Frank Rich: "To galvanize the nation, Obama needs to articulate a substantive belief system"

[jefferson_dem]

Rich makes a good case for a clearer "vision thing" from Obama, in the concluding section of his Sunday column.

The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency
By FRANK RICH

...


The problem is not necessarily that Obama is trying to do too much, but that there is no consistent, clear message to unite all that he is trying to do. He has variously argued that health care reform is a moral imperative to protect the uninsured, a long-term fiscal fix for the American economy and an attempt to curb insurers’ abuses. It may be all of these, but between the multitude of motives and the blurriness (until now) of Obama’s own specific must-have provisions, the bill became a mash-up that baffled or defeated those Americans on his side and was easily caricatured as a big-government catastrophe by his adversaries.

Obama prides himself on not being ideological or partisan — of following, as he put it in his first prime-time presidential press conference, a “pragmatic agenda.” But pragmatism is about process, not principle. Pragmatism is hardly a rallying cry for a nation in this much distress, and it’s not a credible or attainable goal in a Washington as dysfunctional as the one Americans watch in real time on cable. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent, but we need more than a brilliant mediator, manager or technocrat to move us beyond the wreckage it left behind. To galvanize the nation, Obama needs to articulate a substantive belief system that’s built from his bedrock convictions. His presidency cannot be about the cool equanimity and intellectual command of his management style.

That he hasn’t done so can be attributed to his ingrained distrust of appearing partisan or, worse, a knee-jerk “liberal.” That is admirable in intellectual theory, but without a powerful vision to knit together his vision of America’s future, he comes off as a doctrinaire Democrat anyway. His domestic policies, whether on climate change or health care or regulatory reform, are reduced to items on a standard liberal wish list. If F.D.R. or Reagan could distill, coin and convey a credo “nonideological” enough to serve as an umbrella for all their goals and to attract lasting majority coalitions of disparate American constituencies, so can this gifted president.

He cannot wait much longer. The rise in credit-card rates, as well as the drop in consumer confidence, home sales and bank lending, all foretell more suffering ahead for those who don’t work on Wall Street. But on these issues the president, too timid to confront the financial industry backers of his own campaign (or their tribunes in his own administration) and too fearful of sounding like a vulgar partisan populist, has taken to repeating his health care performance.

And so leadership on financial reform, as with health care, has been delegated to bipartisan Congressional negotiators poised to neuter it. The protracted debate that now seems imminent — over whether a consumer protection agency will be in the Fed or outside it — is again about the arcana of process and bureaucratic machinery, not substance. Since Obama offers no overarching narrative of what financial reform might really mean to Americans in their daily lives, Americans understandably assume the reforms will be too compromised or marginal to alter a system that leaves their incomes stagnant (at best) while bailed-out bankers return to partying like it’s 2007. Even an unimpeachable capitalist titan like Warren Buffett, venting in his annual letter to investors last month, sounds more fired up about unregulated derivatives and more outraged about unpunished finance-industry executives than the president does.

This time Obama doesn’t have a year to arrive at his finest hour. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the clock runs out on Nov. 2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07rich.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[Faygo Kid]

1. Yes. I have been and remain a supporter, but Mr. President, start being a fighter.

Tired of cerebral coolness. Looking for him and the Dems to TAKE A STAND.

I fear I am pissing into the wind here, but one can hope.

[iconocrastic]

32. He articulates so we understand, but despite Alinsky training he can't speak to the masses

And I'm talking about policies, not the beautiful speeches during the election.

[nedmildow]

60. you're so right..

in your wishes, fears and hopes..

he'll just smile and do nothing for a couple of more years.

as he says himself - he never found out who he was, as a mix of culture, race and religion. he eventually found a compromising philosophy to come to peace with this, and thus his management style and decision making as well..

that makes a great person, but no captain of the ship.

[jonestonesusa]

68. What does this have to do with his "mix of culture, race, and religion?"

[nedmildow]

69. relax. it's his own words about his complex identity and..

the lack of ability to take a stand on anything.
he says he became a blank screen onto which people could project their views and values.
it explains his compromising attitudes, which you adressed in your posting.
indirectly in lack of taking a stand.

[apnu]

71. Spot on! Obama turned his campaign around in the primaries by deciding to fight.

And continued that through the main election and America responded resoundingly. America likes fighters, that is the main reason W got enough votes for his razor thin victories. We respond to fighters, its in the very fabric of our culture. He (or she) who looks like the best fighter usually gets the benefit of the doubt from the middle.

