home

Better Than Reagan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:31:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In reading tristero's post about his complex feelings about the Obama Presidency, I tried to think of a way to capture the inability of some to rationally consider Obama. Tristero writes:

My friends think Obama is doing a good to excellent job. Sure they don't like this decision, or that cave-in, but on the whole, they think highly of him. [. . . T]he conversation takes its usual course, with my friends excusing Obama and leaping to his defense, and me piling up the things he has done inexcusably wrong [. . .] Which made it all the more startling to me when I found myself on the opposite side the other day. A smart, highly knowledgeable, highly accomplished friend lit into Obama and pulled no punches. [. . .] I couldn't help but disagree but I don't understand exactly why. [. . .] I felt that the very real, very obvious distinctions between Obama and Bush were being minimized.

(Emphasis supplied.) In light of the "better than Bush" argument tristero highlights, I want to try it this way. Consider Bill Clinton. To a progressive, Bill Clinton should not have been a satisfying President. And yet, he was much better than Reagan. But I would not spend a minute defending Clinton by arguing that he was much better than Reagan. More . .

What's the point of wasting any time "understanding the difficulties" of either Presidents Clinton or Obama? Say what you think about the policies they enacted.

You hated NAFTA, then say so. You hated welfare reform, then say so. You dislike offshore drilling, then say so. You dislike Obama's stances on the state secrets privilege, FISA, Afghanistan, then say so. I too am guilty of finding "context," for good or ill. Too much talk of "triangulation," not enough about the policy. I think we all need to concentrate on the issues. And forget the punditry for a while.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Early Evening Open Thread | Never Met A Primary Challenge He Liked >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Better Than Reagan | 164 comments (164 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The one thing I do like to (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:51:15 AM EST
    entertain is where would we be if Clinton had had to contend with the existence of the left blogosphere?  There are plenty out there deeply disappointed in some of the policies he enacted and what they did to us, such as welfare reform. If the blogosphere had been around then, would they have made themselves relevant by pointing out the human suffering that would ensue.  It is true that we have almost no programs now to help people and a giant unemployment rate that we have been told will be with us for a long time.  Would the blogosphere have taken Clinton policies on and how would they have changed the landscape the Progressive block must survive in and hopefully later be empowered in?  Why will they not take this on now with Obama when a medium to do so now exists?

    Is the left blogosphere (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    something one has to contend with?
    I mean really, until people get off their asses and out in the streets aren't you all just preaching to the choir?


    Parent
    All of the liberals who spend so (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 06:50:53 AM EST
    much time dissecting and hating on a President 10 years gone would better serve themselves and everyone else for that matter by choosing to live in the present.

    Parent
    I appreciate the question. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    But I would like to quibble about the characterization of welfare reform.  Everyone seems to want to accept the cliche that welfare reform was evil without explaining exactly why.  From another perspective, Al Gore said he agreed to welfare reform because the system as it was was definitely broken.  If you isolate welfare reform from all the other Clinton policies, you miss the things that were specifically enacted to mitigate the harm that welfare reform would have caused.  And I believe that one can rationally argue that  other issues now that remain in the aftermath of that reform are not because of the original changes as much as they are the result of the 2000 election.  By that I mean that Clinton and Gore intended to do a lot of changes and tweaking and that never happened.  Mentioned here are some of the specifics that Gore talked about when he ran for President.

    And since I mentioned it, here are some of the things that balanced welfare reform:

    The success of welfare reform was bolstered by other anti-poverty initiatives, including the doubling of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 for lower-income workers; the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income, noncustodial fathers into jobs; the Access to Jobs initiative, which helped communities create innovative transportation services to enable former welfare recipients and other low-income workers to get to their new jobs; and the welfare-to-work tax credit, which provided tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients.

    I also signed into law the toughest child-support enforcement in history, doubling collections; an increase in the minimum wage in 1997; a doubling of federal financing for child care, helping parents look after 1.5 million children in 1998; and a near doubling of financing for Head Start programs.

    The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.



    Parent
    Absolutely right and well done, Mike. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    In addition, there was support for retraining programs and education for those moving from welfare to work...opportunity that never would have existed for millions of many single moms without welfare reform.

    Clinton also proposed moving all the student loans out of the banks and into the federal bureaucracy, saving both the students and the government billions.  Congress woulnd't have it then, preferring to guarantee the loans so banks took no risks and reaped profits from both those who paid and those who didn't.

    Now Obama has tagged a small student-loan reform onto the health insurance reform bill.  It is only a shadow of what he proposed as 'transformative change' re education for the middle class...extending the status quo.  Pathetic.  See Mother Jones for the scorching details re community colleges.  No excuse for cutting them out, given the savings the program will accrue.

    Maddening.

    Parent

    I am a department chair (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Mike Pridmore on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    at a community college.  This (warning: PDF) is the info that was sent to us by our state organizational head.  It gives the impression that AGI, the program which was promised, was found not to be cost effective enough:

    Due to the lower savings score and a
    reluctance to create new programs within reconciliation, AGI was dropped from the overall
    legislation.

    The truth is that the score they used, at Kent Conrad's insistence, underestimated the true savings score. (link)

    Elsewhere it has been suggested that the money that would have funded AGI went instead to buy off support for health care reform from AHIP. (link)

    The appropriate old phrase is something like this: "If you're not mad yet, you're just not paying close enough attention."

    Parent

    Yup. Thanks for the links... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    ACI was such a nobrainer on all fronts, from educational to economic.

    Just infuriating.

    Parent

    I meant AGI, natch. I'm so mad I can't type. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:38:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Clinton was the first (none / 0) (#123)
    by dkmich on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    of the "new" Democrats.  He deliberately turned away from Johnson's Great Society; and after 12 years of Republican rule, Democrats were willing to give Clinton and his "new" Democrats a chance. Corporations were threatening to offshore and not doing it at full tilt as they are now.  Still,  Clinton was only able to pass NAFTA because he was a Democrat.  

    Clinton's NAFTA is Obama's health care.  Both are Republican policies that could only be passed by a Democrat, and both put the ramifications of their laws off into the future.  Unfortunately for Obama, the NAFTA chickens and Clinton deregulation have come home to roost and given Obama the reputation of the corporate DLC to join or overcome.      

    Obama has to contend with history, not the blogosphere.  

    Parent

    Everybody has something (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    Interesting point about the "legacies" inherited by Presidents. Since you mentioned Johnson too...of course, a whole generation of Democrats inherited the ramifications of Vietnam. (And, natch, President Johnson could also have been said to have inherited the initial foray from President Kennedy.) There is always something troubling for those looking for purity in policy-making.

    Parent
    Okay, I'll go first (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:58:35 AM EST
    I dislike Obama's policy on:

    Healthcare;
    Oil drilling;
    Nuclear Power;
    Executive Privilege and Authority;
    Extrajudicial killing;
    Detention;
    Torture (I'm not at all convinced we aren't still torturing, he's just brought back deniability);
    Iraq;
    Afghanistan;
    Reproductive freedom;
    Wall Street and financial regulation;
    Economic policy (jobs, investment, taxes);
    Transparency (there isn't any);
    Race relations;
    Gay rights;
    Card check (he's weak, weak, weak);
    and many, many more.

    I like:

    Lily Ledbetter;
    Hilda Solis.

    Too soon to tell:

    Immigration.

    You know, that's not that different a list than I would've had for Bush or, I suspect, McCain.  But I agree with your point that it's more important to focus on the issues than the better/worse comparison.  Because the latter isn't all that helpful and is, quite frankly, depressing.

    Your list with a few modifications (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    Dislikes

    President's Deficit Commission
    National I.D. cards
    budget priorities (increases for War and defense cuts for domestic programs)
    Education program
    clean coal

    Likes

    New student loan program

    BTW I do think that the mechanisms that Obama is establishing will result in the gutting of S.S. and Medicare. Weaken during Obama's term and further gutted during the next Republican administration.

    Parent

    Sotomayor (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    No one mentions Sotomayor....

    Parent
    with supreme court justices (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    who serve for a lifetime, I feel that at this point it's really too early to make a judgement on her one way or the other, especially since I really don't know much about legal "mumbo-jumbo" to tell if she's a solid judge or not based on the few decisions that have been made since she was appointed.

