Tweet
barbara has kicked off a great discussion in the diaries with this:
There’s a fine line that separates civil discourse and constructive criticism from sniping and undermining. I’d be hard pressed to map that, but I know it when I see it. My tolerance for poo-flinging is reaching an unprecedented low-mark.
Here’s my current working theory about all of this. We spent eight years building up a wildly outspoken snark machine concerning the egregious misdeeds of GWB and company. We had to, went the reasoning, because the media were not doing their job. Most weren’t. Sometimes, we snarked reflexively. As time passed, snark became the default and civil discourse fell by the wayside. And yes, along with sticks and stones, words do immeasurable harm sometimes.
…
Then, along came the most unlikely of candidates and, ultimately, our new POTUS. He speaks eloquently. He made a boatload of promises that even I knew would be difficult to keep. Even if he had the full backing of his party, which he doesn’t. There’s the matter of the fractious, barely Democratic Blue Dogs Americans voted into office in the interest of pandering to, well, to everyone. And good luck with that. You get what you vote for if you don’t vet your candidates thoroughly.
I don’t know from personal experience whether Barack Obama knows his butt from his elbow. But I have known all along the way that he’s definitely smarter about politics than I am, and likely smarter than the majority of his most outspoken critics. Critics who, for the most part, sit on their elbows much of the day, pounding out merciless attacks on pretty much anything that crosses their line of sight or can be heard.
…
I do understand that it could be dangerous to let the leash play out too far, whatever that means. To “allow” the administration to do its thing, to see how it rolls. Who decides when to reel ‘em back in? And what should that look like? When do watch dogs need to become pit pulls? Or do they?
That’s my issue, I guess. Some progressives came off the blocks as pit bulls last fall and ramped up the rhetoric as the months passed. I’m all for accountability. But there are ways and there are ways. I realize that for some, civil discourse rankles. Sounds to them like backing down, making nice, playing dead. I don’t think that’s true. And I absolutely believe that perpetual attack mode undermines all of us. It’s not productive. Is, in fact, counter-productive.
What are we progressives supposed to do when our President, someone who had – as Scarecrow notes – impossibly high hopes attached to him, doesn’t live up to those hopes? It’s a great question.
I remember discussing that very one with Alex Thurston during the election. The progressive blogosphere grew up in opposition to both George Bush and our own party. The Democratic Party of John Kerry lacked a message and a plan to make this country work (and that the country could support). Howard Dean started to change that, and Barack Obama in a lot of ways is the expression of that rhetoric, at least the way he talked during the campaign. It’s been clear for a while that it’s going to be way harder for us progressives to figure out how to keep making change when we’re up against our friends instead of our enemies.
Here are the realities, as I see them. Barack Obama is President. He’s popular, and he’ll likely get re-elected (knock on wood). These are good things, as I’d take him over whatever the Republicans cough up in 2012 any day. So, given that we’ve got Obama until 2016, or at the very least until 2012, where does that leave us?
It seems to me, and some other commenters, that cutting down Obama just for the hell of it isn’t necessarily constructive. Being right isn’t quite the end it was during the Bush years. Maybe, we have to be more surgical, targeting Rahm, as Jane Hamsher suggests, or Members of Congress. No matter what we do, it’s a fine line. And "we" won’t necessarily be all in sync with the strategery, if we ever are or were.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for pressure. I’ll throw out an example: The stimulus was too small. How do we get another one? I say, maybe we applaud the stimulus as a step in the right direction (as Obama himself is doing this weekend), and push for things like health care, green jobs, and a second stimulus as the only way to finish the job and really get this country back on track. And then hit those who oppose such measures as against the economic survival of America.
But what do you all think? What can we do – either collectively or individually – for the next seven years under Obama? I’m sure you all have some ideas…
57 Comments
We need to walk a thin line between useful criticism and demonization. If the left is too openly frustrated with Obama, the Republicans will use that as fodder in 2012 to say, “See, we told you so. Even his most ardent supporters know they made the wrong choice.”
What’s getting lost in this debate, around the Liberal blogs that I check on at least, is that President Obama has already accomplished incredible things. He has lived up to much of the hype and has helped pass things people didn’t think would be possible.
For this, I feel he still deserves the benefit of the doubt as to what his motives are. Plus, he’s consistently saying he’s just getting warmed up, had to stop the bleeding first (which seems to be happening), and now is ready to start digging in. He keeps saying this over and over and his actions are backing it up.
Yes, pressure is good. Staying active, and here’s the key, “organized” are crucial in order for this Liberal swing of the pendulum to pick up steam and stay to the Left this time. I’m simply thrilled at how much things have changed in 6 months, and even more excited about the future we can create, that is if people stay motivated.
Warren Buffett was in a headline in a BigMedia source just a day or two ago talking about the need for a second Stimulus. Isn’t it better to have Buffett leading the charge for this than a DeeCee politician? This is the value of Obama’s approach.
