"you're not mopping fast enough"

I think this describes some of the members sentiments about Obama here at DU and I think those energies are misplaced, counterproductive, reflexive, and sometimes infuriating.

Obama and his team are actually trying to change things for the better- steer a ship that has been heading for an iceberg for 30 years, and some members here at DU'er don't seem to have any idea or appreciation of the power of forces stacked against him, and how long it took us to get in this mess. I said to one poster, "he's got a lot on his plate and much opposing him, cut the guy some slack," , and the response was "why, because he's black?" Really disappointing, especially here on DU. He NEVER said he could do it himself and has always insisted he needs our help to enact change. He can set the vision in his speeches, but without public support and actions (contacting your reps, letters to the editor, going to rallies, and accepting reasonable compromise etc..), congress will fall back on their corporate masters. He's is a president, not a dictator.

I get frustrated when I hear the "Public Option or Die" crowd ignore the credible research that shows "fee for service" delivery of health care is the more important than who pays; public or private insurance. The president made several attempts to highlight this issue, but the base was so focused on demonizing the insurance industry(deserving of scorn, but not the only problem with health care), that he got no traction. There's no excuse for not being educated about these issues and simply criticizing the president because he's not pushing for single payer ( or "demanding" a public option- he IS advocating for a public option but has to deal with congress). He was not elected on the platform of single payer, so why would you expect it?

My impression is that Obama believes in achievable evolution, rather than radical revolution; In deliberation and consensus rather than dictatorial proclamation; Leadership through persuasion and reasonable compromise. This shouldn't be a surprise or disappointment to the majority who elected him. By all historical standards of democratic politics, these are also more effective long term strategies for change. The last administration that tried unilateral dictatorial leadership didn't work out so well (fortunately). I urge DUers to please keep a perspective on where we've been.

I wish more here understood and appreciated how much he's actually done by changing the course of the country already in 9 months: gotten an unprecedented coalition to sign up for significant positive changes in health care; helped bring us back from the brink of a depression (even if you dislike his economic team, there's a consensus among serious economists that this is true); pushed back against the oil and gas lobby for green energy and climate change legislation; transformed foreign policy from belligerent bluster and torture, to diplomacy and strategic alliances-vastly improved our status and influence in the world. The Nobel committee acknowledged and honored this change.

He IS pursuing a moderate progressive agenda and needs our help, support, critique, and patience to be effective.

You can support the president and still push for more changes faster--ask that he "mop quicker", in your phrasing. That, in fact, is exactly what he means by hold his feet to the fire. The Republican minority gets disproportional attention and influence because they show up and bitch--the essence of participatory democracy. I don't defend their message or their means, but I also can't fault their effectiveness as a vocal minority.

We're the silent majority, now. Citing 65% support for public option isn't good enough; we have to make noise. Those of us who are making noise are showing the way.

Stop wasting your time on President Obama, he is on our side when it comes to the vast majority of things, but he is 1 man with limited power (contrary to our experiences with Bush and his Republican dominated Congress, thats actually how its suppose to be in regards to Presidential power). The Senate is the problem. All this "holding Obama's feet to the fire" bullshit is a waste of time and energy. Its needless and its not helping to solve one damn problem.

Congress, corporate boardrooms,the media, and the public. As you've correctly observed, Obama is proposing a progressive agenda. He supports a public option. He supports green jobs and caps on greenhouse gasses. He supports ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly. He's ended a policy of torture. He supports vigorous diplomacy and cooperation with allies. He supports sound fiscal policy and regulation of irresponsible financial institutions. He's stopped the ban on stem cell research. Today he stopped the federal prosecution of medical marijuana laws. It's a progressive vision, that is then filtered through the heavily corporate influenced congress. Not an easy task to enact laws with that kind of push back. This is where we come in. There is a heavy media and lobbying flurry against everything Obama proposes in congress- that can only be offset by the public (us) contacting and pressuring their Rep's and Senators, writing letters to the editor, going to rallies etc... I figure one corporate lobbyist is worth about 500 citizens in terms of influence. I'm not suggesting that we should not criticize the president, just that much of that criticism is misplaced, and energy should be used toward constructive change. It's not his fault that we have a screwed up political system and he can't change it by himself. So i say, stop reflexive complaining, keep things in perspective, and pick up a mop.

He has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity". He is expanding operations there. I think you are looking through a looking glass the wrong way. He supports "sound fiscal policy and regulation of irresponsible financial institutions"? What? How? By bailing them out with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars? I afraid you don't realize the same people guiding us to the iceberg for the last 30 years are currently part of his team. They are still at the steering wheel.