    Glad she was against Citizen's United.  And of course seeing the GOP self-destruct on TV opposing her was good I guess.  If you can bring yourself to laugh (rather than cry) at racist, sexist, @$$holes.

    Parent

    Not sure what I think of her yet (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    My impression is that she's essentially a lot like Souter, making her a choice that Bush I could've made.  I certainly don't see her as a Brennan or Marshall, which is what we sorely need to counter the far right-wing of the court.  

    However, she's not through her first term yet and so I think it's way too early to judge.  Who knows, maybe she'll become a lefty lion on the court.  I doubt it, but she's got a lot of years to go.

    Parent

    I can't believe I left off his neoliberal (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:41:50 AM EST
    non-scientific experiment on our public schools.  It's one of the things I hate most about this administration.

    I agree with your lists (both the good and the bad).

    Parent

    Appears Obama and Arne are out to crush teachers' (none / 0) (#62)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:55:05 AM EST
    unions the way St. Ronnie killed the air traffic controllers' unions.

    What a Dem...NOT.

    Parent

    Oops, I forgot two (4.25 / 4) (#3)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:00:51 AM EST
    I also dislike Obama's policy on the "deficit" and "entitlements" and his framing of social security and medicare, although I will save judgment until he actually tries to gut them instead of simply talks about gutting them and appoints people who support gutting them to his deficit reduction commission.

    Parent
    I won't be "saving judgement" (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:13:34 AM EST
    until he actually tries to gut them.  When the Prez talks....that's the trial balloon.  Also, if I wait to say NO I have to put up with all of his syncophants trying to beat the crap out of me with the justification that I'm trying to kill off all the good things in the extremely bad legislation.  NO WAY am I standing on the sidelines any longer until it starts to look detrimental.

    Parent
    This is a good list of categories. (none / 0) (#25)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    I think that it would be interesting to apply this list to each member of the House/Senate leadership.  

    There's probably an heavy temptation to coast along and assume that the president will lead (and do the heavy lifting) on all this stuff, if the president is of your party and he ran on promises that seemed to match your own desired goals.  But that's not a good excuse for the leadership to just slack off on these subjects.

    Parent

    I always have a 'critical' checklist (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:56:27 AM EST
    for all my elected representation. I can tell you how Webb voted on FISA and why. Why? It's an issue that may make or break my decision to vote for him. Same thing with Warner and Boucher.

    Parent
    I could not agree with you more, (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    that it's time to move away from process and start talking policy, policy, policy.

    For me, process wins are like ugly sports victories, but in sports, it really only does matter that your team gets the "W" - not how they do it.  Shoot, the year the Ravens won the Super Bowl, they went five straight games without scoring a touchdown.  No one but Ravens fans like me thought they "deserved" to go to the playoffs, but they did, and then proceeded to be a wild card team that played and won three road games, went to the Super Bowl and blew out the Giants.

    What it is that is being won in government and politics matters; legislative wins don't just advance political careers, they affect people's lives.  I mean, when does the leadership commit to using their energy and muscle to advance legislative policy victories instead of process victories that aren't going to do for the people what the people needed them to do - and presumably why the people elected them in the first place?

    Even on policy, context will be inescapable; you can't talk about Obama's policy on state secrets or warrantless wiretapping without discussing Bush/Cheney.  We can't seem to talk about Obama's health reform policy without discussing the Clinton attempt.  And lord knows, it's almost impossible to discuss Obama policy without the usual suspects deciding to drag you-know-who into it for some compare and contrast nonsense.  Even Obama believes that he has one-upped Clinton just by virtue of the Congress having passed the legislation - sadly, I think that it's because Obama seems to be more interested in process than policy that we are now in what looks to be a pattern that is not producing good legislation or good policy decisicons.

    So, we here in blogville can talk policy until "wonky" is the adjective used to describe the comment threads here at TL, but unless and until we can move the people who create legislation and sign bills into law and issue executive orders and write regulations to put their focus on policy, we're pretty much talking to the wall, aren't we?  I sure didn't see much evidence that the Democratic caucus spent much time heeding the pleas of their constituents in the health reform process - and those pleas were all about policy - so I don't have much confidence a bloggy shift away from process will matter much.

    And besides, when, deep in one's heart, one knows the policy isn't the right one, or the best one, keeping the focus on process is the only way to maintain the illusion that the president and the Congress are doing a good job and deserve to be re-elected; Booman and Bowers and too many of the denizens of Daily Kos are not going to be shifting to policy and away from their daily contortions on process anytime soon.

    Not that you, BTD, care particularly what everyone else is doing, thank goodness!  

    If McCain had been elected... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ek hornbeck on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:18:20 AM EST
    would we have seen this same retreat on policy from Congressional Democrats?

    I think not.

    Therefore McCain would have been a better President for progressives, Palin or not.

    On think is for sure, I'm never voting for the lesser evil again.

    I find that argument unpersuasive.

    Can you imagine if Bush (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:30:39 AM EST
    had come out with that expansion of drilling?  The left would have kicked the ever loving crap out of him so many times for bringing that to the table it wouldn't even have been funny.  I'm inclined to see some sanity in your post.

    Parent
    Bush did propose it (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:37:59 AM EST
    I give you Mr. Harry Reid and Ms. Nancy Pelosi's responses:

    Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, responded by calling the vice president "Oil Man Cheney," saying: "So all that Cheney can talk about, the Oil Man Cheney can talk about, is drilling, drilling drilling. But there is not enough oil in America to make that the salvation to our problems."

    After hearing of Mr. Bush's proposal on Tuesday night, Mr. Reid affirmed his opposition, saying, "The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won't have a significant impact on prices."

    And the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said, "The president's proposal sounds like another page from the administration's energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased."

    Now, let's hear what they have to say when Obama is the one doing it.  They beat Bush back.  My guess is that, once again, Obama will accomplish what Bush could not.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:40:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:53:51 AM EST
    Was just as adament in his opposion of drilling throughout the campaign season. He continually ridiculed McCain over the suggestion.

    Parent
    but but but... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:05:19 AM EST
    the Atlantic coast is only opened up for EXPLORATION.

    All snark intended.

    Parent

    Not throughout the campaign, (none / 0) (#83)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    it turned midway through the summer of '08 due to the gas prices, etc., that made it no longer a politically viable stance.

    Parent
    Except of course.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    it had nothing to do with gas prices....

    Parent
    Gas prices rose, McCain switched to favor drilling (none / 0) (#90)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    Drill baby drill began, and the gang of 10 advocated drillingas part of energy compromise.  Obama said he'd go along with drilling in the context of larger energy policy change.



    Parent

    Trying links again (none / 0) (#92)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    Gas prices

    Obama explains


    Parent
    I understand. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    I just wish Obama would rise about the drill baby drill crowd and say/do what's actually justified/correct.

    Parent
    From the Speech (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy
    With 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security. But U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.
    *    A "Use it or Lose It" Approach to Existing Leases. Oil companies have access to 68 million acres of land, over 40 million offshore, which they are not drilling on. Drilling in open areas could significantly increase domestic oil and gas production. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will require oil companies to diligently develop these leases or turn them over so that another company can develop them.

    PDF

    Parent

    I'm going to withhold judgment (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    until I see what passes on climate/energy. If it's really good, I'll give him props.

    Parent
    once again (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    The usable dismally small product of this drilling is years down the road of being realized.  It is my opinion that its impact on current prices is nonexistent.  There is no factual basis for the drilling arguments, but more knowledgeable people on the subject than I will be clarifying all that soon.  And why is Obama so willing to do something so wildly unpopular with his base and making unfounded claims that it can have an affect on controlling prices but we were all told to take a flying leap on a public option?

    Parent
    If all of the reports about this are right (none / 0) (#157)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    it could be a slight of hand- according to most of the stuff I've read the environmental regs already in place effectively make actual usage of the areas opened up extremely limited.

    Parent
    I see this as a good thing (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    if it is true.  I hate to say that environmental issues aren't an area I go to great lengths to explore and fully understand, but it is true.  I have a lot on my plate and politically I usually stick with the areas that directly impact my life because a couple have a very large impact on my life right now.  I have a decent memory though for what the Palin crazy drill baby drill statements ended up revealing when she tried to make such an argument about how it would affect gas prices and a factual debate ensued.

