Short-Sighted - Why do some liberals refuse to admit Obama is a change agent?

[impik]

The term "circular firing squad" is often used to describe the antics within the Democratic Party, and now I know why. Witness a 17,000-word piece written this week for The Nation by Eric Alterman, my colleague at the Center for American Progress. Titled "Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Democracy is Impossible for Now," the article makes two critical arguments about the Obama presidency. First, that Obama has been a disappointment because he has not accomplished the significant, overarching change on which he campaigned. And, second, that there are so many institutional hurdles—including corporate power, the filibuster, the media’s conservative tint—that, today, the deck is almost inexorably stacked against real progress of any kind. Both arguments belittle the substantive and far-reaching change that has already occurred under Obama.

If the left can’t recognize it, the right certainly can: The Tea Party movement was born of frustration at Obama's successes. That the president has changed so much in so little time is what sends those folks into the streets. It is a statement on liberalism that some on the left, like Alterman, can also decide to look upon so much change as failure.


http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/76170/short-sighted

[NJmaverick]

1. Our President has achieved extraordinary accomplishments

unfortunately he started out in such a deep hole, many people fail to realize that.

[Skittles]

2. no one fails to notice the big hole he started in

it is extremely debatable, however, how "extraordinary" his accomplishments have been

[NJmaverick]

3. I would disagree, you can climb to great heights and still be in the hole

it takes a certain degree of perspective and wisdom to recognize the distant one has climbed but still be in a hole.

[Skittles]

7. I think it must be nice to live in the clouds

alas, I live on the ground

[NJmaverick]

8. You should reach for the stars

[Skittles]

23. easier when you live in the clouds

[NJmaverick]

24. I wouldn't know

[jaysunb]

26. Hey Skittles

I've had great respect for you over the years and will continue to, but, you've really got to try and face the reality that is American politics.
No one man or policy is going to change a 200+ year system in 18 months.

We got the right leader, now it's our job to work the fields to see to it that the people who actually write the laws are the ones we want. That means recruiting and training good progressives to run for EVERY office. Not sitting around bashing our best hope yet. It only helps hold us back, because progressives are not the only people that visit sites like this....why help them destroy us ???

There IS a way to object or criticize policy without providing talking points to the opposition, including the MSM.

Please.

[johnaries]

55. Excellent post!

[Skittles]

56. he could have done better than this

WAY better

[NJmaverick]

70. Some people like yourself surely feel that way

others like myself feel that there are far too many obstacles and Constitution was written to prevent our nation from making drastic and radical change (which would have resulted in our nation constantly lurching in different drastic directions after every election).

[SunsetDreams]

59. excellent post jay

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

61. Yeah, but it's more fun to throw a knee-jerk, panty-twisting tirade.

It's make them all radical and stuff.

[Phx_Dem]

34. +1

[rhett o rick]

44. If Obama noticed the big hole, why did he promise so much? nm

[Skittles]

57. because people bought it

[NJmaverick]

65. He has fullfilled 119 promises in just 18 months

[rhett o rick]

25. Not only has he failed to keep his promises, he no longer even promises them.

He knew how deep the hole was when he made the promises. His allowing BP to enforce martial law is possibly the tipping point. Apparently, they are in charge. Not only did he fail to demand that BP have safety mechanisms in place before drilling, but he allowed them carte blanch on how to clean up, thereby causing even more environmental damage.

[NJmaverick]

27. You claim couldn't be more incorrect, here are the FACTS

Promise Kept 119
Compromise 37
Promise Broken 19
Stalled 82
In the Works 245
Not yet rated 3

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

[rhett o rick]

30. I am so glad you are satisfied. Those losing their jobs, homes and health insurance

cant wait much longer. I assume you are happy with his handling the oil spill. BP allowed to spray harmful chemicals on the oil to hide it, causing much worse environmental damage. BP allowed to work without oversite, with restrictions on access of the press and airspace.

What did he do when Massey Energy killed 29 miners?

What about the Patriot Act, the MCA, domestic spying, DADT, two wars, unemployment, etc. Where are they in your statistics?