Fight Obama, Fight!

[bluestateguy]

2. Oh brother

Another prissy, and slightly condescending column of drivel from the Lords of the Fourth Estate. And surely this Manhattan Cocktail Party regular is qualified to instruct the President of the United States as to how to do his job.

[Go2Peace]

12. You realize that Jefferson_Dem has been a very outspoken supporter

of most of the President's policies right? Why must everything be seen as "which side" it is on. Could there be some validity to the OP? Absolutely.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Thanks.

I appreciate that.

Certified "kool-aid drinker" here ... But I also concede that there is always room to improve messaging, if not substantive policy direction. Rich's column speaks to that. We all would have welcomed more measureable achievements during Obama's first year. The sledding is about to get tougher. Now's the time to steel the spine in order to seize the moment.

[treestar]

66. It's an article and the comment was on the article.

No need to play victim on OPs behalf.

[roguevalley]

17. we all are allowed. its called democracy. he doesn't have to take it

but if he wants to ignore a tidal wave of people's opinion, it will be to all our peril.

[Cosmocat]

53. SPOT ON ...

Rich is OK, but this is prototypical self aggrandizing media babblt ...

A oouple of points ...

1) People remain VERY guilty of projecting on to BO. Rich is right about his overall analysis of BO. But, the fact is that most people PROJECT on him - be it right or left. If you LISTEN to what the man is saying, it matches his actions ...

2) The world is VERY different today than it was even back when Reagen was president. There was no internet, no twitter, very limited 24 hour news. The president was still viewed as an authority figure, and his words reverberated A LOT louder and longer. Today, you have MSM morons "analyzing" what he says with their right wing spin before he is even done speaking, you have us on the internet mashing it over before he is even done speaking ... It all gets muted from moment one ...

3) We are in pretty tough times, but it is NOT a time like 9-11 or WWII where the country just gets in line behind the president. Again, he suffers GREATLY from corporate owned media allowing the right to attack and shout him down instanteously. Bush was babbling inane talking points up until 9-11, then the media got on its knees and prayed to him for three years, and trembled at his presence. BO does not have THAT benefit.

4) Given number three, he has done all he can. To get any more stident about it WOULD create a backlash, he would be negatively cast as "preaching" to us, he would be negatively cast "engaging in extreme social experimentations during a troubling time."

BO is one smart SOG, he knows how far he can push the bully pulpit thing ... And, he knows the game is ginned against him/Ds and he has to tread a thin line in terms of using the bully pulpit ...

The talking point the MSM was advancing for the Rs last week after he had them corneder in on health care and made a stand - he is "overexposed."

He has some cards to play, but he has to play them at the right time ...

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Yep. I would like to some more of the fire I saw during the campaign.

[Old Codger]

5. You bet

Had hopes to see that attitude carry on... sadly didn't happen

[Old Codger]

4. He is

A decent person and seems to be trying but in my opinion, and remember this is only an opinion and I do like him and a lot of what he has done so far. Only time will tell in the end how his presidency is/was.
But in the end he is a politician and acts that way, he really blew the chance to make a huge splash, he has been soft shoeing around and has tip
On edit: I did not really read the article, never based any opinion on anything anyone wrote like that this is just based on what I have seen overall for the last year

[jody]

6. "articulate a substantive belief system", what a crock. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

8. Why a crock?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Go2Peace]

13. I have yet to see a President that never changed direction - Except Bush II

and we know how well that went. What is wrong with admitting weakness in approach and adjusting direction. It's pretty evident the President and Democrats are losing support (if you have been watching threads here there are plenty of threads with the statistics).

[katandmoon]

7. K&R

[applegrove]

9. Where is the "calm the **** down people - I've got this" picture. I need

to see it.

[boppers]

21. Here: (n/t)

[bvar22]

10. Why not dust off this old "Democratic" thing?

I think it would work for that "vision" thing.
It did before.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.--FDR

I wonder if Obama has heard of this FDR guy?
Wasn't he a Democrat?

[msongs]

11. fdr didnt't spend his years in office selling out for bipartisanship first nt

[Go2Peace]

14. That is still incredibly approprate. Thanks for the reminder of what we used to stand for

[jefferson_dem]

19. Can't find fault with any of that.

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

24. This post is full of WIN!

[JamesA1102]

15. Has Rich apologized yet for lying about Gore in 2000 yet?

Until he does, he has no credibility.

