home

Why Is There Disappointment With President Obama?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:52:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jon Chait regurgitates his article on "why liberals should not be disappointed in Obama" (in other news, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen regurgitate their "Obama should not run for reelection" article.) I scanned the first two pages and saw nothing new, so I stopped reading.

I'll regurgitate my old line on why there is seemingly a significant amount of disappointment on the Left in President Obama -- his supporters believed he was really a progressive, unlike that Third Way/DLC Hillary Clinton. You read it here a lot - "not a dime's worth of difference" on policy. Obama supporters (I mean emotional supporters, I supported Obama because I thought he was the most electable of 2 candidates who were basically the same on policy) wanted and did believe otherwise. They were wrong. Now they are disappointed. Not surprising really.

There, I saved you the 10 minutes you would have taken to reread Chait's lecture on why you should not be disappointed in President Obama.

< You're Doing It Wrong | Louis Freeh to Head Penn State Investigation >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Is There Disappointment With President Obama? | 199 comments (199 topical)
    Revisionism. Not a dime's worth of (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    difference "on issues I care about."  Plus Obama as super-skilled politician and media darling.  

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    Yes, BTD left out a very important clause in this post.

    Parent
    Not a dime's worth of difference. (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by robert72 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    They both said much the same things, except Hillary believed in what she said and would have fought for it.

    Parent
    Please god... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    let her be president one day so we can debunk this fantasy once and for all.

    It's like choosing between cancers...I hope it is one day proven so we can get to work on some representation for the 99% already, and not leave all the heavy lifting to OWS.

    Parent

    ummm, yeah (none / 0) (#178)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:56:24 AM EST
    I know it is hard to admit you were wrong and we were right about Obama.  Trying to drag Hillary in to it doesn't make you less wrong.  Remember, Hillary was NOT Obama, that is why you did not vote for her.  It is also why I DID vote for her.
    She is more liberal, more populist, more experienced, more ethical, more hard working, more methodist (I know you probably have no idea what I mean by that but it amuses me to throw that in... it has to do with an over active sense of responsibility and lack of ability to feel sorry for herself).  Her family is from Scranton and you would have to be from Scranton to know that this means the work ethic is off the charts as is the sense of "he ain't heavy he's my neighbor".  She is NOT Bill Clinton, she was way less of the need to please people and more of a common sense approach to problems.

    I think the words you are searching for are "I should have voted for Hillary.  I was wrong."

    Parent

    Actually I voted for Nader... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    and I'd do it again.

    Parent
    Can you say "mandate"? (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:06:11 PM EST


    Parent
    An elephant's memory has nothing on you :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:37:38 PM EST


    Parent
    There was (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    a difference in policy and I don't know why you continually fail to acknowledge that. I can name two right off the top of my head: HOLC and Health Care.

    People are disappointed in Obama because they believed what he was telling them instead of looking at his history. His history was much more indicative of what kind of President he would be than what he said. The irony is that people like me aren't disappointed. The unfortunate thing is that he's been even worse than I imagined.

    And as far as electability goes, that was not backed up with exit poll numbers because those exit polls showed that Hillary would have won with a bigger margin than Obama.

    That being said, it's all kind of a moot point because we a stuck with Obama and his poor record and his inability to lead.

    Nah. Obama Can Lead (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    just in the wrong direction.  Almost every time.

    Parent
    Who could have predicted? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    Well almost anyone who paid attention to what Obama said and did.

    Parent
    See occulus' comment above (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    There wasn't a dime's worth of difference on BTD's issues.  That is a true statement.  

    Lots of differences in mine.  On my issues, Hillary was better.  Not perfect, not ideal, but better.  In fact, much better.

    Parent

    Such as? (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:36:52 PM EST


    Parent
    HOLC for one (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:54:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Okay, that's two. (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Anything else?

    She was more overtly hawkish than him.....Is that one of the differences you supported?  

    Are you gald he and she are now of the same mind on such issues?

    Parent

    What on earth does Foreign Policy have (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    to do with HOLC?  That is one of the more bizarre "connections" I've seen you make.  But in answer to what apparently you think is a "gotcha": I didn't like the Foreign Policy of any of the candidates.  Well, except maybe Kucinich, but that wasn't really policy to me, more of a concept.  I expected to be disappointed in any Dem's foreign policy.  As I always have been in the past.

    BTD always supported an escalation in Afghanistan.  He found not a dime's worth of difference in their policies on the issues he cared about.  

    That was not true on mine.  Which are always domestic issues.  Probably always will be.

    Parent

    The subject was differences between (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    the candidates.....Foreign policy is not part of that discussion?

    You mentioned HOLC--and there was Health Care.  Any others?

    As to HOLC the only person who really touted that as I recall was BTD....

    I have been involved in real estate for close to 25 years in California and I found the Depression era HOLC interesting but it was not an issue that got top attention....

    Obama and Hillary were very similar, and any differences are best exemplified by the fact that Obama adopted Hillary's idea of the mandate.  The differences were not that great and easily bridgeable.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    I told you foreign policy is not one of my issues as I always expect to be disappointed.  What?  Do you think I was looking for a "savior"?  I was looking for a candidate whose views more closely aligned with mine.  Or at least didn't clash with mine.  

    That will never be true on FP so the answer to this question:

    Foreign policy is not part of that discussion?
    is "no".  It isn't.  Not for me.

    It isn't part of my equation because I am doomed to be disappointed.  How many ways do I have to say that?  You may think it's a "gotcha" and continue to press the point, but I've spent as much time on that red herring as I'm going to.  Even if you downrate.  Which I actually expect you to do.  Whatever.

    Parent

    This is not that hard (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    You have named two differences:  HOLC and Health Care.  

    What others, was all I ask.....

    I suggested foreign policy, you say no.  Fine.  That was not a difference or a difference that mattered to you.  They both equally disappoint.  Got it.  (Although I disagree, this is an area that a President makes more of a difference in than anywhere else because of his power to act unilaterally and start wars, etc.)

    So, one more time, any other differences?  Not that this is worth much further dicusssion but for sake of clarity, I do go back to re-ask the question to show nothing nefarious in my original comment.

    Parent

    What are you doing? (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    any other differences?
    Are you trying to re-ignite the primary wars?  I'm not going to dance just because you're shooting verbal bullets at my feet.

    Parent
    you mean (none / 0) (#179)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:01:29 AM EST
    she was more HONESTLY hawkish.  Obama was a bullshitter on the topic....big surprise....not

    Parent
    Health Care--Obama opposed the (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    individual mandate.....Hillary thought it was key.

    She won that debate.

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    because she was going to open up Medicare along with the mandate.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:31:01 AM EST
    This tiny little fact has been disappeared by the Obama fans.

    Parent
    she also said (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:03:46 AM EST
    that is a democratic president had veto proof majorities in both houses then single payer should be on the table...... ha ha ha, with Obama, a public option wasn't even on the table...not really.

    Parent
    Well I just (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    read the Schoen article and boy does he miss the mark. Obama should not run again because he hasn't been successful not for any of the reasons that they posit in that article. They don't seem to understand that the GOP is not going to negotiate with Obama even if he says he won't run again. And as far as running a rentlessly negative campaign...well, that's what all incumbents do who have nothing positive to run on. It's what George W. Bush did in 2004 so where were they when Bush was doing it?

    Chait (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:26:16 AM EST
    nails it:

    "Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president--indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious--but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president--either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president."

    That's what fuels the "Hillary would have been better crowd".  That's what fuels the "Clinton really wasn't that good" crowd.

    This will always be the case. Every dem president will have Jane Hamshers yelling at him/her about how conservative and weak they are regardless of what they do.

    And as long as that is the case, dem presidents and nominess will continue to tell them whatever it takes to get elected and then ignore them.

    That's the penalty for crying wolf and having an unfair expectation for what a president governing a country of our make up can do.

    Parent

    He nails something (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    It's very easy to attack an unreasonable critique of the Obama Administration. But to do that you have to overlook many reasonable ones.

    Saying "nobody could ever be satisfied" is the easy way out (so STFU and applaud cost controls!)