Oh and by the way, while I agree with many of the “bashers” on policy, and history has proven us correct on many of these things, as someone who’s been defending Obama around here for about two years and was constantly being told by these same people that “Obama needs to…” and other Liberal Conventional Wisdom during the campaign, I can say a lot of the bashers were wrong during the campaign about what was going to happen on a whole host of issues. They don’t seem to want to bring that up now when they CONSTANTLY tell Obama what he “needs to” do.
A little humility goes a long way, since we’re all wrong sometimes. Perhaps some of the “Obama needs to…” crowd could learn a little something from America’s first Black President, who took down the DLC Dem Establishment and Repubs all at the same time, instead of telling him what to do 100% of the time? Just a thought…
I wholeheartedly agree. I really feel success breeds success, and if we can have or help Obama succeed in his goals, even if they are less than we’d like, we’ll get the chance to see him succeed in greater things.
OK. So we’re supposed to mute our voices out of deference to the Republican Noise Machine now. I hear this from centrist Dems I count as friends all the time. Of course, they don’t really care about the agenda either. They just want to worship Dear Leader and be happy with that.
I hope you don’t expect many progressives to toe that party line.
.
And who are these people on the left, who are cutting down POTUS “just for the hell of it?” This is silly. Just because I don’t go in for sycophantic devotion to someone who clearly opposes the progressive agenda (which is quite the opposite of what he said on the campaign), doesn’t mean the criticisms aren’t valid.
Indeed, nowhere in this piece do you refute any of the criticisms being lodged against his administration from the progresssive bloc. You merely impugn those who speak their minds.
I never said folks shouldn’t speak out, or that the criticisms aren’t valid. But we shouldn’t just say, hell, Obama is wrong. That was a good enough response in the Bush era, but now, we must be prepared to follow through with that criticism with action. Obama is wrong, and here’s what I’m doing to make it right.
This is demonstrably false. Curious…did you see the the recent press conference where he mocked the Health Insurance industry and Repubs in general about,”Hey, what’s the matter? You guys are always talking about the wisdom of markets and competition. Why all the fuss about the public option choice?” (paraphrase)
The Stimulus itself (probably the biggest Liberal reform in decades) was a battle and a half, and that was even with the watered-down version that we all know won’t be enough. But ‘lo and behold, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Nobel Prize winners all say we need much more, and clearly the White House has been floating trial balloons about it recently. Obama can now say, “You gonna argue with Buffett and a bunch of Nobel Prize winners?”
Many new manufacturing companies are starting up all over America from various incentives Obama pushed through for the new Green economy.
General Motors, which greatly impacts America’s middle-income earners, might actually be able to make it thereby saving 10s of thousands of jobs likely lost without government involvement.
He has already raised taxes on the mega-rich, and decreased taxes for middle-incomes.
Obama is consistenly saying he’s going to the mat for a public option in Healthcare.
All the while battling the DLC/Clinton Dems, who are claiming Obama is being too Liberal.
Please explain how these things and many others are “opposing the progressive agenda?”
did you see the the recent press conference where he mocked the Health Insurance industry and Repubs in general about,”Hey, what’s the matter? You guys are always talking about the wisdom of markets and competition. Why all the fuss about the public option
I did see that and was very happy to hear him speak out, however, he has stopped short of saying he will veto a bill that doesn’t include the public option. We all know without that option the bill is just another huge piece of corporate wellfare. Passing a rotten bill for the sake of him saying he did something is just not cutting it.
As much as I might love him to say that, he won’t, because he’s learned his Clinton lessons. Remember Clinton waving his veto pen around? That stunt helped kill health care reform in ‘94. If Obama makes veto threats, it’ll be waaaay towards the end of the game.
What you said.
So as the title of this post asks, “So What Do We Do?” I’d say step one is staying motivated. We can get motivated by looking at all the grat things that have happened already with Obama, and keep pushing for what we want, as Obama keeps asking people to do. Obama also brought up in the press conference how public opinion polls show over 70% support for a public plan. He’s telling us to keep it up!
Yes, corporate welfare would blow. Got it. We’re so beat down and used to being treated that way by supposed “Democrats.” Obama is totally different, and continual questioning of his motives is counter-productive and a buzzkill. Let’s git ‘er done. The time is now!
To whom are you referring, specifically?
And, what does that mean? Examples?
Yep, exactly right!
I’ll admit I’m setting up something of a strawman, but mostly going off what barbara was saying in her post.
OK. Just for starters, his trial balloons stating it’s not necessary to have a Public Option. In other words, he’s willing to negotiate that away for the sake of bi-partisanship. So that’s healthcare, which is easily the biggest plank in the progressive agenda. Potential FAIL there.
