home

The Theory Of Change

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic. Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. - December 6, 2007

Lawrence Lessig:

Obama's victory was achieved because his team played the old game brilliantly. Staffed with the very best from the league of conventional politics, his team bought off PhRMA (with the promise not to use market forces to force market prices for prescription drugs), and the insurance industry (with the promise (and in this moment of celebration, let's ignore the duplicity in this) that they would face no new competition from a public option), so that by the end, as Greenwald puts it, the administration succeeded in "bribing and accommodating them to such an extreme degree that they ended up affirmatively supporting a bill that lavishes them with massive benefits." Obama didn't "push[] back on the undue influence of special interests," as he said today. He bought them off. And the price he paid should make us all wonder: how much reform can this administration -- and this Nation -- afford?

Lessig dreams of change he can believe in. It is a pipe dream:

[L]et us not forget: for a president overwhelmingly elected just a year ago, with a super majority in both the House and Senate, this has been a bizarrely difficult fight. This wasn't a third-string issue for Obama. It was the premier issue on the this President's agenda. And regardless of the foxmyths that spin with public opinion polls, it wasn't as if America didn't vote with a clear demand for health care reform. Yet the fight for this first major battle of this administration practically killed the administration, and this near death experience should finally waken this President from his conventional-politics stupor, and remind him of the reformer he originally was.

(Emphasis supplied.) Reformer he originally was? Lessig can write that even after this year? My gawd.

Speaking for me only

< The Conservative Health Bill | The Big Progressive Project: Addressing Income Inequality >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I never think this about a politician I support... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    "They are going to change the way politics works."  I am not a process person.  When a politician says they are going to "change the system" I run the other way.  But this sort of posture is what appealed to the Bill Bradley set of the Democratic base.

    Ain't it ironic? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:18:28 AM EST
    Hope springs eternal (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    I have some vague hope that this success will create momentum. But the "reality" of the Senate will probably take care of that.

    The student loan reform in the reconciliation package is really good policy, though.

    Parent

    Momentum for what exactly? (none / 0) (#17)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    More process wins?  Not understanding your point.

    The school reform stuff is very good, though they didn't do enough for people in my generation who will pretty much never get out from under these loans.

    Parent

    A drive to get more stuff done (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    There's a pretty long agenda.

    Parent
    GOPers line on that (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    btw, is that it's going to greatly increase the cost of loans for the students.  Barrasso, Wyoming senator, was yapping about that to a student group the other day.

    Will they remember that he lied to them when they find out after a few years that the cost of the loans didn't go up?

    (Then he said that doctors' fees under Medicare were being cut 21 percent and frozen at that rate for the next 10 years.  Where do they even get this stuff??)

    Parent

    "The reformer he always was?" (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    When was that?

    Did I miss some big chunk of Obama's history where he was reforming the heck out of something?

    I rather suspect that the memory of the near-death experience will fade quickly, and that the mindset will be one of "hey, I got 'em to do what I wanted once, I will do it again, and the next time, they'll fall into line faster."

    This isn't scaring Obama - it's energizing him.  And all the praise for the process victory is obscuring what it is that is being won, and at what price.

    In other words...same old, same old.

    Rah-rah.

    Scott Brown took Obama's mantra for change (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    and won in MA. It was the same empty rhetoric.

    Parent
    The irony of it all (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    Yes Obama campaigned to reform politics as usual in DC.  However, he got health care passed by keeping politics as usual.

    There is nothing wrong with being a politician as usual as long as you use your power to accomplish good things for the nation.  That's how Johnson did it.  Civil Rights, Medicare, Voting Rights.

    I hope this gives Obama and the democrats the power to push forward on the major items of his campaign.  The way I see it the democrats that voted yes have nothing to lose now since the big one is over.  Go for broke on the rest of the agenda.

    Which major items? (none / 0) (#21)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    Entitlement reform?  His education policy?  

    Parent
    I keep hearing this (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    Obama's victory was achieved because his team played the old game brilliantly.

    I am having a hard time with it.  true he got the thing passed where many tried but . . .