    Parent

    This is why noone buys (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    that you actually support OWS.  OWS certainly contains an implicit rebuke of Obama.  It's more Jane Hamsher than Jon Chait.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    Chait conveniently ignores all Obama's supporters who constantly made excuses for him until they ran out of excuses. 11 dimensional chess anyone?

    Chait is blaming Obama's supporters instead of holding Obama accountable for his own failures. This is no different than conservatives blaming citizens of this country for the housing crisis.

    A lot of people are upset because they unfortunately believed what Obama said (I'm not one of them) instead of looking at his history. And many who did look at his history constantly made excuse after excuse for his behavior.

    And if Obama is as impotent as you say he is, then why should we worry about the GOP winning in '12. After all if the presidency is a position where you have so little power, why does it matter who occupies it?

    Parent

    I think his real point (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:10:56 PM EST
    is that Obama hasn't failed.

    You start with the assumption that Obama has been as huge failure and work backwards.

    Chait's point is that Obama has been a success and that liberals find it impossible to give successful democratic presidents any credit for success while it is occurring.

    That's a really, really accurate point.

    Parent

    He has (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    been a failure. Look at the state the country is in. Do you define success by high unemployment, record number of home foreclosures and declining wages for the middle class? You define success or failure by RESULTS. I don't know what kind of whacked out measure you're using but it's apparently something that most other people would not be using.

    Parent
    But... Lily Ledbetter!! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    Tim Geithner!!

    Extending the Bush Tax Cuts!!

    Selling out on health care and making backroom deals with Big Pharma!!

    Killing people in foreign countries... with drones!!

    Most incredible president of our lifetimes!!

    Parent

    I'll (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    put the accomplishments of the last 3 years up against anyone this side of FDR.

    And win the argument.

    Parent

    William Jefferson Clinton. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Boy was that one easy.

    Parent
    Win the argument (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    with yourself? See, you reduce the Chait argument to "Obama is great1"

    So, when someone says "on no he isn't," then what is left to say?

    Jon Chait and ABG think Obama is great.

    Now, for most liberals, that's not going to be very persuasive.

    Sort of pointless if you ask me.

    I think he strived for something more here. He failed, but he tried for more.

    Parent

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    That there is a large gulf between Obama is great and Obama is a failure and you are only focusing on one side of the extreme.

    Parent
    Me? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:15:33 AM EST
    I'm the "Obama has been a DECENT President" guy and I am supporting his reelection.

    You must be thinking of someone else.

    Parent

    You'll "win the argument" (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:18:31 AM EST
    Heh - only in your own mind.

    In the real world, you'd lose it by tens of millions.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#190)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    he passed a lot of legislation hated equally on both sides of the political divide.

    Parent
    Not really is it? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    Cuz then why the "liberals always hate Dem Presidents" line?

    Chait seems to be arguing that Obama should not worry about liberal disdain, because they disdained Clinton, LBJ, Truman, FDR, etc.

    Of course he makes an argument for Obama "success" in the end, but is that really the point?

    Cuz if the argument is "Chait think Obama is swell," well, that's not really very persuasive to a liberal is it? Jon Chait is a Third Wayer. Has always been.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    Do people here believe Third Wayers are conservative?

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    ...typically, they aint' liberals.

    Parent
    Not liberal at least (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:37:22 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    Mitt Romney being elected will have any impact on employment until 12-16 months after he is elected.

    But I am not electing presidents based on their short term impact.  That is a stupid way to elect presidents.

    Obama's impact (like the impact of all presidents) will be felt over the course of decades.  If you are electing a president based on short term goals, you are missing the point.


    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    my gosh. This is the same thing that Bush supporters said about Iraq. In decades Bush will be shown to be a genius. It's just shorthand for excusing failure.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    I don't think Obama is a failure right now.  Non-partisan types examining his term do not for the most part.

    Good example of a smashing success that goes completely beneath the radar of many here:

    Link

    He has pulled off one of the most subtle power plays against China in years and it's not on the radar.

    Because he didn't give us the public option in 2009 or something.  Liberals have all of the best intentions but their pragmatism capabilities are ridiculously low.

    Parent

    Anybody (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    who doesn't think Obama is greatest thing since sliced bread just doesn't know what they're talking about is your standard mantra.

    The irony on foreign policy is that he's embraced Hillary's when he used to dog it during the primaries. I just have to laugh at all this now.

    Your beloved polls show different numbers.

    Parent

    Wouldn't you be gald he isw adoipting Hillary's (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    views on foreign policy?

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    to a point I am glad. I'm not a fan of all of Hillary's foreign policy but I think it's a good thing that he has. I just find it ironic that so many of these same people dogged it as just awful but have embraced it because Obama is now practicing it.

    Parent
    I do not agree with the (none / 0) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    triumphant power play analysis against China--it is a needlessly and dangerously muscular foreign policy.  A George Kennan-like Cold War containment strategy is as out of place as is a William Knowland-like China confrontational ideology.

    Isolation of China economically is too reminiscent of our Japan policy of the early 1930's with unintended but disastrous consequences.   There is no military value to putting 2500 troops into Australia, other than as a substitute for diplomacy and as a base for future and increased deployments.  As for Australia providing uranium to India being thrown into the not so subtle mix, it only increases, rather than decreases, the dangers of nuclear war in the region--including undermining our efforts between Pakistan and India, and underscores our folly in Afghanistan.  Creative foreign policy for peace, not hegemony, would be to re-assess our support for Taiwan as a component of achieving cooperative rather than combative relationships with China.

    Parent

    Is China an iminent military threat to the U.S.? (none / 0) (#167)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:03:42 PM EST
    Don't think so. Not everyone thinks stationing troops off the southern coast of China and playing a game of bully is so brilliant.

    Anyway, Walter Russell Mead is just another "centrist" who gets hot all over when the U.S. shows off its military prowess. He supported the Iraq War.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is a failure right now.  Non-partisan types examining his term do not for the most part.

    "Non partisan types" = people that agree with ABG.

    Parent

    non partisan types (none / 0) (#191)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    either those who agree with ABG and/or those who don't have a clue what they think, just who they like.

    Parent
    Well, of course you think Chait nails it, (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    because one of your constant themes has been, "since there's no pleasing the ungrateful liberals, why should Obama waste his time doing anything for them?"

    Except that argument falls apart when we consider that even though Obama will never, ever, gain the approval of Republicans on most issues - well, except for all those wonderful Bush/Cheney policies we liberals were so opposed to (makes me think he really kind of likes sticking it to the liberals) - on economic issues, on social issues, on the safety net - he has done almost nothing but work to do things to try to please conservatives, so, really, the only thing Chait is "nailing" is BS to the wall.

    I didn't think that was possible - it might be worse than jello - but Chait is nothing if not persistent.

    Honestly, I have no idea why people like Chait - and you - spend so much time trying to tell people that nothing is ever Obama's fault, that he shouldn't have to be accountable, and that the real problem is with those who are disappointed.  Can one person's political fortunes be that important - to the exclusion of the quality and effect of the policies we're being forced to live with?

    Oh, well, I guess we just didn't try hard enough to make him do the things we wanted, right?  Guess Obama doesn't see Occupy as trying hard enough, either.

    Go figure.


    Parent

    Obama is doing a great job (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    for his savvy friends including ABG. They are thriving.

    Corporate profits grew 36.8 percent in 2010, the biggest gain since 1950, according to Friday's latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. No sign could be more clear that U.S. companies see the so-called Great Recession in the rearview mirror.

    Executive Pay Rose 23% While You Were Looking For Work

    Downturn's Ugly Trademark: Steep, Lasting Drop in Wages


    Parent
    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    No.  He has not worked to do everything he can to please conservatives.  This is false. Demonstrably false. And false if you ask any conservative.

    They hate his guts.  That's not because he's doing them favors. They hate his guts because when you cut through the BS, he has done more to fight against their interests than anyone in a long time.

    There is a complete disconnect between what the far right believes and what the far left believes, and both sides are disconnected from reality.

    I used to think that the left's extreme was more rational and reasonable.  

    I no longer believe that.  They are batsh*t crazy just like the Hannity's and Rush's and will never be satisfied.  They have no perspective and allow for no compromise.

    Same thought process. Polar opposite ideology.