How about AFPAK? Massive escalation, massive off-budget supplementals and yet there’s still no coherent policy, much less anything resembling a Grand Strategy. Likely FAIL. Oh, and he’s not the least bit concerned about how we’re going to pay for it, which is in start contrast to his fiscal hawkishness relating to any domestic policy proposals–like stimulus. Indeed, he can’t even tell us why spending a couple Trillion dollars and 10-15 years in Afghanistan is somehow essential to the National Interest.
Per the stimulus, it was largely agreed by most Nobelist economists and others that 1), the tax cuts were a waste because they weren’t stimulative and 2) it was too small. But now we hear that the deficit is too big to do more. We’ll see how that works out, as the economy will be the undoing of Obama’s popularity. Oh, and contrast that with spending Trillions on banks that are broken and filling his administration with those very same banksters. Major FAIL and the antithesis of anything progressive. More is needed, but we’re going to hear “We can’t afford it.”
As for the DLC, he’s only put dozens of them in his administration, so I’d hardly say he’s done them damage. I mean, Clinton is his SECSTATE, right? Was she not titular head of DLC?
GM might work out well, so I happily concede that point.
Oh, how about transparency? He’s even classified the WH visitors logs. His vast expansion of the State Secret’s Privilege is not progressive. HIs continuing defense of mass surveillance is not progressive, much less constitutional. Indeed, I don’t see how any progressive can view his contempt for the Rule of Law in general in a positive light. Epic FAIL and yes, the antithesis of progressivism.
How about his reversal on AIDS policies? How about DADT and his DOJ’s awful defense of DOMA? How about his caving to Big Coal on “Clean Coal” (which doesn’t exist) and Mountain Top Removal? How about delisting the grey wolf, which is leading to mass slaughter in AK and other places? What about his appointing the former general counsel to GE (which just lost a very big case in which they contested the legality of Superfund) to head EPA Environment Division– which runs Superfund? What about putting arms industry lobbyists at DoD, banking lobbyists at Treasury, chemical lobbyists at EPA, extractive lobbyists at Interior….. seriously, how much evidence does anyone require at this point?
Oh, one last bit: Obama’s DOJ dropped charges against numerous Republicans due to prosecutorial misconduct (which is right), but has fired the Siegelman whistleblower and asked the court to stiffen Siegalman’s sentance, even though those USAs likely committed felonies in his prosecution?
It really does pain me to say this, but Barack Obama has pulled a Clinton on us. He ran as something of a progressive, seeming to at least lean in that direction during the campaign, but he is governing as a conservative, albeit a fairly moderate conservative.
I think part of the problem is that it isn’t easy to write about the good things he has done, the things we agree with. Maybe we could do more of that.
He’s not Clinton yet. Clinton was centrist and couldn’t get anything done. If Obama is center-left and gets stuff done, I’ll be way less pissed at him than I am/was at Clinton.
This argument can be characterized as a Strawman or False Dichotomy argument. Indeed, is Emptywheel saying “Obama is just wrong?” No. She documents the hows, whys and wherefores with stunning completeness. Indeed, most of those who are criticizing Obama are doing so in a substantive fashion, which is then met with these strawmen arguments which simply seek to discredit those making the critique, rather than the critique itself.
By using strawman arguments, you are simply muddying the discourse, as opposed to sharpening it. That is typically the point with these kinds of exercises, right? Isn’t’ that what the Villagers do every day they go to work?
I suppose time will tell on that one. Obviously, at this point, just based on available evidence, I don’t see Obama as center-left. His appointments and his policies don’t add up in that direction, much as I wish they did.
I think the biggest test for him in the eyes of many will be healthcare. If we end up with a robust public option, he will deserve his share of credit for that. If we don’t, he’s going to have to take the blame on that one. The congressional progressives would really love to hear Obama get aggressive on that point, but I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. He’s not showing much leadership and expressing the willingness to negotiate away the PO, in favor of the phony “trigger” is not helping at all. RIght now he’s playing both sides of the fence, which tells me he just wants a bill to sign… it doesn’t really matter what’s in it. I hope I’m wrong about that, for all our sakes.
As for getting stuff done, the mantra in DC is to “get something done,” but it rarely ever matters what the actual content of “something” is. This is how we end up with one crappy bill after another (Patriot Act, FISA Deform which retroactively makes legal that which was a huge felony, the Banking Executive Wealthcare “bailout”,ad infinitum). The bar for “getting stuff done” has been set way too low, IMO.
I like to remind myself that every single minute of every single day, that I’m free to discuss myriad policy issues (to even have knowledge of them), there are ostensibly innocent people wasting away in foreign prisons of our design, being held without charge, without trial, and without any legitimate hope that they’ll ever be let go. Years of their lives forcibly taken away from them. A violation for which there is no reparation; time is our most finite and nonrenewable resource. Many of them having undergone, and continue to undergo, such treatment as to irreparably damage their identity. That even upon release they have no chance of rebuilding their life.