[Political Tiger]

38. It's all Obama's fault!

Everything that has ever happened, that never happened and that will ever happen is all Obama's fault and we must blame him for everything that has ever happened, that never happened and that will ever happen because it's fun to stay eternally angry! Impeach, IMPEACH I SAY! :crazy:

[rhett o rick]

42. Do you even think that is a way of discussion? It is definitely not all Pres Obama's fault.

And for you to imply that I stated that is intellectually dishonest. There is a lot of blame to go around. But it isnt constructive to blame Bush or BP. We need to make sure our government doesnt let this happen again. It's our governments job to represent us not B fucking P. It appears that our Pres has yielded authority for the spill cleanup to BP. Is that what you want? It isnt what I want. I want BP to get the corporate death penalty.

Frankly I expected better from you.

[NJmaverick]

66. 119 promises kept in only 18 months is very impressive

and you shouldn't discount the very deep hole he started in.

[treestar]

40. Can't get past 'allowing BP to enforce martial law."

at least you didn't spell martial wrong.

[rhett o rick]

45. So you support the Pres allowing BP to dictate who can see the damage, who can fly over,

how to spray harmful dispersant. It seems the Pres is allowing BP to be able to do whatever they want. And you seem to support BP all the way.

[treestar]

50. How do you conclude that?

Is that the conclusion one draws when one doubts that BP has martial law powers in your system of logic?

[rhett o rick]

51. Ok, so maybe i exagerated to make a point. What's your point? BP has been excercizing

powers that they shouldnt have. I am not ok with that. But you either are ok or just dont want to comment. You prefer to nark at my post. I guess BP gets a pass.

[rhett o rick]

43. I noticed that you are responding in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8719869

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[firedupdem]

5. Some had trouble even accepting he's President, let alone giving

him credit for even one damn thing. The rest of us need to get out the vote in 2012 and donate where we can!

[impik]

18. Liberal racism is alive and well

[pocoloco]

29. Send those big bucks!!

Money for wimps!!!

[Exilednight]

6. The tea party was not born out of frustration with Obama .......

It was born from the left overs from the Ron Paul presidential run. Anything that is even closely resembling a centrist stance is considered over reaching by the tea party. Using the tea party as way to prove that Obama is making huge changes is like saying that the kkk is proof that we should never have an African-American president.

The facts are the facts.

What I don't understand is why some people on here go out of there way to prevent others from pushing the President to deliver on what he promised.

I've seen statements like "the HCR debate is over, just get over it." Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I am not going to get over it. I am going to push and push until the President delivers on his promise. Are there some good points to the bill? Yes. But the few good points aren't enough. I, like many others, want what he promised.

People on this board have said "it's the fault of congress". Bullshit is what I say. I voted for Obama because he stated, and I believed, that he could work with congress to get the necessary reforms passed.

[jaxx]

9. I don't think anyone knew the repubs would vote NO on everything.

Who in their right mind would shove the people's business aside to stand up like a bunch of spoiled brats and vote no in unison like a herd of sheep? The republican side of congress is at fault, and there is no way to deny that they have been asses.

edit to add>> the tea party was started by Dick Armey and his henchmen to destroy the health care plan. Nothing more. Before that they stayed home and bitched.

[jonnyblitz]

14. anybody with half a brain who witnessed how they treated Clinton

knew for certain they would be against everything Obama was for and call him a communist otherwise their base would abandon them.

[Nay]

20. Exactly. And Clinton was a white male. Did anyone REALLY think a black man

or a woman would have been treated BETTER than Clinton?? If so, give me some of that stuff you smoked.

[rhett o rick]

28. If anyone thought the republicans would do anything other than stonewall, they

were dreaming. The teaparty was born from fear imparted by the republicans and had nothing to do with frustrations. One must have a brain to be frustrated.

[Hydra]

35. They SAID they would say no

They promised to stonewall everything the second the election was over.

President Obama was dealing with a dying party at the time. He should have delivered the finishing blow.

Instead, with his help, they're alive and well, and have some VERY sharp knives.

[jaxx]

52. Speaking of sharp knives...............

And hind sight. Pretty easy then, isn't it? Just sit back and type in the fickle finger of hate. Dick Armey would be so proud to have spread the message.

[Hydra]

58. Heh

It was publicly stated. If President Obama thought he could change minds...well, I don't believe He was that naive. After all, Hilary Clinton basically said the same thing during the primaries- that she knew the field better than he did, knew his opponents better than he did.

Was she right, or was there collusion?

Either way, we pay the price, so do think I'm happy being right. I would have been happier being listened to when this all started.

[Exilednight]

88. And Dick Cheney would be so proud of the way some Obama supporters like to fear monger .......

"elect me, or else."

