"With luck, Obama may yet save us from ourselves"

[impik]

Todd S. Purdum, Vanity Fair’s national editor:


...Sure, Obama has made his share of mistakes, rookie and otherwise. But don’t count him out—not just yet. For the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, nor even in our rock-star president, but in ourselves: in our impatience, our intemperance, our lack of perspective, our susceptibility to the easy untruth and the quick fix. Barack Obama only rarely falls victim to any of these vices, and, with luck, he may yet save us from ourselves....

....Perhaps Obama’s biggest mistake was in believing that his relentless, and usually rigorous, insistence on logic, civility, and calm thinking would carry the day, in the face of a political system that is at once calcified, corrupt, and scabrous in tone. From the very start, Congressional Republicans proved impervious to Obama’s charms and Democrats remarkably unafraid of his personal popularity. Both did pretty much what they always do, which in the case of the Republicans meant they just said no, while the Democrats typically asked for too much and refused to take yes for an answer. Despite the president’s best efforts to make lobbyists personae non gratae, they posted a record year (as much for thwarting legislation as for getting any passed). The Washington media tootled along, too often oblivious to its own trivial obsessions and unable to compete with the opinion-reinforcing antics of the blogosphere and punditocracy (of left and right alike)...

...I don’t know if everyone in the White House understands the dangers of this moment, or the gravity of the task at hand. But I’m betting that at least one person does, and that his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/01/purdum-on-obama-201001

[glowing]

1. Tell that to the one with still a job.

[donco6]

2. Yep, it's all MY fault.

Shame on me.

[rockymountaindem]

3. Democrats "typically asked for too much"?

When? Where?

[sandnsea]

12. $787 billion stimulus - and they wanted more?

$5 billion race to the top called drop in the bucket, while they ignore the $90 billion going directly to schools for all sorts of improvements.

Insisting health care reform provide abortions, and then saying they weren't changing Hyde.

Health care reform doesn't include dental and optical.

Record energy investment, not enough. New CAFE standards, not enough.

Closing of Gitmo schedule, not enough.

The entire year was nothing but an endless whine from the left that what was really massive change - didn't go far enough.

[ShortnFiery]

22. WTF! Closing GITMO? Nothing for the individual Mortgage Owner but plenty for the AIG exectuives.

You have to use some kind of "twisted logic" to see that the STIMULUS was anything more than "a drop in the bucket" for everyone who's not blessed to have at least a MILLION of chump change.

WTF? GITMO IS STILL OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

In fact, we're offering to transfer some Haitian Prisoners there.

Is there ANY COUNTRY we will not occupy in order to rape "the common native" of their land's natural resources? :eyes:

And it all comes back to our blessed GOD ALMIGHTY multi-national CORPORATIONS.

It's all for the Billionaires who OWN our Country: The bank bail outs, the two occupations (MIC needs it's battlefield Disneylands), and hell EVEN HAITI will be USED by corporations as time goes on. More of OUR TAX DOLLARS will be used by private contractors.

It never ends! :grr:

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Yes, we should just accept whatever they deign to give us with gratitude.

Jesus god. What you call "endless whining" is what I call being a critically thinking citizen. The second you signal that you'll accept anything that you're given is the second you lose any leverage.

Insisting health care reform provide abortions, and then saying they weren't changing Hyde.

Um, Stupak's and Nelson's panty-sniffing amendments forbid coverage of abortion even if the woman is paying for her coverage entirely on her own. Furthermore, Stupak's amendment only exempted abortions for the life of the woman or cases of rape and incest, but not for her health. (BTW, good old Bart fought vigorously for the word "forcible" to be part of the definition of a rape exclusion.) Now, you're apparently fine with women whose health would be threatened by continuing the pregnancy, or women carrying severely malformed fetuses, being forced to pay for their own abortions (which would generally have to be done in a hospital and would cost thousands of dollars) and not get coverage through the insurance they are MANDATED to have but I'm not fine with it. Matter of fact, I'm such a dirty fucking hippie I have this "unreasonable" belief that Hyde needs to be overturned, for the aforementioned reasons. But, yeah, it's so whiny of me to think that mere women shouldn't have to submit to having their panties sniffed by C Street creeps like Stupak and Nelson in order to get the health care that they pay for.

Health care reform doesn't include dental and optical.

Imagine that. Who the hell needs teeth or to be able to see?

[sandnsea]

55. Exhibit A n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

61. So not covering abortions for women carrying severely malformed fetuses is okay with you then

Glad we're clear on that. :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

65. Hyde covers that, try again n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

66. No it doesn't. Educate yourself.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/9/802519/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does

[sandnsea]

68. Excuse me, Hyde and the Supreme Court

Is that better? I don't like every decision the Supreme Court makes, but they did decide states had a right to decide what to fund and what not to fund as it pertains to abortion and Hyde.