That the only person who is standing in the way of taking that condition and adamantly deconstructing it, making it as right as possible, and holding to account the people eminently responsible for its manifestation, is Barack Obama. It’s one thing to be working toward resolution of that condition. However, the reality is that the Obama Administration is working away from resolution of that condition, and worse is taking upon itself the task of legitimizing and institutionalizing it.
The single certain function of the President is to faithfully execute the law. Full stop. Before all other things, that is his sole responsibility, and no other responsibility can infringe upon it.
The very fact that any person, let alone a “liberal-progressive,” would not only comply with, but actively promote using fundamental human rights and protections from tyranny as suitable bartering chips; leveraged to acquire prima facia (at best) reforms on health insurance, fiscal regulation, or whatever else is a deplorable faustian bargain of the highest degree.
This narrative that we’ve allowed to be constructed and promulgated, that these empty attempts at reform, these entrails that started out as failed compromises before the debate even began, are somehow mutually exclusive from faithfully and judiciously executing the rule-of-law, absolutely must be dismantled. Posthaste.
It is imperative that we get reforms of real substance, not reforms that are politically possible, but reforms that will actually solve the problems they’re purported to address. It is imperative that, in the event real solutions aren’t politically palatable, we advance the debate so that they are. Above all else it is imperative that we strive to achieve these things without sacrificing our fundamental principles of law, accountability, transparency, and fundamental human decency. Anything else is just a bankrupt political calculus; a cynical game of political expediency.
It’s one thing to recognize that you can’t do everything at once, but it is entirely another to use fundamental human rights as currency in an exchange for nothing but more broken policies, prima facia reforms, and endlessly mistaking friction for actual work. The fact that the Obama Administration and its uncritical supporters have taken active steps in opposition of upholding the Constitution, upholding our treaty obligations, upholding fundamental human rights and decency, and then using the specter of such as an excuse for being unable to demand real reforms in finance, militarism, labor-rights, and healthcare is an open admission that we’re trading these things like commodities, not treating them like principles.
I can’t agree with Obama not being center-left, or even a liberal. The stimulus was a liberal thing to do. Passing SCHIP was at least center left. Fair pay, too. As for Afghanistan, well, the center left has a grand history of invasions and occupations, and you don’t have to go farther than Clinton to see them.
Maybe Obama isn’t really center-left or right or whatever, maybe some of his policies are liberal, some centrist, and some conservative, all wrapped up in one person.
As for health care, I’m with you. That is a real test. If he passes something that actually gives quality, affordable health care to everyone – and that means having a strong public option – he’ll be liberal in my eyes, even if he may stray in other policies. I cringe at the wavering, too, but I’m also willing to judge him on his results, and so far, they’ve been good.
Most excellent!
You’ve squarely nailed it. Without real reform, we cannot fix the economy. Without real reform, we can not repair our position in the world. Without real reform, we cannot have a government that acts in the best interests of the governed, as opposed to the opposite, which is what we have now.
This is why we have to stick to our metaphorical guns and heap scorn where it is deserved, as well as pushing for these things.
This is simply the same argument I’ve been having here for about two years. Insert issue X here…act as if it’s all so simple…conclude with Obama is a conservative. Rinse, repeat ad nauseum, and ignore all the incredibly positive appointments and policies.
If Obama is indeed a conservative in democrat’s clothing, why does he get basically no support from Repubs, and has large percentages of “Democrats” straying from his proposals and even threatening to scuttle his plans (basically all members of the DLC, of which Obama and Biden for that matter has never joined)?
We’re right in the thick of it, and you’ve already made alot of conclusions as if many of these things are a done deal. Exactly what I’ve been trying to highlight since before he was even in office, and how I also think this hurts the movement in general since we need as many people motivated as possible to overcome the DLC resistance and get these various bills through.
I gave Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt for about 2 years, even though I worked hard against him in the 1992 primaries. Obama has been hammered incessantly by so many “Liberals” (online at least) since long before he was even elected. He is trying to reverse course on a country that was on the verge of complete collapse, while its Constitution was dismantled almost to the point of irrelevance. He has made incredible progress on so many fronts in such a short period of time that it’s breathtaking.
Holding feet to fire is great and important in a representative Republic, but if you stand next to a fire too long, you’ll both get burned. Through his actions, Obama has earned the right to let his feet cool off from time to time, at least in my opinion.
Identify the real enemy. It’s not Obama. We’re at a once-in-a-lifetime moment in history and we need to rise up en masse to make the Change happen. Endlessly speculating on “potential FAILs” does not a movement make.
Precisely. I actually agree with everything you just said except for the bit about his results being good thus far. As of right now, the biggest opponent to civil and human rights in this country is Barack Obama and the center-right coalition that supports his agenda. I mean, Preventive Detention alone should be a deal breaker for everyone, of most political stripes in this country. Couple that with the fact that the DHS defines Audubon Society as a “terrorist group” (just as one example) and you get the idea.