    Parent

    Oh, come on, ABG, does the term (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    "post-partisan unity" ring any bells with you?  Does the whole working-together-to-get-things-done-for-the-American-people thing that saw every negotiation start from a position of, "well, I'll give the GOP something to show how serious, sincere and mature I am," seem at all familiar to you?  Do you recall that after being so accommodating, the other side didn't give an inch, just stomped their feet and demanded more - which he gave them?

    Of course they hate his guts - that's what "knee-jerk" is, ABG: they're supposed to hate his guts, just like the protestants are supposed to hate the Catholics, the Arabs to hate the Jews - it's cultural, generational, and woven into the DNA.  

    Why should the GOP admit that they've gotten a lot of what they want, when they know that if they keep up the resistance, Obama will give them even more?

    And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to need some examples of Obama doing more against the interests of the GOP than anyone has in a long time, because I'm not coming up with any myself.  He's with Bush Cheney on pretty much ALL the things Dems were opposed to when Bush was in office.  He's with the conservatives on the big economic issues, just bound and determined to drag us into the Wonderful World of Austerity, and set the least among us out on an ice floe to fend for themselves.  And he's betrayed Dems on environmental issues, again and again.

    The truth is that (1) Chait is not a liberal, otherwise he wouldn't refer to liberals as "they," and (2) you are not a liberal, either, since you have adopted the "they" terminology, as well.  And shown your true colors by comparing liberals to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.  Nice one, ABG - really smooth.

    I actually find it somewhat hilarious to be deemed "batsh!t crazy" for insisting that Democrats show some kind of commitment to what used to be Democratic principles, and some awareness of those apparently now-outmoded documents we know as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    "Compromise," by the way, is not what you call it when you just roll over and give the other side whatever it wants.  And if having perspective means selling out and giving up on what I believe in because it's politically just not feasible, you can have it.

    Parent

    Conservatives (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    don't like him because they see him as weak and they don't respect weak characters. Then the fact that he has a D beside his name too among other things. He could give them even more than he has given them and they still would hate him. You don't understand the conservative mind. It's certainly not because Obama has pressed a liberal agenda. I mean the guy has stated many times how much he hates liberals himself.

    Parent
    You and Dubya's die hard supporters (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    have the same though process and share support for many of the same agenda items.

    You and Obama support extreme positions that have little public support.
     

    Parent

    noooooooooooooooooooooooooo (none / 0) (#195)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    you can not possibly believe what you just said.  if this is so, why do conservatives keep giving him big bucks to get reelected?  The call him a socialist and whine about him to keep liberals from turning on him even given all the evidence that he is nothing of the kind.  They need him in office.  He's their guy.

    Parent
    The funny thing is (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    much of Obama's appeal was based on "Clinton sucked!"

    I found it ironic in real time.

    Seems a little ex post coming from you now.

    Parent

    hmmmnnnn (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:44:34 AM EST
    I am a liberal.  I was satisfied with Clinton though not with everything he did.  I would have been happy with Gore though probably not with everything he did.  But the supremes screwed me out of that chance.  I would have been happy with Hillary though not with all that she did, but the DNC cheated me out of that chance.
    I'd just be happy to have my vote count. As liberal as I am, I hardly ever vote for the most liberal candidate running because they are usually full of shit or lack character of some sort.  

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#12)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    and Chait used the following sentence:

    "By that standard, Obama's first term would indeed seem to qualify as gangsta sh*t."

    He gets bonus points for that.

    Obama's first term will go down as one of the most incredible of any president in our lifetimes. He could do nothing and still have that distinction.

    In the grand scheme of things, it was a smashing success.   Time will tell the story.


    Parent

    You have (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    a weird definition of success if you call high unemployment successful.

    Parent
    But unemployment numbers (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    are going to be in the "7%-8% range" by this time next year. Don't forget that!

    Parent
    They are scheduled to drop into (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    the 8 range this time next year.

    The Fed's forecast says that.

    I haven't forgotten.

    Parent

    Let's accelerate the schedule if we can (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    As I recall, the schedule was for never to get to 9, but maybe you remember different.

    Parent
    The schedule (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    did not contemplate earthquakes, tsunamis, or the possible collapse of the EU.  

    I still struggle to figure out what the baseline is for Obama.  You see that word (baseline) a lot from the Chaits and Drums these days (and its their best point) but I never see a realistic and direct response to 2 very easy questions:

    1. If Obama did everything you would have wanted him to do, what would the unemployment number be today?

    2. What is the evidence for this conclusion?

    I use that all over the place (and have since December) and I have never, ever received answers.  Well correction. I get plenty of answers to question 1.  It's the part 2 that's the problem.    That says a lot.  You can't fairly characterize success without defining what realistic success looks like.

    Conversely, there are a lot of studies that show the number of jobs saved/created based on Obama's policies. I can bring those numbers to the table to be discussed and dissected.  You can't dissect "things would have been better" with no supporting analysis.

    Does anyone here have an answer to that question that is up to speed and contemplates all of the events of the past 2 years?  Is the criticism based on anything more than "well it feels like things would be a lot better if . . ."

    All I am saying is that the challenge is out there and I am 0-635 or so in terms of receiving an actual response.

    Parent

    We got to 9 before all that (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    and the schedule did not call for it.

    Try again.

    Parent

    Acts of God (none / 0) (#196)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    it is now Bush's fault and God's fault.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    Here's an article dated today that says that growth will be an anemic 2.4% for 2012 and UE will remain high.
    link


    Parent
    You mean (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    the article which lists the EU as the biggest factor/risk in our recovery and also says the following (which are beyond Obama's control).

    The reports on the poll of economists say lots of things.  People selectively leave this part out:

    "Those expectations were upended after the economy got hit in the spring and early summer by a series of disruptions: gasoline spiked to nearly $4 a gallon, factories slowed after Japan's earthquake disrupted parts shipments, America's debt got downgraded for the first time, and Europe's own debt problems flared up. That slowed growth to an anemic 0.9% rate in the first six months of this year."

    Parent

    Along (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:39:00 PM EST
    with congress and along with Obama's super committee failing.

    So you think Obama should blame Europe for our problems? Yeah, that worked real well for Bush Sr. in 1992 didn't it? People don't want to hear that. It's always someone else's fault isn't it?

    When presented with the facts you come up with yet another excuse for Obama.

    Like I said before, if Obama is so impotent to do anything about the economy then why does he need to be reelected?

    Parent

    "Scheduled" - heh (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    "The 8% range" - heh

    Funny how your unemployment prognostications never stick to the "schedule" - just like with the Fed, they're always being revised upwards.

    Parent

    High employment (none / 0) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    1. Is not the only criteria of greatness

    2. as an absolute number is not the test.  My baseline is that without Obama's actions unemployment would be at 10-11% right now. In a best case scenario, with all stimulus Krugman ever dreamed of granted, I think we be in the low 8% range. Based on that baseline, which I think is fair, Obama has been moderately successful on the employment issues.

    On other issues (foreign policy, healthcare, LGBT rights, etc.) he's been wildly successful.

    If your judgment of whether Obama was a success was based on him having employment at 5-6% by 2012, then we should have just agreed in November 2008 that you were going to view Obama as a failure, because there is no economic model I have seen that predicted those numbers under any scenario.

    When I first joined this forum, I said that Obama would be a smashing success on employment if he could get us in the 7% range for unemployment and showed a positive trend.  I now think that in November 2012 we will have unemployment in the mid 8% range and show a positive trend.  That's not the dream scenario but a very successful scenario given the load of crap he inherited.

    The day Obama took office, unemployment was around 7.6% and rising rapidly. Economists at the time suggested that it would take 6-12 months to just stop the rate of increase regardless of what Obama did because of the fundamentals.  

    The feds new projection has the number in the mid-8% range next year, as I do.  That's success given all factors.  

    That is cold comfort to the individual without a job, but on a macro level, it is a success.

    Parent

    Oh, well, then forget my comment below (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    I hadn't realized you'd changed your story on the unmeployment number prediction. Now it's in the 8%-9% range by election time? Hard to keep up with you moving the goal posts for Obama-the-greatest-president-of-our-lifetimes.

