Is Barack Obama a Progressive? a Centrist? a Blue Dog? a Corporatist?

[Leithan]

Or is he just a man doing his best with the cards he's been dealt?

Folks, I incline toward the latter, but maybe I'm being too soft. Please advise.

[dkf]

1. Realistic pragmatist.

That is why he is getting on some people's bad side.

[rfranklin]

2. That may be so, but he has embraced the right wing to be realistic...

I think Rachel Maddow hit the nail on the head--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8vOQCnuhh4

[msongs]

3. or because he is lacking in values not compatible with republican philosophy? nt

[dkf]

5. When the unemployed fellow refuses to shovel snow, that is not the guy who

Figures out how to start his own business or remake and innovate a career.

Thus so many are dependent on corporations for work.

In that situation do you get corps to hire more by hating on them every day and threatening them punitively at every opportunity? Isn't that counterproductive?

And we've seen what happens when costs go up. They fire people.

Hating the corporations won't improve unemployment. I kind of shake my head at the disconnect between hating the "corpofascists" or whatever they are called, and then expecting them to hire people for no reason.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Because they got to where they are

Off of American infrastructure and labor and our consumer market. And they still demand access to all of that despite offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

[dkf]

13. American infrastructure meaning retail stores?

What I don't get is why we think we should get the fruits of someone elses low wage labor. Then wouldn't we be as bad as the corps? The real guys who are getting stiffed are the ones committing suicide in those crazy bathroom break less factories in China.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. No shit, Sherlock

After they took advantage of all the U.S. had to offer to develop their products they took the manufacturing to slave wage countries.

But wait, weren't you the one saying we should stop "hating" corporations?

[treestar]

41. We're the ones buying the stuff, true

How to convince Americans to pay more for things in order that they come from American labor - even in the face of the opportunity to get the same thing for less. Don't see the haters of all business trying to come up with something that will create this desirable state of affairs.

People should never go to Wal-Mart - they should go to Mom and Pop who are American, and pay more for the same thing. That's what they never do. Mom and Pop always shut down. We hate wal mart but not enough to not go there when they offer the same thing cheaper.

The solution to that state of affairs has never been thought about, or whether it will be constitutional.

The only thing we can do otherwise is push for the Chinese to get richer so their standard of living will come up to ours and they aren't cheaper labor. Or put up import taxes to equalize the prices of the goods. That hurts our exporters.

No easy answer, so just hating the "corporofascists" gives people a venting mechanism.

[bread_and_roses]

70. Thirty years of wage stagnation leave people too broke to "buy american"

And you can lay those thirty years wage stagnation right at the feet of our Corporate owned Reps and the Corps that own them.

Beyond belief that people here are defending the Corps - I guess cause they're Obama's best buds.

[Armstead]

18. Loving and embracing Corporate Interests has had such good results...

We have been bending over backwards to placate and kiss the ass of the corporate elite, and their CONservative henchmen for the last 35 years or so that we have given them the keys to everything....

How has that been working out for us?

[dkf]

19. So you expect unemployment to be solved how?

Not by corporate hiring? Government hiring?

What?

[Armstead]

23. There is no easy answer, unfortunately

We are dealing with a perfect storm, rising from the confluence of forces, including globaliztion, technology, the consolidation that is the result of unchecked "free markets" and more....

Therefore nothing simple will solve it.

But one of the nessary steps is a restoration of certain public demands that stem from values. One of the reasons everything went bad is that as a society, we allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by right-wing corporate propaganda over the years.

As a result, corporate behavior and public policies that would have been widely considered unacceptable and outrageous when I was growing up are now the norm.

And as a result, the true economic interests of the majority of the population are the lowest priority today....Therefore corporations will not create domestic jobs or treat workers like human beings.

