Has Obama Become Corporatist 3rd Way Politician, Obama Needs Roosevelt on his iPOD Playlist

Run time: 08:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GC2JoeyU8E   Posted on YouTube: December 31, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 31, 2009 By DU Member: SLSmith Views on DU: 2668

 
December 31, 2009
Thom Hartmann

people whipped in to a frenzy by the most powerful form of media in the world Television. It's up to us to get the word out by whatever means with have if it's pen paper posters, post its, so be it, but any Democratic President is up against it unless we non-stop counter the noise machine. It jUSt really bugs me I respect Hart mann but FDR and LBJ did not have to put up with this. Some talk show hosts on the left get threats I can only imagine what Pres. Obama gets. As superhero liberal President does not exist only way to get around things it's getting more info out to more people.

Roosevelt had to endure far worse that Obama ever had. Let me know when there is a plot to overthrow the US government, like Roosevelt had to deal with. Or when there is a two front World War against the two biggest military powers of the day, or when you have to cope with a country where 1 out of 4 people doesn't have a job, or when you have to cope with massive dust bowls and famine. Or the volatile social situation that LBJ (out of his own creation in some cases) et al presided over....

But I guess all of that pales in comparison with having to deal with some bad press, poor Mr. Obama, life sure ain't fair. Roosevelt and LBJ sure did have it easy!


Is that it? Is that your new line of excuse for the piss poor performance from a liberal point of view of this administration? That "Roosevelt and LBJ had it 'easy' in comparison." To the point you have to inflate a couple thousand insane tea baggers into "150 million people?" Are you serious?


I am starting to see similarly eery separation with anything remotely resembling reality by the Obama acolytes as I saw by the Bush fan club during the long 8 years we just endured. The more things change the more they stay the same... there is always an excuse for piss poor performance, is there?

Very sad but very true - thanks. I think he's become an underachiever, perhaps someone who only cared about making history as our first black American President. And he doesn't care if he's only a one termer. After his term in office he'll be given opportunities to make multi-millions in other areas.

the corporate criminals --

AND, there was certainly a corporate coup planned vs FDR ---

so what you're saying is completely wrong --

With JFK the corporate coup succeeded --

both were fascism --

and of course we have corporate/fascism here in America today --

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know what doesn't bode well for the Left? That a bright, well spoken, educated voice of Progressivism and Liberalism like Thom's doesn't get the numbers idiots and assholes get.

... as soon as he said something remotely critical of Mr. Obama. It was clear to me then that we were going to be living through interesting times. The cult to personality is scaring the sh*t out of me. I could somewhat understand the knuckle dragging contingent do that for their boy Bush, because well... they are morons and really don't know any better, so it was easy to be prepared for that.

But when I see people, who seemed perfectly reasonable, turn into insane loyalist not being able to cope with a single iota of criticism. That is when I get scared, because I most certainly was not expecting that.


If there were more people like Thom in the media, we would be in much much better shape not just as a country, but as a society. It is amazing to me how sane and educated voices in this country, have been all but silenced. And the least common denominator has taken preference, and in most cases it has been shoveled down our throats. A society that aspires for mediocrity and shuns excellence is a society on its way out of relevance... at least in historical terms.

Of having great statesmen nd women.

I have been reading this very interesting article written way back in the late 1980's.

The article's main premise is that once people are entrained to believe that comprehending Complexity is not cool - that only the insufferably intellectual have an interest in understanding issues, then as long as that premise is backed up with the other rule of the day "Charisma and Celebrity" then a citizenry descends into a non-thinking rabble that accepts only sound bytes and wants only the Charismatic Celebrity beings to speak for them.

Back in FDR's day, people may have only had an eighth grade education, but what an education it was. My dad's seventh grade geology text book had language above the reading comprehension of today's college sophomore.

All you have to do is listen to Roosevelt's "Happy Thanksgiving Day" address and compare it to Obama (Or Bush's or Clinton's) address - and you immediately see that we are like the Hallmark card generation compared to those generations that went before us.

Countless times I have had people here on DU and/or in real life tell me not to think about the big economic picture, because after all "Obama is smart and he will take care of it. It is certainly above my comprehension." They are PROUD of the fact that they don't worry about it or analyze any of it - and those of us who have worried about it and who knew the minute his economic appointments were made that we were in trouble were then told - "You cannot possibly judge Obama as he hasn't been in office but a month or so."