[LostinVA]

19. Very good post

+1.

[SkyDaddy7]

32. Seriously?

President Obama has delivered on many of his promises...Obama also said change will TAKE TIME! He said it would be a bumpy road and there will be set backs and some things might not change in his first term. Of course ts is overlooked or simply ignored for the "I WANT IT NOW!"

President Obama is not perfect no President is! However, this President is doing a good job and considering what he has had to deal with I am very impressed.

The problem is not that folks are pushing Obama for the change they want...This is a good thing! The problem is those who come out and simply say, "Obama has not delivered on what he promised" and then proceed to label him anything from a Republican to Corporatist to an absolute failure. And then say they will not vote in November or for Obama in 2012...So, basically these people would rather have the GOP take full control of the government just because Obama has not done everything they wanted. This is childish, reckless and does NOTHING to help get to where they want to be!

As for Obama working with Congress he has bent over backward trying to work with congress! It is easy for you to say "Bullshit" when it comes to Obama working with congress because you feel he should have done everything you want within his first 18 months. However, what is it you want Obama to do to get the Republicans to play ball? There is NOTHING Obama could have done to get the Republicans to compromise as they are set on blocking everything!

This country has been told that all government is bad for over 30yrs and trying to change this mindset will take time...Obviously time is not what many of my fellow Liberals are willing to give. SAD!

When the Republicans are running this country into the ground by finishing their goal of a corporate controlled Theocracy folks are going to wish they had hung in there and supported the President.

[Exilednight]

33. Seriously. Let's take HCR as an example ..........

What Obama campaigned on was vastly different from what he delivered.

There was suppose to be a public option. It is what he campaigned on, and he said he could get bipartisan support. He also promised that there would be no mandate to buy health insurance, one of the big differences between his and Hillary's plan. And let's be honest, nothing in this legislation (some will point to the OPM clause, but it's not a fix) addresses the real problem with health insurance - namely the insanity of rising costs.

[SkyDaddy7]

36. Do you honestly think...

Obama could have got bipartisan support for a public option? I hope not because there were not enough votes for it within the Democrats! Plus, with the election of Scott Brown the bill had to be hurried. And I always see people say the public wanted a government run PO but every poll I have seen says otherwise! I honestly think folks were fooling themselves into thinking change would be easy! They allowed the press to convince them that the Democratic Party had a "super majority" when they really did not. The Party is too diverse and the Blue Dogs used this FACT to shape the bill as they saw fit and there was literally nothing that could have been done to counter this. The endless press coverage of the Democratic Super Majority led many to think that issues like the PO were a done deal!

Again, folks have been literally brainwashed for 30yrs to be scared of the government as it does no good! The Republicans capitalized on the fear as they always do and this gave rise to the Tea Parties! They used the fact that folks were angry that a black man was POTUS, they twisted Obama's policies into crap like "Death Panels" and it was all downhill from there! If you do not remember the Ron Paul crowd was angry in the beginning at groups like Freedom Works stealing their idea of having a Tea Party but they had no other choice but to go with the flow. And don't fool yourself into thinking the Tea Parties were not in reaction to Obama, his race, his policies and the fact they lost the election to him! Had McCain won there would not have been any Tea Parties even if McCain signed a stimulus bill!

Yes, there are problems with the HCR Law but it is without a doubt better than what we had. Plus, nothing says that changes can't be made to it in the future. Baby Steps!

Controlling cost is a huge problem and who knows how this will be addressed here in the US and everywhere else. Every country regardless of the system are having the same problem.

Like Obama said over and over during the campaign and in his speech the night of the election "Change will take time!"

[Exilednight]

46. Here's a poll that say Americans wanted a PO........

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693


As far as your criticism to the public of expecting too much by expecting Obama to do what he said he could do, well, I guess that means all the hope and change rhetoric was nothing more than that ...rhetoric.

Your opinion is that the HCR law is better than what we had, but mine is that it's not.

I agree that Change will take time, but let's be honest, he's not going to back and visit HCR unless he is forced to by the Democratic base.

[KeyWester]

79. LOL

Since when do Americans get what they want ?

Ever heard of congress ?

Remember when you told me that Max Baucus wanted to vote for the public option and Obama wouldn't let him ?

Pelosi could only get a weak PO , but you think it would have passed the senate ?

It's called CONGRESS , perhaps you have heard of it.