He wants the right to imprison people who cannot be tried, which is to say aren’t guilty of any crimes, simply because he and his successors say so. He seriously lost me on that one. I could never vote for someone like that and certainly won’t do it again if he doesn’t do a provable about face. Indeed, I don’t see how any of us can possibly feel safe from our own government under such a regime. It’s just incredibly wrong and it’s deeply anti-democratic.
I can’t ever support someone who is so deeply contemptuous of the most basic human rights. I would not have voted for him if I thought he was going to go down that road. No, I wouldn’t have voted for McCain either.
So I guess we disagree about “results.” I won’t even go into Government Sachs either.
Shrub.
Look, I’ve been involved in street theater protests where we acted as tortured innocents in Guantanamo. I’m so with you on the points you raise about what these issues mean for American and the world. I just don’t think many around here are fully taking into account the pit of vipers Obama is operating within. He can’t snap his fingers and make much of this stuff go away.
I’ve said all along it’ll take 1-2 years to really see what he’s made of (just as I did with Clinton), and so far so good in my opinion. Of course, if you’re only getting your info from BigMedia and many of the Liberal blogs, you don’t hear much about many of these positive developments, and that’s been my main frustration.
As you say about Buffet, I am wondering about the same conclusion on torture, Cheney, and some of the other illegal tricks that are coming out (Marcy was great on the interview). Having all this stuff come out through the ACLU, courts, investigation may go alot farther than a head-on Obama undertaking. We don’t know yet..but if all this stuff progresses to indictments, etc, I will be perfectly happy to see Obama tending to his agenda in other demanding areas. As they/we say, the jury is still out; the debate is lively. I am really proud of Barbara.
Right on.
And Obama has talked about this exact approach for years. I think it comes from his community organizing days, since they teach you to do precisely that. Oh and lookee here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..30057.html
I’d suggest that we let the Obama Admin know that we’re very happy with this development, and want to see some actual results.
I’m a bit puzzled at your response. The basic upshot is you don’t like people criticizing Obama. OK, klaro.
First off, let’s deal with the Republicans. We’ve all known for a long time now just how completely unhinged most of that crowd is. Even though Obama bends over backwards to throw them bones and even takes on their positions on quite a few things (Military Commissions, covering up war crimes, his stunning stiff-arm of the LGBT community and so on) they still hate his guts. Very true. Well, we know a lot of that is just racism. We also know a lot of it is just hatred for anyone labeled “liberal” and so on. That’s why they won’t ever support him and nothing will ever change that in decisive terms.
As for the rest of your comment, you say great things are happening, but I’d like you to cite some real examples. Because if you can make the argument, in factual terms, that he’s getting all these great results, I’m dying to know what those are.
Granted, I’m a tad biased in that I’m not a right-leaning Dem and for the last decade or so have been moved to the left, simply by the rightward shift that’s occurred in DC. When I say Obama is “conservative,” I’m not lumping him in with nutbags who are most certainly reactionary (GOP, et al). I don’t confuse conservatives with reactionaries.
Nor do I intend to make Obama “the enemy.” But this thread is about people who criticize Obama, hence that focus. In my own opinion, he is more the symptom of the problem than the root problem himself. I hope that is a little clearer.
I hear talk about change, but in real terms, all the real changes taking place are precisely the opposite of what I voted for. Preventive Detention, making Bagram the New GiTMO, State Secrets, mass surveillance, covering up Bush’s war crimes and handing out Trillions to crooked bankers while the real economy gets the shaft. Now some of that isn’t all his fault. But some of it very much is. He didn’t create many of these problems, but he is only making things worse with his policies.
You’re right about “movement” and rising up to make change happen. But we have to do it without the guy we voted for, because he’s not on our side. Not now he isn’t.
As for my declaration of FAILs, you can’t fix a problem you’re not willing to recognize. Recognizing the FAILs for what they are is important, but it’s only the first step. So just as my critiques aren’t going to solve any problems on their own, nor will your trying to swat those critiques away with a rhetorical flourish.
Recognizing what’s wrong is the first, but only the first, step to finding solutions. I think Mr. Aschbacher put it best on this thread, IMO.
So we disagree about the usefulness of critique. I’m fine with that. But consider this: the wars are going to get worse, the human rights situation is going to get worse, the economy is going to get a lot worse… this much we know at this point.
The chorus of discontent is only getting warmed up and this was all preventable. Just try to keep that in mind.
You continue to either mischaracterize or misunderstand my criticism.
There is a difference between biding time due to political realities, and what Obama is doing. Obama is actively pursuing policies that are in direct contravention of the law, the constitution, and human rights. Actively pursuing, not pushing back against Bush-era abuses; actively embracing them, and often taking them steps beyond.
Nothing I’m suggesting requires Obama to make new assertions of Executive authority; in fact quite the opposite. What he’s doing now requires adherence to your characterization of a dictator. All he has to do in most cases is get the hell out of the way, and let the judicial system work.