Hyde is the law. Health care legislation is not an abortion fight to change Hyde. And that is what this bill would have done, despite women's groups saying it wouldn't.

Clearly it would change Hyde or there'd be nothing to argue about.

Repeal Hyde on its own, not through putting everybody's health care in jeopardy.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Excuse you, but the Stupak amendment is an expansion of Hyde

If it didn't do anything that Hyde didn't do then there was no reason for it, was there?

[sandnsea]

74. An amendment to a bill changes the current bill

Not a previous bill. Stupak changed the House Health Care Bill - because THAT bill changed Hyde. Stupak primarily put HCR back to where it was with Hyde, but also overrode all the progress various states had made in abortion coverage. Hell even Mississippi medicaid covers abortion for malformed fetuses. But noooo, women's groups just couldn't be happy with the status quo. It was going to be all or nothing.

And where have you been fighting for Medicaid coverage for all these women for the last 20 years? I have never heard one feminist group spend 24 hours on it until now. Give me a break.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. The Hyde Amendment is automatically inserted into every spending bill.

Why would HCR be any different?

Oh and recall that your panty-sniffing hero Stupak wanted "forcible" to be added to the definition of rape and fought vigorously to keep it in. So the eeeeevil feminist harpies weren't entirely the cause of the lengthy debate.

[sandnsea]

76. Capps Amendment

(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEAILTH INSURANCE OPTION.-The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A).

If this hadn't been in there, and if the rules for the affordability credits had been tighter, there would have been no problem.

If Hyde was going to continue to be the rule governing abortion and public health care, then why was there any need for any mention of abortion at all?

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Why don't you ask Bart Stupak that. eom

[HopeOverFear]

4. K&R

[FreakinDJ]

5. K&R

[ShortnFiery]

6. No amount of bold type or clever wording will make be believe the inane

notion that Barack Obama wants to accomplish anything OTHER than "getting along with the power elite" and "getting re-elected in 2012."

With regard to our THOROUGHLY CORRUPT POLITICAL SYSTEM: When push comes to shove and everything seems indecipherable or what the RULING CLASS condescendingly tags "complicated" ---> FOLLOW THE BIG MONEY.

If you follow the forgoing advice, you'll NOT EVER risk disappointment.

[liberalmuse]

7. Kick!

[ShortnFiery]

8. ... to knock our Orwell off of the shelf.

:puke:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. A god of peace, forgiveness, understanding, patience and

love who dispatches angels with swords. What am I missing?

[ShortnFiery]

17. Anything but inane and condescending propaganda that places the blame back on

the hard working people who the ruling 1% are attempting to bleed dry. These ghouls even want "the scraps" and then have us THANK THEM for, in essence, STEALING our hard earned tax dollars.

Dirty, Rotten, Filthy, Stinking, Rich --> Political Elites? Hell YES! :puke: :grr: :puke:

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Exactly. I'm amazed when inane babble like this gets praised here. eom

[FrenchieCat]

24. I'm surprised that regular dissing of this Democratic President,

and those Democrats who support him is so emphasized here, at the Democratic Underground.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Well, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

I like some of things Pres. Obama has done, am less thrilled with others, and believe that as decent and intelligent as he is, that he is a fallible human being who sometimes takes the wrong advice and comes to the wrong conclusions.

Tell me, Frenchie, do you disagree with or have criticism of anything President Obama has done since taking office? No one is always right. No one.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Hey, it's not ME or folks who are disappointed with the present Executive Branch

who keeps placing President Obama ON A HIGH PEDESTAL. It's YOU and YOURS who keeps telling us how wonderful he is ...

I don't see it. There's many super-intelligent people who are poor leaders. President Obama is a highly gifted orator, but when the rubber meets the road he's NOT "a leader."

Having someone such as Dr. Howard Dean as his Chief of Staff instead of the Corporatist, former Wall Street tycoon, Rahm Emmanuel would be an olive branch and provide some POSITIVE LEADERSHIP within his ranks.

However, seemingly EVERY action of this present Executive branch is for the benefit of Wall Street and the corporations comprising the MIC. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CONCLUDE ABOUT President Obama from those FACTS?

If this horrific Senate Bill is passed, you and I both know that there will be no future votes for even a Public Option. Then all the American People are stuck with are MANDATES and premiums that they cannot afford without declaring bankruptcy.

No, don't place President Obama on "a pedestal" and we won't knock him down: We voted for FDR and received Clinton II. A mere mortal of high intelligence and gifted oratory skills who serves multi-national corporations before his constituents.