    Parent
    Bush did (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    lift the ban in 2008.  And at first the Dems cried foul, but then they caved (shocking, I know).  The ban expired in December 2008.  When Obama first came into office, he re-instated the ban.  Now he is going back on that.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#46)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    for the clarification.  

    Parent
    Drilling In VA Is BushCO 2008 (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Congress voted to end the 20 year offshore drilling ban in 2008, and BushCo offshore drilling leases were set and drilling was supposed to begin in 2012, now it looks like the drilling will be delayed for another year or more pending environmental impact review.

    Pandering to the conservatives, or triangulation, is in anticipation of this legislation coming up when congress returns from recess:

    The administration is pushing expanded offshore exploration as a bargaining chip in its attempts to enact sweeping legislation to curb oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Bush also overturned a drilling ban in Bristol Bay:

    Bristol Bay is a highly productive fishery and part of a Bering Sea region that supplies 40% of the nation's seafood. Congress blocked drilling there after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. President George W. Bush removed the last impediments to drilling in the bay in 2007 and had scheduled a drilling lease sale there in 2011

    Obama has blocked that deal.

    But his administration has come under heavy criticism from Republicans, who accuse it of dragging its feet on offshore exploration. Some in the GOP accuse Obama of a de-facto moratorium on new drilling.

    Shortly after Obama took office, his Interior Department retracted a Bush administration proposal for drilling from 2012 to 2017. Later, a court invalidated portions of the nation's existing drilling plan.

    Wednesday's announcement will set out a new 2012-17 proposal as well as more immediate plans for lease sales.

    Administration officials said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, as part of Obama's new drilling plan, will scrap a planned lease sale for Bristol Bay. Obama will announce that he is reverting to the policies of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton, who both blocked drilling of any kind in the bay.

    LA Times

    Parent

    It begs the question (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:52:02 AM EST
    What about papa bush? Had clinton been an also ran would we have seen the same lurch to the right from the Democratic isle?
    To the extent that politics is a team sport is of course inevitable. At some point however you've got to ask just what is it your fightin' for.

    Parent
    A small consolation is (4.50 / 2) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:08:27 AM EST
    that they were rolling routinely under Bush, so I really don't think that their "fight" under McCain wuld have looked too different then what we witnessed on health care under Obama.

    That being said I always thought that the damage Obama would do would be he'd move the Overton further right and damage liberal ideals by passing policies that weren't liberal off as "left"(which is why I didn't vote for him).

    I actually like being a coveted independant vote.

    Parent

    By that argument Bush was a great (none / 0) (#143)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    president for progressives- after they got over the 9-11 haze he was more strongly opposed than any president since Nixon- so objectively Bush was a good progressive president by your "logic."

    Parent
    Obama gets people to root for (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:25:14 AM EST
    him precisely because he's so bad, and yet likeable.
    What I mean is that Obama's awfulness puts Democrats in the position where they constantly are asked to defend Obama. They do this because gosh darn it, he's the kind of guy they'd like to have spanish ham, manchega and a rioja with.
    It's a fascinating dynamic.

    What I find interesting (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    is the exact same thing that happened under Bush with HIS base. I mean geez can both sides please quit pretending that the President is someone they're going to be having beer with at the local pub or enjoy an egg breakfast with already? As long as 60% of the country gets caught up in the politics of personality, we can't move forward. I wish they'd think of it this way, if they really like Obama then it's in thier and his best interest to move him towards good policy so that a) you get good policy and b) he gets re elected because he gets credit for good policy. If the guy is wrong then you need to fight him whether you like him or not. Why? Bad policy leads to losing inevitably.

    Parent
    I love the whole Obama Family Lifestyle® line (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    I'd buy any of their products in a heartbeat:

    • the clothes,
    • the world travel, culture and cuisine,
    • the healthy gardening,
    • the hoops workout mixed with a sneaked smoke out back
    • spousal Date Night at a decent bistro followed by dancing
    • the sensible mix of no-nonsense, responsible parenting and communication they have with the Obama daughters

    As friends and neighbors, they'd be so cool to have around. But Obama as President? Yuck.  

    Parent
    Sorry, don't hate me, but Michelle Obama's (3.66 / 3) (#110)
    by bridget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    fashion sense is highly overrated.

    In short: IMO She is one of the worst dressed first ladies in memory. She has no idea how to put together a good-looking elegant outfit. And they often simply don't fit her body. A good "dresser" could do wonders here. I promise.

    I said sorry ;-)

    Of course, healthy gardening is very good. Do it myself.

    Otherwise I just don't care about the Obamas as friends (eeeks) or neigbors (noooo), but they do have a foxy dog. Love him.

    Just like W's two Scottish Terriers were his only pluspoint in the WH, Obamas water dog rocks and is the one being in the Obama White House I can solidly support. Of course, Obama broke his campaign promise and did not safe a homeless dog (and that angered me a lot, of course) but I don't blame the First Dog. Hope he is a happy happy dog in the White House for the time being.

    Parent

    FLOTUS is hit and miss IMO (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    I don't go hunting down her "latest look" like some diehards, but my $0.03 is that I'd wear a lot of her separates, er, separately.

    One change I did like was from her self-diminishing look leading up the election. (The teenager-accessories that would have been better suited to the girls.) Michell's a gorgeous imposing powerhouse. Why hide it? I like her better when she flaunts it instead?

    Parent

    For heaven's sake, sher .... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by bridget on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    don't you have anything better to do than check this blog just so you can downrate the posts of the bloggers here?

    Does Jeralyn know about this?

    I will ignore that from now on just as I have in the past -

    but I was just wondering what the story is with Sher ....

    Parent

    If I Downrated More (none / 0) (#161)
    by daring grace on Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    I would have downrated your snarky comments about Michelle Obama too. This kind of over-attention to style over substance leaves me cold, frankly.

    And in other recent examples of female politicians getting critiqued for what they wore or how they wore it, I've seen many folks here cry sexist. (And rightfully so for the most part.) And First Ladies are not even politicians.

    Call her chosen 'causes' as First Lady lame. Call her out on comments she made on the campaign trail or even that she makes as FLOTUS. That all makes sense to me. But this silly attention to what she wears? Pffft.

    So Sher's downrating in this case makes reasonable sense to me.

    Parent

    daring grace, honey, I cry sexist. You are (3.00 / 2) (#163)
    by bridget on Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    asking for it with your thoughtless projections.

    So would it please you then if I would shoot myself in disgrace? Right now?Would that make you happy?
    Since my comments re MO packed with well-meaning disclaimers were still too snarky for you? So you had to outsnark, but good?

    But hey, if you want to downrate my posts, too, knock yourself out. I myself don't downrate because it is clearly a game some people like to play on the blogs. I Can't even remember if I did it during the heat of the primary when posts clearly did deserve it at times.

    FYI Considering the fact that I basically never criticize the First Lady or other female politicians, re their looks and attire and private lives - thank you, but no thanks for your very snarky sexist lecture.

    It would have been so much more appropriate  had you taken just some time and read my post the way it was intended - rather than jumping on these benign comments with both feet, i.e. repeating the usual projections so popular by a certain group of bloggers since primary 08: Finding a misogynist around every corner and let them have it: the same old lecturelecturelecture.

    BTW My qs re sher's constant downrating of other posters, no matter the subject matter, something I have noticed for some time now, is what my question was really all about. You didn't answer that question. Blinded by sexism? Again?

    Is sher the officially rating police on Talkleft as moderator? It is possible, isn't it? AFAIK sher doesn't write posts. Of course, I could be wrong since I don't see every single comment on this blog.
    You didn't help me out here either. Wonder why.

    Parent

    How to put this tactfully. (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    She has some features that  need some help she's not getting.


    Parent
    You are so right (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by klassicheart on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    Again, we have propaganda not news, let alone honest commentary.  Michelle Obama does not have good taste and her fashion sense doesn't exist.  Even on small things, like fashion, we are fed lies to move the narrative.  Obama and crew are marketing animals....that is what they do...market themselves. That's how he won...with the best and most innovative marketing campaign. Governing successfully is much less important.  Image is everything.

    Parent
    on the other hand, (none / 0) (#145)
    by klassicheart on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:38:56 PM EST
    Barack Obama does have fashion sense.

    Parent
    Portuguese Water Dog indeed.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    lets see Obama's people try and spin that one and convince the public that animal is anything but window dressing..