So part of the solution to create jobs to preserve a middle class has to be to challenge these Coroirate CONservative values, and begin to demand that they at least fulfill some standards of citizenship and morality.


the onl

[dkf]

28. Right wing Propaganda didn't do it...the thirst for cheap goods did it.

We did it. People dont want to pay for more expensive American labor.

[Armstead]

39. True, but that went hand-in-hand

Part of the propaganda was selling the idea of things like "wealth" over "savings" and an emphasis on rampant materialism and aquisutivness, along with a belief that enriching the rich would enrich everyone.

Related to that was a lack of attention paid to the results of "cheap" products on the real economy of jobs and domestic commerce.

I think people might have considered it reasonable to pay slightly higher prices in exchange for having well paying jobs and healthy communities. But the opposite was pushed by corporate conservative propaganda and their political servants.

We're finally starting to wake up from that in a small way...A change in values wouldn't change things or restore jobs overnight. But an important stepmis for political leaders to acknowledge it, and begin to lead back to a restoration of balance and sanity in public attitudes.

[dkf]

43. If People saved more then they could buy quality goods

But they buy buy buy tons of crappy cheap stuff instead. It's our spending habits that create the demand for imports.

[Armstead]

44. I don't disagree -- Like I said it's all interrelated

[hedgehog]

24. I think the unemployed person who refuses to shovel snow is riding

around with the welfare queen in her Cadillac.

My cousin was a steelworker who spent a lot of time on unemployment. His family may have actually been on welfare at one time. Now, the most generous unemployment benefit or welfare check is pretty slim. My cousin hustled his butt and painted houses for cash every time he was out of work. Between what he made under the table and government payment, he kept his family housed and fed until he found another job. He never reported that income, which means he was cheating on his taxes and receiving unemployment and/or welfare payments illegally. So, no doubt about it, he was a criminal. But you can't say he sat around waiting for someone to take care of him!

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Good point. If you report those odd jobs as you're supposed to you can lose benefits.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Whatever you do the Greek Chorus will criticize you.

[Tippy]

15. I totaly agree.....I felt like I was on a roller-coaster ride watching the SOTU

Until I heard what Maddow had to say...It is my hope people come together and get behind our President....

[Jennicut]

9. I agree. He is very realistic....maybe too realistic for some.

[dkf]

12. I was amazed when I looked at the projections and realized how significant

HCR was to helping reduce our budget crisis. He didn't do the scary charts to explain why it was necessary. He just talked about it in vague terms and did it.

[dmallind]

4. He cannot possibly be a Blue Dog

Despite the woeful lack of precision in normal DU usage, the term does not mean "conservative Democrat" or "less ideally left than I am". It is a defined group with a formal list of members who form a registered caucus in the House.

[JoePhilly]

6. Socialist Commie.

At least that's what I heard on Fox.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. He is exceedingly difficult to characterize

because, based on my understanding of him provided in his "Audacity of Hope" book, he is really non-ideological (and pragmatic) at his core. I would suggest, as you have, that I'm sure he wanted to get more done during the last two years than he did but had to deal with the cards (aka Congress) he was dealt. For instance, I think that he would've gladly signed a Health Care Reform bill containing a Public Option and would've gladly shuttered Gitmo by now had he not been blocked by Congress. I also believe that he would've preferred to sign a tax cut bill without including the upper class tax cuts. However, in regards to at least the Health Care Reform Law and the tax cut bill, he was pragmatic enough IMHO to recognize that getting most of what he wanted was better than getting nothing (or an even worse deal or no deal) later. We now, for the first time in history, have a body of reforms that help clamp down on some of the abusive and anti-health practices of the insurance industry, which we might not have gotten if President Obama decided to hold out for Joe Lieberman to change his mind and allow a Medicare expansion and/or Public Option to go through. Granted, there are plenty of things that need to be done in order to expand and strengthen the law (which, sadly, won't happen for awhile) but it's significance should not be underestimated (though it often is).