[Hansel]

34. +1

[HysteryDiagnosis]

30. Name fits....well the fiery part as far as I can see... I thanked them,

didn't you thank them?? I'd like to thank them with a foot in their collective arses.

[Phx_Dem]

9. K&R

[scheming daemons]

10. K&R for a writer that gets it...

..Lots of liberals don't want to hear that they "ask for too much and won't take yes for an answer"... but it is the truth.

Republicans are useless.... but Liberals consider anything short of 100% of what they want to be unworthy of passage.

[Wapsie B]

11. If the author is trying to sell this I need to see a few things happen.

Reinstating Glass/Steagall for one.
At its most basic level signing into law a true healthcare reform act that's not a complete giveaway to the insurance industry and can be built upon as we move towards single-payer health coverage for all.

[bajamary]

13. lol

gee, a bit over the top, Mr. Purdum when you say

"For the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, nor even in our rock-star president, but in ourselves: in our impatience, our intemperance, our lack of perspective, our susceptibility to the easy untruth and the quick fix."

I gather we're all supposed to just sit back and let Geithner-Summers-Emannuel-Bernake and their Wall Street buds have full run with our economy.

One does not need more patience with Obama but less.

[tblue]

14. Yes. If we were only more patient, everything would be fine.

"Obama will save us"? When? He's about to lose Congress! I never expected this mess to be fixed in a year, or two, or four. But financial reforms should be in place already and he should call a halt to gays being freaking kicked out of the military. I don't think that's too much to ask. This sh$t should be done by now.

[FrenchieCat]

15. The way I see it, fits with this article to a point,

Although I think the WH should have seen the telltale signs long before they did.

what the Republicans are doing, at a time when the United States is in such dire shape, is indeed unprecedented, and I don't think that even we, if we were to be truly honest, expected them to be as Hard to the core as they have been; every single one of them unison. To say that one exactly expected the Republicans to act as they have....well, that's only saying so in retrospect (which is easy) and is an easy way out.

The facts are that we laughed when we saw the first signs of teabagging activity in February, one month after Obama's election, and we kept up the ridicule through August, instead of getting busy to combat it. In that, it is true, as grassroots participators, we failed....because we failed to take any action as much as the President on this. We sat back and let it happen, partially because holding the President's feet to the fire was easier, and we thought that would change him....when we should have been doing what we could to change the conversation (because the media was not gonna budge, even if the Pres would have weighted in, which he did, but which was de-emphasized). Pres. OBama did decry the death panel lunacy and did express his want of the PO, albeit not strongly enough certainly. But we were supposed to get out there too, and not simply wait on this one man (it was Yes, We Can....not Yes, He Can), which is exactly what we did, all the time pointing our fingers at him for not doing what we wanted him to do, and accepting no responsibility as to the fact that our role in the fight should have been a whole lot louder and angrier. So, IMO, the blame can be shared.

So, there was a collective failure to fight back the framing that the corporate media put on the town hall protestors. Most of us barely didn't get how the media was going to manipulate that whole situation until it was more or less done, which would account for a collective lack of action. But that has got to be because most of us also believed that the general public would see it for what it was.

Initially, Obama also thought that the American people would see this Republican insanity for what it was (because so many did during the campaign, which is why he ended up being elected), but now he knows that even the people cannot see clearly. and I might add, many included are on our side.

To witness so many Democrats too willing to kick him to the curb, and repudiate just about every thing he does, almost as much as the other side in quite breathtaking. I know that we have waited for a long time, but still, I thought that the more sane among us would have a bit more of a strategy on how to get the message to the president without literally joining those on the other side, in terms of the end result. So for me, the problem lies not so much in his naivete, inasmuch as in the American's lack of reason-ability; mainly Republicans, but yes, Democrats are guilty of it too. When that whole recipe is added up, then that certainly means that Obama's approach isn't working because the suppositions are incorrect. I'm thinking he's got that now, and if he doesn't, well, that is going to be a problem.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Newsflash: Our enemies are not the dumb-ass, grubby, & misguided tea-baggers ...

it's the RULING CORPORATE ELITES who OWN OUR DEMOCRATIC LEADERS.

I'm tired of the Politicos making the peasants fight among ourselves. Sure there's plenty of racists in the right wing, but there's also some misguided people who can be changed and connected with to become more compassionate and populist.

We must REACH these people and THEN take on the RULING ELITES in D.C.

A UNITED FRONT - Organize with the non-racist tea-baggers into one big populist movement?

[ShortnFiery]

21. p.s. although this is General Discussion - Presidential

IMO, not every damn issue has to CENTER AROUND supporting ONE INDIVIDUAL. The entire Executive Branch needs to set a more POPULIST AGENDA.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Newsflash.....the enemy is anyone who gets in the way of progress,

regardless of their many excuses and rationale.