    Parent
    I'd like to have ties like that. (none / 0) (#103)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    I don't have a huge eye for clothes, but if his ties don't cost $500 or more/ per, I would be surprised.


    Parent
    He and his family are still (none / 0) (#109)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    role models, and as such I think they are excelling. I'd put that in my (so far very short) "good things about Obama administration" list. And it is style. It used to be style vs. substance. Now it is style AS substance. Obama and his family are not to blame for creating that, and their use of it is inevitable.

    Parent
    Out and out lie (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    I wasn't upset with Obama and HCR. I never expected him to take the progressive view. He was luke warm on the issue from the start.

    I also realized that he would never go after the abuses of the Bush administration. Once liberties are surrendered, they're very hard to get back.

    The drilling issue is a totally different story. Obama was adamently opposed to the drilling. I resent being flat out lied to on a matter of this magnitude.

    How many of the environmentalists around the country would have been actively campaigning for Obama if his true position had been known? How tarnished would his "progressive" credential been if he had supported drilling during the primaries? I really think it would have been a deal breaker for al lot of voters.

    This is an inexcusable breach of trust. I certainly hope that the next time we're picking a candidate, we remember the bill of goods we were sold.

    Not entirely true (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    "And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.  I believe in the need for increased oil production. We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling." (Obama during the second presidential debate)

    So while I am against offshore drilling, your statement would be wrong that he "flat out lied".

    Parent

    He changed his position on offshore (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    drilling during his campaign. From being totally against it when speaking to crowds in Florida to support.

    The reasons behind his changes are really irrelevant to the effects of the offshore drilling will have to our coast line and to the ocean.

    The choices are real clear to me. Either you support Obama's position on drilling and continue to justify it or you advocate against this action.

    Parent

    I'd say... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    Either you support the drilling position or you advocate against it and suggest something better - and not just ideologically better but actualizable politically as well.  

    It seems to me the Obama key point has always been a little progress over a lot of unresolvable circular debate. If you don't like that philosophy of governance in the current atmosphere, promote another one, but it seems to be his central approach to governance.  It can be dismissed as PPUS, but I don't think it's a schtick, I think it's a philosophy that incorporates incrementalism and pragmatism.

    I'm a vegetarian work-from-home environmentalist who tries to use as little energy as possible, with the exception of course that here I am running a computer.  I don't like offshore drilling at all, and living in Virginia, I especially don't like it here.  But if promising a little offshore drilling allows raising fuel standards 10 MPG or more, and some movement toward more diverse energy sources, I can understand it, as the gain is likely to significantly outweigh the loss.  Either the debate has to be changed/diminished enough to allow action, or nothing will happen, and that could be worse than movement forward that includes some negatives.  I don't count things that happen for a few years while my preferred party is in control, then reversed because they so overreached the center that they're easy to overturn next time power goes back to the other party.

    Parent

    Could you please explain why (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    you think the former is preemptively necessary for the latter?

    But if promising a little offshore drilling allows raising fuel standards 10 MPG or more, and some movement toward more diverse energy sources, I can understand it, as the gain is likely to significantly outweigh the loss.

    Because I have no evidence that raising fuel standards and moving towards diverse energy sources requires further offshore drilling...

    Parent

    Well, I'd say it's a pretty big IF (none / 0) (#77)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    But raising fuel efficiency standards is already being challenged by at least my state AG under the context that the EPA does not have authority to conclude MPGs need to be raised because the global warming data on which their conclusion was reached is false or inadequate.  So if there is less widespread backing for such legal challenges because Drill Baby Drill has been effectively neutralized as a rallying cry for the right against Obama administration (and re-election campaign in two years), then I can understand it.  Not sure I agree or support, but understand.  I don't think there's significant actual net energy value in drilling offshore, or at least I think that's not what the power behind that political press is about.

    Parent
    Not The Point (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    The standards were set to be raised, and imo, that has nothing to do with this recent concession to allowing some of BushCo drilling plans to proceed.

    The recent compromise, pandering, or triangulation is in relation to this legislation which will be taken up when congress returns from recess:

    The administration is pushing expanded offshore exploration as a bargaining chip in its attempts to enact sweeping legislation to curb oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    LA Times

    Parent

    Advocating for natural gas as a bridge fuel (none / 0) (#148)
    by klassicheart on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    would have been the better policy....The Sierra Club endorses it as a bridge fuel...we have lots of it and could convert our power plants from coal to natural gas and our trucks from diesel to natural gas....plus...it would spawn a home grown industry that employs lots of people in high paying jobs...And it would make a dent in the amount of oil we import....Instead, Obama talks about the oxy moron "clean coal,"  and pushes drilling that brings us very little oil...but it does bring campaign contributions....The Petroleum Industry expressed their happiness with this new policy...that should be all you need to know.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#158)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    LNG is one of the few "terror!!!!" scare things that actually worries me- far more than say crashing a plane into a Nuclear Reactor- in its compressed state (as shipped) NG is insanely reactive.

    Parent
    Of course people (none / 0) (#31)
    by me only on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    only listen to the things they want to hear.

    'Cause your quote there is a real zinger to the idea that he back-stabbed the environmentalists this week.

    Parent

    Well I remember it well (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    because I didn't like it when I heard it, but it's also why I didn't go apoplectic when it was reported and instead am looking at the positive in the new mpg regulations.

    Parent
    He did switch on drilling, though (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:29:14 AM EST
    towards the end of the campaign.

    Parent
    just like he switched on health care after the (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    primary and flipped on FISA during. The guy flips on issues on a dime. However, as BTD says that's a pol being a pol. They're going to act in self interest. It's our responsibility to ensure and when they flip it's in the direction we desire. Unfortunately, that's not going so well thus far.

    Parent
    Importantly, the general trend in his flips is to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    speak more liberally to the electorate, especially in the Dem primaries, move closer to the right but still within general Democratic principles in the general election, but end up well to the right and in line with corporations' objectives once in office.

    Exelon, his IL assignment to bring about universal health care in the state that ended in a study commission.

    He didn't have all that many concrete accomplishments, so it was easy for him to bamboozle the public. Or his campaing manager showed him how to do it, as was done with BushBoy's first election. Bush woulda been a goner after one term if 9/11 hadn't given him his War President status.

    Parent

    The change you can beli8eve in! (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    That would be Obama changing positions on issues formerly of importance to people who called themselves Democrats.

    Parent
    Drilling and HCR (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:17:32 AM EST
    The Iraq war and the drilling issue were the most important items in the list for Obama's most activist supporters during the primaries.
    HCR was probably way down the list.
    In my opinion, the drilling thing is a nod to Reagan Democrats, Independents and Republicans who were always least concerned about the items most important to BHO's most activist supporters.
    The bad unemployment situation in the country (lot worse than during the primaries) may have also contributed to a reassessment of short term policies.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by szielinski on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:52:47 AM EST
    Adequate presidential performance > Obama's performance as President > Bush's performance as president.

    If Obama fails to achieve adequate policy outcomes, then Obama might be preferable to Bush but he'll also be inadequate with respect to what counts as feasible, morally defensible and rational policy.

    Applying "the better than X" argument only makes rational sense when the better politician meets or exceeds a rationally defensible and minimal standard of achievement. If he or she fails to meet or exceed this standard, it follows that 1) the better politician can be criticized for his or her poor performance and 2) the "better than X" defense fails as a reasonable standard for evaluating politicians and policies.

    The upshot: The "better than X" argument always fails as a justification for a politician and a particular set of policies outcomes.

    And Obama? It strains credulity to claim that the health care which passed through the legislative mill, the recent off-shore drilling decision, the failure to push through card check legislation, etc. were the best policies that this administration and Congress could achieve.

    Hope and Change became (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    Historic and Unprecedented

    which became

    Agenda Check-offs and Legacy Talking Points

    All with comparable values as a warm bucket of spit.

    Punditry = Bloviators (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by samsguy18 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:58:27 AM EST
    Frankly I am getting very angry at the constant manipulation and distortion of the facts by the media and all of our elected officials.....Especially the present administation. As I review this revised health bill the more angry I become!  

    Are you Dr. Jack Cassell? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Well, p!ss on that! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:54:32 AM EST


    Parent
    But Obama said you shldn't make judgments until (none / 0) (#44)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    the bill is implemented and you actually suffer under it! Sort of like having standing to sue, I guess.