But gasoline poured on a fire will not put a fire out. In fact it might create an all engulfing firestorm. So too, Obama's appointment of Geithner and approving of Bernanke showed IMMEDIATELY what would come to us under Obama.

Was a spin off of the book "Unreality Inc" written by Ian Mitroff and Warren Bennis.

They lament the notion that our nation has replaced creativity with bureaucracy. Though due tot he TV'iness of our era, we demand that our bureaucrats be Charismatic!

This explains the Barack Obama phenomena better than anything else I have read. Even though it was written several decades ago!

I don't buy these excuses. For crying out loud, Herst et al were largely responsible for initiating the Spanish-American war decades prior to Roosevelt's inauguration. So big media has been rather powerful during a big chunk of our country's history... and a big portion of that media has been downright complicit in propping and maintaining the interests of the elites.

In fact Mr. Roosevelt was able to do the right thing in spite of the media, that is why he implemented his fireside chat radio addresses because it was the best way for him to get the message out, a message which was being attacked and undermined by large portions of the media at the time. The thing that Roosevelt had which Mr Obama lacks is courage to do the right thing.


I think the problem is that most Americans completely misunderstood how a democracy works, and thus we ended devolving into a system in which we elect "managers" rather than politicians. We need to understand that what works for private industry does not necessarily apply to public governance and viceversa. That is why I have said ad infinitum, that "pragmatism" in politics is not a good quality at all. Since pragmatism implies lack of ideology... and politics is based around the notion of ideology in a very significant way.

I keep telling people that a "pragmatist" politician makes as much sense as an agnostic pope. A pope which may have been a fantastic manager in a previous life, but who as an agnostic makes a lousy priest. It makes perfect sense why we can't for the life of us figure out what Obama is doing, simply because we have absolutely no idea what his ideological leanings are... so we have absolutely no way to put him and his policies in the proper context, and more importantly... it means that Mr. Obama is not constrained by ideology and thus there is no metric to properly evaluate him.

We made ideology a dirty word, when ideology is one of the fundamental pillars for a functioning democracy. That is why we ended up with a "bad cop/good cop" single conservative party with 2 branches. I don't feel sad at all when I see liberals freaking out because Obama is following a moderately conservative MO, since he has always quaked, walked, and looked like a center-right politician. Why would liberals expect a center-right president to suddenly act liberal? It is just silly, maybe next time we should vote for an actual liberal if we want a liberal government and policies. Not a hard concept to get really...

But honestly, I am not just blaming liberals for their recent collective freak out. Obama himself was too chickenshit to recognize what he has always been: a moderate conservative. Nothing inherently wrong with such stance, since for political tastes there are colors. The issue I have with Mr. Obama is that he was too chickenshit and too vage regarding his true leanings on purpose, because he wanted to be everything to everyone and allowed all sort of people to project their hopes onto him. Even though it is now abundantly clear that he was aware what his policies were going to be in direct collision with the liberal base that he was using to get elected.

In the end, Mr. Obama is the president that we as a society deserve. Why? Because our country has always strived to have everything both ways. This is why we end up with people like Obama, Mr and Mrs. Clinton, Emmanuel, et al... who are always triangulating, like the political animals they are, but at the same time they don't want to feel constrained by ideology in order to take their triangulation to the extreme if their interests require it. I.e. wanting to be a politician without having to deal with politics. Lest we forget that the 2 front runners for the supposedly liberal party this past election... were the former president of the College Republicans chapter of her alma mater (Hillary Clinton), and a fellow who counted Reagan, one of the most reactionary political figures in the history of our country, as one of his personal heroes (Pres. Obama).

Much different than my conclusions.

We may disagree to some extent about the media in Roosevelt's time - but one thing you need too remember is that America In the 1930's was a very fragmented culture. Jews did not marry Catholics or Protestants, nor vis a versa. Even in big cities the ethnic groups kept inside their own segregated neighborhoods, and although there was no law stating that the Irish had to live in their neighborhoods, and the Poles in theirs, that is what happened.

My Dad grew up in part of Chicago's "German town" neighborhood. And he said that most of his friends and family never took Hitler seriously. (Until, of course Germany invaded Poland and started bombing Gr Britain.) They realized he was the Big Shot Uber Fuhrer back in the ol country, but they thought that the German people would see through the ruse.

It was a time when over 100,000 people would congregate to watch Houdini's latest adventure - due to word of mouth talk about his appearance and the time and location. (No Blackberry's or other PDA's - but the word got out in just over several hours.)