    Lawrence ODonnell was on the tube this morning. saying a similar thing.  while I usually think he has a pretty good take on congressional stuff I am not sure I am down with flawless.

    but it was really fun to watch them taking turns pushing Joes talking points where the sun dont shine.  and watching him grow increasingly hysterical.

    This doesn't compute: (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    And regardless of the foxmyths that spin with public opinion polls, it wasn't as if America didn't vote with a clear demand for health care reform.

    IMO, America voted for Obama cause America was afraid of the war-mongering McCain.

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    I thought health care played a much bigger role in this election than previous ones.

    At the time, they made it an economic argument, and a pretty darn good one.  If they had kept doing that throughout, I think we would have had a very different bill.

    Parent

    still (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    I am not sure many voted on that issue.  some did for sure.  but I think the comment is right about the war.

    Parent
    I think health care (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    was an issue, but it's not one Obama was really talking about.  Most of the candidates had their signature issues - Hillary had health care, Edwards had poverty, McCain and Romney had "strong on defense", Huckabee was about "family values", etc.

    Parent
    in the general election (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    He was definitely talking about health care a lot.

    The fact that the primary was so long, and Hilary had a huge platform for so long, meant he kind of had to in order to attempt to consolidate the Dem vote.

    It definitely had a prominent role in his speeches and in the debates by the general election.  And it was discussed at length during the primary as well.  He might not have wanted it to be, but it was there either way.

    Whether that's what people "voted on" is a seperate thing.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    that's proababy the case for the Bradley contention. The rest of the country probably voted for him because of the economic collapse and as a knee jerk anti bush thing.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    that changed once it was obvious the policy would not.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:23:40 AM EST
    I thought it was 'cuz Obama would get us out of Iraq, close Gitmo, stop torture, and try the 9/11 suspects on America soil.

    Parent
    or the GOp had 8 years... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    ...and now cyclically the other team get to bat.

    It's that mundane.  

    There's a marginal improvement with Dems in.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    The delusion is hard to shake.

    Sorry squeaky, but Obama IS a warmonger, his pretty Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. He escalated the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, sent tens of thousands of more troops in, and expanded the war into Pakistan where the use of drones on innocent civilians is a regular event. He barely waited to be in office a month before killing a bunch of brown-skinned kids.

     He's ramping up for war with Iran, too, or haven't you been reading the papers? The NYT of the last few months could be a repeat of the year leading to the Iraq invasion, all drumbeating terror about those dastardly Iranians getting dastardly nukes.

    But remember, "all options are on the table," quoth Obama, and we all know that when our fearless leaders say "all options" they mean "prepare to be massacred."

    Yes, he promised to pull all the troops out. And Obama always keeps his promises, doesn't he?

    One of the most remarkable aspects of Obama's "war lite" plan is its brazen and absolute disregard for the agreement signed between the United States and the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government guaranteeing the complete withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011. Of course, this "agreement" was always considered a farce by everyone - except for the American corporate media, which kept reporting on the "tough negotiations" as if the pact would have any actual meaning in the real world. The agreement contained escape clauses allowing the Iraqi government to "request" a continued American military presence after the 2011 deadline - and considering that any Iraqi government in place in 2011 will be helplessly dependent on American guns and money to maintain its power, such a "request" has always been a dead certainty.  So I suppose we must admire the Obama Administration's candor in dropping all pretense that U.S. forces are going to leave Iraq at any time in the foreseeable future.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02252009.html

    Let us not forget Obama's continuing support of Israel as it continues its policies of ethnic cleansing, massacre, and land theft. Support? Kowtowing is more like it.

    And yes, I'm aware that Hillary, McCain, or any mainstream pol would have been just as horrendous in this department, and I have repeatedly said so. It's a reason I can't join the voices of other Hillary admirers who want her to challenge Obama in a primary.

    But it's all OK, according to you, because the war in Afghanistan is "understated." I'm sure those Afghani civilians whose family members are daily being slaughtered by our fine troops and our really cool weapons will be consoled to know that they were killed in an "understated" fashion!