[Tippy]

17. Exactly......

[hedgehog]

27. Gitmo is a real problem. Some of the people there do belong in jail, but

you have all these people screaming that if they are jailed in the US, their allies will attack to break them out.

Some of the people there need to be released, but where can they go? Send them home, and they face torture and execution. Try to place them in the US, and you have people screaming again.

Obama might have closed Gitmo if he'd had support from the Democrats in Congress and in state and local governments, but all he got was the sound of crickets!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. I couldn't agree more!

Also, nobody seems to have presented a plausible scenario how such a massive "break out" is going to occur and such an argument also assumes that Al-Queda and/or other Islamic extremist groups have a large and significant presence here in the US to be able to accomplish what they're suggesting. However, assuming for the moment that they are capable of doing this (a BIG assumption BTW), isn't this supposedly the reason why we have things like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Department, etc.? :shrug: Are the people whom are "fearful" of having Gitmo detainees moved to maximum security SUPERMAX prisons saying that these things are, in effect, useless and that we are helpless to prevent anybody from attacking us domestically?
:wtf:
It's worldwide knowledge that we have a bunch of people in Gitmo (and even knows people were tortured and mistreated there and in other places as well), yet we haven't faced an outbreak of AQ attacks aimed at "breaking out" the remaining detainees out (actually, we haven't even had any domestic AQ-related attacks at all since 2001).

[hedgehog]

34. A related problem is the fear that if terrorists are tried in civilian

courts, somehow or another they will get away on a technicality and/or the city where the trial takes place will be attacked. Neither is true, but once the screamers open their mouths, truth goes out the window!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. I'm totally with you

Unfortunately, there seems to be woeful lack of and demand for critical thinking/common sense within our political system, which is IMHO the most serious problem with it.

[Uben]

8. Any answer is subjective.......

I would say he is just doing what he feels needs to be done. And, given the results so far, the man has my vote of confidence.

[Leithan]

32. I concur

:thumbsup:

[JohnnyLib2]

10. Democrat NOS *

*NOS, medical/psychiatric term for "not otherwise specified."

[ensho]

14. he is a man with Barons standing on his neck, head, heart and gut

nt

[patrice]

25. + with their hands around our necks. nt

[ensho]

33. true

nt

[patrice]

37. No matter how much anyone might wish that weren't the fact, it is.

So the questions are about how to separate us from their clutches. To me, that means much more emphasis on entrepreneurship AT THE BOTTOM and, since "we" have seen fit to SUBSIDIZE the top so heavily, to the point of having to all practical intents and purposes SOCIALISM for whoever it is that has their hands around our throats now, it is appropriate, nay FUNCTIONAL, now to build something that approximates that same kind of support for our new entrepreneurs.

We should also bring OUR jobs, jobs WE paid for by paying the way for the top 2% tax breaks for decades, HOME.

[Armstead]

16. Depends on the day....Consistency has not been one of his virtues

[patrice]

22. Perhaps he's anti-hobgoblin. nt

[hedgehog]

20. I think he is a Progressive , but that he's very diplomatic about it.

"A diplomat is a person that can tell you to go to Hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip"

Obama uses words that sound attractive to the Right and cause constertnation to some on the Left, but he's using thoe words to advance a Progresssive agenda.

Case in point: Eliminate tax loop holes. Everyone, right or left, likes this. Cut the corporate tax rates. The Right loves this. So you pass your bill cutting loopholes and lowering corporate tax rates.

But, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, the biggest corporations use loopholes to exempt 100% of their profit. A tax rate of 35% on nothing results in a tax bill of $0. Make them pay 10% on their entire profit and yu're talking real money!

[patrice]

21. Is the totality of reality, or even a majority of it, subsumed in any of those words? nt

[harun]

26. A Corporatist who says he is sorry that he has to be a Corporatist.

Which most Dem's are these days. Republicans are Corporatists who rub your face in it. The Dem's say they are sorry for doing it.