It would be more than just teabaggers.....

As for you joining up with the Teabaggers, go for it....since it appears
that you want to.

Good luck! :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

33. You mean like Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak?

Both of whom have a vote in Congress and considerable power there and used that power to hold up health care legislation unless they got the anti-choice amendments they wanted in their respective bills.

Do you include them in your category of enemies to progress? Or is your outrage confined to the dirty fucking hippies on the internet who can't stop shit in Congress?

[FrenchieCat]

38. Yep....them

as well.

The fact that you think folks can't stop shit in Congress
is in my opinion for the lack of trying, IMO. Many Dems won't even
bother to write to their Republican Reps or Conservadem Reps,
just because they think that nothing's gonna happen.
The thing is, of course, if enough wrote letters,
perhaps that would make a Congresscritter second guess himself,
and that would be something positive for our side. But noooooo, that just futile, they lament,
and then go back to kicking this President's ass 24/7 cause that's a fight
they firmly believe they can win, and if they don't....so fuck it, at least they tried.

I find it odd that so much energy can be placed on doing the Presidential ass kicking thing,
yet the very thought of doing similar to Reps and Senators is dismissed out of hand.


So for the lack of unity and teamwork, yo can sue me for the thought,
but too many are too busy attacking this administration,
to ever do anything else. For them, it is an all time consuming enterprise.
they have not time left.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Okay, that post made absolutely no sense. Is it supposed to be abstract poetry?

My point, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring, is that the reason there isn't a decent HCR bill, or even a POS like the Senate bill, ready for the President to sign right now is not because of dirty hippies on the internet criticizing the Obama admin. It's because of obstructionists like Nelson, Lieberman, and Stupak, for whom you were willing to roll over and give everything they want. Each and every "compromise" that weakened HCR was defended here by the likes of you because it appears to be more important for Obama to have a "win" on this issue than anything else.

[Hansel]

53. It's because of both. That's the point you are missing.

It's not an either or.

The House should pass the bill and let the Progressive Senators in the Senate fix it through reconciliation. That way Nelson, Lieberman and Stupak become irrelevant. But the constant pissing and moaning from the left is making the Progressives in the House weak kneed. They are afraid to pass the bill because they are afraid they will not get re-elected. And because they won't pass it, the Progressives in the Senate can't do the reconciliation that would greatly improve the bill. Which could include adding back in the Public Option.

There is a way around Nelson, Lieberman and Stupak, but it take a little more sophisticated politics than our current politicians on the left are willing to risk. In large part because they are afraid they will not be re-elected. What has the voters on the left done to assure them if they take this risk that they would be? This is why nothing gets done.

Saying you can't trust Nelson, Lieberman, Bayh, Blanche-Lincoln, etc isn't good enough because they are irrelevant. There are at least 50 senators and one VP that we can trust. So it is just gutless politics and constant sniping from the left and fear of not being re-elected that is at issue right now. The right doesn't turn on their politicians, the left does.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Oh bullcrap

The progressives in the House have compromised enough. How about asking the Blue Dogs who voted against the House bill to show some courage and vote for the Senate bill? Don't blame progressives because Nancy doesn't have the votes she needs. The House bill passed by only 2 votes because so many Blue Dogs flipped so they could be "safe".

[Hansel]

63. The progressives are the only ones stopping this bill at this point.

So I'm going to blame them.

I understand the Blue Dogs role in this and am as aggravated about them as anyone else. That is why it would please me to no end if the Progressives were to pay these jerks back by using reconciliation. But the Blue Dogs are not the ones holding this bill up from signature so that it can be run through reconciliation in the Senate.

It is a process and the progressives now have the ball in their court. They can see some of the things that they gave up added back in or they can throw up their hands. If they want health care passed and the satisfaction of outsmarting the Blue Dogs and, in the end, a better bill, they better get a little more politically savvy and work with the Progressives in the Senate to get it done. It's time to outsmart the Blue Dogs and show them how irrelevant they really are. But Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barrack Obama are not going to shout from the rooftops that that is the strategy and so far the Progressives have not found the inclination to catch on.

There is nothing wrong with this bill than cannot be fixed.

[Hello_Kitty]

73. And you know this how? Your crystal ball? Your daily personal phone call from Nancy?

Of the 37 Blue Dogs who voted against the bill last time, how many have stepped up to replace any now-dissenting progressives as "yes" votes? Which ones, Hansel?

BTW, Stupak wants another crack at the abortion language. But I'm sure we won't hear a peep from you if he holds up the bill again because of it. Nope, you just reserve your fire for the dirty hippies.