OK, so Afghanistan- no good options here - Obama has said he's not interested in using American blood in treasure unless absolutely necessary for the security of the US. His initial indication was he felt it was a "war of necessity". Things on the ground have changed and his opinion and options are changing. There is some evidence that the Taliban is growing (and using Al Queda tactics) and taking powerful influence in Pakistan, dangerous since it is a weak nuclear armed state. We abandoned Afghanistan in the 80's and the result was Al Queda and 911. Mc Crystal has said in order to control expansion of Taliban they need 40K troops. Lots of discussion going on about this one- Biden is against expansion. Today there was an announcement that no new troops would be sent until the election in Afghanistan was settled. Obama is being responsible, cautious, deliberative- and you and I don't know what he's facing behind closed doors. I'd like us to get out of Afghanistan, the problem appears to be the expansion and growing sophistication of Taliban in Pakistan. We can't invade Pakistan. So what to do? Look, all i'm saying is that Obama is a responsible, thoughtful, and deliberative leader. He had not yet made a decision on this and understands the consequences of action and inaction- both for security and politics. This is the real world.

As far as financial regulation, lets start first with the bailout, because before you deliberate about how to regulate the financial systems, you need to put out the fire. And it was a raging wildfire with global reach. The consequences of not bailing out the institutions that caused the problem we will never know, but most credible economist of all political spectrum have indicated their belief we have avoided another great depression and that things would have been worse without the bailouts and stimulus. There were not many good options at the time- a need to act quickly eliminated any process that could not be enacted quickly. Experience and mistakes made from the great depression was that govt. needs to flood the banks with cash to fill the gap by a collapsing financial system. This was hugely unpopular with the public, but i would argue we had no choice. The Bush version of TARP was a joke- no regulation. At least Obama put restriction on the money. Much of TARP has been paid back with interest. Much we will never see. NOW for regulation. Obama, ALL of his economic team, the Fed Chair, and democratic leaders in congress are on record stating an intent to impose stricter regulation and oversight (including a consumer protection agency for financial services) to help prevent this from happening again. There is legislation currently being "marked up" (OK watered down)in congress. This is on the agenda. I remind you it's been 9 months since Obama took the helm and he's had to deal with and an unprecedented economic crisis and a promote the very complex and difficult issue of health care reform. I would expect that within a year we will have some regulation and additional oversight in place.

actively in contact with my Rep.s and Senators and urge you to do the same. it's not just about holding Obama's feet to the fire-he's been strongly supportive of a public option. Congress has been the ones dragging their feet because of corporate and lobbyist pressure. If they get enough PUBLIC pressure, then maybe we have a chance.

passion and emotion on their pet issues. This is a good thing to have, especially when you may have little else to keep you focused on (or hopeful about) an issue, but sometimes we have to step back and look at things from a pragmatic, logical point of view.

Obama DOES have a lot of his plate. There's no reason we can't be just as passionate about our ideals as we've always been, yet still give him breathing room to make change. Even small steps are progress.

We on the left give him cover to do the right thing when we criticize him, correct him, and try to guide him. He doesn't gain any benefit from our collective silence and support, nor do the American people. I think we need to watch him like a hawk and raise cain when he gives any indication that he's about to sell us out.

:dem:

-Laelth

down right opposition happening.

I saw post in a thread yesterday saying that Obama had lost their vote for 2012 already. ALREADY? He has only had 9 months to clean up what it took 8 years of the bu$h regime to screw up.

If he turned things around that fast it would be a miracle.

I write them off as short-term anger and frustration. I don't think there are any regular posters on DU who want to see a Republican elected. Honestly, I don't see any way that a Republican could win in 2012. Obama can probably afford to lose a few votes.

But it would be nice if the Administration made it clear that it is listening to its base. That might curb some of the anger and frustration.

:dem:

-Laelth

He never had their vote.

described in your post. for many that's all this is about.

another thing people do is blame him for things only congress can or cannot change.

:dem:

-Laelth

I like Obama, I believe for the most part we agree on general goals and certainly he is far superior as President to any Repbulican I can remotely imagine being in that office. But since I am not an insider I will make my case on his effectiveness as a leader regarding health care reform by the results that he ultimately signs his name to. Anything short of a strong public option included (with perhaps the concession of individual state opt outs) will, shall I say, underwhelm me. If that happens I hereby put you on notice that I will be one of those who will harshly second guess both the tactical and substantitive choices he made during this entire health care battle. And if Obama wins a real public option I am willing to give him credit for deftly managing the process. Results have consequences. He asked us to help put him into a very hot kitchen. I will judge him by what he serves up out of it.

Obama took single payer off the table and pointedly failed to make a robust public option his non negotiatable bottom line. That may yet turn out to have been a brilliant strategy for reason we will all read about after the fact. But he made those choices and if he can not deliver I will be critical of his leadership in this fight. For now I reserve judgement.

Advocacy for a public option plan is itself a significant pragmatic concession over advocacy for what many of us believe is the true solution to the health care crisis in America; Single Payer. You say; "My impression is that Obama believes in achievable evolution, rather than radical revolution." I agree and I have no problem with that. But for me more hinges on the word "evolution" than "achievable". A Republican incremental approach toward health care reform, for example, is "achievable" but not worth fighting for. A mandate for Americans to purchase insurance from private corporations is not acceptable to me, nor do I consider that to be evolutionary progress. It would consolidate keeping the current players who drove us into a health care crisis in America in the first place in the drivers seat.

I am even open to a degree of compromise about the public option plan itself. Here is my bottom line in a nut shell. Out of this reform we need to establish an honest market test of a potentially viable public health insurance plan option that Americans can chose if they want it. I believe all Americans should have that option essentially immediately, but we can even evolve to achieving that goal over time IF the results of that so to speak "market test" are promising. I am willing to meet the Right in America in the center. I am willing to have a true test of the viability and value of my health care reform beliefs. Let the public option plans we establish rise or fall on their own achievements rather than have government tilt the playing field in their advantage over the private sector.

But god damn it give us that option to choose if we want it, to see if we prefer that to what the private sector offers. Or AT LEAST give enough Americans a viable public option plan, so that the rest of us can look over their shoulders to see how well they make out compared to those who get stuck with all private options. And if the public plan market test outperforms the private options, market forces will then move us progressively forward in the evolutionary manner you speak of. Anything short of that is a sell out to private interests who are doing everything they can to ensure that a public option, let alone a single payer system, is never given a real chance in America.

Markets are the very thing that is wrong with the system. There is NO country with universal health care that has actual "markets." Those with regulated private insurance flat out dictate limits on what insurers, doctors, hospitals and drug compamies are allowed to charge.

Nobody has even PROPOSED such a thing as a public option that "all Americans can choose" if they want. 95%, in fact, will specifically NOT be allowed to make this choice.

You want incrementalism? Let people voluntarily buy in to Medicare.

where corrupt politicians, completely in the back pocket of the insurance companies, can use distortion and outright fear on the American public to fight reform. I think Obama knows this and has shrewdly chosen to get a foot in the door with a public option, get people used to it and over their fears, and then expand it enormously. Just like Medicare. Once it was in, the naysayers completely and utterly lost because the American people loved it and now will NOT give it up. Same with the PO.

I too wish we could get Medicare for All. I just think Obama made a decision to take it slowly and incrementally but get there eventually.

It's not what you and I want, of course, but that I think must be the reality...

--with an income for two of $41,000 $450 per frigging MONTH. Not to mention which, the insurance companies will act exactly like the banksters are acting in anticipation of consumer reform--they will raise prices extravagantly and royally fuck the public over for FOUR FULL YEARS!!! With only 5% of the population even allowed in, it won't have the power to lower premiums.

Waiting that long to get your foot in the door is politically unworkable and grossly stupid. I am not suggesting Medicare for All, just Medicare for those who want to buy in. If we are going to spend a trillion on subsidies, why not subsidize Medicare directly instead of a bunch of worthless shitstains who kill people for money.

Public opinion is the only thing that moves a president.
Once the election is over, its the only lever left to pull.

Without close scrutiny, political gamesmanship takes over.

:applause:

I agree wholeheartedly.

There are moments that I'd like us to do more in terms of downsizing the military actions we are involved in. But I elected THIS guy to be able to understand the nuances of dealing with an international stage better than me.
He is also taking on the Military-Industrial Complex ...bit by bit.

There are moments I'd like to drastically rip the carpet out from under the banks and restructure our economy, and ya, I'd love to redistribute some wealth too. But I elected THIS guy to be able to understad the markets and economy in a way that I could not.
He is also taking on Wall Street and the bank lobbyists...bit by bit.

There are times when I would like to have healthcare and medicine be accesible now to ALL, gutting the insurance & drug co's with one stroke of a pen. But I elected the guy who would try to find a solution that would keep our healthcare safe and ALSO work to make it accesible to all.
He is also taking on the Insuracnce, Big Pharma and their ilk...bit by bit.

There is a reason HE is the POTUS and not US...He may have a better grasp of the JOB
Isn't that why we ALL elected Him?

You're being SENSIBLE...and REASONABLE...on DU!!
We can't have that.

Seriously, a big K&R - more people here need to read and heed.

On healthcare reform, he is pretending to mop halfheartedly, while the mess spreads across the floor.

I hereby promise not to claim that my viewpoint is the only adult one on DU, lol

a strong infrastructure of Change that will hold for a long time.

And, of course, they want the input but without the lies and I say Obama shows repect and the same should be accorded him.

The boy's got some balls on him telling his base to ...... uh .... chill the f out. lol, love it

Patience is a virtue and being right in the end is satisfying.

Thanks for this well-written post. Very realistic assessment. This is the type of critical thinking that attracted me to DU to begin with! :toast:

as best I may until the end of his term. Then I will assess what has been achieved.

President Obama may very well be more shrewd than his critics/foes. I wouldn't dismiss him because he's being careful and diplomatic.

:applause:

I have not read through all the post but I want to say thank you. Thank you for nor pre-facing your post with " I wonder when the unrec squad will come in" Thank you for that. I am starting to wonder about the maturity level and sanity of posters who are obsessed with those who unrec their post. Particularly these types of post that are either yay or nay. I am off to read the rest of the posts in this thread.

I have realized in life that dramatic changes usually only leads to enormous suffering. A progressive incremental approach is the correct approach to improving our nation and world. Obama embodies that approach and I am very proud to be an American with him as our President.

But when I log into DU and see incredible vitriol and hatred, I am very glad that the Democratic party and the President are not run by those advocating radical change. The world is much more complex than you think, and while it is easy to criticize and flame on internet message boards, radical change in the world effects people's lives. I think that many of you have all experienced this in your workplace. Some new executive comes in and restructures your organization, just when you were figuring out what you need to do to get things done. And so now you've got to spend the next two years figuring it out just to get back to the level of performance you had before. And then, no doubt, some new bozo is going to come in and change everything radically and leave the organization in a state of chaos and tribal power struggles. I believe this scenario applies to our government.

I still believe in progressive causes, but I think the way to get there is through incremental progressive changes. Many on this board seem to think the simple radical solution will bring utopia. Unfortunately, history tells this causes immense amounts of suffering that must lead us to question the methodology of bringing about the progressive change. And this makes me greatful for the system of checks and balances set up in the Constitution and in our tradition.

For example, It took Canada 37 years of tough politicking and push back from stakeholders- doctors and insurance companies- to fully enact national single payer health care that evolved from a regional program in Saskatchewan. So by Canada's example, the expectation that somehow with all the much more powerful stakeholders here, 50 states, a larger more diverse and politically divided population, that we could enact single payer in one year is unprecedented and unrealistic. Better to work incrementally in the direction of single payer- as Obama is with and advocacy of a public option- and deal with the other critical issues in health care which need to, and are being addressed.

It is too late to recommend, unfortunately, so here's a kick!

I've read here. Thank you. K&R for the pathetically miserable and hateful "progressives" here.

all of you people, reserving judgement till the end of Obama's term. really? You cant demand progress till then eh?

you all make me sad.

the bailout was 12.8 trillion, and our gdp is 13.8 trillion.

And explicit in the bailout is that it can never be brought up in court, congress cant get any data about how the money is spent, and no one can ever be questioned about it. and thats your idea of an actual accomplishment?
got a lot of accomplishments so far do we?

So you will think about all that in 3 years will you?

How about health care, thinking about whether reform is a failure or not-- 3 years, can I pencil that in? that good for all of you?

How is it our party is taking a line that health care reform cant possibly be done if it costs even one cent-- and itd cost 1 trillion to do it right-- but we cant spend 1 trillion. We can give away 12.8 with no oversite whatsoever, and we can run 2 wars with no real mission for god knows how many trillions, but we cant spend a trillion to fix our health care system, and you guys wont even think about calling bullshit on ANYTHING for three years?

really?



really??
None of you can even begin to entertain the idea that Obama or our dems in congress are doing anything but their best for us, and the problem is all the republicans. thats the world you live in isnt it..

With some great comments. Change is not always revolutionary and abrupt - that's why the US is so stable, too.