Left's attacks on Obama may underestimate him

[babylonsister]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia-20110810,0,173759.column

On the Media: Left's attacks on Obama may underestimate him

Drew Westen's criticism in the New York Times has drawn attention, but some other liberals are pushing back at his picture of the president.

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama makes a statement in the State Dining Room of the White House about the continuing economic toil gripping markets in the US and around the globe in Washington DC, USA, 08 August 2011. Obama also spoke about the soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan over the weekend. (EPA)

By James Rainey

August 10, 2011

snip//


It's impossible to know what would have happened if Obama had pursued a more confrontational approach. What has been quickly forgotten, though, as Chait points out, is that Obama had to struggle to get even the original stimulus package past a skeptical Congress and that the president can cajole all he wants, but he doesn't control the purse strings.

Now Reich and even moderates like CNN commentator David Gergen are calling on Obama to bring Congress back early from its summer break, to immediately hammer out some kind of jobs bill with his adversaries.

Sprung, blogging at Xpostfactoid, compared Obama's challengers on the left to Martin Luther King Jr.'s critics during the civil rights era. "Let's not forget that many African Americans at times regarded King as an appeasing sellout, much as many progressives now see Obama as one," Sprung wrote. "The Panthers and the Nation of Islam were more satisfying to many. King called out his adversaries, but he never shrank from engaging with them. Neither has Obama — though the results have not always been what his base could have wished."

And recall: One of the last occasions when cataclysmic failure was predicted for Obama came when the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Pundits across the spectrum were sure he had no chance of passing a healthcare bill. Just months later, he signed into law a compromise that eventually will expand care to 35 million Americans.

[Armstead]

1. Obama is not MLK. And the comparisons of their critics is also bogus

King had a vision and he was willing to put himself on the line for it. He was also willing to espouse ideas for true social and economic justice that were correct, but not always popular. He stood up for an idealistic vision and goals to aspire to -- and specific ideas to go in that direction.

Obama has shown he is not willing to put himself on the line for anything, other than protecting his own position. Where does he want America to go? What specific programs or issues would he go to the wall for? What set of principles does he emphasize in his proposals other than "bi-partisan compromise" that always ends up being a complete sellout that is anything BUT compromise? What actual innovations has he championed? Oh yeah. Green energy. Kind of like Apple Pie these days.

The idiotic comparison of King's critics with Obama's is also ridiculous. Paul Krugman is Huey Newton? Move On are the Black Panthers? Robert Reich is Stokley Charmichael? Jesse Jackson is Malcolm X?

Obama is NOT a helpless victim of that mean old Congress either. He and his team have shown they are more than capable of pushing through bills. The problem is that they only kick that machine into gear to whip liberals into line to push conservative legislation that they object to.

Obama suffers from a basic lack of vision, and a lack of determination to work for that vision. He is a good man, and his values are basically well-intentioned. But well-intentioned and decent are not a political program nor is it a roadmap to move the nation in a better direction.

Many people who are moderate and liberal do not believe that is good enough when the country is under assault by a well-fuded corporate machine that is relentlessly pursuing a right-wing agenda that threatens to hollow out both the soul and the wallet of America.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. All these men that you mentioned were great leaders but flawed men.

Obama is no different.

[Armstead]

4. I hope you understand the context of those others I mentioned

I was simply referring to them as examples of how ridiculous and misleading it is to compare Obama's critics to thosie who criticized King for being tolo moderate. Obama's critics are, for the most part are mainstream and moderate libwrals, not radicals.

Whatever the merits or flaws of those critics of King back then, they were radicals who were calling for a revolution and fundamental transformation of society, even if it required violence.

The great majority of Obama's critics on "the left" are basically mainstream moderate liberals or progressive populists who simply want him to be more assertive and promote an actual agenda for liberal/progressive reform more clearly and strongly within the political system. Even the "socialism" of a Bernie Sanders is basically just what used to be called liberalism.

Obama is a wonderful man. Unfortunately (IMO, of course) his flaws are not personal so much as a lack of what is needed for leadership at this point in history. And it is possible for to be strong and clear and reasonable, and still confront the problems and special interest opponents in a pro-active and productive way. That willingness to engage and actuallty propose an alternative to right-wing corporate conservatism is what is lacking in Obama.

[jamieque]

16. You'll have to forgive me...

but considering how much often you tend to complain about Obama I have to humbly disagree with your comment. Allow me to point out a few flaws with your statement...


