There's no such thing as ten dimensional chess, and our president is not a vulcan.

There's no such thing as ten dimensional chess, and our president is not a vulcan.

by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/21/2009 08:51:00 AM

During his health care forum yesterday, President Obama gave his usual pep talk about how during the campaign everyone thought he was down and out. But like the tortoise and the hare, slow but steady Barack Obama won the race.

And it's all very cute. And all very wrong.

Barack Obama was in serious trouble last July and August. John McCain had launched a serious of "celebrity" ads, mocking Obama as more puff than substance, and, I think, taking a bit of a swipe at his manhood as well. It was the first attack by the Republicans that was actually starting to take hold, starting to do real damage to Obama, and Obama's response was nowhere to be found. Like Michael Dukakis twenty years before him, Barack Obama kept forging ahead, like the good geeky professor, while John McCain continued to beat the crap out of him.

Finally after the Netroots exploded at candidate Obama - almost exactly a year ago today - fretting that he was endangering our best chance at the White House in a decade, and after top donors then picked up the ball and privately slapped the campaign around, the Obama campaign discovered their inner cojones and fought back, hard.

Barack Obama didn't win the election through the strength of his subtle, non-combative personality. He won in large part because his supporters finally forced him to fight back like, as the expression goes, a man.

more:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/theres-no-such-thing-as-ten-dimensional.html

Right now we need to watch him carefully, hound him, criticize him when he is wrong, remind him who he serves, and otherwise be a pain in his rump ...

We give him cover to do the right thing if he can show he is being attacked from the left.

If he then actually does the right thing, he might get us all back as foot soldiers in 2012. If he doesn't ...

:dem:

-Laelth

doesn't ...

Who knows. But it seems pathetic for 40% of Americans to back someone who is more in line with "losing" to Big Monied Interests, than to taking care of people.

It's hammer time.

to get anything done in Washington.

Snarky, too.

I recall the drama about how he "needs to strike back" when he was keeping his cool.

It's presumptuous to take credit for pressuring him when it's just as likely, or more likely, that he happens to have a sense of timing that allows opponents to blow their load while he stays ready to strike back at the most opportune time.

Writings by bloggers and progressives that take credit for Obama's ultimate successes after tearing him down in the run up to these actions are self-serving and make me lol.

NYC_SKP

Because no one campaigned or voted for Obama, his own unique super special powers caused him to spontaneously manifest in the oval office. (snark intended)

The infuriating thing as a Hillary supporter wasn't anything Obama himself was doing, it was the outright conspiracy of assumption on the part of his fanbase, some of whom have TV shows. They started almost immediately saying that Hillary should concede, long before it was even close to being a certain thing, considering it wasn't certain until people like Ted and Caroline and a select group of others stabbed her in the back.

But it was Obama's supporters who went door to door, who turned out in droves, and made it LOOK LIKE he had this "overwhelming majority" when in fact he did not have a certain majority at all, until Hillary withdrew from the campaign. Moreover, he didn't have the ability to win the national election without Hillary's fanbase, and that's something some people keep forgetting. No one is irreplaceable.

HE KICKED HER DLC ASS.

Get over it.

If he doesn't, then I really don't care if he's re-elected or not. If you think I am alone, then you are the misguidedly smug idiot you appear to be.

of his supporter's and, it looks like, Obama himself believing in his own PR.

Obama did not kick Hillary's ass - he barely stumbled across the finish line. He lost most of the later states (and 7 of the 8 largest states), despite outspending his opponent by margins of 3 and 4 to 1. If the process had been all primariies instead of inherently undemocratic caucuses, he would not have been the nominee. The race vs McCain hinged on two things, the choice of Palin, which turned off many in the middle, and an economic collapse where McCain came off as clueless. Many of Obama's supporter's seem to think that Obama is infallible - and, there are times where it seems like Obama may beilieve it himself.

IT DOESN'T HELP OBAMA TO HAVE HIS SUPPORTERS HOLDING HIM UP AS SOME KIND OF VULCAN SUPERMAN.

That's the point of the article. He has flip-flopped on numerous issues important to the left - and we NEED TO HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE - not promulgate myths about what a superior being Obama is.

BUT HE STILL KICKED HER DLC ASS.

SHE LOST.

GET OVER IT.

and people wanted Obama to back off or concede (pre-Iowa).

what you are describing in your post is something called politics. it's ugly at best.

would win a solid majority of the elected delegates.

i do believe that people began calling for her withdrawal while she might have still turned it around, but she didn't turn it around. As primary after primary came and went she refused to budge even though everyone except her most die hard supporters knew it was over and how it was going to end.

Why didn't Hillary supporters turn out and go door to door and make it look like she had an overwhelming majority? Were her supporters less willing to knock on doors to get her elected? Or what?

Obama didn't have the ability to win without Biden's supporters, Edwards, Kucinich's Dodd's and Hillary's supporters, in other words the Democratic majority, plus a heck of a lot of independents who never even voted for anyone in the primaries. And Hillary, if she had won the nomination, wouldn't have won the general without that same demographic either. What's that say? Dems need Dems to vote for Dems plus a lot of independents to win. Same for Obama as for Hillary.