[Steely_Dan]

82. I Agree

It's called LEADERSHIP

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Well, if the "change" is that list of "accomplishments" that Rahm Emanuel brags about

...then it's not really much to celebrate.

Mandatory payments to criminal insurance companies is not what I voted for.

Giving the "federal" reserve more control over the financial system is not what I voted for.

Endless, useless wars in western/central Asia is not what I voted for. Nor is referring to a lunatic warmonger like NuttyYahoo as "a man of peace".

These are not changes for the better. They are exactly the opposite.

I never expected all the damage of the last 30 years to be undone overnight. But I did, and I do, expect things to move in the proper direction. And in the examples I listed above (and many more) that is not what is happening.

Is it all Obama's fault? Of course not. You have at least a dozen "Democratic" :eyes: senators who are completely useless, and a spineless coward calling himself a "majority leader" who doesn't know the definition of either word. They are as guilty as the President is. In some cases, even more so.

[Diane R]

11. Progressive critics of Obama really need to read Jonathan Alter's book 'The Promise'.

I don't think people truly understand the challenges he encountered, and how hard he is working to bring us the change we voted for. We need to support this President.

[impik]

16. Yea, they should. No, they won't. It will kill their narrative, and who wants that

[Bluenorthwest]

12. So you claim the Tea Party was born from a rational reaction

to actual things? I don't. I sure don't see them pointing to a single thing that has changed that they do not want changed. I see them spouting nonsense, and using labels that do not connect with reality. They say Obama is a socialist, and that he was born in orbit or whatever. They do not point out policy changes and state their opposition, and I defy you to show me where they do.
When you find yourself framing the Tea Nuts as reality based, you should know there is a flaw in your tap dance. And you should be asked to back up that reasonable framing of them with some form of fact. It is absolutely amazing to me that I am reading a slam of liberals that couches the Tea Baggers in positive terms. Because they were born out of racism and misguided libertarian zeal.

[Zenlitened]

22. "When you find yourself framing the Tea Nuts as reality based..."

When you find yourself framing the Tea Nuts as reality based, you should know there is a flaw in your tap dance.

:applause:

[bvar22]

13. Too Reality Based to accpet the marketing on Blind Faith?

Too pragmatic?...need to actually SEE the results?

"In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18FE-70B2-A835FE1E7FA8D74C

Been to too many carnivals to be distracted by the shiny objects?

Too old?...we remember what "Democrat" used to mean?


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[NJmaverick]

17. The accomplishments have been extraordinary

and there is nothing pragmatic in refusing to acknowledge that reality.

[great white snark]

21. He's done the best he could considering what he has to work with.

Give him a more liberal House & Senate and watch things really take off.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

37. Maybe Tom Tomorrow can give TNR a clue:

[bvar22]

39. Oh no you didn't!

[Dinger]

41. Good One

No comment.

[NJmaverick]

78. So well articulated reason should be countered with a cartoon

I will have to take a pass on that approach. What's next? Will you be posting Snoopy or Garfield cartoons for us?

[spoony]

86. Do you forget that you triumphantly posted a cartoon yourself a week ago?

Intellectual Dishonesty, heal thyself.

[GodlessBiker]

47. The Tea Party movement was born of frustration that a black man is president.

The movement has racist underpinnings. It is the result of fear that a way of life is about to, if it has not already, disappeared; a way of life which assured the fearful that no matter what was happening on the street, a white man was ultimately in charge and will do what needs to be done.

In other words, in their view, since this crazy country seems capable of electing a black man as president, we must take away all of the federal power we can, so that our white leaders at the local level can keep things running as they have been.

[Orsino]

48. Because the change isn't enough to save us, and will eventually prove insignificant...

...in the larger picture.

The fact that many people's lives have been made measurably better, or their misery measurably less, is getting lost--no matter how heroic some of his efforts have been.

Our failure was nearly guaranteed by our decades or centuries of neglect, and our president has very little time, and very little power, to make change.

[martymar64]

80. That's my feeling as well.

Too many people see President Obama as some sort of Superman that will save the day, but I see him more like a Gorbachev, attempting to save a dying empire that is too far past the tipping point to save.

The forces at play are too powerful to stop, even for somebody with good intentions like Obama.

[spoony]

49. Mmm, reheated talking points.

It's what's for DUnner.

[scheming daemons]

53. Amazing....On a site dedicated to supporting Democrats and getting them elected....

... support for a Democratic President is called "talking points" by a member of that site.