[ShortnFiery]

36. Perhaps to some here: Anyone who DISAGREES with President Obama or Rahm Emmanuel?

:eyes:

[Hansel]

44. We should have been out there in force to change and connect

to those who you say would become more compassionate and populist. I agree with that. But instead, there were a lot of keyboard warriors who wasted precious time sniping at Obama and insulting anyone with an opinion they didn't fully sanction instead of getting out there and flooding the Tea Party rallies and town halls with some more rational thought and pure numbers to drown out their misinformation. As a result corporate misinformation and propaganda saturated the minds of the unwitting manipulated and ruled the day.

There were left talk radio talent who were actively poo pooing the idea that we should stand up and be heard. That we should protest en masse. Most notably Ed Schultz. He spent half of the summer and the fall sniping at Obama and demanding he get exactly what he wanted instead of using his bully pulpit to rally the masses. Thom Hartman spends all of his time trying to prove Obama is a corporatist and demoralizing anyone who listens to him with his constant "it's no use we're doomed" mostly over-the-top conspiracy theories. Many callers asked them to call rallies, but they thought pissing and moaning would be more effective. As did most of the leading left wing blogs.

There was no reason to for the populous to fight amongst itself, but there was plenty of reason to snuff the misinformation and get our voices heard. Instead we sniped and complained and attacked each other and we got nothing as a result.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Many were too busy lampooning and laughing at the teabaggers.....

I call it the moral fable of the The Ant and the Grasshopper.
It was a classic.

Doesn't mean the administration didn't make any mistakes, mind you,
because I think they did....

But we made a big share of those as well,
and as long as we are in denial,
and so we don't learn anything,
and so it will happen again, to a great degree.

[ShortnFiery]

59. You're so busy worried about inane entities and the lame M$M that you can't

or WON'T see the corruption within our ranks. You just want to cheer lead but NEVER look within.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Yawn. The garbled, nonsensical dreck of DC "centrist".

Both did pretty much what they always do, which in the case of the Republicans meant they just said no, while the Democrats typically asked for too much and refused to take yes for an answer.

WTF?

[rug]

23. Rather messianic view.

[ProSense]

25. Bush's approval rating was 90% after 9/11. Support for the Iraq war was at 72% in March 2003

Americans could have used some saving from themselves. Still, the media is mostly to blame.

[FrenchieCat]

27. We are not allowed to Blame the media, here.....

we are only allowed to blame Democrats, DU posters, and the Obama administration. :shrug:

Get your priorities in order, woman! :sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

39. Sure they can be vile, BUT wasting time attacking "the media" or "the tea-baggers" detracts from

the FACT that, at least at PRESENT we have a *clear majority* in Congress.

Dammit! Get things done ... Bush did it ... Obama can too with re-directing and/or replacing Rahm Emmanuel.

WE ARE THE ONES TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND DEMOCRATS ARE NOW IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS.

It's time that our legislators prove that they CARE about the health and welfare of the CONSTITUENTS not the damn multi-national fat cat corporations.

If not NOW ... WHEN?!?

[FrenchieCat]

42. It is convenient to only acknowledge that there are powers at work,

that even Barack Obama cannot control, and the fucked up corporation media is certainly one of them....a power that the Bush WH controlled; not because they were better at it, but because the media was on their side from the get-go.

So you can act like that ain't a part of the problem,
but it certainly is....

and the more that you expect everyone around you to be the solution,
while you keep calling out the problem, actually makes you one of those
who assists the media in the fucked up bullshit lines they sell to uninformed
Americans each and every day.

You have two hands...
try pointing them in various directions at the same time,
and aiming your ire not just at this administration, which is all that you do....
hell, most of your posts are totally desparaging of most Democrats, and nothing else....
If we as activists were all like you,
we'd have a perpetual Republicans Majority for ever and ever......
because the only message you seem to ever have is that Democrats are totally fucked up.

[ShortnFiery]

46. What part of WE, The Democratic Party, are the CLEAR MAJORITY in Congress can you

NOT understand? Put the GOP on the record. Have the votes? Then the people will see just how Corporate the Republicans are.

Or is it that our "leadership" is AFRAID that the blue dogs would show their TRUE Corporate Colors?

No, WE have the MAJORITY, NOTHING is stopping ole "give em hell Harry" Reid from WRITING populist legislation, such as raise taxes on the wealthy and emplace stronger estate tax bills for multi-millionaires, and PROMPTLY bring THESE to an UP or DOWN vote?

[FrenchieCat]

48. If it was as easy as you want to make it, it would have been done already.

That's your problem, you know.

You are long on attacking what you see as the central problem,
and very short on solutions.

It is clear that we have a majority, but unfortunately, in many instances,
the majority doesn't agree with itself, hence the rub.

But you want to believe that this isn't a problem,
when it certainly is.