    As lambert writes at Corrente:

    So, before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought."

    Just stop thinking about tomorrow, mmm-kay?

    Links at the link.

    Parent

    Clarification: Lambert posted Obama quote from (none / 0) (#63)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    yesterday, and I didn't make the lead in clear. Those are not lambert's words, but Obama's.

     

    Parent

    Larger Frustration: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    I have never seen a President in my lifetime with so much potential to enact significant change - due to his charisma and intelligence and whatever else, Obama has an unprecendented loyal following willing to go with him in almost every endeavor.

    Why won't he use this capacity to enact major, bold, visionary, progressive policies?

    I know I go off the rails about the environment, etc., but really, it is this larger squandered potential for all changes that "could have been" that so disappoints me.

    He has such tremendous potential to make change because people just love and support him. But not too much is changing...

    And, honestly, I will be happy to eat every word I've uttered if things change.

    Enact bold progressive (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    legislation, or at least sincerely try to achieve that.

    But instead we get some premature unilateral disarming on the liberal aspects and end up with mushy MOR barely good enough progress.  Or in the case of offshore drilling, unacceptable backsliding and capitulation to the Repub right.

    Obama had better wake up and realize he needs to do more to revitalize a dispirited Dem base, and cease with the too-clever and defensive-by-half way he and Rahm go about positioning the admin on major issues that should be much bigger victories for our side.

    But I'm assuming Obama really isn't as much a conservative at heart as, say, Jimmy Carter was.  I suspect, rather, that it's a question of Obama being much too conflict averse, with a dangerous touch of naivete about his political opponents that seems to afflict modern Democrats.  Even the smart ones.  

    Parent

    Or a lot more corporate and DC power behind (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Realleft on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    the scenes than is politically expedient to admit.  Myself, I assume the worst from the SCOTUS decision on election financing, and things were already really really bad.  It's easy to expect fidelity to beliefs from where I sit, but things are ripe for real corporate takeover now, not just undue corporate influence.  I imagine what looks like undue caving will later look like attempts to reduce corporate financing of only Republicans.  Some of the truth will eventually come out, but after the administration has already run its course.

    Parent
    Stealth candidate. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:51:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Policy (4.33 / 3) (#24)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    I can't really list bills here, because there are things I like/don't like in pretty much all areas so I'll go with more specific policy points.

    Things I like (starting out on a good note):

    International Policy
     - Russian nuclear arms deal
     - Stance towards Israel
     - Iraqi drawdown
     - Real attempts to solve the actual problems in Afghanistan - stop going after farmers, going after militants, involvement of Pakistan, and refocusing on the task at hand.
     - Focus of international policy no longer as euro-centric which I feel more accurately reflects the state of the world.
     - Lifting of global gag rule

    Domestic Policy
     - The parts of the Stimulus package that weren't tax breaks
     - The expansion of medicaid and regulatory changes in the health care bill
     - Increase in staffing and funding for regulatory agencies
     - Lily Ledbetter
     - Student loan changes

    Things I don't like:
    International Policy
     - Use of military drones
     - African aids funding (or lack there-of)

    Domestic Policy
     - Indefinite Detention
     - Switch back to Military Trials
     - Health care mandate with no public option
     - Nelson Amendment/Exec order
     - Lack of accountability for financial institutions
     - Off-shore drilling
     - Civil liberties (FISA/Patriot Act)

    These are just the things that have happened.  I am in wait and see mode on the others (DADT, energy investments, taxes, etc...).  Although in general I guess I've liked international policy, but domestic policy has not been as good.

    Eesh (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    I'm finding it extremely difficult to find anything I like, quite frankly. The absolute worst for me are: Foreign policy, jobs, abortion rights, and environmental policy. But there is a great deal more. Maybe I really am just blinded by dislike but honestly, I don't think so. I remember finding reasons to like some of Bush's efforts, believe it or not.

    Similarly, I've sincerely tried to listen to the support people express for Obama's policies, and their reasons for doing so, and I have yet to come across anything substantive. It's always about Obama's personality, it's always about the "tone." That one comes up a lot. As in, yeah we're still slaughtering civilians and kowtowing to Israel, but we're doing it with a much nicer "tone."

    Not persuasive imo. And the bar they set for him keeps getting lower and lower. Talk about moving the goalposts, at this point they're not even talking about the same game.

    Maybe it just comes down to a difference in perception. For instance, the list CST gives of things that are good in international policy are all things that I consider an utter disaster. (Afghanistan is a worsening quagmire where, it now emerges, our troops are committing war crimes; we're still letting Israel run our foreign policy, the big "Netanyhu snub" kabuki show notwithstanding). But to me, the things I oppose are the things I thought most liberals would be opposed to. I am finding out daily that I'm entirely wrong about that. It seems to come down to a simple "If Obama does it, it's OK."

    I think his supporters have invested so much in him that it's going to be extremely difficult to admit they were wrong. Like Macbeth, they are steeped too far in blood to return.

    feel free to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    but it was an honest assessment on my part of where I think we are.  With foreign policy, perception matters a lot on the international stage.  We had a pretty in depth discussion of the Israel stuff here the other day, and I stand by that assessment.

    We are all free to have different views on this stuff.  But I don't think I mentioned a single thing about tone or personality.  And there was a lot more to that list than Israel and Afghanistan.  On both the good and bad fronts.

    Parent

    Foreign policy has undergone a titanic shift (none / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    for the better. Bill Clinton had the opportunity to totally transform foreign policy because (1) the cold war had just ended before he became President, (2) America had greater economic leverage around the world and (3) "War against Terror" was not yet a political slogan in America . Yet BHO is doing more heavy lifting in FP and showing more flexibility than BC ever did!


    Parent
    You mean like a whole new war? (none / 0) (#66)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    He's sure geting a pass on that one!

    Parent
    Funny...the 'heavy lifting' is being done (none / 0) (#88)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    by the Clinton team, start to finish!

    Parent
    Could it be (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by robert72 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    that these supporters don't want to be called racist?
    Some of them used that slur quite frequently against others who looked at Obama in reality.

    Parent
    Myiq2xu does a rundown of the Clinton presidency (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    over at The Confluence.

    Not sure how completely thorough it is, but it does bring some things into focus that I've forgotten...already.

    Speaking of "better than Reagan" (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:27:03 AM EST
    I find it hilarious that REpublicans never even mention the only GOP President since Ike who wasn't just horrible, and who certainly was better than Reagan.

    The republican president (none / 0) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:07:02 AM EST
    that started the EPA and visited China, are you referring to?

    Parent
    I was thinking of the one (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:11:46 AM EST
    who oversaw the peaceful end of the Cold War and the liberation of Eastern Europe.

    Parent
    thanks for the clarification. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:18:47 AM EST


    Parent
    as far as I'm concerned, Nixon (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:28:57 AM EST
    has the blood of millions on his hands, through Kissinger's trick in 1968 to prolong the war.

    Parent
    Allende--sponsoring that coup (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    was wrong....

    Parent
    I was thinking about IndoChina. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:21:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    But the 1973 coup deserves to be mentioned....if one wants to talk Kissinger....

    Parent
    And Timor. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    Idi Amin with a Ph.D

    Parent
    His people also attempted (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    to work behind the scenes to sabotage the Paris peace talks, so that the Dems wouldnt be able have an October Surprise for the voters just before the election..

    But, if it makes anyone feel better, some historians in England have been revising Richard III's legacy in the last few years, also.

    Parent

    Henry, The Teflon Rat (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    sounds sorta' like a quasi-futuristic children's story..

    Parent
    Yes, that is funny (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:28:47 AM EST
    they want him disappeared for a couple of reasons - raising taxes, and his progeny.

    Parent
    Worse (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    He lost.  Cardinal sin.  Just like Dems rarely mention Jimmy Carter.

    Parent
    I break it into two pieces (none / 0) (#32)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    This business about supposed liberal/progressive types mysteriously retaining Obama adulation:

    1. Just pure reflexive personality worship. He's charismatic, smart, well spoken, blah blah blah blah. It's belief perseverence. It's "I don't want to admit I was wrong about him." It's "The party can't be that wrong." It's "I don't really pay attention, but he's our guy, so he must be good." There was plenty of this with Bill Clinton too. The tech bubble was pretty helpful there.