    Parent
    Your closing comment (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    "That is cold comfort to the individual without a job, but on a macro level, it is a success."

    is what betrays your self-described liberal credentials.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    It betrays a realistic view of the way people in these forums work.  If I didn't acknowledge that people are still suffering despite good progress, I'd be accused of betraying my liberal credentials.

    If I did acknowledge that individuals were suffering but overall things were getting better,I'd be accused of betraying my liberal credentials (as you did right on cue).

    It's completely unfair, and I was going to be screwed either way.  I figured I'd be screwed in a way that acknowledged that I wasn't the Grinch, regardless of how folks like you would twist it.

    Parent

    What a whiner you are (none / 0) (#166)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:38:46 PM EST
    It's this simple: The reason you get challenged here is because you change your story whenever it suits you, or whenever you feel boxed into a corner, eg. your prediction on what the unemployment numbers will be this time next year. Two months ago you were certain the numbers would be between 7%-8%. Then, as time rolled on, you started claiming they will be closer to 8% than 7%. Now you've changed your story yet again, saying the numbers will be closer to mid-8%. That's 8.5%, and it's big difference from 7.5%. It represents millions of people out of jobs.

    Get your story straight and stick to it. If you want to change your story based on new information, just ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG the first time, instead of crying and moaning about how you are so unfairly maligned on this blog. The fact is, for all your education and your Wall Street cred, you don't seem to know jacksh*t about anything that's real.

    You come off as a liar and a fake. It really is that simple.

    Parent

    Obama is great (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    because he didn't suck worse than he does.

    Parent
    You keep (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    moving the goal posts for measuring success. Now UE would be 10-11% if Obama hadn't done what he did. Well, try to sell that BS to the electorate. They are going to be laughing in your face with that. You're making imaginary statements of what would be going on instead of what IS going on.

    What do you want to bet Obama doesn't even mention the ACA next fall when he's campaigning or he only mentions the 10-20% that is popular?

    I would say moderately successful in terms of LBGT issues and that's only because that particular community became a thorn in his side repeatedly.

    Obama is not going to get reelected with 8% unemployment if the GOP puts up Romney. And UE is still going to be higher than when he took office. Voters were willing to give him a pass for the first year but since then he has begun to own the economy.

    He would have to get unemployment down to around 7% judging by the history of the voters to be considered "successful".

    Parent

    I think Obama (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    will try to sell that to the electorate and we will see what happens.

    "Obama is not going to get reelected with 8% unemployment if the GOP puts up Romney."

    One of us will be wrong and one of us will be right.  Mitt is going to be the nominee and I would hope that an Obama victory will cause you to consider the fact that you may have had some of your analysis wrong.

    Parent

    The President is a slight fav over Romney (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    assuming modest econ growth and some drop in U3.

    If there is a reversal, he becomes the underdog.

    It's gonna be close though.

    If it's not Romney, Obama wins period.  

    Parent

    If Romney (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    wins will you state that you were wrong on all your analysis?

    Parent
    A hypothetical Obama win ... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    ... is hardly an endorsement of what he's done - a lot of people will hold their noses and vote Democratic (despite being unhappy with Obama's performance) because the Republican agenda is nuckin futs.

    Parent
    If reported accurately, (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    Obama's first term will go down in history as being the president who was able to rehabilitate the Republican Party in less than 2 years, reinforce and give their ideas credibility once again and promote and pass their agenda better than Republican presidents ever could.  

    Parent
    on a personal note (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    Obama is possibly going to go down as the president who saved dubya from being the worst president of my life time. I never ever thought that was possible.  Are his "crimes" worse than Dubya's? No, but they are a betrayal of my party and done while democrat and so they have pulled the country farther right rather than back to the left. In the process he has destroyed the party, the economy, people's faith that anything good can happen in DC. He took all that hope and wasted it.  Hows that for change you no longer believe in folks?

    Parent
    MO Blue (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    Man are you going to be disappointed when he is reelected.


    Parent
    I have stated on numerous occasions (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    that I fully expect him to be reelected. He is in the best position to deliver the changes that Wall St. and the multi-national corporations want with the least amount of resistance.

    No anti-war movement, no million man marches because of high unemployment, domestic programs cut, safety net program cuts continually being offered as though the cuts are a reasonable thing to do, job killing trade deals that Bush could not get through Congress signed, sealed and delivered with little resistance, cuts to Medicare 2.8 times more than Bush requested and couldn't get through Congress, mandated health insurance legislations written by the insurance industry, Obama tax cuts more generous than the Bush cuts with higher levels of tax exempt inheritance are just a few of the things that Obama has delivered to date.

    The powers that be fools to not reelect Obama when he is doing a fantastic for them.

    Parent

    The idea (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    that Obama is being reelected because he is doing the conservative's bidding is ridiculous.

    Just ridiculous.  It is tin foil hat, conspiracy theory, crazy talk that passes as credible opinion only in an environment like this one where Obama is viewed as a republican/conservative.

    As if, when given the choice between Obama and Romney, the conservative are going to vote for Obama over Romney.

    It's a position with no logically supportable evidence and only reflects badly on the people who make it.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    I'm a little confused. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by dk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    MO Blue's comments referred to Wall Street and Multi-nationals.  Yet your response referred to conservatives and republicans.  

    Did you do that because you don't see a difference?  

    Parent

    What is tin foil hat and crazy talk (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    is that Obama is a president that is working for the benefit of regular people instead of Wall St. and the multi-national corporations. A few small shiny babbles for ordinary folks and a major shift of resources from the poor and the middle class to the upper 1%.

    As dk pointed out in response to your comment, you completely distorted what I said. SOP for you which along with your ongoing habit of completely distorting facts reflects badly on you.

    Parent

    you are absolutely right (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    Obama's first term will go down as one of the most incredible of any president in our lifetimes. He could do nothing and still have that distinction.

    what makes you right about this is the fact that Obama is the first African American president of a country whose living memory includes the enslavement of black men, women & children, not to mention Jim Crow & the de facto forms of institutional quasi-slavery that continue to oppress many African Americans

    in light of these obstacles, Obama's election was no small feat - i suspect that in the future this historic accomplishment is what Obama will be remembered for, while his failures in the presidency itself will be passed over in polite silence, at least until we've had a few more African American presidents & a few presidents from other so-called minority groups

    but it's still 2011, & i wish we could chisel Obama's profile into Mount Rushmore right now & just move on

    Parent

    IMO Charlie Pierce does a much (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:42:17 AM EST
    more accurate job of nailing it than Chait.

    You could hand this White House grade-A sirloin and they'd hand it back and ask for fking lima beans.
    ...
    There wasn't a seat at that table, as far as I'm aware, for a member of the administration."

    (Translation: Don't blame us. We're only the Executive Branch. We came here to end partisanship and we're doing so by eliminating the need for one of the two parties.)

    While the Republicans blame the Democrats for failure who does the WH blame.

    And, in comparison, on whom does the White House pin the blame?

    "Washington."

    "Congress."
    ...
    I'm sure that the Democrats on this prolonged waste of time appreciate how the White House has tossed them into the blame pie with the Republicans. You spend a few months attempting to sell out every bit of progressive government of the past 80 years, and this is the thanks you get from the leader of your party. You get hit in a drive-by swipe about "Washington" and "Congress." I swear to god, sometimes, Barack Obama and the people around him can be the most incredible mixture of insufferable arrogance and obvious political incompetence ever to get elected in this country. Just shut up and at least try to get re-elected. Please.

    Read more:



    Parent
    I know I should be happy (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    that more people will live degraded lives for as long as the eye can see due to Obama's Presidency; more damage inflicted upon the poor & middle class than under any President, Republican or Democrat, during my life.

    happy,

    happy, happy

    It could be a lot worse, you know. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    One of those republican cretins could win next year and start doing all the things Clinton did and Obama is doing, and then there would be millions of people who would have to start pretending they are opposed to the kind of duplicity Obama is more and better at.


    Parent
    Yeah, we should support.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    Nader this time....

    Parent
    The most effective thing (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    disappointed progressives have done in a long time is the Occupy movement....

    More of that, in some new form, I guess, would be really helpful.

    Parent

    I'd suggest (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    you think outside the box instead.

    And don't bother asking me for instruction.

    The first step in doing it is a biggy - figuring it out yourself. But it'll only hurt for a minute.