Hillary lost it on Super Tuesday and the 2 weeks following because she followed the DLC play book that says don't put your resources into the the unimportant states, save them for those few big ones that if you win they put you over the top. She was caught without sufficient funds (which is one of the reasons she stayed in as long as she did, she had to keep fund raising to cover her previous expenditures) because she never foresaw the possibility that she wouldn't be the clear leader by that point.

While it may have been infuriating for Obama supporters to say, "Do the math," the problem was if you did the math it looked much better for Obama than for Hillary. And as a Kucinich supporter up until he dropped out, it was infuriating for about two years while Hillary supports behaved as if she was the inevitable Democratic nominee before any votes had been cast.

Remember the jokes about the (cy) Borg? "You will be assimilated." As a Kucinich supporter, it made me happy that in fact I wasn't assimilated. So that's my personal take.

all manner of assholes take credit for "making him do the right thing". It really is ludicrous at times.

:puke:

This particular writer seems to be a malicious asshole of particular measure. Everything I've seen from him has been utter and complete garbage. And yet, here he is again on DU...

I want to know who rec'd this - disgusting.

Keep it up. I expect to see a Republican majority in Congress 2010 and perhaps a President Palin in 2012.

because the going would get so rough for her that she'd quit halfway through 2015.

Because ignoring the base is always the best tactic and is only slightly more succesful a tactic than ignoring the majority of Americans that want a strong and effective public option.

He ran as a centrist and is governing as a centrist.

He is not the left's "own."

I rest my case.

rethug greed, and * had sullied the GOP label so much.

It was as much a vote against the previous eight years as for anything specific that the Dem(s) were promoting.

Change a couple of things and the repuke reign of terror could have continued.

now I muist Lead In Democratic Party Beliefs.

That is a strategy they understand, they get, and they can really sink their teeth into.
Obama does not do this. And it irks them to no end --some on the left too it appears.

I respectfully disagree with this writers opinion. McCain lost because his attacks were stupid, NOT GROUNDED in reality, and hysterical. The louder, more obnoxious he got, the more ridiculous he looked. And Palin was the icing on the cake. They could not play the game that Obama was because they did not understand the rules. And they could not get out a clear concise message on why they should sit in the White house, given the abhorrent track record of Bush. They could not take that weight off--and that cost them the election.

A perfect example of this is the GOP fight over health care. Now, Grassley has come out and admitted that the GOP will never vote for any health care reform - any. Their strategy is that to beat Obama politically is far more important than making good policy regarding health care for all Americans.

I think Obama is doing ok given the epic pile of doo-doo he had to walk into....Bush really left a big pile of doo-doo.

WE must revolt. WE must make the noise and demand.

WE must be more threatening, louder and more of a presence than the lobbyists.

That's the only way we'll get meaningful healthcare reform.

And I also agree with the basic sentiment.

Obama won in a large part because he allowed overreaching to the point his opponents hurt themselves. He also had confidence and temperament during major economic tremors. McCain had Palin and "campaign suspension"; he looked like a goofy erratic old man entering his second childhood.

I think the man does have an eye for strategy, even if he isn't the Bobby Fischer that a lot of people want to make him out to be. Case in point: reconciliation for health care placed discreetly in the federal budget earlier this year. If we actually get a health care reform bill it will probably be passed thanks to that move.

That doesn't mean we have to cut him any slack when he shows signs of capitulating though. Politicians will do that, and most of the time it will have little to do with any strategy that benefits us. So respect the man, but don't let him off the hook.

It's eleven dimensional chess, any fool knows that.. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

String theory is of interest to many physicists because it requires new mathematical and physical ideas to mesh together its very different mathematical formulations. One of the most inclusive of these is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions, as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time.

:shrug:

Where's his birth certificate? :sarcasm:

had a lot to do with why Obama won the election, so John Aravosis is a bit off on his analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQHw4Ymy6c

"It must be humbling to suck on so many different levels."

An important one of these was the perceived strength of his subtle, non-combative personality, which distinguished him from both his competitor and his predecessor.

That favored, oft used explanation is quite implausible on a host of individual, institutional and systematic levels, but definitely understandable, however, given the other obvious explanation that many seek to avoid with unwavering vehemence.

It was THREE dimensional chess.

And it DOES exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Dimensional_Chess


Whoever wrote that should do a little research before attempting to be snarky.

Where did he get those ears?

Just kidding. I couldn't resist pointing this out. :rofl:

the people to see if they were going to stand behind him

would never be able to press for real change.

By definition, they have to bend over backwards to appear as nonthreatening as possible to "the American middle".

This is borne out by the historic U.S. axiom that only a President who "betrays his own side" -- Nixon in China, FDR "betraying" his elite class, Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act & "losing the South for a generation" -- produces radical shifts.

What did dumb liberals think they were voting for?

Recommended! :)