HEarst gets the blame for the Spanish American war - but if politicians Had not wanted that war, it would not have gone through. yet many during the time of the Spanish American war rebelled against it - they were the huge mass of people supporting Bryant Jennings.

It is sad that Obama cannot own the intellectual curiosity to actually think outside the small tight world of his advisers. If he had that curiosity, he might grasp how Roosevelt took the media into his own hands. Obama could, for instance, have a weekly Internet YouTube chat, and put down the nasty side of the Repugs. Instead he lives now inside a bubble, and that bubble is going to start costing him big time -- and he has no one but himself to blame.

I was wondering who got deleted, saw you on the thread, chuckled to myself because my posts get deleted alot too for um colourful language, and then I saw this post. Add in a few drinks and damn that was funny. You didn't mention the corporate seed did you? That is an auto delete around here. hehehe Happy New Year Frank, you are one of my favorite progressives.

Would be glad to read it.

When people compare talk show hosts like Hartmann, to Rush. It's a whole different world in left-wing talk. Hartmann doesn't go on the whole time and ingender racism, incite the worst human qualities and emotions in people, and he uses honesty, intelligence, and an intense knowledge of history to make his points.

They are worlds' apart, and I don't even like to compare the two. You'd have to find someone like George Will, if you want a right-wing comparison. At least you can tell he's smart, and makes his points through honest debate. Rush is just a rodeo clown, like Glen Beck, to avert the people's eyes from the real issues, from the truth, from the bullfighter in this analogy.

so devastated by Bush, and in their lowest of low points, that when Obama came along he offered them a deeply desired escape from horror. And now that Obama has been way less than was hoped for, people are having none of it, clinging to their original beliefs and not letting any doubt enter their minds. They are turning into robots.

Both political parties are corporatists, and if Obama were a FDR true blue progressive, he would not be able to accomplish anything at all. In fact, no true blue progressive president could.

THE problem that all progressives face is that they cannot elect more PROGRESSIVES to congress. The Progressive movement in America is a few commentators, bloggers, talk show hosts, some entertainers, Michael Moores, etc. It's noise, not a movement. A real deal political movement is one where progressives win congressional elections, in particular, elections in non-progressive states.

Once progressives show that they can actually win ELECTIONS across the country, then this corporatist bullshit will go away.

Because FDR ended up being a rather progressive populist president, and I fail to see an example of a more successful presidency in the history of our country.

I don't think the issue is not as much the lack of organization of progressives in this country (which I agree it is a pressing matter and indeed progressives need to get their heads out of their derrieres pronto), but more the issue that the progressive contingent in this country has for whatever unknown reason wasted too much time and effort actually taking seriously whatever BS the concern trolls of the DLC et al were feeding them.

So two things have to happen for progressives to regain ground: either they purge the Dems of the DLC/Blue Dog republican chickenshits. Or they start supporting or creating their own 3rd party platforms. I fail to see why the Dems feel entitled to the progressive vote, when they have made it rather clear they are not interested in progressive policies whatsoever.

One of the few good things to come out of this is that the same conservatives, which jumped off the GOP ship when the brand was deemed too damaged, are doing polluting the Dems in a similar fashion. So eventually 3rd parties will not be such an oddity since the fear and uncertainty campaigns engaged by the dynamic GOP/Dem duo will no longer work as well with 2 supremely tarnished brands. The market is funny that way....

They have to WIN elections, not just form 3rd parties. Not field challenge candidates. Not huff and puff on blogs and on radio stations. They have to WIN elections and take power. That's the ONLY thing that will get people to respond positively.

It seems you're simply moving the goal posts. It seems that if progressives do not get in line and support the moderate d'jour, then we get blamed for whatever electoral debacle the dumbfuck of a moderate conservative candidate the Dems shovel down our throat happens to suffer. Later on if we help elect a similar moderate conservative the same lovely Dems throw our way, then it means we "can't be taken seriously" because we did not elect a progressive. So what the fuck is it?

If the Dems are not interested in a progressive agenda, so be it. I fail to see why they feel entitled to the progressive vote though. It reeks of wanting to have it both ways.

There are already 3rd parties. Nobody takes them seriously because they don't WIN elections.

It's all well and good to vent about Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc., but if you want REAL change. If you want something positive to actually HAPPEN. Then, progressives must WIN elections for congress, the senate, and then the White House.

by corporatists . . .

Think about it, most of our leaders/candidates are chosen for us --

and those who would rise to true liberal leadership are immediately eliminated.

And that's the basic question -- was this all hidden during the campaign?

I think so -- it was a meteoric rise for Obama --

he looks pre-selected --

And his immediate actions AFTER the election to put corporatists in place --

from Rahm Emmanuel to Summers, etal is further evidence of that.

PLUS his record in office of bailing out banks -- etal -- and now Fannie/Freddie couldn't

be making that any clearer!!

is a way we can make it happen but it would be very dangerous and very non-progressive.

complete Corporatocracy. And his motivation for doing this? His reason? I think he has no choice and has been told on no uncertain terms that he has no choice. There were a lot of snakes in FDR's time too, but the basic American citizen was still on the side of government;hence FDR could drive the snakes out. Now, people are so weary, so disenchanted, so uninterested that they will not back anyone doing much of anything. Personally, I thought Obama was different--that's why I voted for him. What I wonder is what would have happened had Obama kept everyone of his campaign promises. Would he be in worse or better shape than he is today? All very tragic.

I think he's just asking the question to wonder why Presidents campaign and are obviously way more liberal, then when they step into office, they seem to forget the working people, and become corporatists.

I do not in any way think he "wants" that to happen. He's just asking the question, "Why?"

I agree with one of the other posters. We try to find moderates, people in the center, and elect them. The debate, if you can call it that, occurs from the nearly insanely right wing portion that dominates, and the center, and the compromise becomes sickeningly right-of-center. It slides even more to the right, because the people writing the bills are also paid off, or look to a flush future throught he corporations that pay them, that will hire them, and their families.

We need to elect that dweeby left-winger that makes the awkward scream, or that is short and screwy, your Naders, and Kucinichs. Then we may see someone in the middle.

years. They hold views that are so non-manstream that they appear alien to most people. Sure, they could pretend to be mainstream and then unwrap when elected... But I don't think either of those would do that. I don't think it matters. The US has less than 50 years of life left, imo. China will eat us up and swallow us.

the american people would be solidly behind them were they given a fair hearing. nader is not allowed in to debate at all, and kucinich is sandbagged with ufo questions (my one complaint about kucinich is that he didn't tell russert where to stick that question and demand another). it is the media that brings some politicians to the fore and squelches others. americans are brainwashed, it's that simple.

you may, however, be right about china.

own response post. No one over 2 standard deviations from the perceived normal would ever get elected President in the US.

What he did immediately after the election is also proof of that --

We are given our leaders by the corporates --

The merging of government and huge corporations is the very definition of fascism.

including that the DLC is corporate poison in Democratic Party -- !!!

He's going to be losing a lot of progressive votes.

Hartmann makes a good point: We really need someone to stand up to Wall Street the way FDR stood up to the Robber Barons. To date, Barack Obama has not proven to be that person.

and I noticed that Olberman didn't have much to say on the health care lacking even

a public otpion -- which by the way was the "compromise" with single payer being off the table!

And, Schultz also seemed to be hedging?

Anyone else listening to these anchors and want to give their impression of what they've heard

there?

Haven't heard Randi Rhodes in ages -- every time I tune in someone is filling in for her???

Also Jon Stewart on vacation ---

Michael Moore -- who was pleading with Obama re the wars and health care --

would presume he's trying to find some basis to stay hopeful????

Wm. Greider commented -- but not as strongly as I think he should have.

Again - this is a Democratic president so the tendency will be to pull the punches!!!

Had Bush given us this health care crap we'd be laughing at it --

but certainly not passing it!!!

The public option always was a compromise on the single-payer system. Democrats just can't seem to play hard ball.

My remaining hopes for change are around my president and Democratic legislators to go all FDR on the country.

FDR is the one the Republicans hate because he was so effective. They've been trying to push this country away from FDR's programs because they so clearly demonstrate that the government can be a force for good. Well, instead of running from FDR back to some old fashioned, discredited "New Democrat" attitudes, pretending that some mythical "free market" is going to fix everything when deregulation is what brought us to the crash of 08, I'm still hoping we move forward to a new 21st Century Green Deal-- millions of jobs on the deferred maintenance left to us by the 8 years of war profiteering and tax cutting of the Bush Gang and more jobs on energy diversification and conservation to prepare us to recover a position of leadership in a community of nations combating climate destabilization, to participate in a more sustainable, more democratic capitalism for this century.

Here's a snippet, 1936