Who the hell ARE you, anyway?

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. I know this might be hard to understand for some

since you come from a state where Ed Rendell, Bob Casey, and Arlen Specter are considered "Democrats".

See, the reason most of us vote for Democrats is so they will enact Democratic policies.

Not Wall $treet policies.

Not PNAC policies.

Not DLC policies.

With some notable exceptions like Afghanistan, I voted for a guy who campaigned on such policies. And after he was elected, he appointed a cabinet that was completely incapable of delivering the "Change" he promised.

As I said previously, I won't blame Obama for Spineless Harry Reid and the other dozen or so useless fucks who rendered a 60 vote Senate majority totally useless. But I definitely will blame him for Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Arnie Duncan, and Ken "drill baby drill" Salazar.

I didn't vote for those Republican assholes. And nothing can change for the better with them in the way.

[treestar]

75. Then go and work to get a green President, or Socialist

If the Democrats aren't for you, I believe the rules call for you to use other bandwidth to support third parties.

If you're so unhappy with the Democrats as they are; quit. Get us a 60 senator Green Senate.

[Sebastian Doyle]

84. Apparently you flunked reading comprehension in junior high?

Nowhere in my previous post did I say anything about third parties. And I don't appreciate the false accusations, nor the purge attempt that is obviously attached to it.

Fuck the DLC.

[EFerrari]

62. Not amazing in a thread dedicated to bashing liberal Democrats.

[NJmaverick]

69. Why not address the issue?

[spoony]

85. The OP raises no "issue"

It just berates the left, to an all-too-familiar melody, for being insufficiently impressed.

[SunsetDreams]

60. K&R

[EFerrari]

63. How silly is it to use tea klanners to bash Democrats.

LOL

[GeorgeGist]

64. The New Republic ...

thought invading Iraq was a stroke of genius.

[NJmaverick]

68. If you can't address the message

attack the messenger?

[tekisui]

72. In fairness you attack messengers all the time.

Krugman, when he is critical. Greenwald all the time. FDL constantly. I could go on, but you see the point. Hypocrisy.

[NJmaverick]

73. Wouldn't your accusation fall under the heading

of the pot calling the kettle black?

[tekisui]

74. Nope.

[NJmaverick]

76. I would have to strongly disagree with both of your posts

Neither one appears to be accurate.

For example, if you post something that is pure opinion with out supporting rational and/or facts one has no choice but to look at the persons credentials. For example you post something from FDL that is pure opinion, we do need to take in to account the lack of credentials of the one with the unsupported opinions. That's not the same as attacking the messenger. In this case the person I responded to (who wasn't you by the way) was suggesting one mistake means we should never listen to anything that person says again. That seems like a very unreasonable position to take and hold. So it's a reasonable assertion to suggest they were attacking the messenger. It's a subtle but important distinction.

Now on the other hand I have stated opinions that have been supported by fact or I provided the rational as to how I reached that opinion. Yet that has not stopped you from attacking the messenger in those cases rather than the message.

[bornskeptic]

81. TNR also strongly supported US entry into WWI.

I don't think Neera Tanden, the author of this piece, had much to do with either position.

[MadHound]

67. Oh, he's changed things alright, just not necessarily for the better

I don't deny that he's an agent of change. However much of what he's changed is for the worse, not the better.

I could only wish that he wasn't an agent of change, it would, at this point, actually make things a bit better.

[NJmaverick]

77. You state a rather strong and radical opinon

but you didn't provide any detail or explanation, which really makes it meaningless. I mean reading your post tells us you don't like what the President has done, but we don't know why that's the case.

[spoony]

87. So in each and every thread every poster must list, in detail,

all their grievances and arguments to back them up, or be dismissed as "meaningless"? Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that this is not the first time they've brought up and discussed their objections, and that you aren't necessarily owed a full accounting on your demand? No, that isn't it, is it? It's just a cheap rhetorical device.

[davidpdx]

71. If I had a nickle

for everytime someone posted on this board that Obama was like Bush, I'd be rich. I get sick of hearing that shit.

[ZombieHorde]

83. I think this perception of (no) change depends on one's priorities.

For some liberals, the wars are the biggest issue. President Obama broke his Iraq war promise. Now you know.

[branders seine]

89. I don't know.

Why do some centrist/conservatives think he is?

[LWolf]

90. Because he's the agent of neoliberal change, not leftist change. nt