Does Obama have New Kid on the Block Syndrome?

Is that why he can't stand up to Wall Street? or Blue Dogs in Congress? or the health insurance companies?

Is that why he is afraid to meet with the left wing of his party in San Francisco? why he ignores the loyal opposition in his party?

Obama and the New-Kid-on-the-Block Syndrome


It is wonderful that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and the world may become a better place for it. At the same time, when it comes to domestic reforms that would save the American middle class from extinction Obama appears to be stuck. Why? He may be a victim of the New-Kid-on-the-Block Syndrome.


I remember that, when Clinton ran for his first term, I was so impressed when he described his background of poverty where, among other things, he had to stop his drunken stepfather from getting violent. In that same talk, I was moved when he said "I'll never forget where I came from." I took it to mean that he would always keep in mind the needs of people who struggled with poverty. But when he was well into his presidency he appeared to have forgotten that promise, as he permitted changes in laws that made it easier for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.


What happened? The Clintons, who started from humble backgrounds, as they increasingly came in contact with the wealthy and powerful came to feel very much at home among those who do not associate with the poor. Once they found themselves to be on the right side of the tracks, they were not at all unhappy to enjoy the satisfaction of being separated from the lesser folk. The rich and powerful now treat them as "friends," and they feel honored. Sharing the sentiments of the wealthy has made the Clintons think and act like the oligarchs with whom they associate, and the interests of old acquaintances from their more humble past have simply become less important.


In terms of social adaptation Obama has followed the Clintons' footsteps. Also born into humble circumstances, like the Clintons he went to an ivy league university and ended up in the White House. As president and holder of the politically most powerful position in the country, he is now much closer to the corporate chiefs and the wealthy than he is to the progressives who helped him win the election. Where he may have been the new kid on the block with ideas for change when he first took office, he is now one of the good ole boys that include the Wall Street and banking elite.


Obama may still mean well; he may still reminisce about the reforms he once promised, but as he now sees the world through the eyes of his new "friends," their priorities have become his: the ugly duckling of earlier days is now the adult swan who soars with his peers.


http://howardthecoach.blogspot.com

(Not my blog.)

is this article meant to be satire?

"Is that why he can't stand up to Wall Street? or Blue Dogs in Congress? or the health insurance companies?"

He has confronted all three.

"Is that why he is afraid to meet with the left wing of his party in San Francisco?"

I think we all remember the leaked audio from his last meeting in SF.

"why he ignores the loyal opposition in his party?"

He has responded to his opposition numerous times, and explained why his ideas/strategies are slightly different from what some of us may want.

Let's take Wall Street for an example. Why are we permitting the kinds of bonuses that Morgan Stanley and other brokerages will be handing out this year without drastically increasing taxes on them? Because Obama is afraid to stand up to Wall Street, that's why.

Why isn't Glass-Steagall being reinstated? Because Obama is afraid to stand up to Wall Street, that's why.

Why is Olympia Snowe on the committee hashing out the Senate health care bill with Baucus, Dodd, Rahm Emmanuel, et al although she does not chair any committee while Rockefeller has not been included? Because Obama is afraid to stand up to Blue Dogs and Republicans, that's why.

Why have there been no prosecutions regarding the torture? Because Obama is afraid to start trouble, that's why.

I could go on. Obama used liberal Democrats to get elected. And now that he is in office, he is ignoring us. That's the truth.

for the past 15 years. He's a Harvard educated lawyer and college professor. Michelle was a hospital executive.

He is also a best selling author and while he is not uber wealthy, he has done pretty well for himself.

I'm highly critical of some of the actions of the administration, but you have to remember the democratic party isn't exactly the liberal bastion it was 30 years ago.

People who would have been moderate republicans 20 years ago have left the crazy train that is the GOP and they are now living with us.

Richer than John Edwards IIRC. He's Harvard educated too, btw.

Barack's mother was an intellectual, his Grandmother was a banking executive. Barack went to a private school. While Barack had a unique struggle being a mixed race child in the 60s,70s, and 80s. Barack's family wasn't want I'd call poor growing up.

President Obama is a pragmatist to a fault sometimes. He begins a negotiation with what he thinks is reasonable and ends up with something less than he wanted. Hopefully after the health care debate, he'll realize to ask for unreasonable things and compromise on reasonable expectations.

Bill Clinton had working class roots, and looking back at his administration, his legislative agenda in 1993 had to change in 1995 when he was handed a republican congress.

Being an intellectual doesn't pay bills.

I think the premise of this OP is wrong because it has it's facts wrong.

and one of them used to BE a Republican.

He and Michelle got to college on their merits, not by being trust fund babies. Is higher education supposed to be a strike against someone now?

Not sure why you're branding him as "elite". That's a RW construct.

The OP was saying that Barack Obama is suddenly in awe of rich people. The fact is, he is not because he is one.

Barack Obama is one of the elites in our society. Do I believe he is an elitist, no.

Franklin Roosevelt was one of our richest Presidents and he was one of our best. Richard Nixon was one of our poorest and he was a total asshole.

Bill Clinton was an elite as well. If you take the word elite as a bad thing, it wasn't intended as such. The fact is in any society you will have people who stand above others. How those people choose to treat those below them and how they view their social responsibility is the measure of their character, not the fact that they have been gifted with more intelligence or worldly goods.

companies and Wall Street brokerages. He is not wealthy compared to the people who run the big media companies. Obama is rich compare to us, but he is a man of modest means compared to Henry Paulson.