    I'm sorry (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    but only clueless dolts thought their candidate was the new messiah and bought into that garbage. Anybody with half a brain should have known better. I certainly had no delusions about any of this. Frankly I think a lot of Obama supporters suffered from some sort of soft racism thinking a lot of this stuff simply because he is black.

    'Soft racism'!? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    What do you base that on? I don't see that at all.

    Undoubtedly Obama's most ardent supporters projected all kinds of virtues onto him that weren't supported by either his track record or even his campaign rhetoric.

    But creating projections is part of the art of politics, and in Obama's case it was largely fueled by his own appealing persona, and his mastery of vague, but inspiring rhetoric. His race was certainly a component of the package but it hardly justifies your dismissive

    simply because he is black


    Parent
    What Demi Moaned Said (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    Well (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    that's the impression I got from a lot of his supporters. They were assuming all kinds of things not based on his record. I truly believe that a lot of them assumed that he was going to be some progressive hero simply based on his race. You can't believe how many of his supporters told me I had to vote for him simply because of his race.

    Parent
    many people (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:53:07 AM EST
    told me I should vote for Obama.  told me I HAD to vote for Obama.  god I cant tell you how many.

    not a single one ever suggested I should vote for him because of his race.

    Parent

    But anyone who DIDN'T rah-rah Obama was a racist (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    You can't say you didn't see that charge trotted out at every opportunity. It was ubiquitous.

    Parent
    only from the same segment (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    who answered every criticism of Hillary with "sexism"
    both were ridiculous and not worth talking about then or now.  that was tiny extremely vocal group of people on both sides.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    have to say though that it certain places it was the majority. I once criticized Obama's insurance proposal and got called a racist by Nate Silver.

    Parent
    Tons of people (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    were captivated by the Obama candidacy because of it's perceived symbolic import.
    Tons of people were captivated by the candidacy of HRC because of it's perceived symbolic import.

    And both of the above factions were very fast and loose in playing the racism and misogyny card -- generally being hyper-vigilant for any signs of the one, while rather studiously downplaying any signs of the other.

    So, Obama being portrayed as a pimp by a major network is (apparently) deemed a relatively insigificant incident here; whereas, during and immediately after the primaries, eye rolls, shoulder brushes and questioning Sarah Palin's intellectual capability seemed to be perceived by many here as direct misogynistic frontal assaults.

    And one person's compelling agenda always seems to pale to insignificance in the eyes of those with other agendas.

    Parent

    And I for (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    one was not for HIllary during the primaries for her symbolic import. I didnt even like her at first but she changed my mind with the way she behaved just the way Obama changed my mind about him with his own behavior.

    Parent
    Well, that's one person (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    Maybe you heard that NPR program during the primaries when they were taking calls only from women; about half said they'd vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, otherwise, they were going to vote for "the Republican".

    Parent
    Well (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    maybe they were people who were concerned about other issues. in reality they haven't been proven wrong with Obama. I don't knwo that McCain would have been any more antiwoman than Obama has been.

    Parent
    Nicely done (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    I was wondering if you could blantant ignore the similarities of Race-Obama, Sex-Clinton or if you were going to rationalize it.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    but I'm not an apologist for anybody. I can't read the minds of those people but do you realize that experience might be important to some or Obama's background some people didn't like?

    Parent
    There's no comparing the media-wide misogyny (3.66 / 3) (#71)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:15:57 AM EST
    ... against (then) Sen. Clinton to the kid-glove treatment Obama got at the time. The teabagger cr@p we're seeing now erupted after Obama won the election riding that same misogynistic wave (and fomenting it with his own derisive, sexist nonsense.)

    Revise history all you want if it makes you feel good. It's on tape.

    Parent

    What (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    the heck are you talking aobut Obama being played as a pimp?

    And I think the misogyny claim has been pretty much legitimized by Obama's behavior this past week.

    Parent

    The photo Fox showed (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    of Obama dressed as a pimp.

    But I forgot, BTD didnt think it was significant, so it isnt significant.

    Parent

    You are outraged (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    That we are not outraged by something FOX News showed about Obama?  Has it occurred to you that no one is outraged because no one here watches FOX, so has absolutely no idea what you are talking about?