He can just get the hell out of the way; then put the energy and political he’s currently expending on blocking adjudication and obfuscating justice, and work harder to make all these reform initiatives be something other than bluster and grandstanding.
What I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere seems to make the most sense.
Obama, or anyone else, won’t do anything without a “mandate” from us. And the election was but a very small part of this.
It really is up to us to speak up and speak loudly, and to not back down.
Our leaders are only going to act in our best interests if we give them no other alternative.
It’s not up to Obama to do what we want, it’s up us to make him do it.
I’ve spent countless hours around here for about two years linking to all kinds of articles with the positives. There’s so much to address in your comment and I’m plum out of time (my better half is already pissed at how much time I’ve spent online today), so I’ll throw out a few off the top of me head:
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill he signed. Cuba. Stimulus, which regardless of what anyone thinks about it, is the biggest single expenditure in recent history. How about this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/…..-law_N.htm
The key with that, and so many things he’s doing is the “most sweeping changes…in 40 years” part. This is amazing to me.
Home Foreclosure program. Tobacco control. These are things BigMoney fought hard, and he got them through in a matter of months. Incredible.
Gotta run, but more good stuff here:
http://narcosphere.narconews.c…..ove-begins
I’m a radical Liberal. I debate people in social settings about how I think we have no need for a stock market, and even currency for that matter. I feel you stop wars and kill terrorism with kindness.
And I’m excited by what Obama has already done and what he says he wants to do. Again, of course people can and should be critical of any of their politicians, but my main point is balance. That’s all I’m arguing for here.
I understood your point all along. Yes, you say he’s “actively pursuing” this shitty stuff. I disagree.
He has stopped the movement in those directions on so many fronts already.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign_policy/
Yes, I got it that you and many others around here think he could be doing so much more, and some also think he actually wants to continue with the Cheney policies. I don’t think he does.
Again, I feel it’s not as easy to change these things as you suggest it is. There are so many forces at play in these life and death situations (for himself even, in my opinion), and we’ll never really know about many of the factors. But again, he’s been right on so many issues already, that he’s earned the benefit of the doubt from me. If things don’t change within the next year or so, I’ll be changing my tune and sing in your key, but so far everything’s going in a much better direction.
This forum is limited for debating, and I really gotta run now before I get in more trouble, but obviously time will tell all, as it always does…
I wasn’t among those who second-guessed Obama very much during the campaign. I think he did a masterful job there. But competence and expertise in getting elected isn’t the same thing as success in governing. Those who evaluate Obama’s performance negatively and suggest he change his approach may have been off-base during the campaign and completely correct now. We need to look at both actions and outcomes. What’s happened with the Banks and the financial system is not good. But Obama congratulates himself about it. For me that means he’s not in touch with reality. He definitely was optimistic in his assessment of the course of the recession. Those who disagreed with him about that were right. He was wrong. He’s wasted a great opportunity in the search for bi-partisanship on the stimulus bill. As a result he got a crippled bill and is in the middle of getting a bad result. That’s on him. Not the people who tried to get him to do something else. You talk a lot of the ngreat changes he’s introduced since coming into office. What are you talking about? I don’t see any that matter very much to me. There’s nothing he’s done that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have done just as well, and I say that as an early Obama supporter and frequent contributor. I didn’t support him to get another Clinton. But right now that looks like what I’ve got.
I really don’t see this at all. Instead, I think that praising him for inadequate “successes,” specifically legislation that doesn’t solve problems, will only get us the chance to see more legislation that doesn’t solve problems. I also think that the record is quite clear on the fact that Obama responds to criticism, and not to positive reinforcement. He courts the Republicans and the Blue Dogs incessantly and gives them all kinds of concessions. But he thinks progressives have nowhere to go, so he implies that we’re unrealistic and that he and Rahm are the pragmatists while they go on failing to solve problems. I think our best bet is to become more bothersome than the Blue Dogs. When he sees that he can’t pass anything without us, and that he can’t count on us, we will get what we need in legislation, and not before.
I don’t think we’re just saying Obama is wrong. We’re blogging about it. We’re contributing to progressive organizations. We’re going to meetings and pressuring Congresspersons and Senators. You’ve set up a strawman that doesn’t correspond to reality.
The only reason why Clinton failed in ‘93, by the way, is that he proposed a complicated health care reform because he didn’t have the guts to go simple single payer and fight it out. No one could understand what he was proposing. He was so clever that he outsmarted himself. He got charged with trying to impose socialized medicine, but his plan had none of the advantages of socialized medicine, and because he proposed it, he wasn’t able to provide comparisons from other nations that even then were doing better than the US with single payer. With the majorities Clinton had in’93, LBJ would have hung single payer around the Republicans neck. Instead, Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave the Republicans control of Congress for 12 years.
Bonkers, please be specific. What are these great things that Obama has done? What has he done that has had anywhere near the impact of the legislation FDR, Harry truman, and LBJ passed?