Sure a lot of that has to do with the money in politics,
and now it will be worse than ever.....

But keep on screaming on the Internet in all of the threads.
We need all kinds.

[ShortnFiery]

57. No, it is EASY. However, there's corruption within our party. The Corporations have

hijacked some of our representatives. We need to send them HOME.

It's not all that difficult and THE ANSWER is not in whining about republicans but getting OUR OWN HOUSES in order.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. FrenchieCat, you have never met a false dichotomy you didn't like. eom

[Juche]

29. I don't agree

If Obama seriously think the GOP is negotiating in good faith and that logic and reason can influence an electorate, that is a terrible sign.

Also, the dems didn't ask for too much. They beat their base into the ground and told them to compromise everything. Give up single payer for a public option. Give up the public option for co-ops. Give up co-ops for blue cross. The GOP compromised nothing.

Also, Obama did not make lobbyists disappear. He invited Tozen to the white house several times.


This mindless fawning was one thing during the campaign, but it is 2010 now.

[FrenchieCat]

35. The Democrats didn't ask for much.....?

except for wanting everything from single payer, to him ending of all wars, to nationalizing the banks, to pulling jobs out of the president's ass, to liberating guantanamo (no matter how) ASAP, to bailing out mortgage holders, and padlocking insurance companies.

I think Democrats asked for what they wanted, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.
The problem is thinking that all should have been gotten one year in....
and in fact, many thought it should have happened months ago.

What you speak as mindless fawning had a 4 year shelf life.....
but somehow, you fucking don't want to understand that.
Now, it's January 25, 2010, and of course, the finger is still pointing only in one direction.

That's sick....and shows exactly the lack of reasonability this President has to contend with;
not from the enemy camp (who wuld prefer he was done away with, if they could help it),
but from his own side.

[Juche]

54. You are misrepresenting

I think a lot of liberals would be happy had Obama actually fought for what we wanted. We know he can't get it all overnight, but the fact that he didn't even try was bothersome.

We wanted single payer. But many of us know it isn't politically feasbile right now. However single payer (despite having support of over 50% of the electorate) was shut out by Baucus. And they never even got into the white house. Starting with single payer and negotiations downward to a public option would've been fine. However the insurance companies didn't want a public option, so that was out.

After running ads condemning Billy Tauzin and the 'revolving door lobbying system' in washington, when he became president Obama invited Tauzin over a half dozen times or more to cut a deal. Don't resist the health reform and we will cut your losses to $8 billion a year. Pharma doesn't want medicare negotiations or reimportation from canada (two things Obama ran on), so those were out.

So in health care Obama not only didn't even bother to fight that hard, but he violated many many campaign statements.

Obama said in his campaign

1. I will fight hard for the American people
2. I will stand up to lobbyists instead of cut deals with them
3. I will have a transparent debate in congress
4. I will support certain policies (public option, reimportation, medicare negotiations)
5. I oppose the Cadillac tax

None of that happened. It is offensive when people get angry that some of us on the left are angry about that. And then to be told 'You're just mad you didn't get everything you wanted in the first year'. No, that isn't it. I'm mad that I elected a guy who said he would fight for me and stand up to lobbyists who had done nothing but allow himself to be slapped around by both parties while cutting backroom deals with Pharma.

Lieberman spits in his face and he doesn't fight back. Republicans insult him openly and he doesn't fight back. How can he stand up to the plutocrats if he never defends himself? How can he stand up for the people who elected him? He has no will to fight. He is like the hybrid love child of Dukakis and Mr Rogers. We need an LBJ instead.

You can pretend I'm mad for immoral/unethical reasons (In your view I'm mad because I have impossibly high standards and they aren't being met instantly). But I'm mad for valid reasons. Obama is a weak, timid, sloppy leader who says one thing then does the opposite. The dems have no party discipline or message. They suck at negotiation (start with a compromise, allow yourself to be insulted, then compromise more).


Obama has done many things right IMO. But for the most part he either will not fight for what he was elected to do, or he fights very very poorly and sloppily/weakly. I think a lot of the anger comes down to that.

[FrenchieCat]

67. No, you have reason to be upset....

I'm just not sure you have a solution for it,
that doesn't harm us more than helps.

Obama did his deal with pharma quite out in the open,
and announced the deal shortly thereafter. You may not have liked it,
but he did not hide it, and it wasn't done with Lobbyists but with those directly
involved in the industry. You may be not like that either, and I would understand that,
but still, your point is simplified to the point of being incorrect.

The Cadillac Plan that Obama opposed was McCain's which taxed starting at zero dollars, not the one that the Senate came up with that started taxing at $23,000. It wasn't the same tax.....even though it was called the same thing. So no, what Obama opposed is not what he accepted...and to say so is to be as misleading as the corporations' media is.

The Debate on health care were transparent. The workshops were televised, as were the senate and house debates and committee conference meetings. There was website town hall forums, and even health care parties were encouraged. The only thing that wasn't televised was exactly when he stated that there would be no formal reconcilation conference (therefore no conference to televise) late in the game, once both bills passed. However, that wasn't the only C-Span production to be had, and to imply this, is again a twisted falsehoods.

The fact is that many folks were arguing single payer forever, and many didn't settle
for anything less till it was totally obvious because it wasn't part of any bill. and they were mad
at the onset, and stayed that way throughout.

In fact, they went from dissing the PO, because they wanted exactly single payer,
to dissing the bills because they had no single payer, to dissing the senate bill
because it had no PO (although if it had, they might have dissed a senate bill with a po),
to dissing any PO because it was "watered down", and let us not even talk about the trigger,
which got throroughly dissed accross the board. So in essence, many were never supportive
of anything, and hence the reason that although some of what you are saying is certainly
accurate (in terms of a lack of perceived fight in this President), a lot of it isn't.
There was no reasonability on these board by many, ever....
and to rewrite history as though there was, is an after-the-fact convenient exercise.

I agree that he should have stood up for the public option more....that his words on it were milktoasti and he'd say one thing and his actions begged to differ.

As for fighting,
he's been bloodied, even if that hadn't been the plan.
Will he fight though hard and relentelessly to the end,
That, we are about to see.

[Juche]

79. I don't know

I think we progressives can be a pessimistic lot on the whole. However my impression was hopes were really high when this congress first started. Approval ratings were near 80%+ for Obama. People were hopeful.

Whether the deal involves lobbyists or the corporations directly (Tauzin is a lobbyist for Pharma), it makes no difference because the powerful interests still have a choke hold on things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

As for me, I still think the senate bill is better than nothing. And I'd support passing that combined with a reconciliation bill to add additional reforms.

You may be right about not airing the debate openly. Only the conference was shut out. The rest was pretty public. However the Pharma deal was secret. And who knows what else will leak out.

However, I think a big part is just the heartbreak, because we tried to elect Obama and the dems to make the government work for the people. And the result was more of the same oligarchical behavior.

I think this last year has been a huge wake up call for people. It showed how entrenched the plutocracy is, how badly broken the senate rules are (where 1 or 2 of the most conservative members get to control every thing de facto) and how bad things really are.

There is no valid reason to take away a public option, medicare negotiations of medicine or prescription reimportation other than to protect powerful industries from the competition. However that same competition would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. I don't know the exact stats, but I think those 3 reforms (reimportation, negotiations, a PO) would've saved $500-700 billion over a decade. That kind of savings would pay for the health reform the house & senate were asking for (ending rescissions, universal coverage, no pre-existing condition bans).

My big support of the public option was the fact that it is cheaper than private insurance. As a result, private insurers are forced to offer better coverage for lower premiums. But private insurer didn't want that, they wanted a monopoly. So the public's interest (and the $100-200 billion we'd save over the decade with a public option) took a back seat.

Part of what bothers me about the cadillac plan is that it angers the unions. It will save money, and should be looked into because of that (because it will hopefully slow health care inflation). However there are several ways to save money. The public option, reimportations, negotiations, and a cadillac tax (to name a few). Of those the ones that angered Pharma & the private insurance companies were taken off the table, but the one that angered the unions were kept.

That to me is a bad sign. The fact that the dems are willing to take on the unions, but not willing to take on pharma & private insurance shows these industries are far more powerful than we assume. Besides, unions helped get Obama & the dems elected. They put about $450 million + into the 2008 cycle, as well as hundreds of millions of volunteer hours. But when push came to shove, the dems pushed reforms that the unions dislike, but refused to push reforms that pharma and private insurance dislikes.


I don't know what to do. I was watching a documentary on Frontline about Iran, and the woman who was recently killed (Neda) was quoted as saying (according to her sister)



"She used to say, as we all do and know, that there's a dead, depressing air all over Iran. It's everywhere. It's in people's hearts. We are condemned to depression. We are condemned to living without being able to breathe."




And that is what it is starting to feel like in the US. In between the plutocracy and all the teabaggers fighting for more plutocracy, and the recent SCOTUS ruling. Its just depression and hard to deal with. There is a black fog over the country. It isn't as bad as I'm sure Iran is. But there is a lot of talk of non-violent revolution and emigration in between the talk of despair and anger.

I think for a lot of us this last year really opened up how badly broken the system is. And we are still readjusting and trying to get our wits about us to face that problem competently. Right now there is a lot of despair and flailing. But there is a silver lining, maybe the nakedness of the corruption and ineptitude will be a wake up call to organize and fight back. But who knows how effective that'll be. It is better than not fighting back, but it isn't a silver bullet.