[flyarm]

16. Rich was one of Obama's most ardent supporters ..so did he have credibility then? hmmm eom

[JamesA1102]

52. No nt

[flyarm]

58. So he was a liar and had no credibility when he pushed Obama on us .and pushed and pushed..Obama...

is that what you are saying? I could not agree more..but I knew it was all lies from the get go..and I wondered why he sold Obama to the American people so hard!! He sure put a lot of effort into selling the candidate Obama in fact he couldn't have worked harder!

So he was obviously selling us a fraud..right? He never asked hard questions..he never asked pertinent questions ..he just sold Obama ...to anyone who didn't bother to do any research on their own...he was a master marketer for Obama!

[JamesA1102]

62. Rich has no credibility.

But that doesn't mean the President has none.

[Writer]

20. I'm sorry, but politically ideological ranting only produced totalistic politics...

and nothing got done.

Hence the need for pragmatism. Which, although it borrows from ideals, still maintains the goal of discovering solutions for problems.

Rich is asking for us to revisit the culture wars. That needs to die a quick death if our nation wants to survive.

[AllentownJake]

23. I think the culture war is at a Nuclear exchange right now nt.

[depakid]

33. Ricj is telling us to do the same thing that cognitive scientists and researchers are

We're supposed to be the party of science, yet we constantly practice political creationism... denying how the political communication actually works in the real world as opposed to how we wish the world worked.

[Go2Peace]

38. +100! Democratic leadership needs to learn how the mind works, Rs are way ahead of us in this respec

The Rs use linguistic and cognitive science to deceive people and they have completely reframed much of our languge. We need to understand the same science to get the truth to them and articulate our message.

Our side is so ignorant and arrogant about our approach we actually use the Republican frames and reinforce them.

I love your term because it completely describes where we are at: "Political Creationists"

[AllentownJake]

42. This is what happens when you have a centrally managed party from D.C.

I swear, we have a congressional campaign in my area with one local on staff as the part-time office manager.

The DCCC people they brought in have training, but no clue what the local political culture is like.

I expect a 20 point loss again, because the candidate was selected by D.C. based on D.C. assumptions on what my area is.

The odd thing is, the locals in the party have this notion that they are all stupid. Except for one guy, who is actually stupid.

[IndianaGreen]

64. Our Declaration of Independence was an ideological document

stating the uncompromising core values of the English colonies in the Americas.

Pragmatism is the stuff of the American Tories that opposed independence!

[AllentownJake]

22. He has an ideology?

I mean, honestly, I've been waiting to see some sort of moral stand on an issue based on some sort of core belief for 13 months...I really am having a hard time seeing one.

I mean, the Armenian genocide thing the other day was really odd.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Ideologues are tiresome, but at least you know where they stand

His whole political career has been one of avoiding conflict and being all things to all people. There are rare flashes of driving an ethical point home, like he did with the Supreme Court during the State of the Union Address, but they're decidedly rare.

When one looks at the whole of it, the recurring theme is that of currying favor. Whether he truly feels that privatized laissez-faire corporatism is necessary or merely expedient doesn't really matter much.

Does he not stick his neck out on financial or health reform with SPECIFICS that he's imploring us to adopt because he's uber-cautious and ducking for cover, or because he doesn't have confidence in his policies? Has he even sat down and come up with a blueprint for a perfect world in the first place? Damned if I know. The campaigning and maneuvering seems to be the end itself, and the policy and issue at hand at any particular moment seems analogous to the current script being worked on by a movie star: a vehicle, not a goal in itself.

Now it's dangerous, because it's not just skeptics who have policy and personal issues with him like I do, it's many people. Once the presumption gets to be that it's nothing but elaborate dancing, the enthusiastic support that swept him into office will cool and the fickle public will awesome their way to the next flashy fad. Mercifully the reactionaries haven't anyone with anything remotely resembling stage presence. The best of the lot for that is Pretty Boy Droid, Mitt, the fashion plate from weirdsville.

Obama has done very well as a one trick pony: being on both sides of all issues that he couldn't duck completely and having pre-placed plausible deniability. That's one version of campaigning, that, when coupled with great charisma and a fortuitous political climate, can lead to great success. The problem is that it's not a primary trait for leadership; it's a good secondary skill for leadership, but it's not even close to the kind of policy advocacy that Rich is right in desiring.

[Go2Peace]

41. Presidents Job Approval dropping ; Democratic Party Affiliation Dropping

Job Approval:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/126329/Age-Groups-Differ-Obama-Bush-Clinton.aspx


Democratic Party Affiliation Shrinking



www.gallup.com/poll/122693/Democratic-Advantage-Party-Affiliation-Shrinks.aspx

[Odin2005]

25. Americans want a bold visionary, not a wimpy compromiser.

[boppers]

26. Not understanding a belief system does not mean that one does not exist.

Obama's not about bumper-sticker politics, and having a complex set of thoughts (rather than *'s (and similar right wing) sloganeering) seems to be what Frank Rich (and others) are unhappy about.

Rather than something simple, and stupid, like "banks bad, workers good", Obama winds up looking at problems through multiple facets... and this confuses people who aren't used to thinking. They assume that belief systems are shallow, like many religions. Or, to be more fair, many religions as they are taught and understood (most religions are infinitely more complex than your average republican belief system).

Put another way, the complaint isn't about Obama's belief system, but something else found in the article: "If F.D.R. or Reagan could distill, coin and convey a credo “nonideological” enough to serve as an umbrella for all their goals and to attract lasting majority coalitions of disparate American constituencies, so can this gifted president."

Pity that Frank Rich lacks the same succinctness he calls for, in essence, he's stating: "Obama needs better bumper stickers, and to speak like a moron."

[AllentownJake]

27. Earth to Boppers

FDR could run intellectual circles around the current occupant of the oval office.

I mean we are talking about the guy who pretty much figured out how to create a strong lasting prosperous middle class for 40 years and was able to defeat three fascist dictatorships in two different continents. Survived a coup attempt from Prescott Bush as well.

He had the intelligence to realize he needed to simplify his vision to the masses in order for it to work out for him.

He said I'm going to give you a New Deal, most people had no clue what the hell that meant, but it sure sounded better than what they were getting in 1933.

He also had actual Nazis operating and organizing in the country till 1939, not Tea Bagging fools dressed up like revolutionary soldiers, NAZIS.

Oh and one word CHANGE

[boppers]

30. FDR could give a good speech. I'll grant that.

He also didn't have a massive amount of racism to contend with, let alone his own party chronically mocking his message... if FDR was in office today, we'd have 5-10 DU threads asking "How's that New Deal working out for you" or "Old Deal is more like it!".

Oh, and he'd have pundits and bloggers complaining that he was weak, and not delivering his message appropriately, and that his message was too complex, or too simple, or lacked details.

[AllentownJake]

31. Actually probably not

FDR had this way of keeping his base in line, he gave them a pretty consistent thing to hate.

See what he was saying about bankers in the 1930s.

Barack gave one speech like that and followed it up with an attempt at action, I think he might be at 70% approval.

Oh, and his message is totally fucking muddled.

On HCR, I've been told for 2 years private insurance industries are the problem, so the solution, is to mandate I buy private insurance. I know I'm a simpleton from Allentown...but no matter how many times you all explain it to me...it still makes absolutely no fucking sense.

[boppers]

34. "a pretty consistent thing to hate."

The solution is not Emmanuel Goldstein.

I think that was part of Orwell's message, that the hate in politics is part of what created WWII, the constant blaming of one enemy or another, leading to wars, concentration camps, etc.

Lest you forget, FDR imprisoned 110,000 americans.... for not being american enough. He wasn't entirely a good guy.

[AllentownJake]

35. If you are President of the United States or the janitor who sweeps the Oval Office

I highly doubt there is a possibility in the world, you are entirely a good guy or girl.

Effective is the argument here.

[boppers]

37. "But the trains ran on time..."

Yeah, screw effective.

Hitler was effective. Stalin was effective. Mussolini was effective. FDR was effective. Hirohito was effective. 5 effective leaders, for their time. I think Churchill was the only one who didn't who didn't put people in concentration camps.

I can't get behind that, if the cost is concentration camps and global war. I'd rather have ineffective leaders than more global war.

[AllentownJake]

39. Ask Barack about Churchill

His grandfather was tortured by the British in the 1950s during Kenya's quest for independence.

What fairy tail world are you living in? As I type this right now, there is probably an Afghan goat herding family that is having an ordinance fired into their house.

As far as the FDR concentration camp thing. I'm guessing you didn't understand 1941 Californians. FDR didn't put the Japanese in a safe place, the rabid citizenry there was going to do some very bad things to them...see the south from the end of reconstruction to the 1960s and make it not terrorizing, but revenge killings.

I'm not really proud of a lot of things that have happened in this country. However, I firmly do believe that the citizens of the Pacific states would have done far worse thing to those citizens than President Roosevelt did.

War is hell.

[boppers]

43. Okay, "strong leaders" torture and imprison across the board then?

I guess Churchill is on the list, too.

If FDR couldn't keep the citizenry from from killing each other, I guess he's got some weak points. He had to put the Jews, er, Japanese into camps for "protection". Right.

War is, indeed, hell.

Of course, we're entirely off thread now, but maybe if Barack wanted to send a strong message, and galvanize the public, he could imprison every Muslim and Arab in the US "for their own protection" and make a huge statement.

Because, ya know, we didn't learn anything in the last 100 years, and why past leaders were criminally wrong.

[AllentownJake]

45. I want you to take the anger in this country after 9-11

I want you to now put it into context of times 1000, and this President has to explain to a lot of people that aren't really that educated they now have to send their children to kill Japanese people, just not those Japanese people.

I'm so fucking sick of people looking at history through 2010 lenses.

Frankly, the fact they got out of the detention camps alive and the prisoners of war captured from Germany and Japan were treated reasonably well, is a remarkable accomplishment given the feelings of the citizens in 1941.

I think you really would be best served taking a course on human nature over the past 2000 years and get back to me.

Genocide, is frankly a common affair of mankind.

[boppers]

46. Yes, Lincoln/FDR/Whoever was only "kind of a racist, not the worst kind"...

I'm looking at this through many lenses. You might want to learn how many died, and how much was stolen, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

As far as taking a course on the topic of human nature and genocide, I'd counter-suggest volunteering, and participating, in 10-15 major wikipedia articles on the topic. It's raw academic warfare, without the normal restraint associated with preserving one's good name.

[Go2Peace]

49. It's good you are learning about our imperfect past

while you are at it you should really read some works by George Lakoff. The approach you advocate will never get where you want to go.

[AllentownJake]

55. I am not stupid enough to judge past leaders on the values that exist now

I do not believe that is a productive excercise and by that standard every leader that has moved this nation in a new direction where more people have rights and access to education and the benefits of society is a fucking monster.

You can piss and moan about Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR to the fucking cows come home. At the end of the day, the country was way better these men ever existed and our President would never be sitting in his chair without each of those men, moving this country step by step into a better direction.

History is messy, if you want fairy tales, I suggest you stay away from it and watch Disney movies.

Mankind's natural state is a brutal battle for survival against nature and other members of mankind as they compete for resources.

We have come a long way from our tribal days, and we still got a long way to go.

[OhioBlue]

67. Yes, History is messy

and perhaps you're right - judging political figures of the past on values that exist in 2010 might not be productive.. but maybe it can be a useful tool - we learn from our history right? So don't we have to examine the bad with the good in leaders of the past, what did they do that could have been different and might have changed things for certain people decades into the future?

[Go2Peace]

48. Now you are comparing FDR to Musillini?

I can't believe I would have ever heard this kind of hyperbole on a "Democratic" board.

You just "scored one" for the Republicans. Good Job!

[PurityOfEssence]

59. Yes, anyone who doesn't understand his transcendent brilliance is just an imbecile

It's all about "faith" once again. We have to "believe" that he's on our side. The cultist slurs are well-based: so many of his most stalwart supporters offer nothing but their dizzy convictions that he's everything they want him to be.

Rich is saying that he needs to articulate it. Whether he actually has any real hard-and-fast beliefs is almost beyond the point here, although it IS a great point of curiosity for many of us. He's seemingly willing to jettison virtually anything for what he presumes to be tactical advantage, and that' NOT going to make people feel safe when they realize they're just as likely to be expendable.

Chess-playing is a cover for appeasement in many cases, and even if it IS super-brilliant, behind the scenes genius, we're living in a world that skews toward the simplistic and the skittish nature of instant news just makes it worse.

I don't think he'll EVER truly come out and say what he thinks about some very fundamental issues in this country like corporate restraints, financial regulations, health care expectations, war, religion and the environment because he's playing both sides of the street and that's been his consistent habit for so very long that anything else would be foreign. Remember: at times of great stress, people tend to fall back on habits.

Rich is saying that Obama needs to stand for things in a specific way; yes, clarity of sloganeering would also be helpful, but taking sides and being forthright is the issue. Rich is quite right in seeing this as a major mistake.

So no, his genius may NOT necessarily be "above" our understanding, as you snottily imply with your subject line, he may be PRECISELY what he seems: a serial maneuverer with very little that's truly a deal-breaker for him in his relentless campaigning.

[Cha]

61. Rich doesn't always get it right..

what was that he was saying about palin and the Dems? That she's a cunning baiter?

<snip>

"Palin’s Cunning Sleight of Hand"

"Yet the laughter rang hollow. You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait."

