods etc.

    I would add Geithners to the your list, but in reality they all have a common denominator, the person that put them in their currect positions.

    Only one clown destroying the party from where I sit.

    Parent

    whats destroying the effing party (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    is how much money you have to raise, and how much nod-nod-wink-winking you have to do to have any influence over the direction of the party.

    Parent
    Axelrod is someone I've (none / 0) (#53)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    always put in the liberal camp, as opposed to Geithner for instance, thus he's probably good to have around.  

    But the problem there might be (this is my guess anyway) that Obama doesn't really have someone close to him with such values as the Axe who also is able and confident enough to tell the president that he's messing up badly and that the clock is about to strike midnight on people's increasingly negative perceptions of his rather weak leadership.

    Bill had Hillary around always as an honest sounding board and adviser.  Kennedy had Bobby, Sorensen, Schlesinger and Ken Galbraith ferchrissakes.  Carter didn't have many effective and trusted types beyond his Georgia Mafia who tended to be yes men.  FDR had the very helpful, frank and loyal Louis Howe and Harry Hopkins.  I just don't see insider-loyalists Ploufflé or Axe in this category, as being sufficiently gutsy and frank and direct to tell Obama what he needs to hear and help chart a new course.

    Parent

    Get Joe Sestak's campaign team (none / 0) (#111)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 11:05:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Our long-term congressman (none / 0) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    at least had the honesty to be his own bag man... we all respected that.

    He did tremendous things for the district and the nation, though.

    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    that's about the best we can hope for: an honest bag man.

    Parent
    Obama breaks the 50 mark (none / 0) (#107)
    by Politalkix on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:20:34 PM EST
    Oops, it is his age, not poll approval ratings
    :-).

    Note to TL folks: Atleast wish him a happy birthday before criticising him for his policies that you disagree with!

    It (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:37:05 AM EST
    would be a little easier to say Happy Birthday Barry if he weren't busy on this day holding a fund-raiser at $36,000 a plate. And guess who is buying.

    Have a nice day.


    Parent

    Rachel Maddow is having (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    a great time tonight talking about birthdays and birth certificates.  This horror story is certainly something that we should never forget.  My husband said though for anyone who calls hate radio saying they still don't think he was born in the U.S., they should be told that we are more certain that he was born in the United States than we are that they were.

    Happy Birthday Mr. President. (none / 0) (#109)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 04, 2011 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    Now, can we get an open thread so I can pimp my new diary? ;-P

    Obama Fundraises at Birthday Party | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment