home

Can Obama Fight?

Atrios:

I think Obama's a smart talented guy whose instincts mostly point him in the right direction. I also think he's a smart talented guy who has, for whatever reason, tended to have opposition melt away when he pointed at them.

Atrios' implicit question is can Obama fight? Specifically can he fight effectively for health care reform? He certainly won the Democratic nomination in a tough and close battle with now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But did then candidate Obama shine in that fight? Did he outfight Clinton in the second half of the primary battle? Not really. Atrios poses a good question.

Speaking for me only

< Sotomayor Nomination Senate Floor Debate And Vote | Pols Are Pols . . . GOP Edition >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What direction? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Lora on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    I think Obama's a smart talented guy whose instincts mostly point him in the right direction.

    So far, Obama has caved on so many important issues, he is almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration in these matters: the wars, indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, executive powers, executive privilege, letting criminals who posed as our leaders get away with high crimes and misdemeanors, and protection for the fat cats responsible for the ruination of our economy, to name a few.  Over half a year into his presidencey and I'm still waiting for change I can believe in.  Forgive me if I'm skeptical that health care reform will be any different.  One thing I think you can take to the bank:  The insurance companies will emerge as winners.  

    I've been waiting for somebody to step up (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by rennies on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    and say this. Where is there any evidence since he assumed office that Obama can fight. He's caved on practically every issue to date.

    Parent
    There is one thing that comes to mind (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    for me sometimes when I observe Obama.  When my husband is attempting to pass a car and the driver keeps speeding up only to slow down again my husband does something he calls "lulling" where he acts like he has no interest in passing and seems to be pacing the car.  Then when the opportunity to pass again arrives he shoots around them.  He explained this technique to me when we were dating and I knew I had picked a real loon at that point :)  But later on, when dealing with Nascar mentality I have tried "lulling" and it does work.  "Lulling" is as close to 11th dimensional chess as I can get though.

    Parent
    Is he a fighter? Sigh. (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    It depends.  Go back to when he was a state senator, when he said he believed single-payer was the way to go, but first, we would need to hold both houses of Congress and the White House.  That's where we are now, right?  So what changed?  Did he change his mind about what the best kind of plan would be?  Well, no, because he still says single-payer would be the best plan to cover everyone.  Is there a lack of public support for it?  No, in fact, more people than ever before support some form of universal/single-payer.

    So, why isn't the best plan, that saves the most money, that more people support, not the one he is "fighting" for?  Why have plans been written that specifically foreclose the possibility of transitioning to single-payer?

    Might as well also ask about that whole transparency and accountability thing, too.  Where'd that go?

    Here's the thing: the closer something he has "always" fought for gets to being possible, the weaker his effort, the more he heads for the comfort of the status quo.  Is it that the theory is great but the reality of the work involved bores him?

    I have no idea, but I do not see Obama as a fighter for the people, although he'll fight til the last dog dies for himself.  Too bad there's not more nexus there, huh?


    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    It's funny how when you "compromise" with Republicans and corporate interests to such an extent and then you "point," the opposition "melts".  

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    side note from yesterday, via Ezra Klein, an excerpt from a book about Obama running for President:

    There would be other losses ahead, disappointing setbacks in Ohio and Texas that would prolong the nomination battle for three more months. "After Ohio and Texas, my attitude was: We will win this thing, but it will be painful, and let's figure out what we need to do to execute and win," Obama said, adding that he told his staff and supporters that "it probably shouldn't be this easy for me to win, that we probably do need to earn this thing, because we're going to have a tough time, should we get the nomination, against Republicans and we need to have one of these under our belts."

    A fight is good for you (and pushback to the OMG YOU'RE HURTING OBAMA!! cries that came out in the blogosphere when Hillary wouldn't drop out in March/April).