<more>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14rich.html

Rich was wrong on Gore, too..and other times on Pres Obama.

[Writer]

28. Here are his convictions:

LETS

GET

SHIT

DONE.

[AllentownJake]

29. Define shit nt.

[boppers]

40. Here you go:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[AllentownJake]

44. Just and FYI

We are in the biggest deflationary debt crisis since the great depression, and your guy is making sure Aetna gets money off me right now, through either me paying when I get a job, or by taxing someone else and paying for me to have shitty insurance if I'm out of work. Not health care, shitty insurance.

In November, that is going to be the issue.

P.S. The bankers are giving lots of money to the GOP right now, and since they are dirty sociopaths I'm taking a pretty smart guess at what our October surprise is going to be in 2010.

[boppers]

47. "your guy"?

What democratic party president are you supporting?

[Go2Peace]

50. It is still a Democracy right?

You act like you expect everyone to "kumbaya" behind the President, you imply theat FDR was semi fascist, but yet you clearly have an authoritarian approach expecting no dissent?

Make up your mind.

[AllentownJake]

56. I think it is not a secret

That I have significant problems with a majority of the administrations problems on War, Economics, and Health Care.

There is no election right now. I believe we were all talking about how patriotic dissent was 2 years ago.

[snot]

51. He did that bef. we elected him; that's why we elected him. Now, he needs to JUST DO IT.

Rarely has Hope been so high, and fallen so far so fast.

[Clio the Leo]

54. 2/12/09 - Obama states his belief system .... again....

... yeah, I adore ya Jeff but I'm callin' BS on this one.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/284010-1

(and this is just one example)

Pragmatism IS about principle (as we pragmatists know) and the clock runs out on November SIXTH, not November 2nd .... November 6th, 2012.

I was watching West Wing reruns the other day and I noticed something I hadn't realized before. America wants a Hollywood President. One who strolls into the room while his staff is in a panic and summarily dismiss the problem at hand with some pompous oratory. All problems and crisis are solved within the hour and any opposition is dealt with in the span of five minutes. They leave like beaten dogs with their tales between their legs, never to be heard from again.

Well, it's not that simple.

For all the obvious reasons, Barack Obama has never been one that you can pigeon hole ... put in one tidy, uniform, simple box .... he wasn't born that way and he's not going to start behaving that way now.

Anyone who doesn't understand his belief system (and this is directed to the author of the article, NOT you Jeff) simply hasn't been paying attention.

[AllentownJake]

57. I think the article is about communication

Which is kind of ironic.

The administration sends tons of mixed messages. You have Geithner and Summers running around talking their nonsense, and than you have Paul Volcker let out of the basement making some sense.

You attack health insurance companies for over a year, and than propose a solution where people are forced to buy private insurance.

One day you rail against the bankers, the next day you say nice things in an interview with Bloomberg.

Two out of three of your top appointments are Bush guys. Geithner and Gates were Bush appointees. Geithner to the NYFed, Gates at defense. You reappointed Bernake, who was at the epicenter of the financial crisis in 2007-2008.

That isn't really an ideological issue, as much as people don't know where the fuck you stand.

Perfect example is the Public Option. I think people would be more friendly, if the President went out and said forcefully, I want this as a cost control but the US senate can't deliver it. I'm sorry.

Instead of spinning that it was never really a critical component of your plan, when in the election, it was your plan.

I'm not even going to go into the Armenian genoicide or the fact that he has decided to involve himself in the Arkansas democratic primary, in favor of a candidate who has been a giant pain in the ass on his biggest issue.

Like I said, it is hard to see where he stands. People will stand by you, if you stand for something and lose the battle and you are required to do something else. They won't if you say you stand for something and than tell them, it wasn't really that important here is something else.

[IndianaGreen]

63. Don't you need core values to begin with?

Core values are not to be compromised or bargained away.

[treestar]

65. This nation needs to quit being so passive

It is meant to be self-governing. Sitting back and expecting leaders to get them to do what they should want to do themselves, or elect the leaders to do, is getting old.

It's like lawyers being told they have to entertain the jury. Geez, can't these people do any work? That's one big aspect of self-government, too.

The American people need to quit being so lazy or they will lose their republic to those with the "vision" to get them to follow. That's now how the US is supposed to work.

[O is 44]

70. Thank you for saying this....

in his campaign he always said "change starts from the bottom up" All that are complaining what have they done since election. A few calls and letters won't do, you must continue to push for change instead of being in constant complain mode.