    Parent

    Thinking for myself (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    I guess you assume that I can't do that....Great start...

    But for all your obliqueness, you lose the ability to explain, let alone persuade.

    Parent

    There is the Cadell idea... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    Or all kinds of stuff outside normal politics....

    Clearly stating your premise will subject it to scrutiny...but will also provide an oppotunity to get people to agree.

    Parent

    It's painfully simple (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    my premise is that you should think outside the box instead, and that you are smart and imaginative enough to figure out how for yourself.

    It's possible could be wrong, as you say, but I don't think so.

    Parent

    I think I know what you advocate (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    But having been criticized here for creating strawmen, I would prefer you spell it out rather than relying on some Joycean code.....

    Parent
    I guess I was wrong (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    I'll work on that...

    Parent
    Fine, you are a win by losing proponent (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:55:55 PM EST
    It doesn't work.....

    You remember Reagan and 1980?  Or Carter and Kennedy in 1980?   That really taught Liberals a lesson to be more progressive?

    You are advocaitng your own irrelevance....

    Parent

    You missed (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    Keep thinking

    Parent
    2008 was not 1992 (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    neither is 2012.  These are not times where a President can constantly split the baby.  Is partisanship really our most major problem, has it ever been?

    Our situation cries out for drastic reforms.  It did in 2008, it does today, and looks like it will for the foreseeable future.  My dissappointment in Obama is not that he is third way/DLCer but his failure to recognize that despite his centrist preferences for how things should be, & we all have our preferred ideaologies, the situation with home ownership, unemployment, market crash, Wall Street fraud and horrific wars etc. demanded major changes.  He did not attempt any, seeing his role as standing between the powers that be and the pitchforks and managing that mob on behalf of the powers that be.

    For  all his vaunted pragmatism & intelligence, he has condemned us to at least a lost decade if not more.  And he seems determined to abandon protecting SS & Medicare, basically abandoning whatever foundational principles people used to think a Democrat would hold.

    Thanks for the recap (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    I followed the link anyway, and ended up doing exactly what you did: scanned the first couple of pages, saw nothing new and then stopped reading.  

    Shoulda listened to you on that anyway.

    Chait forgot to note (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    that Obama is a blatant liar.

    A Harvard Man (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    misremembering the truth????

    Parent
    Jesus! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    Don't do that while I'm drinking coffee, OK?

    You have something I can wipe the monitor off with?

    Parent

    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    A list of Obama's accomplishments.

    Oh, wait a minute, you said, "monitor," I was thinking "key."

    sorry.

    Parent

    You will never get me to (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    believe that Hillary would have shafted me with the same POS healthcare reform that I got.  And that really mattered to me.

    Goes to character (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by smott on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    More than a dimes worth of difference in their character. Amen MT.

    Parent
    Booman loves Chait (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    He wants me to waste 10 minutes reading it, then 20 minutes trying to understand him as he responds to Chait.  Also further down the page....OWS mostly sucks and is dangerous, except when they accomplish something that could help President Obama get reelected and then I guess they were inspired by Booman to have at least done that and blown up the world yet.  Jesus Christ save me, save me from Booman!

    Time is money, navel gazing is cheap, analysing the lint makes me want to get out that butter knife and start carving on my wrists again.

    meant to say "not blown the world up" (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:06:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Not surprisingly I disagree with Chait's take (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    on JFK, not that there wasn't some lib and lefty-lib carping back then re not moving faster on CR, etc.  Basically though JFK unlike O and Clinton maintained throughout the strong political support of the party's liberal wing and didn't dip below 60% in Gallup until the very end which seemed to reflect loss of some southern Ds over introducing the CR bill in the summer and in backing the March on Washington in August.

    Anti nuke libs also were pleased when Kennedy signed the Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets that same summer.

    No question though there was and is always the never satisfied segment of the left-- the Gore Vidals the Chomskis the I.F. Stones and their equivalents today whose standards for purity in progressive governing can never be met.  JFK though was far too popular among most of the public for these few elitist voices of constant discontent to gain much traction.  Obama however does not enjoy either the broad range or depth of widespread popular backing (except in the AA community) that Kennedy always had and never relinquished.

    Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    supporters never had a reason to believe he was progressive.
    As I have said before, I found TalkLeft because it had reported on Obama's glowing endorsement of Lieberman against Lamont in the Connecticut democratic primary. So much for Obama. Period.

    But people went further than that.

    Even here.

    He was referred to as another Lincoln, another FDR, another JFK and a rock star.

    It was like a drunken revel. But now it is the morning after.
    And nobody yet is trying to analyze why or how they could have been wound up into such a frenzy.

    Obama is, and was, just another face.
    And it is a face that I can barely look at anymore.

    I think the fact (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    that the "See Also" link on the 1st page is to David Frum's article on "How the GOP Went Mad" tells you all you need to know.  High Broderism FTW.

    I'm mostly disappointed because... (none / 0) (#5)
    by fiver on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    his never ending patience for working with those who only seek his destruction while spurning those who supported him.  Perhaps he's a masochist.

    As I hang my head in shame.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    ... recalling my comments from 2008, I wish this blog had 4 point font as I type "BTD, you were right."

    At least Tebow is winning.

    Oh it's alright (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    I loved John Edwards.  Me and other people outside of his wife apparently, and he loved some of us right back :)

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    The "Two Americas" struck a strong chord.  And he was the only one singing it.

    Didn't hear anything like that until Hillary's "you are not invisible to me" statements.  When she said that,  I believed her.

    Parent

    I believe :) (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:03:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary was equally or more electable than (none / 0) (#28)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    Obama.  To say otherwise is a blatant lie.

    In my experience (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by smott on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    My acquaintences who fell for Obama who  used the More Electable/Less Divisive argument, were usually emotional supporters seeking a reason to support him that didn't sound emotional.

    So we got More Electable/Less Divisive (less divisive was true in 2008, given the orgy of deranged & gleeful misogyny we endured. )
    Though Obama has been historically divisive since.

    Then there was the "Same on policy" argument which is stunning to me since it seemed obvious to anyone paying attention that there were significant differences in policy, Health Care being just the most obvious.

    Lastly, also obvious in the record, was the gulf between Clinton and Obama on stoutness of character.

    Clinton is a ferocious fighter, Obama a near-pathological conciliator, to the point where he gave away the store repeatedly on issue after issue.

    It strains credibility to think Clinton would have low-balled the estimate, given away single payer behind closed doors, extended the Bush Tax Cuts, created the Cat Food Commission by fiat, and on and on.

    That's more than a dime's worth IMO.

    Parent

    A blatant lie? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    Wow.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:16:00 PM EST


    Parent
    An opinion by definition (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    is neither true or false.

    It is either right or wrong.

    Parent

    And polls have a margin of error. And they're not (none / 0) (#107)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    always right.  I stand by my comment.

    Parent
    Stand by whatever you like (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    It's not that you are a blatant liar, it is that you are wrong.

    Parent
    I say I'm right. Hillary was equally as electable (none / 0) (#114)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    as Obama.  

    Parent
    On that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    you may be right.

    On persons espousing the contrary view being "blatant liars," you are wrong.

    Parent

    The polls at the time (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    did show her beating McCain by more than Obama.

    BUT, she was no longer runing at that time......Being out of the race can do wonders for one's approval rating.....

    Parent

    BTD, you are doing it wrong (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:54:08 PM EST
    No need to focus on the undercard--just go straight to main event:  the Cadell and Schoen article in the WSJ.

    that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    article is stupid. There's lots of reasons for Obama not to run for reelection but they are making the case that he should do it solely so that Hillary could run.

    Parent
    They said the same thing a year ago (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    without the support for  Hillary...

    And you think Obama is all about compromise....Cadell takes it to a whole 'nother level.....

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    I for one can't stand Caddell. He's more than worthless in my book but for the life of me I can't figure out why they keep shopping this story. I don't know much about Schoen and maybe he really is concerned about the party but I know Caddell despite his statements to the contrary really is not one bit concerned about the party.

    Parent
    They work for Fox (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    really all you need to know.....