    It reads quite well (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    I think I might buy that book. Here is a nice bit from Obama:

    As he reviewed the campaign from his transition headquarters in mid-December, Obama offered a frank assessment of his two main competitors: Clinton and John McCain. "I was sure that my toughest race was Hillary," he said. "Hillary was just a terrific candidate, and she really found her voice in the last part of the campaign. After Texas and Ohio she just became less cautious and was out there and was working hard and I think connecting with voters really well. She was just a terrific candidate. And [the Clinton campaign] operation was not as good as ours and not as tight as ours, but they were still plenty tough. Their rapid response, how they messaged in the media was really good. So we just always thought they were our most formidable challenge. That isn't to say that we underestimated John McCain; it's just that we didn't think that their campaign operation was as good. And one of the hardest things for me, during the primary, was finding differences with Hillary. I mean, a lot of the differences between us, substantively, were pretty modest. . . .

    Indeed.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    that Obama sees Hillary as his natural successor in 2016.

    I do too.

    Parent

    he positioned her (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    in a much better spot than the VP if that is the plan.

    Parent
    i doubt he was thinking about that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    specifically when he made his choices on VP and State.

    I want to read about the VP decisionmaking process.

    Parent

    didnt mean it was necessarily (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    intentional.  but that is the result of the SC job.

    Parent
    I agree with that (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    Especially with Biden acting the fool as VP.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    If he makes it 8 years, things will have to be in darn good shape for the voters to extend another 4 years to the Dems in the WH.

    Then there's that whole thing about a woman being 68 and how many more times we'll have to hear about her cankles, her dress, her laugh, etc.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    Not sure what you see as different than this year.

    there is no doubt that any Dems', especially now Clinton's, fortunes in 2016 will depend on the performance of the Obama Administration.

    As for Clinton's age, I just do not see how it can be an issue - 68 is young now. Hell Biden was 66 in 2008, McCain 72. Reagan was 69.

    I do not understand the logic of that argument at all. Of the many slings and arrows Hillary will face, her age will not be one of them imo.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    She faced all those slings and arrows in 2008 and did extremely well.  Especially considering what she was up against.  I don't see another "first black president" running in 2016.  That stuff matters.  Especially in the Dem. primary.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    it was "Dems" who were throwing the slings.

    And, unfortunately, for a woman, it still does matter - a 68 year old woman seems much older than a 68 year old man - especially coming off the Obama phenomenon.

    And gain - things would have to be in really, really good shape in this country for Dem to hold the WH for 3 straight terms (assuming Obama gets a second term). Voters just don't like one party being in power that long.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is 61 years old now.

    I do not think 7 years will make her look or seem "old."

    Parent

    You aren't (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    one of the college kids who weren't swept up in the tidal force of Obama because he was "cool" and "hip".

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:05:20 AM EST
    I find it hard to believe that they move to the GOP because Hillary will be 68.

    Parent
    Who said they would? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    They just may not vote?  See the many caucus states and ballot initiatives where young people (and many others) didn't vote and only cast their ballot for Obama.  They weren't interested inthe platform, they were interested in the man.

    Parent
    I have heard (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    that the youth did not in fact come out in force.  You have stated it here many times.  So why do you think that it will dissipate from there?  The youth voted for John Kerry.  He wasn't exactly a thrilling candidate.

    Parent
    The biggest risk our Party faces is apathy. (none / 0) (#63)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    We have many more liberals than conservatives in this country, but our side simply doesn't vote. The GOP inspires its ranks with negativity. "They're socialists, they'll make you pay for abortions, they'll raise your taxes." Anger, resentment and greediness are bigger motivators than wanting a progressive government that does nice things for people.

    Our side keeps trying to inspire voters with positive messages, but we actually won this time around because the public was finally desperate enough to stay engaged. It was the negativity toward Republican policies that gave us our edge. What was different this year vs. the last Pres election is the Change/savior perception of Obama combined with the truth about the GOP failing it's own base (McCain voting against the GI Bill is an excellent example that pulled a whole pile of veterans over to our side.)

    Hillary in 2016 will have a tough time inspiring voters. That's where the ageism and sexism comes in. The youth came out in force for youthful Obama, the new black dude on the block. They won't be there for Hillary. And the Repubs will likely run a younger man paired with a good looking woman VP. They'll have their negative motivation from any and all failures from the Obama Admin, and we'll have a candidate we love and trust, but we'll lack that inspirational edge that gets our lazy Dems to the polls.