    2. Political calculation. Namely, there is a concern that if criticism of Obama passes a certain threshold, that reflexive personality reverence will turn into reflexive hatred, or distrust. Thre is a fear that, in much the same way that disgust with Clinton's triangulation "drove people to Nader" will result in similar dynamics that will put Republicans back in power. Here the argument will turn to "whether or not there is a difference between Obama and Bush et al."

    In my view there is some legitimacy to point 2. It's hard to stay focused on policy. It's easy to love/hate the simulacrum of the public figure.

    Why is he so charismatic for some and not for (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    others? Like me.

    I've never been enthralled. The first I ever heard him speak was during the initial debates (with some questions at committee hearings before that. The one I most remember is when he gave a kinda rambling speech, then tried to make it a question, but he was already campaigning for president by then).

    His debating skills were those of a novice; I found myself wondering how he did as a professor and definitely that he was not cut out to be a courtroom lawyer.

    So, not impressed, not in love, did not see The Light.

    But others certainly did. I don't get it.

    Which pols have enthralled me? JFK and RKF.

    I was young when JFK was president, but I did pay attention to politics and foreign affairs. I appreciated his wit and style in dealing with the press in those live press conferences. I was less into issues except for civil rights and I guess I assumed he was going to accomplish legislation for those.

    RFK became a figure of hope for me after his brother's death, after he changed before our eyes and championed issues that I had begun to learn about and believe were important. I think his assassination profoundly changed this nation's course in history.

    I never felt strong a emotional connection to Bill Clinton, but I believed in most of his issues. I was actually persuaded that the Dem Party needed to be somewhat more business friendly, but I did not like NAFTA. I cringed when he signed Welfare Reform. I bristled at the savage treatment of both the Clintons by the MCM and Repubs.

    When the Lewinsky scandal broke, I comtemplated the advantages of Clinton announcing he would resign, imagined things he could accomplish prior to resigning as he would be free of the political considerations of leading the party (exec orders for all sort of liberal dreams), and how Gore completing Clinton's time in office would set Gore up to be elected in his own right more easily. But that didn't come about.

    So, what is it about Obama? Not issues, fer sure.

    Parent

    Well, I recognize his (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    charisma, even as I don't put it quite in the lofty territory as JFK, RFK or MLK.  Those three true liberals set a very high bar for the exciting and at times electrifying combination of substance, style and personality.  

    It's all on a continuum.  Obama has it, but perhaps only 85% of what those great figures from the 60s possessed.  So, I can see how some who are still in the thrall of his personality are now trying to find ways to defend the often disappointing policies.  Though for many of these loyalists there are limits to how many more times they will reflexively go to the barricades to fiercely defend their guy.  

    As for Bill Clinton, he finished out wounded and barely standing, for sure, but even that was better than the alternative of caving to the Repubs' abuse of process, which would have set a horrible precedent and not even guaranteed Gore could have avoided and survived the taint in the 2000 election.

    Parent

    Not disputing the charisma of JFK and RFK (none / 0) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    but your "first love" is always the sweetest.
    People's age have a lot to do with the "emotional connection" people feel with JFK, BC and BHO.
    Your post only indicates that you have grown older over the years. I am sure that just as you did not "see the light" in BHO, many in your parents and grand parent's generation "did not see the light" in JFK and RFK and BC. A lot of adulation of JFK and BC was also irrational if one thinks objectively, let us all be honest about it!


    Parent
    Your point is a good one, but (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    in actual fact, older people absolutely swooned with delight at Jack Kennedy.

    Parent
    in fairness (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    I know some older people who absolutely swooned with delight at Obama too.

    I actually think the JFK/Obama comparisons make sense more than anything else in terms of storyline/charisma/personality, not that I was around then.  But a lot of people also forget that JFK was hardly the best president eveer.

    Parent

    But after a century (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    of old and/or infirm types in the White House, it was beyond mind-boggling to have this young, dashing, glamorous as hell, very, very smart, articulate and witty man.  I know for people a little younger than me who didn't experience him in real time, it can be very hard to grasp just how dazzling he was.  We gathered around the TV to watch his news conferences the way we gathered to watch "best of" Jack Paar on Friday nights.

    Except for his race, Obama isn't anywhere near as much of a contrast to recent predecessors as JFK was.  JFK was pretty much really unprecedented in that respect.

    FWIW, my parents were rock-solid Stevensonian lefties but by 1960, it was clear he was done and that sticking with him was a losing proposition.  They weren't thrilled with some of JFK's policy positions, but the intelligence with which he talked about all sorts of stuff won them over.  You sort of got to have your cake and eat it too-- close to Stevenson's keen intelligence, erudition and detailed knowledge but in an incredibly appealing human package.  He resembled Bill Clinton in that respect much more than Obama.

    Not to mention, of course, that the alternative in 1960 was Nixon, who with his history was literally the boogeyman under the bed to folks on any part of the left, your worst nightmare come true.

    Parent

    here's the kicker (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CST on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    "except for his race"

    From an optics perspective, you really can't disregard that.  It was, to quote Biden, a "big effing deal".  Especially around the time of the inauguration.  I think a lot of people have been so disappointed since, and there was so much animosity post-primary that that got lost around here a bit.  But I don't think it got lost in the real world.  Certainly not in cities.

    It's kind of passe to talk about it at this point.  But that doesn't make it any less true.

    I know I will never fully get the historical perspective of the Kennedys.  But I am surrounded by some serious Kennedy lovers, in Kennedy country, and that was their reaction.  Not to mention the Kennedys themselves.

    Also I think to a certain degree, one of the things that kept JFK as this iconic image for generations after is the fact that he was assasinated.  Let's hope Obama's around long enough for any remaining shine to tarnish :)

    Parent

    You're right, CST (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:58:47 PM EST
    and the fact of his race is the one thing I can't help but whole-heartedly and enthusiastically celebrate.  Whether he ultimately "succeeds" as president or not, just having a black man in the White House (and a black woman as first lady) is absolutely huge beyond reckoning.  I certainly didn't think it would ever happen in my lifetime.

    Parent
    Well, I'm probably (none / 0) (#128)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    the biggest JFK supporter on this blog.  And, as I noted recently to a similar Kennedy skeptic on another blog, actually the more I read about his presidency, especially a number of recent books written since many pres'l docs were declassified starting 15-20 yrs ago, the more highly I regard his not-quite 3 yrs in office.  

    The last true liberal (both DP and FP) to hold office, and with an interesting backstory (see James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, 2008) in his attempts, along with an increasingly interested Khrushchev, at bringing about an end to the Cold War.  

    For sure, the assassination affected some perceptions, but I suggest that the recently released historical record is now backing up some of those lofty assessments.  

    Parent

    Brodie, I agree (none / 0) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:55:32 PM EST
    I happened to be present when a very prominent, very tough older and somewhat famous journalist who'd covered the Kennedy administration listened to the first of the "Kennedy tapes" from the Oval Office the day they were released by the Kennedy Library, and when I looked in on him, he was sitting with the earphones on listening and tears streaming down his face.

    He said, "I'd forgotten.  I'd just forgotten how articulate and intelligent and open he was.  I figured I'd magnified that memory of him beyond what was real, but listening to these tapes of private conversations and hearing all that, it's just so painful."  He said, "And he never made a grammatical mistake, even when he was just talking to his aides."

    One of the things that most blew him away was that JFK was so quick to say when he didn't know or didn't understand about something and asking for further info from the people he was conferring with.

    I think he was quite an extraordinary character, and we'll never really know what we lost by having it all cut so short.

    Parent

    Well, not my former father-in-law. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:43:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, I'd imagine there (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    were plenty of former FDR swooners who also saw the magic of a JFK.

    Of course there were also all those older "Madly for Adlai" types, like Eleanor Roosevelt, who never warmed to JFK at least prior to the election.  Some of these people came around quickly though after seeing his unforgettable inaugural address.

    For Obama, there were some older types who saw the charisma and excitement in his historic candidacy.  Including some in the Kennedy inner circle -- Ted Sorensen as well as several prominent members of the Kennedy clan.  Other libs and lefties too who may have first fallen for Adlai or a McCarthy, such as Tom Hayden.

    Parent

    There were two 'historic candidacies' (none / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    but only one had swooners.