    Parent
    Peas in a pod (none / 0) (#170)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39:15 AM EST
    except that Schoen doens't glower angrily and is a little more polite.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:04:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I would be interested in seeing a Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    Presidency.  If only because I think it would put some of these assumptions about her to rest.

    In other words, I have a feeling Hillary supporters would be in for the same type of awakening as Obama supporters.

    But as we don't have her as president, I'll just say that's my opinion, and you all obviously all have yours.  A lot of people say things when they are campaigning that are lovely that don't happen once in office.  One opinion that I know people here will probably disagree with - is I think that the health care debate would have ended almost the exact same way.  But again, as Hillary is not president, that's just my opinion.  Kind of like how all of you have yours.

    I will say that the basis of my support for Obama over Hillary had more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy.  And at the time of the primaries I thought that that would be a bigger issue in the post-bush years.  In that regard I misjudged.  But in terms of foreign policy, I will just say that I do think it mattered that Obama is president, even with Hillary at state.  To be even more specific, I'm thinking of his speech in Egypt right after being elected.

    I don't think Obama's election is responsible for the Arab spring.  I do think it influenced it.

    I forgot to mention (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    the biggest difference I see between the two in terms of domestic policy is that I think Hillary had a firmer grasp on the housing situation and would have handled that better.

    Which is fairly significant given the current state of the economy.

    Parent

    I think she has a firmer grasp on every situation (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:38:01 PM EST
    That was why I supported her too.  I think her's and Obama's opinions and decisions once they understand the facts of things are probably close to the same, but I trust her understanding of situations more. She has just been exposed to a lot more in the national scene.

    Parent
    Dynasty bad! (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:39:38 PM EST


    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    comes with experience.

    Parent
    The experience factor... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    is what made me slightly prefer Obama as the lesser evil...the wild-card factor. The lack of understanding of "the situation" gave me slim hope that he'd look at it objectively, see what we see...namely "sh*ts f*cked up!"...and get serious about that change stuff.  

    So much for that wild card...foolish I know.  But I was voting for Nader or another also-ran regardless.  It's why I pray Clinton gets a turn...maybe after those 4-8 years of same sh*t we could finally put the last nail in Brand D's coffin...one corporate party down, one to go.

    Poetically enough, hope and (hopefully!) change is at hand with all these people in the street participating in their democracy...so thanks O, I guess:)

    Parent

    I moved from NYC (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:12:27 PM EST
     years ago, and now live a little bit upstate in Gillibrand's territory. I also had a chance to see H. Clinton up close, and personal, more than a few times. I'm not going to go into a fawning list of what impressed me about her, but if you witnessed what I did, when no cameras, or reporters were around, and she sat talking to one small family you'd know what I mean.

    Once, when she held a town hall meeting in Mississippi, I mean upstate NY, she sat down to talk to a husband and wife afterwards. After what seemed about 10-15 minutes one of her aides said to her, we have to go, the plane is ready. She turned, really snapped, and if she was faking it then she's the best faker ever, and said to the aide with unsuppressed rage in her voice, "if you ever interrupt me again while I'm sitting and talking you won't have to worry about planes any more. Then she stayed and talked to that couple for about another 15 mins. or so more. I don't fool easy, she was in her element.

    She took what was nothing short of murderous hatred of her in her first bid for the Senate, and turned it into a 60 out of 62 county victory by her reelection time. She walked into the belly of the upstate beast again and again, and here's what I heard a thousand times from those unabashed rednecks: "well, I still don't like her, but she's got ball$. And what she says makes sense. Like I said, I don't like her, but I'll vote for her."

    IMO, those who thought there wasn't a lick of difference between Hillary and Obama, to be kind, simply got snookered by the obama propaganda machine. My only worry about a potential hillary Presidency now, or in the near future, is her age. Even the best conditioned fighter can't beat mother nature. And, after the abuse and battering she's taken, first as Bill's wife, then on her own.......I just don't know.  


    Parent

    Bravo (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:42:32 AM EST
    incredibly well said.  Thank you.

    Parent
    I've heard Bill described the same way.... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:56:23 AM EST
    we know how that turned out...corporate friendly policies, a license to steal for Wall St., unprecedented amp up of the war on marijuana, the dastardly crime bill, bombing runs abroad, expansion of the police state, etc. etc. etc.

    A good politician is impressive and likeable and charismatic...its part of the con.

    Parent

    careful, dog-o-buddy (none / 0) (#199)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    talking hillary,,,,,,

    who's bill?

    Parent

    Just comparing... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    your description with ones I've heard about Bill, from our dear hostess for example.  It's their job to make you believe they'll climb Mt. Everest for ya...but when it comes time to climb???

    Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.


    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    the main difference is that Hillary knew who voted for her and would be interested in keeping those voters happy to an extent and yes, she was light years better than Obama during the primaries on economic simply because she UNDERSTOOD what was happening.

    I think most Obama voters are like you. Foreign policy was what they were voting on and they ended up missing the boat on that one.

    Parent

    You don't know (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    what I voted for and did not.  

    I am getting what I voted for.  I was not hoodwinked or fooled or what have you.  Most Obama voters wanted a pragmatic person who could lead us through difficult times first and foremost.  Most people got what they wanted.  This idea that Obama's base supporters have somehow been lost is a left wing myth. Let me give you numbers instead of empty words  to support my position:

    "In Gallup's most recent data, Obama's job approval rating stood at 78 percent among Democrats and 70 percent among liberals.

    Those numbers are similar to where President Bill Clinton stood in November 1995, when 78 percent of Democrats in Gallup polling approved of the job he was doing. (Bush had the support of 87 percent of Republicans in the fall of 2003, but those numbers were the result of the boosts he received from the start of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.)"

    Link

    That is reality.  Obama's number amongs his base, including liberals is juuuuuuust fine.  They are cool with him.  The TL comments section is not what democrats and liberals in general believe.  Now I love this place, but people are fooling themselves if they believe you and Anne represent anything but a small minority of the liberal block.


    Parent

    I firmly believe that "you" (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    are benefiting from Obama's presidency. The majority of the country are suffering now and will suffer from his policies for decades to come.

    Parent
    If you (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    are among those who "got what they wanted", you must be a happy angry man.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    Of course, you got what you wanted.  You work on Wall Street don't you?  No surprise there.  No surprise that you support a center-right president.  What DOES surprise me is that you don't frequent center-right blogs.  Your blood pressure would certainly be lower.

    Cue the "my little brother is on my parents insurance" meme.  Look me up when your brother turns 27.  Then we'll see what you think.

    Parent

    Oh Teresa (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    please keep up with current ABG memes. ABG's little brother in past comments is now his brother-in-law in current posts. ;o)

    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    all we have to go by is the polls and the exit polls at the time were saying during the primaries that people concerned about foreign policy were the ones that were voting for Obama. The ones concerned about economic issues were voting for Hillary.

    Parent
    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    In other words, I have a feeling Hillary supporters would be in for the same type of awakening as Obama supporters.

    HC had a history and a record of positions on the issues - people knew what they were getting with her (a moderate Dem).  Obama was a blank slate to which many of his supporters ascribed their own goals and motivation, aided by vague promises of "Hope" and "Change", as well as specific promises (sometimes unrealistic) that were quickly forgotten or reversed once he was elected.  It allowed him to be a moderate Dem when he needed to be, or a "true progressive" when that got him votes.  Problem is, once you get elected, you're going to disappoint people who you lead to believe you were something else.

    Parent

    I see this place hasn't changed much (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    The mythology of Hillary Clinton continues unabated.  She would have made conservative Democrats bend to her will.  Ben Nelson would have done whatever she wanted.   Ted Kennedy wouldn't have died.  The Republicans would have been cowed by her awesomeness and not engaged in the most venal and disgusting attack on democracy.

    She would have turned the economy around with her magical plan to turn it around.

    And of course it is all nonsense.  A President Hillary Clinton would have been just as unable to get a public option passed in the Senate.  She would have had to eat the same compromises on the stimulus bill.  

    Heck she would have hired many of the same people for cabinet roles.  

    The President is comparatively weak when it comes to domestic policy UNLESS he has a dominant majority in Congress, not just a majority of the same party but a majority of Congresscritters who support his plans.  