    Parent
    Know your enemy (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    I realize that it requires a strong stomach, but it's not a bad idea to check in every once in a while and see what exactly Hannity, Rush, Glenn and company are saying to their minions. Let's not pretend that the thought-currents these people are feeding into are completely insignificant to the political realities of the day..it would be nice if they were, but I say ignore them at your peril.

    Also, it's not a stretch for me personally to imagine that there's a few here that probably enjoyed that pimp thing, though of course they'd never own up to it. After all, as D'Souza and The Bell Curve people have already told us, concerns about racism are just so sixties.

    Parent

    I try (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    I flip around a couple of the conservative and libertarian blogs.  I cannot watch FOX news without wanting to scream and throw something at the TV.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    you'll have to take that up with BTD. If you provide a link to what you are talking about then perhaps I'll venture a comment. Otherwise I haven't seen it so I can't comment but it is Fox isn't it? Did you expect them to ever do anything nice w/r/t Obama?

    Parent
    That was a little (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    more than not "nice". That stereotype image is on the level of showing him barefoot in overalls eating watermelon, imo.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    since I haven't seen the photo and you haven't linked to it I can't comment but I will reiterate what I've said before that nothing Fox does would surprise me.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    it certainly muddies that problem when there's still so much lingering ACTUAL racism.

    I mean, Obama dressed to look like Iceberg Slim? C'mon!

    That's ok, because we're all still so goddamn mad at him? Apparently.

    Parent

    Why should I be on patrol for slights to Obama? (3.66 / 3) (#70)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:10:29 AM EST
    How is that in any way hypocritical?

    Do you think people have nothing better to do than pick up the slack for the oPod "army" that went back to other distractions once they got their toy of the year in office?

    Carry your own water, lift your own weight, do your own work, pal.

    AFTER you give me a large effin' break.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    consider yourself lucky then.

    Parent
    Mostly I saw it indirectly--- (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by observed on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    i.e., the suggestion that a vote AGAINST Obama must be because of his race.


    Parent
    It went (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:31:43 AM EST
    both ways. I was told that I had to vote for Obama because the hopes of AA in this country were riding on it and that we owed it to AA's who had been voting for Dems for years. There also were many people who were so sure that Obama was progressive but could quote nothing he did to back it up. Frankly, these people were no different than the ones on the right that called Obama a marxist simply because he was black. It's the same racist mindset whether it's coming from the right or the left.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    I'm just going to point out how angry you would be if I changed the words in your supposition- "People though Hillary was good simply because she was a woman. " This is just as stupid.

    Parent
    This is absolutely true (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Spamlet on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:55:57 AM EST
    I'm not (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    talking about people in general like you are. I'm talking about the Obama apologists like you. You were one of the worst apologists over at MYDD during the primaries saying things like people had to vote for Obama because we owed it to African Americans

    And you've expressed opinions in a similar vein more than once on TL, too. Here's just one example:

    but (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    agitating would not be cool and Obama has a cool persona he has to protect.

        He's cool for a reason though (5.00 / 1) (#5)
        by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 03:05:46 PM EST
        Angry black man- is a thing that this country only accepts in extremely small doses.

    You have offered this and similar views a number of times, here and elsewhere. But statements like yours verge on saying that when the times call for bold, "non-cool" action, it's a bad idea to have a black man for president, since a black man cannot afford to appear angry and will therefore not be up to the job.

    I don't believe this, but you seem to. You've said as much, many times. Slippery slope, no?

    I think this is what Ga6thDem is talking about when she uses the term "soft racism." George W. Bush, mouthing the words of the loathsome Karen Hughes, called it "the soft bigotry of low expectations." But just because the loathsome Karen Hughes said it, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

    I live on the border of Berkeley, which was Obot Central during 2008. Many, many times I heard exactly what Ga6thDem reports, invariably from the mouths of upper-middle-class white people who have no actual contact with African Americans unless those African Americans happen to inhabit the same privileged world, where they are patronized as "exotic." For God's sake, John Kerry said we should vote for Obama because "he's a black man"! That's on video, too, like it or not.