"I hope you understand the context of those others I mentioned I was simply referring to them as examples of how ridiculous and misleading it is to compare Obama's critics to thosie who criticized King for being tolo moderate. Obama's critics are, for the most part are mainstream and moderate libwrals, not radicals."


Oh, I understand the context perfectly however I am afraid it is you who doesn't. The reference of similiarities between King and Obama are valid. Don't believe me? Go do some actual research from reliable sources and no I don't mean the media critics. The reason I say the similiarities are definitely present and quite uncannily similiar are because they are. The critics are flawed humans just like all of us are so their word isn't necessarily right. It is merely speculations based upon their own doubts, fears, prejudices and most of the time ignorance. They believe, like the different mainstream factions that make up the various parties, which I honestly think need to chill the fuck out and shut the fuck up, that they know everything about Obama. Just like the critics thought they did in King's day and time but in truth they didn't know shit. Good to see that some things never change no matter the era. Why do I say this? Simple. Take the time to notice that none of them are currently saying what needs to be said or done to help anyone. They are just speaking out because they like to hear the sound of their own voices even if those same voices are annoying as hell. It isn't because they give a fucking care about seriously solving the current problems that we are all facing. If they did care then they would say and do the right things and as a result things would be different. Unfortunately, very little is changing for the better and that is the problem. The critics spend so much time, along with so many other people, thinking that they are always right but in truth they are all just as clueless as many of the politicians themselves are. No one ultimately knows Obama's heart but Obama himself. We speculate and say we do all day long but in the end we don't know. And considering that Obama seems to be a long term problem solving type of guy I think it can be said that he knows what he is doing. The problem is that many of us lack the convition, faith and courage to fight by his side.

As a result true solutions will never make themselves known unless we seek them out. And the only way to do that is to stop being so foolish, put a side our pre-conceived viewpoints and differences and truly work together instead of against each other. It has been said that a house divided can't stand and it is true. And right now all I see is divisions everywhere which aren't helping us at all. Anyway, moving on...


"Whatever the merits or flaws of those critics of King back then, they were radicals who were calling for a revolution and fundamental transformation of society, even if it required violence."


Hmm, interesting... let's see...

Do we have radicals today? Check. Are they flawed as hell? Yep, you betcha. In fact, we seem to be swimming in a ocean of these so called radicals. And many of them are just as critical as the ones in King's day were. And like the ones in Kings day they will be proven to be just as wrong in time.

Is there a revolution going on? Hmm, yep, there is one and it is a very important one. It is a revolution of change and awakening to truth about ourselves and our connected futures. We have a responsibility to the next generation just as much as we have to previous one and the current one. Obama knows this and has, like King, spoken out about working together to bring about positive change to our society that will lead to a fundamental transformation of how we view ourselves and our place in the world. What we need to do is stop asking the president if he has the courage to do whats right because I think he does. The question is do we. Asking this president questions that we refuse to ask ourselves is stupid and unwise. We, like him, make mistakes and don't always have the courage to stand our own ground. Do we truly have a right to question the president about vision when we don't even have one ourselves. We think do but in truth we don't because in order to have a vision you need to have true courage to strive and work to bring about that vision.

As for the violence issue... well... we have crazy ass teabaggers who seem pretty insane enough to start trouble that could esculate into some pretty ugly violence. So yep I'd say the more things change, the more things stay the same. It may have been about Civil Rights in King's day but today we are in danger of losing all our rights and freedoms. Can't you see what is happening or are you just too blind?


"The great majority of Obama's critics on "the left"" are basically mainstream moderate liberals or progressive populists who simply want him to be more assertive and promote an actual agenda for liberal/progressive reform more clearly and strongly within the political system. Even the "socialism" of a Bernie Sanders is basically just what used to be called liberalism."


Okay... whatever. Again, the Obama critics tend to not know what they truly want and as a result they flip flop daily from one viewpoint to another. And they have the nerve to say the same about the president. Ultimately, the truth will always be that no matter what Obama does it will never be good enough to stop the critics from bitching about something. So I say he continue just being himself and to hell with the critics since they rarely have any constructive critism to give out. As for them wanting progressive reform... ha ha ha... please don't be so gulible. The only way any progressive reform will ever happen in this country is if there was a massive amount of heart and soul searching. The people have to want things to change and be reformed. They have to vote for change and reform otherwise it won't happen.


"Obama is a wonderful man. Unfortunately (IMO, of course) his flaws are not personal so much as a lack of what is needed for leadership at this point in history. And it is possible for to be strong and clear and reasonable, and still confront the problems and special interest opponents in a pro-active and productive way. That willingness to engage and actuallty propose an alternative to right-wing corporate conservatism is what is lacking in Obama."


Nice of you to say that about the president. And here I thought you couldn't be sincere about something. Well, I guess I was wrong. However, where you see flaws I see his strengths. You are saying things that seem to kinda contradict each other. Who are you to judge him and his leadership abilities? And for your information he is the right kinda leadership that is need at this point in history. He is sensible and caring. He is trying to be a team player and work with his opponents which is how Washington DC is suppose to work. In other words, Obama isn't the problem it is his opponents on the other team that are the problem.

Ultimately, after reading your comment I find myself confused and shaking my head because I can't understand your logic. Oh well, that is your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

[Armstead]

24. My equally humble response

You are correct. Nobody has all the answers. Progressive and liberal critics may be wrong on some specifics. You may believe the progressive/liberal agenda is full of shit. Please criticize actual positions on actual issues if you want to. That's politics and democracy. But the strident "my way or the highway" and "everyone has to fall in line behind Obama and shut up" approach is not conducive to the actual constructive dialogue and search for solutions that you claim to profess.

QUOTE>>>>>Take the time to notice that none of them are currently saying what needs to be said or done to help anyone. They are just speaking out because they like to hear the sound of their own voices even if those same voices are annoying as hell. It isn't because they give a fucking care about seriously solving the current problems that we are all facing. If they did care then they would say and do the right things and as a result things would be different.<<<<

I don't know what you're been reading/watching/listening or talking to. But you are not paying any attention if you don't think "critics" (a very broad term I realize) either don't care or aren't making constructive suggestions. I could give you countless examples of suggestions and alternatives from liberal and progressive critics from varying perspectives..... But just one example. Many people, like Krugman, have been advocating all along that the economy needs a very large and consistent jump start of public spending which would both stimulate the economy and do worthwhile things for people and society. They pointed out the basic principle that long-term deficits are far less of a problem to address after the economy is in better shape. They urged Obama to support that basic principle, and reject the GOP lies. Obama ignored that, and we are all going to pay the consequences on many levels....You are welcome to disagree with that premise, but IT WAS A POSITIVE SUGGESTION AND CRITICISM BASED ON REAL DISAGREEMENT OVER A POLICY..... Saying people have no ideas or proposals is totally off the mark.

I don't want to personalize this, but I was alive and conscious before and during the Civil Rights Movement. I was a lad and a teenager, but I was paying attention. So don't feed me crap about "researching" it. I am well of the context of those times and both the parallels and the differences.

>>>>>And considering that Obama seems to be a long term problem solving type of guy I think it can be said that he knows what he is doing. The problem is that many of us lack the convition, faith and courage to fight by his side.<<<<<<

There are people with plenty of people with conviction, faith and courage, and who would prefer to fight by his side. But not when they believe he is making a mistake or doing something contrary to their core beliefs of what the right thing to do is....And Obama is plenty smart. But he is not the only person in the United States with brains.

>>>>>>>As a result true solutions will never make themselves known unless we seek them out. And the only way to do that is to stop being so foolish, put a side our pre-conceived viewpoints and differences and truly work together instead of against each other. It has been said that a house divided can't stand and it is true. And right now all I see is divisions everywhere which aren't helping us at all......<<<<<<

I totally agree with that principle. But many of see the same mistakes that got us into this mess over the last 30 years being repeated. We can either shut up and sit back while bad patterns are repeated, or we can encourage the search for true solutions -- even if that means we have to be critical of those leaders perpetuating the same old, same old.

>>>Asking this president questions that we refuse to ask ourselves is stupid and unwise. We, like him, make mistakes and don't always have the courage to stand our own ground. Do we truly have a right to question the president about vision when we don't even have one ourselves. We think do but in truth we don't because in order to have a vision you need to have true courage to strive and work to bring about that vision.<<<<<<

Again you are selling a whole lot of people short. You think people who disagree with Obama don't have any ideas or vision or courage, and have never asked questions? Bullshit. Horseshit. Any other kind of shit you want to name. That is totally WRONG.....First of all, the "easy way out" is to say "Well we elected Obama. Our team is in and he'll take care of everything so I can just sit back and stop paying attention and feel happy that we're now in good hands." Second, do you really think it is easy or comfortable to ask questions and not fall into the Democratic Party line? Got news for you. It isn't. It's very difficult and uncomfortable to go outside of the "Go team Go, as long as my team is in charge that's all that matters" framework....And we would much prefer to limit our so-called "bashing" to the Republicans who deserve it.


>>>>Again, the Obama critics tend to not know what they truly want and as a result they flip flop daily from one viewpoint to another. And they have the nerve to say the same about the president. Ultimately, the truth will always be that no matter what Obama does it will never be good enough to stop the critics from bitching about something.

Again you don't give any credit to people who do not think exactly like you. That's sad.

As far as "lacking consistent visions" that too is crap. Myself and many others are not critical of Obama and the Democratic Establishment just for the fun of it, or because we enjoy going against the grain. For over 30 years, liberals and progressives have seen the economic foundations of true shared prosperity being dismantled and replaced by huge corporate monopoly empires -- too often aided and abetted by the Democrats as well as the GOP. We have seen opportunities for the poor, middle and working classes gutted, as income gaps grew ever wider, and the nation's wealth siphoned upward into the hands of a small elite.

And all along, progressives have tried to warn about the consequences, and point out ways to avoid this -- including very mainstream common-sense solutions such as preventing huge corporate mergers and keeping common sense regulations in place. But constantly the Democratic "centrists" ignored those solutions, insulted progressives and joined hands with the GOP to allow the economy to be outsourced and concentrated into the hands of a few monopolies....AGAIN, we are not talking about some hippie utopia. Just a restoration of the kind of basic liberal principles and human values the Democratic party used to stand for.

Yes the mess is largely the result of the assault by the GOP and their supply-side nonsense. But too often Democratic leaders have echoed and collaborated in advancing that too.

And so, when we see Obama either avoiding these problems -- or promoting the same policies and message that got us all into this mess -- we get a little frustrated, to say the least. And we're gonna speak out about it, and continue to try and make suggestions on how things can be done differently.

[Vattel]

39. awesome post.

[Armstead]

46. Thanks....

Alas I note that after all that work in writing it, there has been no response to it.

[woo me with science]

53. Beautiful post. nt

[msongs]

10. obama is not a great leader. having him on your side is at best a questionable asset nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. In *your* opinion, he's not. n/t

[Enthusiast]

42. He is a very poor leader. And worse.........nt

[primavera]

43. I dunno, under different circumstances...

... were he, for instance, working with a sane and reasonable opposition, he might very well be a highly effective leader. Only problem is that we don't have a sane and reasonable opposition for him to work with and his leadership style in confronting the insane and unreasonable is regrettably not very effective.

[Enthusiast]

47. You know,

it might help if Obama would quit pretending as though Republicans are the reasonable opposition. He has the bully pulpit, he is the only one that can do much of anything. Like that is going to happen.

[primavera]

49. Agreed

I think Obama's problem is that he's crediting Teabaggers with actually being sane and therefore having a legitimate point of view that deserves to be respected. That "middle ground" affliction that so much of the US suffers from blinds us to the fact that there is such a thing as objectively correct and incorrect. I'm sorry, but the earth is round; I can't help it if you're stupid enough to believe that it's flat. Compromising on some middle ground and concluding that the earth is square doesn't help anyone. Teabaggers will not be happy until government has been reduced to ashes without so much as a traffic light left over. If that's your goal, no compromise will ever be enough; you'll just take each compromise as a further step towards your yet unfinished goal and will then move on to tearing down yet another piece of government until your goal has been achieved and there is nothing left to tear down. That philosophy is antithetical to the belief that government has a vital role to play. There is no middle ground. By trying to find a nonexistent middle ground, you're trying to make oil and water mix, and it's just never going to happen.

[okieinpain]

18. wow, and I guess you are. n/t.

[Enrique]

5. i was just going to mock the same thing

i'm not sure about "idiotic", but I do agree with "ridiculous". I'll add laughable and ludicrous.

The idiotic comparison of King's critics with Obama's is also ridiculous. Paul Krugman is Huey Newton? Move On are the Black Panthers? Robert Reich is Stokley Charmichael? Jesse Jackson is Malcolm X?

[flamingdem]

22. So you picked the "Whine of the Week" a la Cenk nt

[Armstead]

25. Sure if you want to marginalize all criticism....whatever yawn

[flamingdem]

27. Perhaps you underestimate Obama, who do you think would be much better to

fight off the unlimited pockets of the Reich wing?

[Armstead]

32. Who better? Obama with a spine and real liberal principles for one

[PlanetBev]

28. You just hit the mark, Armstead

Witnessing what's going on in this country, hollowed out is exactly how I feel.

[jeff47]

3. Wrong on the Healthcare bill

Obama's team gave up when Senator Brown won.

Pelosi is the one who stepped up and got it passed.

[ProSense]

7. Not wrong

President Obama

<...>

Sometimes I think we got so many things done so quick that people forgot. But let's just think about this. We upheld the principle of equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) We lifted the ban on stem cell research and restored science to its rightful place in America. (Applause.) We provided health care to 4 million children who now have it who didn’t have it before. (Applause.) We passed the strongest veterans budget in decades. We protected families from getting ripped off by credit card companies, and children from being targeted by big tobacco, and helped consumers deal with the twin plagues of mortgage fraud and predatory lending.

<...>

And that's why I expect Democrats and Republicans to want to make sure that we don't find ourselves in this same situation again. That's why we have to have financial regulatory reform. And, yes, that is why we're going to fix the health care system -- (applause) -- a health care system that too often works for insurance companies better than it does for individual Americans.

And again, I didn’t take this on because it was easy. I got David Axelrod -- he does all the polls. He whispers in my ear, man, this health care thing is hard. (Laughter.) I am a amateur historian, so I know that seven Presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get this done. We understood this was going to be hard.

<...>

So when I hear "deficit hawks" out there who say they want to control the federal budget and aren’t willing to do a darn thing about the skyrocketing costs of health care, I get a sense they're not entirely on the level. Because our proposal for health care reform, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would bring it down by $1 trillion over the next two decades. And even in Washington that's a lot of money. (Applause.)

I took it on because every single day, 15,000 Americans join the tens of millions who don’t have health insurance -- and 18 million -- 18,000 Americans die because of the lack of health insurance.

That's what we campaigned on. That's what we're working to get it done -– with Democrats and with independents and with Republicans. We want to bring down costs and end the worst insurance practices, and finally give every American a chance to have the security of quality, affordable health care.

I am not going to walk away from those fights. And I don't expect you will either. You've come this far. The odds were a lot less that I'd ever be standing here than they are that we can solve some of these big problems. I mean, think about it. Tim was -- (applause) -- when Tim endorsed me in Richmond, first endorsement I got outside of Illinois of any elected official -- here he is, newly minted governor for the Commonwealth of Virginia -- there was one thing that was clear, and that is he was term-limited. (Laughter.)

But don't you guys -- you remember this. Nobody gave us a chance. This campaign was declared dead -- what -- 10 times. (Laughter.) You know, the same folks who are now writing about what next, and what's happened to the Obama -- these are the same folks who were writing about how he doesn’t stand a chance; how after New Hampshire, that was it. After Pennsylvania, that was it. Right? We went through this. And they were saying your faith was misplaced and you set your sights to high, and your hope is naïve, and Washington won't change. And now all of them are feeling like, see, we told you, Washington doesn’t change. And they're feeling kind of self-satisfied about the fact that we haven’t yet gotten health care done.

Well, let me tell you something. You didn’t listen to those voices then. Your voice proved them wrong. You proved that nothing can stop the power of millions of people who want to see an America that's living up to its values and its ideals. That’s what you did. And that’s what I’m asking you to do again. (Applause.)

This is an extraordinary moment. I want to remind you we don't quit. And I don't quit. (Applause.) And we are going to bring about the changes that you believe in and I believe in, and that ultimately will help our children and grandchildren believe as they grow up -- an America in which everybody has got a decent shot at life; in which we're leading in innovation; in which we're proud of our foreign policy.

<...>

Not only that, but the President's budget included language allowing for the use of reconciliation to pass health care.

On May 1, Congress passed President Obama’s budget, which included language allowing for the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform with a simple majority in the Senate.

Obama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reform

[jeff47]

9. Timelines are hard!!!

Great job posting a speech that wasn't from the interval I was talking about.

I do realize you desperately need to rewrite history here, but we just lived through this. And our memories are not that bad. The immediate WH reaction from Senator Brown's victory was to declare heathcare reform dead. Rham's post-election interview was full of nothing but defeat. They decided they might get a few changes on the margin but the sweeping reforms were never going to happen.

Pelosi refused to give up and pressed forward on the bill. Then the White House fell back into line. But if it was up to the Obama Administration, healthcare reform would not have happened. All those "realists" declared we didn't have the votes so there's no point in trying.

[ProSense]

12. The only thing the President said

about Brown's victory is that the bill should not be pushed through until he was seated:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So how do you do it now? This strategy that a lot of people have talked about getting the House to pass the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi yesterday seemed to say that this was kind of a non-starter.

OBAMA: Well, here's , here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process. So ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Number one ...

OBAMA: That, that's point number one. I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true. I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there's some things in there that people don't like and legitimately don't like. If they think for example that there's a carve out for just one or two particular groups or interests, I think some of that, clearing out some of that under brush, moving rapidly...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So start again with a smaller core package.

OBAMA: Well, look, I'm not going to get into the legislative strategy. First of all, my job is to as president, is to send a message in terms of where we need to go. It's not to navigate how Congress&

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's to set direction.

OBAMA: It's to set direction and the direction I think that has to be set is to identify those core elements of this package and to get that done. At the same time as we recognize that what I've been doing since day one, I'm now here a year -- every day what I've been worrying about is how do I get this economy back on track? Now that hasn't always been publicized. It has sometimes&

link

Those are the facts from the day Brown was elected. Oh, this put Brown on record as voting against health care reform. That should come in handy in 2012.

[Armstead]

13. You just illuustrated the problem. What was he talking about?

A lot of blah,blah, blah that adds up to nothing and has no sense of direction.

"Let's all look for those areas we can all agree on." Well, okay. Sure. As the subsequent history bore out, the GOP and a Democrat in favor of real reform are going to agree on nothing. Using that as a starting point (after long hashing out had already occurred) is an abdication of his basic responsibility as a leader. And the final muddled mess of the legislation proved the effect.

[ProSense]

17. No

"A lot of blah,blah, blah that adds up to nothing and has no sense of direction."

...you just illustrated the problem, a lack of comprehension.

Scott Brown voted for reform in MA. Getting him on record with this vote solidifies his hypocrisy.

[Cosmocat]

40. STFU with this already ...

"the direction I think that has to be set is to identify those core elements of this package and to get that done."

He didn't throw the towel in, just admit you have lost any perspective of him and can't be honest. Jesus, a direct quote and you bs around it like a fricken republican.

Rahm threw the towel in, and Raham did not want to go after it to begin with.

And, the fact that ONE stinking sentorial position was the key to getting ANYTHING done at all, highlights the massive resistance of the legislative body to getting it done.

It is not the single payer system WE know would be best, but the fact is, the Obama administration was the first administration in nearly a half century to get ANYTHING related to HCR done.

[Armstead]

48. To be honest, I would have preferred that they try do do LESS initially

If they decided that even a small step like a limited public option was too much, then I wish they would not have tried to do a bunch of crap and called it a "reform" package that both over-promised to those who want reform, and stirred up opposition by the numbskulls who want to remain captives of private insurers.

With the economic crisis the timing was wrong.

I would have preferred that they state the larger goal, but limit it to a series of popular less controversial steps to first of all bring the PRICE AND QUALITY OF PRIVATE INSURANCE UNDER CONTROL, and steps to MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE as a starting point, and making it clear they would be pushing more controls and public alternatives over time as an agenda item.

Tactically, it would have been making more fertile ground for real reforms towards a public insurance program by overcoming the resistance in stages, within an overall context. It would have made it seem less threatening to average people, and would bat down the crappy claims by the GOP and teabaggers.

But that assumes that the WH really wanted to move towards a public insurance proghram in the first place, which I wonder about.

[Cosmocat]

55. Seriously ...

Yeah - it is a fairly contrived bill. Simpler is often better. But, frankly, the insurance industry had been preparing for the battle, and put A LOT of money into A LOT of legislators for A LONG time, and the terms of the bill clearly were set by the industry.

I would have liked a cleaner and more focused bill.

But, seriously, who would have thought, even in the most deranged of all repubican capabilities, that they would be able to gin up such outrage over the fricken thing.

You want to set off a hard right republican, drop the line that "they treated health care reform like it was the Patriot Act or something ..."

[jeff47]

44. Your quote agrees with me.

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on."

Lookie there! It's time to give up on the large-scale package, and go with the minor tweaks around the edges.

[Armstead]

52. I want single payer ultimately, but I actually wish they had been smarter

I think Obama might have had a good ;point there. But they didn't do that, and instead let the whole thing blow up beyond control.

As in many things, I agree with Obama's stated words at times, but they are too often contradicted by his actions and performance.

[Larkspur]

6. Chait and the TNR are corporate whores, not liberals

Obama fails to make the moral case for Democratic values and rally the American people to put pressure on the recalcitrant Rethugicans. He worships the Corporate cult of "centrism".

[ProSense]

8. It's

"Obama fails to make the moral case for Democratic values "

...not Obama who failed to make the case, it's that some people choose not to hear it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. I think Obama's harshest critics on the left are missing the "theater" with this "No Drama" admin.

They seem to think if you don't show that frothing-at-the-mouth passion of Kooch and Sanders, you're not doing your job. Everyone screaming for this president to demand that Congress return to town seems more concerned about the theater it might create, and besides the president doesn't have that power.

[Armstead]

15. Um there's plenty of drama being supplied by the GOP

We're giving dry lectures on the process of civics.

Yeah, under the present circumstances, we need more drama, just to get heard.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. No pulse is not the same as 'no drama'. Fact is, his campaign

was highly theatrical, more than any I have seen in my lifetime. The set for the nomination speech alone was worthy of a full scale opera.
I think describing Sanders as 'frothing at the mouth' is about as far off base as a description can be. Denigrating other people's elected liberals and Democrats with name calling and silly hyperbole is very drama laden. No drama? Look at your language! Frothing at the mouth, screaming, demand, these are the charged up words you use about those whom you do not agree with, while at the same time claiming for yourself the 'no drama' banner. Quite a thing to see, really.

[democrat2thecore]

36. Very well said... and...

In my 51 years I have never seen a campaign and presidency be so at fundamental odds with each other. Sanders is not asking for more, really, than for Obama to simply live up to his campaign rhetoric and fight for those who elected him. No drama about that. A complete 180 on issue after issue after such a thrilling campaign - that's drama that reeks of betrayal.

[Armstead]

51. Shakespearean Tragedy actually, or maybe Greek Tragedy

[MadHound]

19. More rationalizing of a weak presidency.

The fact of the matter is that if Obama, with the weight of a Democratic Congress, had pursued confrontation instead of fleeing from it, he would not be reduced to the sorry spectacle he is now, offering 'Pugs all the spending cuts in the world in exchange for a debt ceiling raise.

This piece is nothing but revisionist claptrap. For instance, "he signed into law a compromise that eventually will expand care to 35 million Americans." Yeah, one that doesn't provide care to these 35 million Americans, but instead mandates that they buy it, buy health care insurance from an industry that is likely regulated, under the auspices of a law that has few price controls. The president had the will of the country on his side, yet the best he could do is to give the insurance industry a mandated monopoly.

The simple fact of the matter is that this president doesn't like to fight. And while that is all great and noble, in politics such a sentiment is a liability, and we the people are paying for it.

[ProSense]

21. More

" had pursued confrontation instead of fleeing from it, he would not be reduced to the sorry spectacle he is now"

...confusing "confrontation" with governing.

He should have been like Bill Clinton and "stared" down Republicans.

Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Enron loophole, but hey, he "pursued confrontation."

Then along comes President Obama confusing progressive achievement with governing.

He revitalized the NLRB, resulting in major victories, and paved the way for the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

It's apparently easy to ignore what the President says and spin opinions that sound good.

After all, it seems that FDR is the President held up most often to counter Obama's liberal credentials.

If one's primary complaint against the health care bill is that it lacks a public option or similar price control, that is something that can be addressed.

As it stands, President Obama's health plan not only included catastrophic care coverage (picked up for Kerry's 2004 plan), but it also extend free preventive health care to seniors, established a funded path to get to single payer and changed the MLR. List of provisions.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[democrat2thecore]

37. I agree with you....also....

There are certain posters here who are paid to blog, post at forums, participate in social media, on and on. It's called PR and their history of never ever disagreeing with this president makes them easy to spot. Have you noticed these (cough) (cough) posters and how easy they are to pick out?

[ProSense]

41. Hmmm?

had pursued confrontation instead of fleeing from it, he would not be reduced to the sorry spectacle he is now"

...confusing "confrontation" with governing.

"post full of the blue links of death is an ineffective, and ultimately unreadable post. Say what you mean, say what you want"

Invoking "blue links" is a nice diversionary tactic, "a sign of a weak position, weak intellect, or both, but if you really find them distracting, here's me saying what I mean (no links):

He should have been like Bill Clinton and "stared" down Republicans.

Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Enron loophole, but hey, he "pursued confrontation."

Then along comes President Obama confusing progressive achievement with governing.

He revitalized the NLRB, resulting in major victories, and paved the way for the largest federal union organizing effort in history.

It's apparently easy to ignore what the President says and spin opinions that sound good.

After all, it seems that FDR is the President held up most often to counter Obama's liberal credentials.

If one's primary complaint against the health care bill is that it lacks a public option or similar price control, that is something that can be addressed.

As it stands, President Obama's health plan not only included catastrophic care coverage (picked up for Kerry's 2004 plan), but it also extend free preventive health care to seniors, established a funded path to get to single payer and changed the MLR. List of provisions.


Better?

[Wilmer]

57. More

> If one's primary complaint against the health care bill is that it lacks a public option or similar price control, that is something that can be addressed.

That's like saying, "If one's primary complaint against the anti-pollution bill is that it allows corporations to continue to dump toxic chemicals into the water, that is something that can be addressed."

[harun]

56. Exactly, he should have destroyed the GOP, not nursed it back to health.

[grahamhgreen]

20. It is critical that we do not allow Obama to be painted as a Progressive.

We can not have this Presidency expire and have the American people think that we tried progressive solutions and they failed.

It must be clearly presented that Obama's positions did not represent change, they represented the same solutions that the Republicans are offering.

Progressives are being forced to clearly differentiate our real solutions from the pro-corporatist neo-con agenda of the R's.

By that I mean we want to end the wars, re-tax the rich (no, not a balanced approach), Medicare for all, end free-trade, etc..

These positions represent the will of the majority of all Americans. We can not afford to have his agenda conflated with ours.

[ibegurpard]

34. agreed

[Armstead]

50. That's long been a problem

People assume that what the Third Way Corporate Conservative Democratic "Centrists" advocate for is the same as progressive populism, or even traditional liberalism.

Personally, given the political structure of the US system, I would prefer to see the word Democrat actually associated with Liberalism and Progressive Populism. Among other reasons, I think the Dems could kick the GOP back to the Stone Age as people realize that Liberal/Progressive values and policies are actually aimed at helping THEM.

But it's become too muddy.So average people only see a versionb of Pure Conservatism from the GOP and Non-Descript Mushy Conservatism from the Democratic Party.

So the choice to the average person is either "Why bother because they're all the same" or to buy into the GOP sales-pitch because at least it's clear.

[Safetykitten]

23. "It's impossible to know what would have happened if Obama"...lost me there.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[fadedrose]

30. I'm as far left as you can go without falling on the floor

And I love the President. The insane Republicans and BlueDog Dems have messed with things making it impossible to clean up Bush's mess and enact a health bill with teeth in it...

Too late to R...

[JoeyT]

31. It's possible to underestimate him?

I haven't underestimated him a bit. When it's something he really wants, he'll go to the mat, and he'll be damned effective.
I don't think he's stupid, I think he's corrupt.

Watch how he digs in and pushes for free trade. Then compare it to the "Hey, whatever the right wants is fine with me!" on...well...pretty much everything else.

Edited to add: Nice job trying to link him to MLK, so any criticism of Obama is now criticism of MLK. Good luck trying to link a man that actually fought for the poor and tried to reduce poverty to a man that doesn't appear to care a whole lot about either.

I'd still love to be wrong about him and see him do an about face and fight for the poor and middle class. It isn't going to happen, though. And I refuse to put one man above the health of 80% of the country.

[BackToThe60s]

35. I'll K&R that!

:-)

[BumRushDaShow]

38. K&R

Good analysis!

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. He didn't pass a healthcare bill - nor did congress, whose job it is.

He signed a health insurance bill, and it will NOT expand CARE to 35 million Americans - it only expands COVERAGE to 35 million Americans. If those Americans want CARE they will still have to come up with the co-pays and deductibles and the non-covered costs.

The Health Insurance Enhancement Act IS the cataclysmic failure.

[EFerrari]

58. Of course that bill passed. The industry wrote it.

MLK engaged his adversaries but unlike Obama, he never JOINED them against the interests of the people.

[BackToThe60s]

54. Maybe

But I am getting a little tired of the 16-dimensional chess thing.

[alltherage]

59. So Basically We're Not Allowed To Question Him

Oh great, welcome Fascism!