    Parent
    I refuse to believe (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    that the other side had curmudgeons only. I am positive that I spotted swooners also :-). Peace.

    Parent
    Heh. Believe is the operative word. :) (none / 0) (#104)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:38:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Only one had "swooners" (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    not entirely true..reread some of the old threads from primary season here.

    Not to bring up a sore subject.

    Parent

    Clean Gene (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    now, there was a guy with charisma :)

    Parent
    Yeah, Clean Gene (none / 0) (#121)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:16:26 PM EST
    was really more of your Mr Anti-Charisma Candidate, and deliberately so for the most part.  

    Parent
    That was for gyr (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:42:51 PM EST
    we were agreeing to disagree about McCarthy the other night.

    Parent
    My recollection is Get clean for Gene was (none / 0) (#137)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    the phrase. We DFH's were told to get more normal looking to go canvassing for Gene McCarthy. Look like young ladies and gentlemen.

    My roommate and I were going to host some out of towner canvassers, but we never got hooked up. I remember going to a party where we were supposed to mee them, rode my bike, they never showed, got a bit blitzed, and had a teeny accident on the way home. Kinda hit a car, coudn't keep the bike quite upright.... Biking under the influence.

    I still have that bike, a Gitane 10-speed, and it still has the dimple in one of the wheels and a slightly bent fender.

    Parent

    Some googled links. (none / 0) (#138)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    Links

    Parent
    I remember Vidal (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    talking about Tennessee Williams "swooning with delight" at Kennedy when they went to visit him..

    Vidal: "You cant cruise the President of the United States!"

    Parent

    I grew up in totally Repub family, thought I was a (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    Repub. I was actually for Nixon.

    I did go to a political rally in my small southeastern WI town, but only to see Paul Newman in person. He was there, live and person, to campaign for Kennedy.  

    He was shorter than I'd realized, but his eyes were startlingly blue. Absolutely gorgeous.

    So, I was not upset when Kennedy won, but I had passed out some liteature for Nixon. But as I went through high school, I learned more and realized my values were best represented by the Democratic Party. (Alas.)

    But Kennedy was just terrific to watch on TV -- so smooth, so witty, so unflappable (well, except for that bit with the steele companies, but steel manufacturers backed down). And, by the time he was shot, I had become a strong supporter.

    Parent

    Maybe...but I did fall in love with Bill Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    mind. Awe inspiring.

    I stand in awe of his ability to take a question, either from a voter or the press, and make his answer into a little essay.

    He would restate the question to ensure the questioner knew he understood it and also to create structure for his reply. Then he would offer a topic sentence to begin his answer, fill it out with examples and statistics, but did not overload the answer. He would expand, explain as necessary or as time permitted. He would find some way to relate the issue to his audience.

    Finally, he would wrap up his answer with a short summary. If possible and in the right circumstances he would get the questioner to indicate whether his question had been answered sufficiently.

    Just fantastic.

    He would do all this while also making complex and convoluted topics understandable to the lay person, the common man, the busy voter.

    Without condescension.

    I do recall initially being disappointed that he was not as witty or quick with the humor as JFK, but I grew to really admire his ability to talk to everyday people.

    I miss his voice in our political discourse.

    LBJ I've come to admire and value more and more over the years.

    Parent

    This reply and #139 are replies to Politalkix (none / 0) (#142)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 08:58:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Mario Cuomo (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:46:49 PM EST
    was easily Clinton's equal in intellect, rhetorical skill and all-around political acumen, but he was coming from a background of being a YANKEE liberal from one of the hardest states in the country to be gov of, and (unfortunately) to some, looked like the head of the Genovese family.

    Back then, I distinctly remember some Trent Lott-type being quoted as saying "People down here'll never vote fer somebody named Coo-mo"

    Parent

    Er, no way was/is Cuomo (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 12:08:09 AM EST
    a Yankee.  Northerner, sure, Yankee not at all.  An Italian Catholic a Yankee?  Not on your life.  Nor for that matter an Irish Catholic.

    Parent
    Er (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    Having spent a few years in the Deep South, I can assure that he would be considered a Yankee by a good percentage of the populace.

    Who's a Yankee to you, just people who trace their ancestry to Cotton Mather and Ethan Allen?

    Parent

    Too Bad (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    That the apple fell so far from the tree.

    Parent
    They say that (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    German guy in the thirties with the Charlie Chaplin mustache, had a lot of charisma too.

    Personally, I think the only thing the kind of charisma under discussion is good for is selling Kirby vacuum cleaners and picking up live rattlers in church..

    Parent

    Nothing wrong with charisma (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    or personality or appealing style so long as it's used for positive purposes.

    It can get good people elected to office where that one factor might make the difference.  Also it can keep them in office.  See Bill Clinton 98-9 for instance.

    Others who lacked it or fell a little short either didn't get elected when a little more might have done the trick (Gore, 2000) or could have gone for another term with more likable personality during otherwise difficult political circumstances (LBJ 1968).

    Parent

    I wonder is there's a relation (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    between the drop in literacy and the importance of leaders with charisma?

    Parent
    Dunno. Did Franklin Roosevelt have (none / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    plenty of charisma?   I think so.  Teddy R. too I believe.  Remember all that exciting energy he projected during public speaking?

    How about Abe Lincoln?  Weren't people quite impressed when they saw him in debate, the power of his arguments and the often folksy way he explained them?

    Didn't George Washington have his own kind of quiet, mysterious charisma, of a kind which automatically commanded respect?

    How far back do we go?  How to define something as elusive as charisma?

    Parent

    No way would (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    the cosmetically deficient FDR make it today, imo. Lincoln seemed to have great presence, but he had a weak, high-pitched voice, and today, the dirty tricks boys would dig up his "psychiatric" history, and he'd probably be toast before he was barely out of the box..The rest Im not sure about..TR by most accounts, was pretty charismatic, and Washington sounds like he may have been, but his story is so enveloped in mythic mist, that it's hard to make an accurate call on that one.

    Parent
    Well, I was addressing (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    more the issue of the importance of charisma (or personal appeal, likability) in the political context, not so much the other personal considerations that might go into the electability question.

    Just saying it's been there historically, it matters and can matter in a close call situation, and needn't always be considered a slight, superficial or otherwise negative factor, as a few folks on the left (G. Wills, Gene McCarthy, Noam Chomsky) have seen it over the years.

    But for MLK's charismatic speaking style for instance, there might have been no CR movement in the 60s.  Hard to imagine the smart but totally uncharismatic Rev Ralph Abernathy moving anyone to do anything except perhaps fall asleep.

    As for Lincoln, in reading a few of the more extended histories of his debates with Douglas, while he would start out high-pitched and somewhat offputting in his speaking style, as the event progressed he somehow was able to reach a more normal voice pitch as the assembled crowd also seemed to warm perceptibly to his unique style of driving home a point.  But not a great orator in formal written delivery for sure.

    Parent

    Gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    Clinton is probably the closest we've had lately to someone who was a genuine, effective, marriage of style and substance, though I think that since him, we've been careening closer and closer to a situation in which the medium - and those with the      power to control it - is in danger of almost completely overwhelming the message. Or, at least, the message most of those here feel is important.

    Parent
    Eleanor.. (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    probably the greatest first lady this country's ever had, and can you imagine what those go-for-the-throat types on Comedy Central would do to her today? The woman would need therapy for the next ten years..

    Parent
    Good observations, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    Particularly the line "There was plenty of this with Bill Clinton too", which most in TL will never honestly acknowledge (maybe BTD should also ask why certain people behaved this way with Bill Clinton). There were many people who disliked Bill Clinton's policies very much because they thought it was Republican-lite. They also hoped that BC would have the good sense to resign on his own and hand the Presidency to Al Gore during the impeachment proceedings, not because they believed that Republicans were correct in their attempt at impeachment but due to legitimate concerns that the weakened Presidency caused by self inflicted wounds was inflicting further damage to the country and progressive causes from a policy point of view. Yet, many among these very same people did their best to stoutly defend President Clinton from criticism coming from all quarters!

    Parent
    "Good sense to resign"? (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    Oh, sure, resigning in the face of a ginned up slow motion media-fueled coup by the Republicans would have prevented a weakened presidency.

    Uh huh.