[patrice]

29. You left out Liberal, i.e. FREE. nt

[Leithan]

45. Indeed

Funny how the lexicography changes, isn't it? Oh noes! I'm not a LIBERAL! Dey's da people who wants 2 b legalizing bestiality!

We have allowed ourselves to be marginalized.

[patrice]

46. Include in the ways in which the lexicography has been limited the manner in which FREE apparently

refers now only to having the opportunity to be "against _______________", to the exclusion of "for __________________" and most definitely NEVER "for and against ________________________."

Not all equivalencies are false, nor are all dichotomies false. Freedom is the ability and the opportunity to functionally distinguish which is which, when and how.

[Leithan]

56. Okay, Patrice...

I'm new here. Please don't hurt me. :scared:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Ish, definately, no and meaningless respectively.

Obama is a centrist leaning towards progressive; he's not a Blue Dog (that being a political grouping, not an opinion); "corporatist" is a meaningless term.

I'm sure he's doing what he considers to be best with his cards; I think that on some issues he is wrong about what is best.

[stevenleser]

60. I want to agree 10000 times that "corporatist" like "bankster" are meaningless terms

that are also counterproductive. What is a "bankster"? Is it everyone who works at a bank? Should I be angry at the teller everytime I have to go there? If not the teller, how high does someone have to promote before I should hate them?

What is a "corporatist"? If a person here who rails against "corporatism" gets a good idea, borrows some money and forms articles of corporation to make money off of that idea, are they now a "corporatist" and should we start hating them? How about if I buy a few shares of a corporation? Am I a corporatist?

These odd and vague terms are counter-productive because to achieve anything you have to have clear goals. What these terms serve as are vague pejoratives that allow people who feel powerless to rail against something or someone to whom they apply these vague terms. That is not the same as helping achieve something in the way of progress.

[treestar]

38. A Marxist

that's what I've been told by some right wingers.

The labels are useless now, since people refuse to agree on them. They insist on seeing it from where they stand. This is how the same guy can be both a Marxist and a Republican.

[patrice]

42. "Nothing to be done" - Language has always been thus, it's an approximation at best

((except, perhaps, in the case of true poetry)).

People who think words are 100% absolute are often religious blasphemers or some other form of power obsessed nut.

Maybe people forget that words are events inside our heads. Have you ever read Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? I know it is a LITTLE controversial, but it does provide a good referential point at one end of the continuum for this question.

Any word refers to what any person can make it refer to. Most people make out of them something more or less approximating what most other people make them. It is the fact that we agree upon this that makes it work, nothing intrinsic to language itself.

This is why empirical Science is so valuable, though it has its language caveats too.

[treestar]

58. But not this crazily

There is still some agreed upon limit in general, or we could not communicate.

In the US today discussion of politics - nobody admit there are any shades. If it's not red, it's yellow if not yellow, red. No one will admit orange exists - red orange, yellow orange, or any other shade between.

[patrice]

61. Yes, there seems now to be this very contrarian power-struggle going on. An example

I like to use, when someone will listen, is the BS that goes on about the word "fuck".

Any sane person knows that it is extremely common to use this word to express anger, frustration, or rebellion, but there are STILL people who insist you are referring to sexual intercourse when you say "Fuck!" I would like to ask people who tell me not to say "Fuck" a hypothetical question: If I were to say something like "The car was a deep black with subtle metal-flake" would you insist that I was talking about a person of African decent? - or - If I said, "I wish I could find a toaster made in America" would you insist that I am looking in the USA for a maid to make toast? If you won't/don't make these kinds of mistakes with the words "black" and "made" in my examples, WHY are you making this kind of mistake about the word "fuck"?

If language weren't as flexible as it is, it probably wouldn't work at all. Perhaps fuzzy is a better word, because there needs to be enough of a consistent base for it to work, but also enough give for it to work too and, yet, there are many people who want to act (PRETEND?) as though that's not true.