    I don't think these privileged white people are the ones who brought about Obama's election. Obama was elected because a broad spectrum of American citizens voted for his "hope and change" message across lines of race, class, age, gender, and political party. There just aren't enough of these privileged white people to bring about much of anything.

    But that doesn't mean they don't fantasize that all black people are exotic radicals and then take others to task for failing to conform to the racialized dogma they incubate in their self-righteous little hothouse of a world.

    Again, like it or not, white racism isn't just for Bubbas, contrary to what some privileged white people want everyone to believe.

    Parent

    I'm not (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    talking about people in general like you are. I'm talking about the Obama apologists like you. You were one of the worst apologists over at MYDD during the primaries saying things like people had to vote for Obama because we owed it to African Americans IIRC but yet the women who've voted for Dems for years have to take it on the chin according to people like you. Well, saying people have to vote for Obama because of his race like you is just as bad as saying women HAD to vote for Hillary. I never told one woman that they ahd to vote for Hillary. I told them that they should vote for her for other reasons mostly that she would at least stand up and fight and not wave the white flag like Obama does.

    Parent
    Clueless dolts: (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    people who believe in ANY messiah, or "One" -- that dosnt include everyone.

    Eugene Debs: "Im not going to say I'll lead you to the Promised Land, because a people who can be lead in, can be lead out again".

    Parent

    Lessig . . (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    Quite the cheerleader.

    Is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    this the guy that said Obama was the best student he ever had?

    Parent
    No, I believe that (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    was Lawrence Tribe.

    But I could be mistaken.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    that's Lawrence Tribe

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    America voted for Obama cause America was afraid of the war-mongering McCain.

    Too bad America got the war-mongering Obama instead.


    There's a slight difference (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    between dedicating oneself to publicly supporting "The Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war, with it's sabre rattling implication of more of the same on the horizon (bomb, bomb, Iran..), and inheriting a two-front occupation in regions that have already been dangerously destabilized.

    Parent
    Warmongering? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    I thought Obama was supposed to be a wimp?

    And if you seriously think that there is any comparison of McBush and Obama regarding their warmongering as you put it, you are misinformed.

    McBush was for 100 year war. More than likely we would be in Iran now, and nowhere close to the withdrawal schedule ordered by the Iraq government.

    Obama is on schedule in the Iraq withdrawal. It should be down to 50,000 non-combat troops by the end of Aug. The remaining troops are scheduled to be out by the following year.

    All candidates that had any chance of winning POTUS, were for ramping up the war in Afghanistan, that includes HIllary.

    Had the GOP won the election warmongering and its respective fearmongering would be the order of the day. At least with the Democrats there is no fearmongering, and the war efforts are understated.

    Parent

    I have no freakin' clue what (none / 0) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    Obama was.  I can only see who he is based on his work product - which, BTW, wasn't particularly outstanding on the reform front while he was in the Senate either.

    But people don't want to see who he is.  They want him to be their dream date, knight in shining armor, the Easter Bunny... whatever.

    I guess it is good that people "like" him - as much as anyone who you don't even know one bit can be "liked", but what's that really got to do with judging and performance fairly?

    interesting post and subject (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    "but what's that really got to do with judging and performance fairly? "  Nothing.

    I've studied cult behavior for decades - non professionally. Its been an odd hobby of mine. I've noticed a few interesting things about people who really get into cults as opposed to some ancient/organized religion. They want to improve their lives, and feel the need for improvement - so there is a seeking element. But the cult part is that they somehow do not feel qualified to get what they seek by themselves and they need an actual living person as an intermediary. And it is best if that actual living person is a bit different from themselves or family or friends (reinforcing that they cannot do it for themselves - a person only has power via this 'other').

    No they are not dolts, or stupid. There is just a blind spot fueled by seeking and hope for improvement. "Hope and Change" Perfect fit.

    When Obama was campaigning I said to several fellow cult hobbyists that wasn't it really interesting that masses of people were behaving just like the cult members we'd studied and they were shocked and angry at me since they really Believed in Obama. If you are not caught in the cult projection object then it is really not possible to understand the power of it.