I couldn’t agree more.
Apparently your thinking and feeling is getting in the way of your recognizing facts, and falsely characterizing them as commentary or opinion. Jewel, Jeppesen, Al-Haramain. Bagram, indefinite administrative detention, kabuki courts. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Continuing to pursue a failed policy of militarism in engaging Afghanistan. Directly defying court orders (FOIA, Al-Haramain, etc.)
Obama is factually, empirically, objectively pursuing with zeal and prejudice the very positions you claim that he isn’t, wouldn’t, or doesn’t want to. Your version of reality imparts a level of trust in Obama’s motives and intents that is in no way whatsoever expressed through his actions, and many times not even in his words. You’re ascribing qualities to him and his policies that not even he claims himself.
Have you read the entirety of his May speech on civil-liberties where he coined “prolonged detention?” The entire latter half is in direct contradiction with the first half where he falls all over himself espousing the necessary fundamental rights of people and the critical importance of the rule-of-law. Literally minutes later in the same speech he details the complete dismantling of those critical precepts to justice. It’d be a bad joke if it weren’t so real.
And for what? Terrible fiscal policy? Tacit support of public healthcare? Meager support of labor rights? ineffectual environmental policy? Doubling down on militarism to deal with a criminal conspiracy problem? Etc.
I mean you’re arguing from a position of bad faith to start with, because you’re not even getting the things you claim you will if only we cut Obama some slack on his duty to execute the law, uphold the constitution, not violate law himself, and not continue human rights violations.
It’s perhaps that you don’t know the details as you pointe out in the other thread, but if so, then your lack of detailed analysis ought to be a countervailing force to your trust in Obama, not a reinforcing one. That is if your desire for discourse is to not become the Obama equivilent of much maligned Bush loyalists. Don’t you think?
Nathan, you’re entirely right.
Not only that, but what good are all these half measure policies doing anyway? Sometimes the only real solution has to be all or none. Putting out half a house fire isn’t going to keep it from burning down anyway.
They’ve not been good on the financial system. They’ve been terrible on upholding the law on torture. And they’re not real good on the stimulus. He bargained that away in my view. he won’t use populism to get what we need. That is a great mistake.
Oabama’s not a conservative. He’s a pragmatist. But the problem with him is that he doesn’t appear to factor in the idea that it isn’t practical to pass bills that don’t work. That only serves to alienate your real constituency and to persuade them that you were not the leader they were hoping for. That’s really all there is to it. We voted for Obama because we wanted him to do his best to solve the serious problems facing the United States. Now, like it or not, we don’t see him doing that. We see him compromising to get things done; but those things, e.g. the financial bailouts, the stimulus bill, his moves to defend the prerogatives that Bush claimed and even to expand those, are making things worse, not better. I would rather he had failed to pass a stimulus bill, in the process of asking for a 1.6 trillion stimulus that was heavily weighted toward funding states in trouble, public works, and new energy and transportation initiatives. If that had happened, he could have gone on a national speaking tour and inside of a month there would have been so much pressure on Congress that he would have had no trouble getting both his 60 votes and his 1.6 trillion which would have saved a host of State Government jobs that have now been cut, as well as a host of other jobs dependent on those.
Once he had won that conflict, he could have moved to health care immediately with a compliant Congress, proposed single payer, and then, let the conflict play out with him in the driver’s seat and the threat of another national campaign tour hanging over everyone’s head. On the constitution and upholding the law. he could have appointed special prosecutors, started investigations, and had Holder eliminate constitutional abuses related to surveillance and torture immediately.
Well, I won’t go any further with this. But anyone who’s read about The New Deal knows what can be done when you have a popular President who’s willing to lead. And anybody who remembers Harry Truman knows what can be done, when you have a brave and direct man in the Presidency who’s willing to fight for what he believes in, even when he has a tough Congress to deal with. Those Dixiecrats were no picnic for Truman and FDR either. They were much more threatening to progressive agendas than the Blue Dogs are. But the progressive agendas got passed anyway.
Again, I agree. preventive detention is just unacceptable as is his attempt to extend the State Secrets doctrine and his refusal to investigate war crimes.
Well, whose fault is it if the only information we get is from the media and the blogs? If Obama is doing more on the inside then why isn’t he more transparent about it. I’m sorry, I don’t believe in this let’s wait and see for 2 years stuff. That’s baloney. Let’s keep on pressuring and then perhaps we will have some better results two years from now. In the mean time, if the Administration wants the pressure from the left to let up, it can produce some results that are meanigful on issues we care about. Until then we pressure, then perhaps we can get all those amendments into Administration bills without committing to vote for them that the Republicans and the Blue Dogs seem to have no trouble getting in.
I can agree with this. It’s a development we need to support.
Just a comment on the Credit Card Bill. It stunk. It didn’t do the most important thing that needed to be done which was to freeze credit card interest rates immediately. The Banks are getting that money at close to no cost, and they are tagging some consumers at close to 30%, and all of them are raising interest rates now to beat the waiting period specified in the bill. They will do their worst before the new reforms take effect. For those who average $10,000 in credit card debt and lack the means to pay it down, the impact of the increase in interest rates by the banks over a period of 12 months will wipe out the effects of Obama’s stimulus bill for them. What he’s done, in effect, is to finance the Banks’ return to profitability on the backs of the consumers who can least afford the additional “tax.” Finally, if Chris Dodd expected to get back in the good graces of Connecticut voters by driving this so-called Credit Card Reform bill, I think he’s got another think coming. By not freezing those interest rates, he still looks bought and paid for to me.
Please, this is tiresome. Save criticisms of incivility for eliminationist right-wingers, whose invocation of sniping fall short of metaphor.
[I am so fucked if my failures to avoid noun-verb disagreement are a sign of early Alzheimer’s.]
The idea that liberals are attacking Obama because we have suddenly discovered that “he is not perfect”–or because we somehow had “impossibly high hopes” for him is a mis-framing of what is happening.
First, I’d ask you to name one or two of these “impossibly high hopes”. Which ones are you referring to, and why are they impossible.
Why it is unfair or unreasonable to criticize Obama for continuing Bush policies, or for the way he has handled the (initial) stimulus and Bank Bailout efforts?
And can you give specific examples of liberal bloggers who are cutting down Obama “just for the hell of it?” If there are some, then cite them and provide a link. Otherwise, your argument might simply boil down to “quiet down and support Obama”.
Rather than being quiet and supporting Obama without substantive reasons for doing so, I think the Left is much better served by becoming vocal and critical regarding his efforts when they run against liberal view. Noise, heat, and pressure. That is what is required.
It’s not either or, but I’d phrase it that the Left should learn to deal with the reality of who Obama is and how he operates. Once we’ve done that, we can figure out how to work within his system to get what we want done.
Sure, I’m all for working to influence the Obama administration. But the way to do that is not to “tone down” (Obama’s words). The netroots need to do the opposite, imo. Ratchet up.
To this point, Obama has been able to ignore the netroots/liberal wing in most areas, and he has done so with relatively little cost. I suppose one job we have is to convince Obama that he is wrong–that he cannot ignore the liberal wing without incurring a real political cost.
Whether that means working within his system (what does that mean?) seems to me irrelevant. There are established ways to bring pressure on politicians, and some new ones as well, such as Accountability Now. Some may be characterized as being within Obama’s system, but others, such as AN, are definately not.
Eh, up or down are too broad brushes to be effective. Ratchet up, fine, but the tone and content of the message is important. You can be loud as well as saying the things that will get Obama’s attention and make it more likely he sides with you.
forty years ago, obama would have been a moderate, possibly even left-leaning republican. he is to the right of most ordinary citizens, even if he appears to be left of many politicians.
if you truly want progressive policies that will benefit actual people, instead of corporations and a few fatcats, you’ll quit listening to the likes of the herndon alliance and the celinda lake of today. instead, you should be paying attention to the celinda lake of yore, and present-day politicians like dennis kucinich, alan grayson, eric massa, john conyers, bernie sanders.
pundits you should be paying attention to: robert kuttner, molly ivins, jim hightower.
I agree that terms like up/down are too broad, or perhaps vague, to be really useful. So here is a more specific example, I hope. From digby:
“Some of us feel that these people need some extra nudging and the PCCC is asking for your vote on who next to send a message to:”
I believe Digby is talking about TV ads that Obama has specifically stated he does not like. While that is unfortunate, there is no question that these kinds of ads, which Obama apparently wishes were not running, have been changing conservative Democratic senators’ positions on the public option from con to pro–from Nay to Aye.
So while I agree with some of what you and Barbara have written, I disagree with your framing here (see earlier comments), and I strongly disagree that we need to learn how to “work within his system” in order to effect change.
We’re not here to be Obama’s friend. We’re here to push policy in certain directions.
That’s a great example. Though I would note that while Obama may have mentioned on a call that he doesn’t like this stuff, he hasn’t put any real pressure on these groups to stop stuff. It’s a bit of theater.
That said, we are his friend. It’s tough love sometimes, sure, but pressuring Members of Congress to vote for what he campaigned on isn’t exactly being his enemy, right? It’s complicated.
I think what Obama said was he wished people would tone it down, or some such. If you are suggesting that Obama was practicing a bit of kabuki, that he really thought the ads were great, but can’t say so–I’d like to know what evidence there is for that. And note that wishful thinking is not evidence.
Regarding pressuring members of congress to vote for what Obama campaigned on, the obvious, glaring response is How about pressuring Obama to act in accordance with what he campaigned on?
Why should we have to pressure Obama to keep his campaign promises, that is patently absurd.