    Arguably the 2 greatest eras of domestic liberal policy achievement of the past 100 years were FDR's first 6 years and LBJ's Presidency ALSO enjoyed MASSIVE majorities for the Democrats.  Neither had to kowtow to the conservative Democrats because there were enough liberals that he could ignore the conservatives.

    I don't care who the Democrats elected in 2008.  They could have elected Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich and neither was going to further liberal causes more, or less, than Obama.  Because the political climate simply will not allow for it.  

    It was my hopes and expectations in 2008 that the economy would turn sometime in 2010.  Unfortunately there have been too many external shocks to allow that to happen.  Had that happened, I do believe that Obama could have changed the lines of debate precisely because he wasn't an ideologue.  

    oh but Obama is a MAJOR ideologue (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    his ideology is "bipartisanship" & even "postpartisanship," as enacted in the peculiarly pre-emptive acts of "compromise" that so curiously lead to center-right outcomes more often than not

    Obama's policy of rigid adherence to this ideology is one big reason why we are in the particular mess we're in

    nor does it help that Obama, like George W. Bush before him, has a bloc of equally rigid diehard supporters who will brook no disagreement with Obama's center-right policies

    in any case, Obama was elected president, not Hillary Clinton, so it's Obama's performance in office that is often criticized here by a number of longtime, mainstream Democrats - people who, paradoxically, are called both "Republicans" & "fringe leftists" by Obama's bloc of center-right-policy-supporting diehards

    Parent

    Not unless we are changing definitions (none / 0) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    being bi-partisan is not an ideology.  It is a temperament.

    I have no interest in engaging in finger pointing about who is being a poopyhead.

    Many of the critics I see here were devout Hillary supporters 3 years ago here.  And the Obama supporters are just as dedicated, for the most part, as they were 3 years ago in their support.

    However when you start engaging in Republican talking points such as blaming Obama for the current unemployment levels, then you shouldn't be surprised when people accuse you of being a Republican.  Note: I'm using the term "you" as a general pronoun and not directing that point specifically towards you.

    Parent

    it seems that my perspective (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    is, for lack of a better term, more postmodern than yours

    & from my perspective, the statement that bipartisanship is "not an ideology" but "a temperament" is itself a statement steeped in ideology, one that concerns the putative transparency of language, just to begin with

    I have no interest in engaging in finger pointing about who is being a poopyhead.

    & yet your whole comment reeks of just such an agenda

    Parent

    Well ok (1.00 / 3) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    So now bi-partisan is an ideology.  Just curious but is bi-partisan pro-choice or pro-life?  Is it pro-gun rights or pro-gun control?  What is bi-partisans view on dealing with the Middle East?

    My agenda, as far as it goes, was simply to pop in to see what a reliably PUMA blog has to say about the current political climate.  And I see that the folks here continue to have the same debates about the primaries and continue to believe in the magical powers of Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    i think you came here (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    hoping to start a pie fight

    did you know that Jeralyn does not permit use of the P-word on her blog?

    that's because gratuituous use of the P-word, not to mention the lie that TL is "a reliably P*** blog," is the hallmark of a troll

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    Didn't know that.  I haven't posted here in about a year.  I come by every once in a while.  

    If you want to call me a troll, have a great time.  Doesn't much bother me.  

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    has been in office for almost three years now. Like it or not he gets the credit or the blame for what is going on with the economy. Trying to excuse him gives only gives credence to the GOP talking point about how the 90's were so good because of Reagan and the Bush II years were bad because of Clinton.

    Parent
    Cherry picking (none / 0) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:45:53 PM EST
    You seem to be bouncing between reality and politics to suit your purpose.  First you start off by claiming that it is Obama's fault that the economy is sucking wind.  When it is pointed out that the President has little ability to change the economy you fall back to political arguments.  

    The President ultimately does get credit/blame for the economy but that doesn't change the fact that they have little ability to affect changes.

    Parent

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Well, if the president can't do anything about the economy then it really won't matter whether Obama is reelected or not then.

    I frankly think the President has the ability to affect change in the economy with their policies. You obviously don't.

    Parent

    He can (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:07:49 PM EST
    in the long term.  

    Fiscal policy simply does not have the near term impact you think it does.  

    The stimulus package of 2009 was a 700 billion package spread over 3 years against an economy of 14 trillion or an impact of 1.6% of the economy over that span.

    To make any meaningful impact you would need a stimulus package of a magnitude that you could never get politically approved.

    Over a longer period of time there is an impact.  Bush's tax cuts had a long term deleterious effect with negligible shortterm gain.  

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    So once again we're back to the Obama is impotent argument. He can't do this or he can't do that. It's frankly a great argument for getting people to vote for the GOP since Obama can't seem to get anything done. I keep saying that Obama's supporters are the best advocate that the GOP has.

    Parent
    He isn't impotent (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    But he is beholden to what Congress will and won't do.  The President can't end a filibuster.  

    If you want to call that excuse making,  so be it.   IMO, that seems like a politically convenient argument that has little basis in political reality.  

    There are certainly things to criticize Obama for.  But not being the great liberal lion really isn't one of them.

    Parent

    I, respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    About Obama's "Community" days.

    What I point to, and what I've never gotten an answer to, is this: If Barrack Obama improved some lower rung, troubled people's lives in Chicago, why wasn't there even a single testimonial from a recipient in his campaign? With your experience, you know how powerful personal testimonials are, but not one witness to be found.

    What damage he did to entire communities, however, is known, albeit, with the media's capture, not as much as should have been. Again and again constituents were quoted as saying, "Give me back my slum, after Obama sold us out to his developer friends, we don't worry about roaches, we worry about the roof caving in. One 500 million dollar boondoggle, lobbied for by Obama, and distributed to his cronies, resulted in the entire project having to be razed and the money flushed into the sewer. (I can find you the link if you like, but it was featured in a Boston Globe investigation a couple of years ago. I'm sure a quick Google will get you there.

    I didn't become an "Obama Hater" willingly. I, like many others, climbed aboard his bandwagon after his great (Kerry) Convention speech. Later, I thought it was great that two people I really admired, Barrack and Hillary, were going to be my choices.

    But, maybe because of my Russian heritage, or my Bronx upbringing, as the campaign wore on, one by one the camouflage started peeling, and Obama's character started shining through. And, the more I researched, I didn't become disappointed, I became disgusted. It wasn't long before the ruse was so obvious, I thought I was in a science fiction nightmare cause I was the only one. (I know that's not true, but it sure felt like it)

    And, about that time (I was blogging over at Salon then)I wrote my  "famous" Obama "Thesis," ...."Witnessing  the greatest Political Scam in the History of the World."

    Like I said, I wasn't the only one who saw through him, but it was easily 100 to 1.

    Parent

    i am not an Obama hater (none / 0) (#160)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    but otherwise your experience closely matches my own

    i was so thrilled when Obama won the Iowa caucuses - what a comedown only days later

    do you have a link to your famous thesis?

    Parent

    Sorry for the delay, Addams Clan (none / 0) (#202)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    My world famous, no, galactic famous, Pulitzer "Thesis" (lol) was a post on Salon. Like here at TL, the posts came fast and furious. And most comments, again as here, were a sentence or two. But, every once in a while when a sentence won't express what I'm feeling I try to compose a longer post, let's call it a short essay.....something like Anne does here frequently.

    Since that was roughly three years, hundreds of posts, and several computer crashes ago, digging it out could take some time. But Salon does archive their comments and they're available to anyone. My "Screen name" is the same everywhere I participate, so you're welcome to jump in...Warning: Their policy is, ahh, a little less refined than Jeralyn's. I'm going to be putting together a cyber "album" of my communications for posterity, so if you don't want to go digging yourself, and willing to wait a little while, I surely will let you know when I've found some good stuff. Sort of one man's lonely battle fighting a mania during the Primaries.

    But, thank you for your interest; I appreciate it.

     

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    In the words of Walter Burns in His Girl Friday, "are you referring to me?"

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#134)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    Mostly in response to the posters here.   Your commentary is consistent to what you have been saying for 3 years.