    I've really respected BTD in his assessment - first that 'media appeal' was important and then in his fair assessments. But for those who were really in the cult a de-programming is horribly painful. I've seen quite a number of people who leave cults and they go thru such a painful self-reorganization and identity.

    To have been able to see this behavior on such a large scale in my lifetime... Its been quite a ride.

    Parent

    Fascinating info (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    about cults.  Thanks.  That thing about needing a leader who is "other" was new to me, but I can see how that's true.

    Parent
    You're welcome (none / 0) (#62)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    And a cult may seem from the outside to have a 'leader' but to those inside (and they define in and out very specifically) he/she is an intermediary. Very different actually. We get lots of leaders, but an intermediary is felt to be an absolute necessity for the devotee (I know that is a somewhat derogatory word, but I don't really mean it that way) to have connection to that which is sought and desired. We all have this tendency to some extent I suppose.

    Parent
    Yes, I can see that (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:12:42 PM EST
    Certainly true of Catholicism, too, when you think about it, although not Judaism nor Islam nor Hinduism has that requirement for an "intermediary."

    I'm really quite fascinated by religion (I realize not all cults are religious per se, but even the ones that aren't amount to a kind of religion, seems to me) maybe since I was raised without it and have remained non-religious.

    Anyway, this is one of those discussions it's almost impossible to have in any depth via blog comments, but I sure appreciate hearing/reading your insights on this stuff.

    Parent

    The biggest lie... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    ACORN is shutting down because of a fraudulent video pimped by the corporate media.  U.S. forces in Afghanistan have heroically laid seige to and conquered a fictional city, helping build the case for further escalation.  A cable news channel has created a right-wing mass movement by pretending it already existed.  Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted for a health insurance bill he believed would deprive more people of healthcare (and wealth and homes), because fraudulent reports had convinced his constituents of the opposite.  The peace movement was defunded in November 2008, because of a fraudulent presidential election campaign.  71% of Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons.  41% of Americans think the quality of the environment is improving.  Has the power of the corporate media to overwhelm all before it begun to sink in yet?

    [snip]

    This is the biggest lie of them all: the system works. Vote for this corporatist war party or that warmongering corporate party, and you will have played your role well. The system works. The president makes the laws. The Congress gets in the way. The two parties are significantly different from each other and represent our views. News stories that include the views of both parties are complete and admirable journalism. The journalism itself has no viewpoint at all. The role of a citizen is to support politicians and parties.

    -- Lies, Damn Lies, and the Media

    This is off topic (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:03:28 AM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    I look at it as the broader context of the topic, actually. But you can delete it if you want to...

    Parent
    Steering to the center (none / 0) (#45)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    One advantage of Obama's natural centrist tendencies is the marginalization of the Republicans farther to the right.  To the extent that he is able to paint the Republicans as unreasonable and uncompromising, he stands to gain some political capital.  How he spends that political capital on financial reform, inmigration reform, and climate change will be interesting to watch.  Don't expect much more than minimal incremental changes, however.  It has been 30 years of continued conservative dominance.  Absent a revolution and/or complete collapse, change will be slow in coming.

    How has that strategy been working so far (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    for the Democratic Party?

    Predictions are that they may lose their majority in the House. The most optimistic predictions for the Senate is that there will be 51 Dems and Lieberman. Considering the number of conservative Dems that will still have their seats in 2011, the Senate will be a very conservative (i.e. Republican) body.

    Parent

    It depends (none / 0) (#63)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    It looks like it may work well for Obama. And it has a chance of working for centrist democrats if they stay on message.  It is probably a minus for progressive Dems as their supporters become impatient but they should be able to hold on.  I am now of the opinion that come November, Dem loses will be smaller than expected particularly if the economy picks up a bit.

    The Dem strategy could be to marginalize the Republicans and the Tea Party movement.  They should try to placed them out of the mainstream.  This is the mirror image of what conservatives have been doing to liberals for the last 40 years.

    Parent

    Don't think you are well informed (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    The Dems that are most at risk are the by your definition are the centrist democrats (conservative Dems to me).

    Parent