All of us should have more, and more careful, ongoing discussions about definitions, denotative and connotative.

[mmonk]

40. From his actions, the last three which are names for the same thing.

It's where the evidence lies.

[vaberella]

49. Pushing for repeal of DADT, Matthew Shepard bill, wanting to close off shore bank accounts.

Yes...yes...obviously his actions are perfect example of a corporatist.

[mmonk]

62. Only the last one would bother the corporations.

He has done a few progressive things I like. I liked the cash for clunkers, rail, and the $1 billion in housing assistance for instance. However, I look at overall trajectory in economic and foreign policy.

[Leithan]

47. Unrecs. Most interesting.

Until I get a better sense of the forum, I shall restrict my "unrec" commentary to "interesting." ;-)

[vaberella]

48. The latter equals Realist Pragmatist. n/t

[slackmaster]

51. Career politician

He'll appease whoever he things he needs to.

[Jennicut]

54. Obama wasn't in the Senate that long. He was hardly a career

politician in that aspect. He served in the local Illinois govt. for 3 terms but was in Dc from the time he was sworn in Jan 2005 and then announced to run in early 2007. Hardly a long DC career. Bob Dole, McCain, etc. were there forever before they ran.

[slackmaster]

55. He's off to a good start for a n00B

:hi:

[Dawgs]

82. He saw his opportunity and took it. You obviously don't understand the ego of a politician.

They are all the same.

[Fearless]

52. Acts like a Republican... Hires Republicans... I think you know where I'm going. n/t

[BladesOfAiur]

53. I don't know

I would like to think that he is doing the best he can with the tools he has. All I know is, I would not want to be him.

[LWolf]

57. Other. He is a neoliberal. nt

[LSdemocrat]

59. Middle of the road Democrat, nothing more, nothing less

Nowhere near as liberal as myself, or most of the people on this board, but still a middle of the road Democrat.

[Fire1]

63. This would yield more info as a poll, imo. n/t

[joentokyo]

64. He is a Republican.

He was sold to the public as a progressive, but like Clinton, he is a Republican pretending to be otherwise.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[whistler162]

65. He is the President and a American....

and good at both!

[Odin2005]

67. Corporate Trojan Horse.

[Beacool]

68. Obama was whatever he needed to be to get elected and now reelected.

You wanted a progressive in 2008? He was the man of the left. In 2010 his party was "shellacked", he's now a centrist. If the pendulum swings again, he and his campaign hacks (Axelrod, Plouffe, et al.) will swing that way. It's all about obtaining and staying in power.

:shrug:

[laugle]

73. Great minds

think alike! The word is Chameleon.......read mine upthread...

[Beacool]

78. Yep, I see what you mean...............

:hi:

[edsmeal]

69. He is a liberal but,

He knows that a real liberal can not get elected in this right of center country.

[teachthemwell15]

71. Definitely centrist nt

[laugle]

72. He's a

cameleon.........able to change depending on who he wants to influence.........

Conclusion.....all the above.....

[RBInMaine]

74. A Center-Left Pragmatist But With A Large Vision As Well

[rury]

75. Pragmatic Progressive

[NorthCarolina]

76. Progressive during active campaigning, then corporatist in office.

Typical DLC New Dem style, Run Left, Govern Right.

[craigmatic]

77. He's whatever he needs to be whenever it suits him. When we ran congress he was a liberal now he's

moderate. If the repubs take over everything in '12 he'll be conservative. Clinton was the same way.

[mochajava666]

79. Corporatist

Hypocrite, opportunist and liar.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

80. A little bit country. A little bit rock n' roll. nt

[Dawgs]

81. He's a politician. Nothing more.

He says what he needs to say (ie. public option, ending tax cuts for rich, ending Iraq war) to keep getting elected.

[barbiegeek]

83. Dealing with the Cards he's dealt. He was handed a MESS