[ibegurpard]

37. what a crock of shit

hopefully we'll save HIM from himself
looks like he may have gotten the message

[FrenchieCat]

40. Whether it is a crock of shit is in the eye of the reader.....

Some see shit and ask why,
others see that there is work to be done,
and volunteer to actually act instead of whine.....
because at the end of the day, it is our country,
and it is our skin.

[ShortnFiery]

41. You'd be content vacillating and blaming the GOP. We are THE MAJORITY in Congress.

If we can't get squat done, then JUST PERHAPS it's OUR FAULT: the democratic representatives who WE elected to represent us?

If we can't SERVE THE PEOPLE and hold true to our old Democratic Party Platform that exalts SOCIAL JUSTICE, then just perhaps ---> Our Democratic Tent is too damn big as well as been taken hostage by values centering around CORPORATISM?

[FrenchieCat]

43. No, I'm not content about anything.....

That's why I write to congress (even if they aren't my congresscritters), to the President, and to the media. Because I'm not in it to find blame, I'm in it to find solutions.

You on the other hand do nothing but meter out accusations and indictments against this Admininstration and Congress, and do nothing but. You in fact are a part of the problem,
because pointing fingers never solved shit....and yet, that.is.all.that.you.do.always.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hansel]

51. You fail to realized that a significant number of Dems are really just

Republicans who thought it would be easier to win in a Democratic primary. In some of the more conservative states there is no such thing as a politician who is a progressive outside of the big cities. If they are, they do not win elections, especially statewide elections. Most Democrats from conservative states are just slightly closer to the center than the Republicans and both of them are solidly on the right of the center.

The only way that Democrats in the Senate can get any legislation through that is not budget related is to work with blue dogs and Republicans. That's just a fact of life.

What I fault them for though is that they have a perfect opportunity with this health care bill to show us how it's done. The House needs to pass this unfortunately conservative bill so that the parts that cannot be done through reconciliation get passed, such as forcing insurance companies to insure people even if they have pre-existing conditions. Then after it is passed, the Progressive Democrats who are the majority of the Senate Democrats can make the changes needed to make this a better bill by using reconciliation. The Progressives in the House are doing what this author is complaining about. They want too much so they are willing to throw the baby away with the bath water.


Edit for spelling

[ShortnFiery]

56. We could achieve a 51 vote majority in the Senate without the damn blue dogs.

We need to shed the blue dogs ... one way or another. :(

[Hansel]

60. I agreed.

But some of the legislation has to go through cloture before it can be voted on and that requires 60 votes. Only budgetary items can be passed via reconciliation, so the rules that they wanted regarding forcing insurance companies to offer insurance no matter what cannot get through using reconciliation.

If the House passes the Senate bill, then the Senate can fix it through reconciliation. But they want to get the stuff through 1st that requires 60 votes. The problem is no one can come out and say that because then they would have never got the 60 votes in the 1st place for the stuff you can't get through in reconciliation.

And you are absolutely right. All of the focus of our energy and anger needs to be used to get rid of Blue Dogs. And your strategy of converting Tea Partiers is a very good way to start. The majority of our Democratic Senates are Progressives, but that is not enough. We need all of them to be.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Point taken. However, we need to get some "new blood" in the Senate ...

Just MAYBE with younger representatives, we'll get some people more "in touch" with the average American? Lord knows they'll all be MILLIONAIRES because that's what it takes to BUY a Senate Seat. :(

[Hansel]

64. I'm counting on the youth to take this country back.

That's why it pains me to see so many so cynical and demoralized at this point.

They need to buck up and stop thinking that Obama is the enemy and has betrayed them. Obama needs them, this country needs them and we all need them to run for office and clear out those in there now who have forgotten why they are there. Those who have been bought and paid for by the corporations and who think of the Senate as no more than their country club.

Along with the youth taking over the government, they need to take over the corporations and the media and bring it all back to some semblance of sanity. I am counting on them. Before they can do that they need to seriously dump the cynicism.

[treestar]

69. How can one get Democrats more progressive than Blue Dogs from the

states involved, though?

It boils down to Montana and Nebraska and Missouri and like states. Can a progressive senator come from such states in the foreseeable future.

[Fire1]

49. K&R.

[Nancy Waterman]

70. K&R

Absolutely!

[Number23]

72. Great read. Thanks for posting. Happy to rec

Although I'm not sure why the author mentions the incident with Skip Gates and considers Obama's response to it as an "overreaction" I agree with everything else expressed in this article.

[Clio the Leo]

78. The WH understood the problem before half of the board did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=137352