    Parent

    3 straight terms (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    is only rare in recent years.  Let's also not forget that Bush did not really win in 2000.  Besides, the "worst economic collapse since the great depression" is not something people forget that quickly.  I'm not saying it will be a coast - but as long as he doesn't screw up too badly I could definitely see it.

    And for all that going against her - they essentially tied in the primary.  I don't see another candidate coming along who can do as well as either one of them - I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

    Parent

    Women get a bit more (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    longevity than men do.  I don't think we are disadvantaged and I never watched Golda Meir on the tube when I was a kid and have the words "unable" or "old" or "weakened" come to mind :)

    Parent
    I don't think she did extremely well. She lost. (none / 0) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.

    Parent
    of course you are right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:14 AM EST
    but the rules can be different for women.
    I dont think it would stop her but its true.


    Parent
    Pffft Madeline Albright (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    when she was giving it to Milosevic would hit the tube in the early A.M. and her hair was on crooked, she hadn't even ironed her face yet, and the lipstick was outside the lines.  I would watch and think to myself that nobody should mess with this woman, she will make you sorry.  Leadership trumps beauty in politics in my opinion.....beauty doesn't hurt but beauty doesn't get chit done either.

    Parent
    Madeline Albright didn't need to get elected. (none / 0) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    That's true (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:57:22 AM EST
    but this country loved her much and trusted her.  She has serious leadership skills.  I wonder how she would have done running for President if she had wanted to?

    Parent
    Not so well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    she had a "birther" problem.

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    Without the birther problem, do you think she could do it, get elected?

    Parent
    Not a chance (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    Have you seen the right wing emails that show pictures of the women the Democratic Party offers versus what the right wing offers? The message depicts our side with ageing women like Madeleine Albright, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi and others (on their worst days, of course), then shows there side: photoshopped pictures of their skinny, young, right wing beauties (pundits and others).

    Ageism and sexism are alive and well. Madeleine Albright's career is the exception that proves the rule.


    Parent

    Well talk about feeding (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    your perceived status quo that cannot be overcome.

    Parent
    I certainly hope you are right. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    But I doubt it.

    Parent
    On what basis? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:38:17 AM EST
    Females of a "certain age" (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    are not only not taken very seriously, people look right through them.  Maybe Hillary Clinton will be treated differently though.

    Parent
    I suppose that may be generally true (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    I'll take your word for it.

    I do not believe that is true for Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    It was a generalization, of course. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    But remember Hillary Clinton's initial rally, just after, probably, her win in NH?  M. Albright was on stage.  Just that one time.  

    Parent
    example? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:07:19 AM EST
    This is politics not hollywood.  I feel like they are taken more "seriously" and seen less as an object. The criticism is still there but it's different.  Consider the difference between Palin and Clinton.  Clinton was crucified, but she was taken seriously.  Palin - not so much.  Obviously there are other differences as well, but I don't think "seriousness" dissipates with age.  There may be other issues, I just don't see that as one of them.

    Parent
    Wow, that is really (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    not true for politicians.  If anything, it's the reverse.  An attractive younger woman pol is not taken seriously.  Most politicians are essentially sexless.  As long as they look presentable and not cadaverously old, it's not much of an issue.

    Parent
    I was not taken seriously when I was younger (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    It was forever before I looked "serious" on the outside.  My daughter and some friends say it is hard to tell my age.  Now that I'm not packing around farm fresh eggs though suddenly my view matters more....what a ripoff!  I'm not taken as seriously now when I don't wear makeup.  I don't know what that's about.  If I have a face on though and a suit.....suddenly I'm someone who you might need to listen to.  Hmmmmm, I wonder if I show up with bright red lipstick outside the lines now if people won't start jumping?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    Males of a certain age are not taken seriously either. But we are not talking about the bulk of uninteresting and talentless individuals out there, we are talking about Hilary Clinton.

    I believe that she at 68 will be stronger than ever, and clinch the POTUS in 2016.


    Parent

    Another relevant section (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    Axelrod also warned that Obama's confessions of youthful drug use, described in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father," would be used against him. "This is more than an unpleasant inconvenience," he wrote. "It goes to your willingness and ability to put up with something you have never experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. At the risk of triggering the very reaction that concerns me, I don't know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it becomes personal and nasty. When the largely irrelevant Alan Keyes attacked you, you flinched," he said of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate opponent.

    Has this really been disproven?

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    Ergo, Atrios' post.

    Parent
    It's just slightly alarming (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    to see that that was written a few years ago, yet we can't say that anything has changed.  And not wanting to fight when things get nasty...well, there you can have an Obama-centric explanation for why the health care plan is fairly moderate and in the opinion of some, weak tea.

    And heck, nasty combat is what the GOP is all about.  All the time.  He needs to learn to relish it.

    Parent

    It's not just that he doesn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:32:52 AM EST
    relish it, he thinks it's counterproductive.

    I keep saying he's applying community organizing principles to the country, and especially to Congress-- find out what the broad goals are that everybody agrees on, ie lowering costs of health care, giving everybody coverage, give them a minimum of guidance along the way and then let them work out for themselves how they're going to get there.  When one "side" has to win by sheer force, the theory goes, the other side is alienated and becomes more and more intractable about the next things coming down the pike.

    It's not just personal distaste, it's a firmly held governing philosophy.

    I think it's a mistake to think about Obama in terms of this or that issue in isolation.  He's trying to get progress on a whole range of different issues, many of them interrelated.  I think he believes we will be better served in the long run by getting modest progress on a whole bunch of stuff by the time he leaves office, rather than one or two big things massively overhauled and everything else left the way it was or even backsliding.

    It's definitely not the way we're used to politics and governing.  Whether it's the most effective way to go in the long run, I have no idea.  Personally, I don't trust it, but what do I know.

    I blame more the Democrats as a whole for decades of inability/unwillingness to do the hard work of laying the groundwork with the public for progressive change.

    Parent

    I can't agree on two fronts... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    Gradual, incremental change is exactly the way Democrats are used to politics and governing...it was how Bill Clinton governed for 6 years with an R congress.

    Secondly, the groundwork has been laid with the public for progressive change...for years.  Every poll shows they public agrees with the Democratic platform on nearly every issue.  The public is more than ready.  It's the leadership in congress and the White House that is lacking.

    'Can do' & "Yes we can" my a**.

    To quote Nike, Just. Do. It.

    Parent

    I, too, am of the school of thought (none / 0) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    that President Obama is applying his community organizing experiences(based on the work of Saul Alinksy) to politics and governance.  The facilitating and assisting role of the community organizer can bring durable achievements through broadly-based leadership, a shared vision and action in common self-interest.  However, Alinsky's strategies involve not only consensual community building but also changes that necessitated struggle and conflict.  While It is way too early to determine if community organizing principles will be effective, President Obama already has seen the struggle and conflict parts of the strategy without the elements of a common vision. After all, he is dealing with Republicans who only understand brute power. Moreover, the obstacles to change may be greater than any of us, including the President, imagined.  Vested interests and embedded reactionaries in powerful roles in and out of government are difficult to maneuver for even the most agile and charismatic community organizer.

    Parent
    Elements of Alinsky (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    But all that I have read about Obama's foreign policy and his handling all the big ego WH advisors, suggests that he is extremely involved. No setting things up and walking away, which would be more along the lines of Alinsky approach.

    I do agree that Alinsky was a big influence on Obama, Hillary too for that matter.

    Parent

    Alinsky also (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    is vehemently opposed to using "charismatic leadership."  Obama's trying to have it both ways.

    I have no clue how thoroughly he's thought the model out and how it applies here or doesn't or has to be adapted.  I'm guessing not so much, but what do I know.  It's interesting, though, watching somebody trying to follow a model of that kind, which we've never had before on the national level at any rate.  It will be interesting to see if he sticks to it over the years.  I'm guessing he will since it's so intimately tied to his own self-perception. (Just like Georgie Bush rationalized his preference for acting on uninformed impulse as following what God wanted him to do.)

    But the main point being that that model, I think, is the answer to the unceasing cries from the left of "Why doesn't he..." and the reason why he never will.

    Parent

    "The world is a fine place . . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    . . . and worth fighting for."

     -Ernest Hemingway

    to quote Morgan Freeman in "Se7en", I agree with the second part.


    That brings to mind ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    another Hemingway line.  The final line of The Sun Also Rises.

    "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?"

    Parent

    In the campaign, the Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    ... team's strategy seemed to be to 1.) establish a lead, 2.) leverage that lead into a public perception of inevitability, and then 3.) pressure the opposition to capitulate.

    I think that this sort of strategy can work in the dot-com start-up world, and it can sometimes work in the political realm if there's a lot of media support.  

    But in an extended competition (like a 4-year elected term), this sort of winning strategy can run out of momentum the same way that a start-up company can run out of venture capital.   In the campaign, there was a specific schedule deadline that put pressure on the competition to drop out.  But now, the time factor is not a reliable ally, so this strategy won't work as effectively.  And if the aura of eventual inevitability is lost, this strategy might become completely ineffective.  (I think.)

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    that Obama showed himself to be quite a fighter in the GE.  I definitely didn't have the same sinking feeling that I had watching John Kerry take punch after punch.

    In other words I think they already learned some of the lessons from the primary.

    True dat (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    It was a brilliant GE campaign, taking advantage of every opportunity.

    The WaPo article that is linked to in a comment in this read is a great read.

    Parent

    Obama can fight for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    That is all I have seen. Until his own a** is on the line, I don't expect much anymore. In health care, for example, if no other Dems are threatening to take him on in the 2012 primaries, and make health care an issue, he's not going to fight for any particular principle, just to get something done that he can check off the list.

    Parent
    Change (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by SDU Polticsdotcom on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    Obama entered the office with a lofty goal, "Change." However, even the simplest know that change does not come easily or quickly. The question of "Can Obama fight?" is a good one. However, it may be argued that the question, "Can Obama motivate movement that will encourage change over time?" is equally important. We can not expect change to happen overnight in Washington--it never has. However, we can expect Obama to push American politicians and citizens towards a new mind-set that will eventually lead to change.

    -Politics.com Intern

    I think that's what he's trying (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:34:34 AM EST
    It's a free country (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    And I will expect things that I want to happen TO HAPPEN at its earliest possible moment and not one second later!  It isn't my job to make excuses or apologize for Obama, it is my job to make sure he does his job. And if he doesn't do his job then it is my job to get someone better at it to do it.

    Parent
    Michelle knows if he can fight :) (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    If you can marry a strong self spoken woman and still manage to have the energy required to run for President after you've negotiated your daily marriage....well, you know how to do a lot of things when the fight is on.  I don't know Obama's fight style though.  I may not recognize the moment he opens the can of whup a$$.  He probably changed the label on the can to confuse me too :)

    I think his fight style... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    ...is along the lines of Ali's rope-a-dope.  

    The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance, in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes, and allowing his opponent to hit him, in the hope that the opponent will become tired and make mistakes which the boxer can exploit in a counterattack.

    The question really isn't can he fight, it's will he fight.


    Parent

    You may be right (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    Time will tell

    Parent
    Well, I think Bill (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    Clinton had to adapt to a rope-a-dope style during his presidency, but that wasn't a conscious choice, unlike Ali, but rather a result of months and years of pummeling by the MSM and the GOP which put him there.  It was as if he was stunned to be in that vulnerable position while his opponent was using every dirty tactic in the book and as the ref seemed to be letting it go.  

    Eventually however he won a 15-rounder on points, narrowly (after the health care knockdown in the early rounds).

    Obama strikes me more as a skilled, quick fighter who has gone at least one round too long in the early going merely dancing around and flicking the light jab and doing nothing to damage the opponent or throw him off his game.  He shows some mighty pretty footwork, something which basically won him the title back in 2008 (along with help from the ref and scorekeepers), but this time the opponent is a little smarter and stronger and has already caught him with a couple of punches as Obama was busy fighting the last fight.  

    Unlike most heavyweight bouts, on this health care matter Obama the champ must soon aggressively take the fight to the opponent in order to win -- or come away with a win that most would consider worthy and meaningful.

    Parent

    The question isn't so much ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    will he fight, but WHO will he fight?  Even an ineffectual fighter can be buoyed up by the public if he chooses the right opponent.

    And you get to know a pol not merely by WHAT they oppose, but WHO they oppose. Know thee by thy enemies and all that.

    So far he hasn't fought bankers, people on Wall Street, insurance companies, or the proponents of indefinite detention.

    That's a pretty good list of groups to fight in this country right now.  But, so far, he hasn't taken any of them on.

    I'm like Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BigElephant on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    Well that's what people have said about me.  I tend also tend to be a consensus builder who seemingly doesn't push too hard.  For the most part I'll take small victories, and won't waste much capital on things that seem like inevitable losses.  If you give me a small opening or if I see a strategic or tactical mistake I will seize it and run.  Realistically I see these opportunities every 6 months to a year.

    I've found that professionally this strategy has worked well.  I have almost no enemies in a very politically charged environment.  At the same time I'm viewed as a rockstar for having some of the biggest wins in the industry.  

    It does seem like Obama is similar.  BUT I do think national politics is unlike anything in the business world.  At the end of the day I can reach consensus with numbers with almost anyone.  But in national politics a lot of it is just lies... there is no way to agree on the cost of health insurance.  I'm not sure if my strategy would work so well when my opponents are simply trying to defeat me, rather than improve their bottomline.  I'm simply not that interesting of a figure professionally.

    As in the primary roundup of (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    the superdelegates by the Obama armtwisters, I suspect Obama thought Healthcare would be taken care of by Czar Daschle and Ted Kennedy.  Now both are out of the picture.  Who the Hell is in charge now for the administration?  If it's Obama, that's obviously a problem.

    Somehow, they seem not to be noticing what the winning compromise is...what they could sell across the board and actually achieve a good result.

    If I were Obama, I'd call a HC (that's healthcare, not Hil Clinton!) summit at the White House and suggest we offer the public the same options that congress has.  I could sell that all day long.  Easy.  

    Why not?  Unless they really don't want real reform.

    I read recently big pharma has a seat (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 05:59:55 PM EST
    at the table in the WH also.

    Parent
    Not surprised. I just got back (none / 0) (#93)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:41:55 PM EST
    from a meeting with the congressman from our neighboring district...about a dozen of us were invited for what looks like his testing the waters of support for a run for governor if Gregoire decides not to make a run for a third term.

    He talked environment and healthcare.  When I asked him who was the admin WH lead since Czar Daschle wasn't in charge, he stammered a bit and then said Obama was his own legislative lead on healthcare with congress.

    Oh dear.

    Parent

    Telling, isn't it? (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:15:36 AM EST
    I'm afraid so. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:23:57 AM EST
    We've been looking for a strong Democratic leader (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    since Carter, and while Bill Clinton fit the bill in so many ways, the Lewinsky scandal destroyed the admiration and respect our Party could have utilized for a sixteen year presidential monopoly. Perception is everything in politics.

    Obama's primary & GE successes were partly due to his effective campaign team, and to his delicate positioning slightly to the left of Hillary followed by his huge swing to the right against McCain. But what really got him elected is a disaffected public looking for a savior to fix our country. Many on the left were frightened of what BushCo had created and desperate and fearful for our country's future. In strides Obama with his lofty speeches, fitting the bill for Change in a way that Hillary simply could not. Hillary's establishment ties were no greater that Obama's, but he managed to solidify his Change meme before all the Chicago politics came out and well before voters grasped that his bipartisanship meant giving the right wing what they want. The perception was that the Obama campaign was supported by little kids and old people, as well as millions of us liberals, while Hillary was backed by big business and the Clinton machine.

    The Yes We Can movement was well in place when he faced down the formidable challenge Hillary presented. By that point, it wasn't Obama doing the fighting, it was the movement. Once millions of people were caught up in the dream, Obama was unstoppable.

    I think the only way we are going to achieve the Change we can believe in is to co-opt that movement and speak in Obama's name to the millions who threw their weight behind him. When the people lead, Obama and our Party will follow.


    Know a good hacker? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    I think the only way we are going to achieve the Change we can believe in is to co-opt that movement and speak in Obama's name to the millions who threw their weight behind him. When the people lead, Obama and our Party will follow.

    I don't know any other way to speak to Obama's mailing list in his name.

    Parent

    Obama was good and also (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    lucky.  He caught a major break with the corp media, especially in the primaries against a candidate they all hated, Hillary, then in the GE the MSM failed to mount a sustained hit job on the Dem nominee as they'd done often in the recent past.

    Obama had a smarter better organized team in the primaries going up against the toughest opponent he would ever face, including McCain.   While he was good in going with the refreshing face/Change meme, he was lucky in Hillary stupidly going with the Nixonian-Orthogonian frame.  

    In the GE, again Obama ran against an Orthogonian, the elderly and not very fleet of foot McCain.

    When you have New/Fresh/Handsome/Smart vs Orthogonian/Dull/Old/Dumb, the outcome is usually very predictable ...  

    Parent

    People forget that (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    Hillary pointed out that she knew how to take on the Republicans; Obama knew how to give speeches. In a knife fight, you don't look for consensus.
    And it's not a small detail that she did wup Obama's butt in all the big states. People like, or are drawn to, people who stand and fight. Look at the two dummies, Reagan and Bush. Folks probably knew they were dummies but voted for them because "they believe in something," and "they tell it like it is."

    Just look at what Reagan and Bush were able to do, one with a mandate, the other with a squeaker. They simply beat the crap out of the Dems....... because they were seen as "leaders." When Obama went bowling in Pa. he was seen as a panderer; when Hillary knocked down those boilermakers with the blue collars, people flocked to her.

    Let's face it, Obama's out of his element. No candidate in our lifetime was better positioned for real change, after the eight disastrous Bush years, than Obama was. We wanted Patton; we got Gandhi.


    From April thru June (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by pluege on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:43:02 AM EST
    Obama got his ass kicked by HRC, and in particular he lost all the big ones.

    Obama won on the strength of a bunch of republican states and caucus anomalies at the end of January and early February, and not to mention the superdelegates doing exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do.

    No profanity (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    write A**

    Parent
    Obama is still that little boy... (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    ...whose father left him and, from my observations of his personality, he has major issues with having to be loud and angry because those would bring scorn and disappointment, which that little boy fears would bring more abandonment.  

    So, no, I do not think he is a true fighter in any sense of the word politically.  I do not think he has the ability to say to the opposition: you have had your chance, you have proven yourselves full of sh*t, and we're going to steamroll right past you on this issue.

    It is simply not a part of his psychological makeup, and getting him to change that part of his personality is, I believe, almost impossible.

    LOL! No wonder Hillary lost. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    You guys never took Obama seriously, and you paid for it by having your a** handed to you.

    What does that say about Hillary and Bill that they couldn't defeat a "little boy".

    And that "little boy" got more votes then any Democrats since 1964.  More than Clinton, who never received a majority of the votes, only a plurality.  

    Heh!

    You should really see someone over your Obama derangement syndrome.


    Parent

    The discussion here (4.00 / 4) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    is about where we are, how we got here, and where we're going from here. Most posters are contributing their analysis in a factual, thoughtful manner. Then, there are those who feel that sophomoric, cognitively challenged, and simply untrue blather adds something to the discussion.

    Now, I could just scroll past your silliness, and from here on out, I certainly will, but I just wanted to get that off my chest.

    And just one more point: on a site where many lawyers contribute, facts, logic, and evidence are usually employed. "Just making stuff up" says a lot more about you than any point your scribbles were trying to make.

    "......having your a** handed to you."..... LOL


    Parent

    King Fisal in Lawrence of Arabia: (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    "stand and fight!"

    It did not turn out well.  

    Can He Fight? Yes, But (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    does he want to fight?  On that, the evidence is far less clear.  Engaging in a fight would entail ditching the whole "consensus" idea and opening his administrration to charges of partisanship; these appear to be anathema to Obama.  And it's not just health care reform, of course, but on too many diverse issues on which he's been far too deferential in permitting an obstructionist minority to hold the controlling vote (and voice), as it were.

    To want to fight, one must have passion and fire in one's beliefs and the power of ideas.  With Obama, instead, avoidance of conflict seems to be the primary goal.  You don't take down a bully by giving him your lunch money on a regular basis.  I hope he can learn that lesson soon.

    Can Obama fight...... (none / 0) (#56)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Obama's had only one real political fight in his career and that was against Bobby Rush......he lost and was very bitter. His pattern of setting up a questionable legal scenario ( Alice Palmer)and deliberately highlighting opposing candidates personal problems worked in the past to disqualify the competition with the help of the MSM.    

    Primary derangement syndrome. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    Still stuck in time.

    It's so funny.  I love it.  

    The "Hillary was wobbbed" whinnng.

    4 individuals posted bitter comments last night about the primaries, and I didn't even read half of the comments on half the threads.

    Stop moping. Get over it.  Bill and Hillary have.

    On the other hand, keep moping, the comedy and unintentional self-parody is priceless.

    Heh!


    At one point (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    an announcement was made here that this wasnt a PUMA site; which was like putting up a No Smoking sign halfway through a Dead concert -- after the gathering of the tribes had already taken place.

    Parent
    I've encountered mosquitos that were (4.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    less annoying than this tired schtick of yours is.

    If what you want to do is stir up trouble, the sandbox is that way ----->

    We are not re-living and re-fighting the primaries here, in spite of your breathless attempts to needle people into doing it, so just stop.

    Parent

    Word of advice (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    Let it go.  Obama won.  Some people still need to vent.  There is nothing to be gained by gloating.  It's just gonna rub people the wrong way.

    Take it or leave it.

    Parent

    Super Talent (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:00:40 PM EST
    I agree with atrios to a point, and to a point because I do not think we have seen all the tricks up Obama's sleeve.

    His achilles heel, so to speak, is that he is a super talent and works extremely hard at the win win solution. It usually works for him so he tends to rely on that approach above all others.

    His biggest failure in this regard was in June when he went to the Saudis to entreat them to support his Israeli/Palestinian peace initiative. They laughed in his face.

    From everything I have read Obama is really great at team building and evaluating the field. It will not surprise me if he starts to wield the stick instead of his favored carrot approach.

    This is a fantasy (none / 0) (#75)
    by Idearc on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    The Saudis were never on his schedule.

    His schedule was Egypt, Germany, and France.

    Then the Saudis begged him to drop by.  He did them a favor.

    Parent

    You Are Uninformed (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    And are chattering aimlessly, imo. If you would like to read about the Saudi trip it is here.

    Parent
    Okay, well... (none / 0) (#83)
    by KoolJeffrey on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    The flip side of BTD's argument:

    "'Did [Hillary] outfight [Obama] in the [first] half of the primary battle [when she was miles and miles ahead]? Not really.'"

    Obama cannot catch a break on this one. He either wins only because his competitors lay down at the mere sight of him [Atrios], or he wins because he is outfought by his opponents [BTD].

    I guess no one watched his health care press conference where the focus of his proposals were clearly on the failure of insurance companies to limit costs by eliminating needless, duplicate testing.

    If getting called out on national television isn't "fighting", then let's just hang it up and go back to focusing on Michele Obama's arms.

    No doubt elimination of... (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    ... needless testing will free up enough money to provide heath care for 14 million uninsured people.  Not to mention the under-insured.

    Parent
    Once again... (none / 0) (#96)
    by KoolJeffrey on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    ...Obama took health insurers to task, but apparently in not a vicious enough manner for some people. No one knows what is going on behind the scenes between Congress and the White House. Any assumption that the public is aware of the exact nature of Obama's pressure on lawmakers is laughable.

    Parent
    Did you mean to address this to me? (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    Because it has nothing to do with my comment.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#98)
    by KoolJeffrey on Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    I clicked on the wrong post.

    Parent