Are you unhappy that some progressives are unhappy with Obama?

Here is another point of view that addresses that very point:

It's time to put the pedal to the metal

Author: Sam Webb
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 07/30/09 11:27

COMMENTARY

In recent weeks I have seen pundits of various stripes grading the job performance of our new president. I read some of them and they invariably left me with a nagging feeling which I couldn't quite put my finger on until this morning.

It dawned on me (duh) that most of these evaluations are stripped of any political/social context.

In our constitutional setup, the president does wield considerable power. But he doesn't do it in a frictionless political environment. He has to contend with both rabid opponents as well as groupings within his own party that don't share his views entirely. No president governs with a magic wand.

Every president also has to take into account the status, breadth, and level of activity of the movements and coalitions across the country that either support or oppose him. And all this occurs in a complex world in which crises and challenges are ever present.

Shouldn't pundits, especially left and progressive ones, grading Obama's first months on the job be mindful of this bigger picture? Shouldn't they factor in the whole array of forces and conditions that weigh on his decision making process and performance before issuing a report card?

Looking back to the New Deal, FDR wasn't a political "free floater," going in one direction and then abruptly in another on no more than a personal whim. FDR's performance and policies were inextricably bound up with a broken economy and the clashing of diverse social groups, some of whom opposed him at every turn, some of whom tried to rein him in, and some of whom wished he would move faster and more boldly in a progressive/left direction.

The Obama presidency too operates in a very complicated political and economic context. (economic crisis, rising unemployment, two wars, climate change, massive inequality, a no longer dominant, but still aggressive extreme right grouping, a divided Democratic party, powerful corporations, etc.) that should inform the judgment of political analysts - and again, especially progressive and left analysts. If it doesn't, their analysis will be shallow, their tactical prescriptions wrongheaded, and their presidential report card not fully reflective of the administration's performance.

One of the striking differences between the two presidencies (and this is a major factor in determining the successes of each administration) is that the people's upsurge in the 1930s (or should I say "upsurges" because that mass upheaval took many forms) in terms of its scope, depth, and level of action surpasses the current upsurge today. In fact, if the Depression era upsurge was a decisive (though not the only) factor powering FDR's achievements, the slowness of today's movement to regroup in the post-election period goes a long way in explaining the current impasse in the Congress with respect to health care reform.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/16574/

Birthers never voted for the man. Progressives did.

Remember 2000.

insurence reform is going to keep Obama and the dems in power. Remember, in 2010 blacks will not be voting like they did in the presidential election, only the pissed off vote midterms.

I knew it! Where're my damn keys to the secret White House entrance?? Where's my Soul Patrol Decoder Ring with 24-7 access to the President and First Lady??

If it was black folks who put Obama into office, I want to see some PERKS for that sh*t, dammit! For the first time in this country's history we're getting CREDIT for something and not the blame for EVERYTHING. Where's my 40 acres and a mule????

Fucking all-or-nothingers. Damn you for making me look like an empty shell of no values

You've done it to yourself.

As opposed to idiots talking about tax cuts and birth certificates.

that I was disappointed in what the new Pres. was doing - not being liberal or forceful enough.

Yes, the President is not a dictator. His major weapon is that bully pulpit he commands. My point was....

1) IF the population really does want single-payer healthcare
and
2) the politicians of both parties do not support that alternative,
then
3) the President should appeal directly to the public, in much stronger terms than he has.

Don't try to drum up support for something that is not much (if any) of an improvement because he wants to placate the politicians.

Use the LOUD voice he has to get "we the people" to pressure "our" representatives to bring real progress to the issue.

IMO, he is wasting political capital in trying for a half-assed change. Be bold! Go for a real win on the issue. Instead, he is simply trying not to lose too badly.

There is too much money in the Beltway working against the interest of working men and women. I personally think that progressives need to remain engaged and counter the tactics of industrialists and financial behemoths to undermine our agenda of substantive change. This task is made more difficult when one has to dodge the constant barrage from the insane rightwing.

there and make people demand it.

Have you read the article at all?

Or are you purposely dense?

I am unhappy about some things especially on the war fronts but still considering the monstrosity of a mess he inherited I think he is doing very well. Those progressive who have totally given up on him and are ready to throw him under the bus need (IMHO) a little reality counseling. The political and moral corruption in Washington is deep and has metastasized into almost every federal agency. It is a very tough fix but I think Obama has the brains and skills and moral direction to start the mend and follow through.

Obama came in with a chance to become a decisive change maker. Instead he's likely to be seen as, at best, a transitional figure. To suggest that Roosevelt had the advantage of a popular surge not available to Obama strikes me as a specious argument. Roosevelt didn't just ride the wave of popular dis-satisfaction, he helped to shape and energize it. When he railed against "malefactors of great wealth" and crowed that he "welcomed their hatred" he wasn't simply riding a whirlwind. He was breathing life into it. I had high hopes for Obama, but he not in the same league as FDR. Not by a country mile.

What Lincoln Foresaw: Corporations Being "Enthroned" After the Civil War and Re-Writing the Laws Defining Their Existence

by Rick Crawford

Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

Some people expressed doubts about its authenticity, given Lincoln's work as an attorney for railroad corporations! It was an interesting job tracking it down and verifying its authenticity.

The first ref I heard for this quote was Jack London's 1908 Iron Heel. And although the quote indeed appears there (near p. 100), Jack London offered neither context nor source.

More recently, David Korten's book, ]u]When Corporations Rule the World (1995, Kumarian Press), sources the quote to Harvey Wasserman (America Born and Reborn, Macmillan, 1983, p. 89-90, 313), who in turn sources it to Paha Sapa Reports, the newspaper of the Black Hills Alliance, Rapid City, South Dakota, 4 March 1982. But given Wasserman's ties to Howard Zinn, and his status as co-founder (?) of the Liberation News Service, citing that kind of trail is like waving a red flag for the skeptics ;-)

Fortunately, after some burrowing in the univ. library, I was able to confirm its authenticity. Here it is, with more surrounding context:



The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html

and change in DC takes a long time. I exactly agree with the above you have understand the entrenched powers and how long it takes to loosen their grip on the governmet, expecting miracles of Obama does confuse me from some of his critics.

I wish folks wouldn't write these long winded criticism of strawmen. Surely the author could have found 2 or 3 examples of the types of criticism of which he writes. It makes it very hard to respond, or even consider his point of view. At the core of his point of view is that somehow the evaluations should be relative instead of absolute. Although it is interesting to compare to other times and other presidents, in the end the real comparision is to the promise Obama made. Promises he is now expected to keep. It's an absolute basis of comparison, not a relative one.

Obama is not a dictator. He cannot will the Congress to do what he wants, when he wants. Our government is a colloboration of the three branches, and power is shared.

Thus, much of the criticism from the left is largely uninformed. What some on the left dream want to do is drive down support for Obama in th hopes that a pure left-leaning candidate would get elected. IOW, these people live in a political fantasy world.

pleased with others.

I'm not going to give him a pass when he continues to allow extraordinary rendition to take place and ramps up our troop level in Afghanistan (yes, I know he said he would do that, but I don't have to support it. And I won't) I don't have to be happy that he still approves of our government monitoring the private communications of Americans without court-issued warrants just as his predecessor Emperor Bush did.

Reaching out to get ideas from many different individuals is great, but not when it means caving in to the people who have no interest in supporting policies that benefit most Americans but just the richest, most politically powerful few.

I could go on and on, but instead, I'm going to say that it's my duty as a citizen to dissent when I think my leaders are not leading the way I want them to.

is totally unproductive. If there is any lessons learned in the past few months, is that the GOP is only interested in sabotaging Obama's agenda at every turn. There is no point in dealing with them on any level.

says who....

listening to their constant whine though. I especially love it when they say he's "failed!" after only six months into his 4-year term! So I guess it isn't really a 4-year term after all, only six months! Or maybe 3-months for some people.

Maybe that's the mission statement of some here, but it's a ridiculous premise.

And you know what I do?























I sleep.

And I mean like a LOG.

I think all branches of the party need to be heard from.

emphasis on "party"

there are groups on the far left who I wouldn't label as progressive, though, as much as disruptive - I don't think their aim is to help Obama in the right direction as much as hurt him in the hopes of a rise of a 3rd party alternative.

if that's what makes them happy.