21 Responses to The Most Spineless President Money Can Buy

1. laurenc May 24th, 2009 at 3:25 pm «

   This is why John Edwards did not drop out.
   He knew he was the best fighter we had.
2. ART45 May 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm «

   Obama sucks.
3. selise May 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm «

   Is there no interest other than his base that he’ll stand up to?

   i guess it’s our job to stand up to him.

   but if so, we kinda suck too.
4. Adie May 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm «

   wigwam, I’d like to think you’re jumping too far, way too fast.

   Maybe there’s a clue provided by selise at #3

   i guess it’s our job to stand up to him.

   but if so, we kinda suck too.

   If that idea can be turned around to a positive, for good reason, I’m interested.

   I keep thinking Obama is a visionary leader, but not one to stomp on people he thinks he can lure into his way of thinking. Conversely, I think he’s constantly listening to others, unlike what we’ve had to contend with over the last many years.

   Upshot to all this: Would it not make sense to lean hard on the administration, but in a way that offers positive goals, and some sense of recognizing the reality of the horrific mess he has inherited from the previous administration?

   There are lots of incredible thinkers and planners at the Lake. Can we not try to pull out some positives to motivate and inform, rather than always negative? The heightened frustration level here, after the long long trek with dubya, and with deadeye still twitching in his darth cape. These diversions should not be allowed to obscure our positive goals.

   IMO, slap-down should NOT be a first tactic in fomenting positive change.

   I don’t pretend to know any sure answers for how to accomplish this. But I do think going negative on a constant, unforgiving basis is not going to help very much.

   And selise, NO. we don’t suck. I suspect they will listen to measured, well-supported reasonable thoughts. I suspect they will HAVE to do so in order to make any progress at all.

   I’m tired from a challenging day today, and thus not terribly coherent tonight. I hope this makes some sense to you all.

   ART45. YOU are an idiot or a hate monger of the worst sort. Seek other avenues for whatever it is that ails you. Such comments cause no ripples whatsoever at the Lake.
• RevBev May 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pm «

  You go girl….this was the lesson of the book discussion a couple of weeks ago. Thanks….
• ubetchaiam May 24th, 2009 at 7:45 pm «

  Would it not make sense to lean hard on the administration, but in a way that offers positive goals, and some sense of recognizing the reality of the horrific mess he has inherited from the previous administration? –and your suggestions for doing this?
• selise May 25th, 2009 at 6:32 am «

  I suspect they will listen to measured, well-supported reasonable thoughts.

  well, on health care there’s medicare for all (as wigwam’s post points out) and on the climate crisis there’s hansen’s carbon tax and rebate proposal.

  these aren’t new ideas and there is lots of analysis to support them.

  but not only are the dems not listening, they are telling us in effect to stfu and instead giving us crappy policies while telling us they smell sweet.
• wigwam May 25th, 2009 at 6:41 am «

  but not only are the dems not listening, they are telling us in effect to stfu and instead giving us crappy policies while telling us they smell sweet.

  The vast majority of the Dems in Congress won’t even go along with Obama when he tries to close Gitmo. They fear their own shadows.
• selise May 25th, 2009 at 6:53 am «

  for years the dems have been telling us what wonderful things they would do if only we would work for them to win elections and get control of congress and presidency.

  well, now they have both.
5. DWilson May 24th, 2009 at 8:28 pm «

   Obama’s mass charisma is dependent on multi- massive communications.
   The subscriber actually thinks they are communicating directly with the boss.
   A massive unsubscribing from all his venues would send an appropriate signal that would go directly to the top.

   UNSUBSCRIBE Until Promises are Kept! Visual meters are interesting too.
6. milly May 25th, 2009 at 4:24 am «

   Base…you mean banksters are Obama’s base? Wall Street?

   May I remind you that Howard Dean was thrown under the bus and Rahm Emmanuel is the “chosen spokesperson?”

   Obama’s base has been ignored. Those who got him elected are nothing to him.

   He will be a one term president. Bush with a better family life, unfortunately.
7. wigwam May 25th, 2009 at 5:47 am «

   Base…you mean banksters are Obama’s base? Wall Street?

   I was referring to his “old” base. You know, the people who got him elected. The rank-and-file voters and the army of dedicated liberal volunteers who worked tirelessly on his behalf. He has no trouble standing up to them and telling them that single-payer healthcare has no place at his table now that his “new” base, corporate Amercia, has declared single-payer healthcare “too disruptive.”

   So far, Obama has caved to every interest group that stood up to him except for the civil libertarians he met with last Wednesday: telcos, torturers, the health-insurance industry, the banksters, …
8. Nathan Aschbacher May 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm «

   We need to run for office. By we, I mean us – NetRoots folks. We need to fling as much against the wall to see what sticks as is possible, and I think starting at local and state levels will bear fruit, and at least breaks down the gatekeeper apparatus of the current political parties to reaching federal office.
9. mooreagal May 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm «

   Is it too far-fetched to hope that s/o like Feingold could be a successful challenger?
10. nonplussed May 25th, 2009 at 5:54 pm «

    Yes…
11. nonplussed May 25th, 2009 at 5:58 pm «

    He has been divorced and politically he is an actual progressive. He would never win the nomination. That wouldn’t keep me from wishing it were so.
• wigwam May 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm «

  Reagan was divorced, but alas he wasn’t progressive. ;-)
• nonplussed May 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pm «

  You’re given to understatement, aren’t you?
12. wigwam May 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm «

    In case anyone is keeping track, here is yet another Obama flip to the corporate side: http://www.latimes.com/busines…..7251.story

    A frequent critic of NAFTA and other trade pacts when he was on the campaign trail, President Obama is now throwing his support behind a trade deal with Panama, courting a potential backlash among his labor supporters.

    The administration is expected to make its case before a Senate Finance Committee hearing today in Washington, where his team is likely to face sharp questioning about Obama’s change of heart on a deal the president now apparently views as a strategic imperative.

    The Panama trade deal, which Obama is pushing for approval of by July 1, is one of three bilateral accords negotiated by the Bush administration that later stalled in Congress. The others are deals with Colombia and South Korea, both of which Obama wants passed this year as well.

    The Panama pact bogged down over U.S. lawmakers’ concerns about that country’s poor enforcement of labor rights and its reputation as a haven for offshore tax evasion. Last week a White House negotiating team visited the Central American nation and successfully extracted concessions from the Panamanians on those issues, according to people familiar with the talks.

    […]

    Are there any questions about whose side Obama is now on?

    Is anyone keeping score on his flips to the corporate side?
13. GregDiablo May 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pm «

    ART45, I didn’t have a problem with your comment. Like Strunk and White says, “Brevity is the soul of vigor,” and Obama sucks pretty much says it all.

    Self appointed censors don’t leave too many ripples here, either, I’ve noticed.
14. mooreagal May 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm «

    Hmmm, I don’t think divorce would hinder him. If Keith and Rachel got behind him, bringing along Matthews and Big Eddie, who knows? Then there’s Moyers, Stewart, Colbert, the late shows….this is not impossible to contemplate.

    But bucking the CMWs and their defense contract $ is a formidable challenge. (reply to nonplussed)