    Parent
    What you (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    don't understand is that Hillary had a base of voters that the GOP is afraid of losing--white working class voters. If the GOP loses those voters they are complete toast. Going against Hillary would have been harder for them in a lot of ways because it would have put them in a conundrum. They really don't care if they are hated by African Americans, Hispanics or liberals. But if Hillary was able to get those working class voters behind her on an issue, the GOP would either have to commit political suicide or go along. Remember how Bill Clinton split these voters with the GOP? They are afraid of that happening again to them.

    Parent
    I do understand (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    I'm not suggesting that Hillary couldn't have won in 2008.  But if you think that the Republicans would been more timid in their approach because of fears of alienating Hillary's supporters, you are deluding yourself.  

    I find your line of reasoning troubling in that it justifies sticking with white males as national candidates simply because they won't piss off other white males as much as a minority would.

    I personally find it unlikely that there is a statistically significant group of white people bigoted enough to switch parties to the GOP because of the race of the candidate who weren't already Republican.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    I think they would have been a little less timid at least in the short run but also Hillary knows how to use political capital something that Obama does not know. Obama also does not know how to communicate with the voters via issues.

    Uh, how would that be "sticking with white male" candidates if you're proposing a woman be president?

    Obama could never get past the Dukakis coalition for the most part and Dukakis was white. It's not always a skin issue so much as an attitude and communication problem.

    Well, the exit polls showed that Hillary would have done better than Obama across the nation. I really don't think it's so much a "race" issue as Obama's lack of experience and just general problems with communicating. It's hard to communicate issues to the public when you don't have any core values yourself.

    Parent

    Well ok (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    So you feel that Hillary would have magically defeated the Republicans because she is such a good shrewd awesome politician.  You are free to hold that opinion.

    I think you are mythologizing Hillary as there is nothing close to enough evidence to support that claim and even if we assume that she is as shrewd as Bill Clinton you are forgetting that, that Bill's shrewdness was in coopting CONSERVATIVE concepts for political gain.

    Maybe Hillary would have done politically better than Obama but her actual achievements would have been no more liberal and likely more conservative.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    I said nothing about "magical". First of all she made no allusions as to what she thought of the GOP. There was none of this "the GOP is just misunderstood" and "Reagan is my idol" crap from her. And saying that she would have been better than Obama is easy but saying that is really kind of a backhanded compliment considering what a disaster Obama has been for the party.

    Hmm, was raising taxes on the wealthy co-opting Republican ideas? Was SCHIP co opting Republican ideas?

    Well, if you measure Bill (which is probably not really a good measure but it's all we have) against Obama, Obama is TO THE RIGHT of Bill. Obama is a true blue supply sider. Even the ACA came out of Bob Dole's campaign.

    Parent

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#165)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    If you are going to engage in silly talking points like claiming that Obama said "Reagan is my idol" then you've simply created your strawman version of Obama.

    I'm sure you've rationalized how Don't Ask Don't Tell was a liberal policy while Obama repealing DADT wasn't.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:56:57 AM EST
    praised Reagan and said he's a "transformational" president did he not? My opinion of Obama is based on his ACTIONS and his record not his marketing campaign.

    And you managed to find the ONE thing that Obama is to the left of Bill on.

    Parent

    He made a single comment (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:38:20 AM EST
    that was positive about Reagan and you twist it to say that Reagan was Obama's idol.  And if you read the comment itself you would realize he was talking about Reagan's political abilities, not his ideology.

    I can certainly find other things where Obama is to the left of Clinton.  Clinton supported and signed DOMA.  Obama told the DoJ to stop defending DOMA in court.   Obama pushed for the Dream Act  and when stymied by House Republicans he pushed the key points through via EO.   What did Clinton do in regards to immigration?

    Obama signed Dodd-Frank an albeit flawed but at least serious attempt to reform Wall Street*.  Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley which removed most of the critical restrictions on capital markets organizations acquiring banks.  

    There are certainly more.  I'm not suggesting Obama is more or less liberal than Clinton.  What I AM suggesting is that liberals were JUST AS ANGRY with Clinton as they are with Obama.   The Welfare Reform act was seen as a complete betrayal of liberal values.  DADT much the same.   The notion that Clinton was a liberal lion is pure myth.

    * - I realize it is en vogue to suggest that Dodd-Frank does nothing but that simply isn't true.  It may not do a lot of things it should but it does have many useful new regulations.

    Parent

    Obama also (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:34:58 AM EST
    defended DOMA in court until he decided not to. This is typical Obama behavior.

    Dodd-Frank really does nothing so I wouldn't even count it.

    Actually there was a subset of liberals who are just as angry with Obama as they were Clinton BUT not to the extent they are with Obama. With Obama I think there is more of a general demoralization which has turned into anger. Lots of people bought into his marketing campaign and realized they were sold a bag of goods they were really angry. It's kind of like when someone sells you a product claiming all kinds of things it will do and then does none of those.

    I'm certainly not claiming Bill was a liberal lion only that the facts show that he was to the left of Obama. Obama is more of a Reaganite than anything else.

    The thing that Bill had going for him was that he had a good economy something that Obama does not have. Obama does not have the knowledge or ability to fix the problem apparently.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#189)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    He defended it until he had developed a legal argument for longer defending it.  It amazes me that you can somehow find a reason to criticize Obama for this.  

    Dodd-Frank really does do quite a bit regardless of whether you know what it does or not.  

    I certainly agree that Obama has neither the knowledge or ability to fix the economy.  Then again neither does anyone else on the planet.  

    Parent

    I love (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    the moving goalposts of fan politics. There's a lot of things that could have been done to fix the economy that was suggested by very experienced economists but Obama chose to ignore them. That shows that Obama doesn't have the will to even try. So it's like well, nobody can do anything. More of the impotent president argument and giving more reasons not to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Obama is not a Leader ! (none / 0) (#128)
    by samsguy18 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:41:41 PM EST


    Hillary wasn't... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    good enough to beat Obama the first time. Why do I want her now? She had her chance. That said, I am not convinced she would have been more liberal. I see her ability to compromise just as strong as Obama's ability.

    The country is a mess and to think one shining president could have fixed it in 3 years is not understanding what is really going on in Washington.

    You wanted Universal Healthcare? Just try getting a better bill past Congress. Obama could have gone on a 24/7 media blitz for 6 months and it would not have yielded anything different. The GOP is blocking everything. How and why is that Obama's fault? What most left liberals want is posture from Obama. They want to feel he has fought the good fight - even if nothing comes out of it. But then where are we? Who wants a good fight for the sake of a fight? I want results.

    But you will not get results unless you have 61 [liberal] Democratic senators and control of the House. We didn't have the former. You want that going forward? Go get the votes. Good luck. You have my vote but I live in CA so it doesn't matter.

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    we know Obama can't do anything. Therefore, there's no reason to reelect him. We know the song and dance.

    Parent
    Wasn't good enough? The DNC did an end run (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:47:30 PM EST
    around her that got Obama the nomination.  I still say she would have been a better president.  Obama wasn't ready, still isn't based on his performance to date.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:26:09 AM EST
    You wanted Universal Healthcare?

    yes, i wanted single-payer universal healthcare

    oh wait - we already have that - it's called Medicare, & Hillary Clinton was going to open it up to go along with the mandate

    Just try getting a better bill [than the ACA] past Congress.

    yes, i wish Obama had tried that, but instead he never even gave single-payer proponents a seat at the much-ballyhooed table

    Obama could have gone on a 24/7 media blitz for 6 months and it would not have yielded anything different.

    absolutely correct, & that's because Obama would have been peddling the same cr@p legislation we ended up with, & for which Obama's Wall Street backers paid top dollar

    Parent

    Well, it wouldn't have taken me ten minutes, (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    but you probably saved me a barf bag.

    Pollsters: Pres. Obama should step (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:02:20 PM EST
    down and Hillary Clinton should run--in 2012!:  
    LAT

    silly (none / 0) (#172)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:16:27 AM EST
    these two "pollsters" are DINO hacks & has-beens who work for Fox "News"

    & this "story" has traction on right-wing blogs, & among the genre of m0r0ns who think Obama is a socialist, but nowhere else

    probably needless to say, but this is NOT to imply that you, oculus, are either a m0r0n or a right-winger - i know better than that

    Parent

    Hey, the LAT ran it. (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:55:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Why Is There Disappointment With President Obama? | 199 comments (199 topical)