Obama is starry-eyed when it comes to Geithner's buddies. There is no other explanation for the fact that he refused to insist on the rescission of the contracts with Wall Street's employees as a condition for continuing the bail-outs but so readily rescinded key provisions of the agreements with the automakers' unions in bailing out the auto companies. I can think of quite a few examples of this kind of star-struck decision-making on Obama's part. His representations that the economy is improving when any fool can see that it has not improved where it counts is another of his New Kid on the Block ideas. D.C. really is a bubble. Obama has been imbubbled even faster than Bubba was.

He's a constitutional lawyer and doesn't understand Wall Street and is relying on his advisers.

He studied some constitutional law, but he is no expert. He does not govern as though he is all that familiar with constitutional law. He is head and shoulders above Bush in this respect, but that doesn't take much.

Every society has people who are elite. The measure of the elites is not the fact that they have more than others, it is how they treat those who have not been given as much as they are.

Usually against intelligent Democrats.

Then he grows up to be Joey Fatone?

and the entire weight of the Repub smear merchants during the general led the idiotic asshole who wrote this to that conclusion.

I thought he was going to employ them. I was wrong. They are using his administration for their purposes. And mind you, I think Hillary is doing a great job. But Clinton among other things backed the legislative and policy changes that lead to the current economic decline -- including the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And Obama is continuing the Clinton/Reagan/Bush economic policies that lead to our downfall. There has been no attempt to renegotiate the trade agreements so as to reinstate American jobs and facilitate an American recovery.

And without a public option, health care reform will have disastrous effects on American families. Yet Obama's Rahm Emmanuel is meeting with opponents of the public option to craft the Senate (woops almost typed Republican) health care bill. Things are just going from bad to worse as far as I am concerned.

I can't figure out which issue you are taking me to task over, or what it has to do with the OP.

maybe you just hate the Clintons and see them as a variation on the BFEE

Pretend I don't believe there is one and am on a jury.

Hire intellectual immigrants while equally qualified Americans can't find jobs (speaks for itself). Lower government budget costs by increasing family budget expenses (refusal to talk to single payer health insurance proponents). Support "free trade" and outsourcing (no action on renegotiating trade treaties or VAT or other tax measures that could even the playing field). Further allow tax evasion (only token action on this). Throw token programs at the poor (SCHIP does not cover nearly enough people or situations). Take token measures on unemployment.

Oh, and remain silent when your cabinet member sends a congressperson on the finance committee (Rep. Xavier Becerra) to your answering machine while you talk endlessly to the big guys at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. And above all, assign more oversight authority to the Fed but don't permit it to be audited much less advocate that it be audited.

While you are at it, forget about unions between elections. Find a couple of meaningless issues and just toss them out so that the union leadership will have something to crow about when it is time to get the rank and file working in campaign offices. Keep that stick behind the unions: big bad unionbusting Republicans. And keep the carrot dangling there up front: tomorrow, tomorrow, life will be better.

Privatize education. Punish teachers. (At least those who belong to unions.) That brings joy to the hearts of the members of the Chamber of Commerce and big media like nothing else.

Cater to the big corporations and very rich even more effectively.

In short, never offend a wealthy person or corporation. See each of them as a potential future donor. Talk like you care about everybody else, but don't do anything that would help them and hurt a corporation, for God's sake.

I'd have to think about that.

I find it interesting that so many on DU think that Obama hob-nobbed with the super-rich in Chicago. Certainly he knew rich people. But he was asking of them. They were not asking of him. This is the first time in his life that he is being treated truly as an equal or even superior to the wealthiest people on earth. Money and power are mind-altering drugs of the most addictive kind. And Obama is getting his first whiffs. Just wait. I fear what is to come. He needs to go cold turkey and get back to listening just a bit to ordinary Americans.

And, by the way, I am strong on civil rights and certain issues, but not really a leftist at all. I am a supporter of the FDR Democratic wing of the party. I believe in public education. I believe in a social net mixed with private enterprise. I am not a socialist. But I lived in Europe for quite a number of years and loved the health care systems (France, then W. Germany, Austria and U.K.). So, I am not asking Obama to do anything unreasonable.

I note that Sarkozy who was considered a conservative in France has been much more vocal about limiting the extremely generous bonuses of the bank and investment gamblers than Obama. Shame on Obama for his lax stance on this issue.

Even more shameful is the failure of the Obama administration to uphold the law on illegal wiretapping and on torture. The right to remain silent and the right to privacy in our communications are just as fundamental to our freedom as is our right to free speech. Obama is ignoring that fact at his peril. Because the same people who listen in on us and who torture arrestees could do that to any of us. No one is too important to be spared by people cruel and unscrupulous enough to wiretap illegally and to torture.

care to explain?

There has to be moderation in all these policies... To date our domestic policies have similar benefits to the status quo, and the business of the last eight years. It makes me one wonder how much longer living in a jobless recovery, with massive debt is ok with this administration? Now if we can make the banks profits margins hit record profits, why can't we do anything to bring down the costs associated with food, transportation, college tuition,energy costs? And why can't there be real advancement in working wages? I'm tired of those who have, telling, those who don't to pipe down....