    Parent

    Whoa (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by ks on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    Though he will never get credit for it, Bill Clinton did this country an enormous favor by not resigning in the face of the Repub/Village garbage. Also, the idea that Al Gore would've gotten any progressive goals accomplished after Clinton left office is very suspect.  I think that if BC would have resigned, he would have weakened the Presidency and debased the impeachment process by showing that bogus charges brought by the opposition Party could run the President out of office.

    Parent
    Check and double check (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    for ks and lambert.  No guarantee whatsoever that a Pres Gore wouldn't have been reduced to a mere weakened and even tainted Jerry Ford figure in the last year and a half of Bill's term.  And Dems would have capitulated in a cowardly fashion to what was, by far in historical terms, the worst and most blatantly political use of the impeachment apparatus in the history of this country.

    Even the impeachment of Andrew Johnson had plenty of substance to it (AJ's violation of cong'l laws on Reconstruction).   That one failed, by one vote, for other reasons having to do not with the merits but with a not carefully thought out process plus, perhaps, some behind the scenes bribing of formerly pro-impeachment senators by the Johnson forces.

    Parent

    Check! Alone the fact that Candidate Gore gave (none / 0) (#99)
    by bridget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:04:18 PM EST
    up too early and practically handed the presidency to W speaks volumes.

    Talking about weak.

    I always liked Al Gore but he should have fought harder when the presidency hang in the air for weeks after the election ...

    And I bet he regrets it. In fact I know so. His lawyer (forget the name just now) who led the Gore team during the post-election and recount said so on TV.

    So what is Al Gore doing now?

    Is he fighting for peace in the world? Sorry, a Nobel price on the desk is just not enough.

    Parent

    Boies (none / 0) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 12:11:53 AM EST
    Gore's problem was the entire Dem. establishment wanted him to give up, including the head of the DNC at the time very publicly (Ed Rendell, I'm looking at you) and his running mate, one Joseph Lieberman.

    But the biggest problem of all was the decision to challenge the vote in only a few counties rather than an across-the-board statewide recount.

    Parent

    I better check up the DailyHowler's archives (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by bridget on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 01:14:09 AM EST
    re Rendell and the rest of the Dem establishment. I can't quite remember what they all said.

    Yes, ITA re the statewide recount.

    Netflix is streaming "Recount" I think but I just can't watch it again right now. Too depressing. But as I remember, the Repubs were depicted as so much more aggressive. W should thank Baker every day. Ah, well. They also knew that they had the Supremes on their side. The decision of the Supremes was the most depressing end to a pres. election and impossible to accept.

    Parent

    Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 03, 2010 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    went on TV at the critical point, and I believe it was even on Fox, and announced it was time for Gore to give it up.  I've never forgiven him for that, and everybody should remember it.

    Just as with the long-ago Nixon pardon, pretty much the entire Wash. establishment was trembling in utter terror of "tearing the country apart" by pursuing.... a fair election result.

    Parent

    Are you a Republican??? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by observed on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    Geez.. Clinton resigning would have set an unbreakable precedent.
    Spend $100 million or so on oppo research---government funded if you can manage it---and any politician will have a chink.


    Parent
    Interesting points, Faust (#32) (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    Legitimate or not, #1 is the more powerful. And more useful to politicians. IMO it goes way beyond not wanting to admit being wrong. And its even more important to some than a first love. It is a way some people define themselves.

    Analogy. The Beatles. They actually defined people. Of course not all, and I love those old photos where some kid is going nuts and the older person (a parent or grandparent) is sitting there with a priceless look his/her face. For some, actually so many The Beatles was a significant cultural movement, it defined them, and it used to mean something to say one was aligned with The Beatles -or- the Rolling Stones. (of course I don't mean to exclude other monumental musical/entertainment figures like Elvis or Muddy Waters - just using this one as an example of using public figures for self definition).

    This is the kind of energy and passion politicians want to tap into - or ally themselves (or use) those who can garner it.

    As far as Obama's stated base goes, 1) the new creative class (which looks like the old yuppies and includes the bonus class) is doing quite well economically at this point so they're happy, 2) AAs as a demographic still love Obama, and 3) the youth - when they manage to actually pay some attention - are still defined by Obama. I think the most interesting subset are the chronologically mature people who identify with Obama in ways that ally or express a love of youth. I doubt these people will let go.

    I also think Anne's idea about Process is one of the only ways to either address this or get around it. If disagreement with Obama's policies is put in terms of disagreement with Obama, those who most identify themselves will take that as a personal attack on their identity. Try going to Huffpo and make two comments saying essentially the same thing disagreeing with an Obama policy and using different phrasing. You might want to write these uninformed people off, but they are voters (or potential voters). If a pol is charismatic and good looking, all he (and sometimes she) really needs to succeed are lots of money and voters.

    Parent

    I think the (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    Bush v. Obama argument pales in comparison to the Obama v. Bill Clinton argument.  I think that's what people really want to fight about (myself included).  It's a legacy of the primaries.
    Right (none / 0) (#134)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    So who is Obama's Dick Morris?

    Parent
    I so agree it is time to stop talking (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    about triangulation!

    Oh, already? Not fair. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by bridget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:36:36 PM EST
    Lets talk triangulating Obama just a few days more. Please!

    WHY? I'll explain.

    So here we have Barack Obama OUT-triangulating Bill Clinton like no tomorrow practically from the first day on after he entered the White House (and before) AND the blogs just started to get it and begin to discuss the triangulating Obama for a couple days or three and the "progressives" are tired of the subject already? Is it that Obama just doesn't deserve to be talked about this way? Or Because He is sooo charismatic acc. to his fans? Obama is not as bad as W? And Obama is a fine foreign policy president (amazing that people who care about peace and mankind would even consider that)? So on and so on ...

    BUT After trashing Bill Clinton for fifteen years (first by the GOP and the Clinton haters in the media, then later by the liberal blogs in order to beat Hillary Clinton period) for having done the worst thing any president has ever done: triangulating in order to remain in office - which he did, folks. Something bloggers like "winning is everything" kos must have admired in a big way before he found out Clinton hating pays nicely (e.g. Arianna Huffington), then turned mainstream pundit and decided to join the village people ... and then helped to turn the blogggers on to nasty nasty triangulation and the Clintons in a big way -

    ... considering all that it just wouldn't be fair to keep mum re the SUPER-triangulating President Obama who ran in the 2008 election as a Democrat, too.

    I mean, fair is fair. Don't you think?
    So lets give the bad word and Obama another week. At least.

     

    Parent

    This coming from the Polanski obsessive!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    :P

    Parent
    Ha. I did my research and posted (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    before J the other day and the only person who replied was the non-stalking Squeaky.  

    Parent
    There are two... .. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    ... squeakies?

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 12:44:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Better than Reagan? You betcha! (none / 0) (#108)
    by bridget on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    "But I would not spend a minute defending Clinton by arguing that he was much better than Reagan. More . . "

    WOW! Unbelievable!
    But Just to be fair: What does "much" stand for?

    However, the Obama question I can easily answer. He is not better than Bush. From time zero in the White House (and long before as candidate actually) Obama stepped in every single W footstep and then some. He broke every single campaign promise. I am not even considering the Health bill because

    IMO the Healthcare bill is a Republican bill - they should love it which they do, I am sure. So Americans would have been much better off without it.

    Obamacare bill is going to be a disaster esp. for the 30 Millionen less fortunate American citizens Obama handed over as a gift to the insurance companies who will lord it over them ...After all, they don't need patients who complain and demand better service and health care. "Go and find another insurance company ... free country," they will respond.

    Once people have found out what Obamacare entails and once they experience a taste of it, they will be shocked.

    Right now one can only think of Obamacare as "mystery meat" or sausage. But The ingredients must be known well because they make the soup.

    So far one thing is for sure: Everything health will be more expensive while good medical treatments will be harder to get and the meds more expensive than ever. In short, Health care will be worse, esp. for the less fortunate.

    That reminds me: Wasn't Health care reform supposed to reduce the medical costs for everyone? Instead $$$ billions are handed over to the government. The government. Not the people. And guess again, where does the money come from?

     Obama et all must have forgotten what the Health Care bill was supposed to do during all the triangulation brouhaha and Dem jubilation!

    Yeah (none / 0) (#133)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    I really hated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  I liked Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Better Than Reagan | 164 comments (164 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment