Scathing article on Obama by Robert Reich

Ouch.

On the huffington post. Can someone post the link, I'm on my phone and can't do it now.

Wow. Powerful article and sums up how I feel.

:shrug:

As harsh as this is, it is still too kind to Obama, particular­ly the last line about "continual­ly adopting the prevailing view." If he means of the bought politician­s in Washington­, he might be right. If he means of the American people, he is dead wrong.

Unlike Bush before him who barely squeaked by into office, Obama and Congressio­nal Democrats did have a mandate to dramatical­ly change course from the Bush era and even Reaganomic­s.

But on health care reform, finance reform, his no tax on the rich deal with the GOP, even issues where he has done moderately well like alternativ­e energy and student loans, the public was looking for bolder, progressiv­e initiative­s instead of ceding the half the game to the GOP and called minor administra­tive tweaks major victories.

Our democracy is seriously broken when we only have two parties, and when one of them is repudiated at the pols, their policies continue largely uninterrup­ted or with only minor tweaks. A choice between 100% conservati­ve policies and 50-70% conservati­ve policies with just a dash of progressiv­e flavor now and then (would you like a side of gay rights with that?) is no choice at all.

We are left with only two things to conclude about our president we pinned so many hopes on: either he is afraid of the corporatio­ns, bankers, and hedge funds that own the Republican Party, or he is owned by them too.

Well said.

Plus, post your own link. You're on the phone ... seriously? What are we, the servants here?

Whenever I write a post that I've spent 20 minutes researching and carefully copying and pasting information, making a cogent argument, nobody even responds.

When I write a snippety response to a very snippety OP, people are on my back in mere seconds. Frankly, the OP was insulting.

But I digress: Let me give you something to really tell me to chill about. My scathing review of Bob Reich. Because I'm still mad about it after nine years. When I was living in MA and he was running for governor back in 2002, the phone rang one Saturday morning. The caller asked for my husband. Not wanting to divulge that my he was out of the country, I said he wasn't available and could I take a message. The caller said no. That piqued my curiosity and I asked who was calling. It was someone from the Reich for Governor's office. I replied cheerfully, "You can speak to me, then; I do most of the political stuff in our household." The guy refused.

I was pretty gobsmacked. It was like having the Sears siding guy asking for the man of the house and refusing to talk to the little woman. I didn't blame Reich, whom I was supporting, but I thought this wasn't a good campaign strategy. So I took it upon myself to email him directly, at his university email, so he'd get it personally. I recounted the call and explained to him that his campaign office/fundraisers were not taking a very sensible approach to women and suggested he instruct them. He wrote back saying, "Oh, I'm for women--I'll have my WIFE contact you." (!!*@!) To make matters worse, his wife did write me, explaining "Bob's" excellent record on women's issues such as abortion rights and child care. Now I was really furious. I wrote both of them back saying that women are interested in the full range of state political issues, including economic, labor, civil rights and other issues, and that I found it somewhat insulting to be pigeon-holed in this way. I never heard from them again.

Now, I voted for Robert Reich. I even canvassed locally for him. But I've never forgotten (or forgiven) that sexist escapade. Which goes to show you, politicians aren't perfect, and that failed politicians probably shouldn't be doling out advice so freely. I respect Robert Reich as a labor specialist, but I don't think he's very sensible and sometimes not even very progressive.

Thank you very much for your time.

wow, that's almost unbelievable, the way his campaign staffer reacted to you, "the little woman."

But I will say that as unforgiveable as that is, I have run across many women over the years who are in fact just like that....they really don't give a rat's _ss about current affairs or politics, except possibly a few issues that directly affect them, like child care and abortion. Sad, but true. So I can see where a campaign, esp one stretched for funds, might want to make its one contact with a household be with the one who is more likely to follow politics, which used to be usu. the man (and maybe still is, I don't know).

In your case, though, you set them straight, and they basically didn't believe that you were the political one in your family. They were rude and insulted you by refusing to discuss their business with you, and then, to add insult to injury, have his WIFE contact you? That's almost unbelievable.

And more informed. Maybe it's because I come from a matriarchal family of opinionated women, and most of my women friends are likewise interested in politics. But as I think over it, in my circle it is usually the women who do the research, commit the time, inform their spouses. My husband and I agree entirely on political issues, but although he follows the news, he's not so inclined to spend a lot of time digging deeply into the issues. He relies on me to do the research on candidates and tell him who we should be supporting. I always spend hours researching how to vote in each of the 50 or so judicial races that are always on our ballots, and hand him a cheat sheet. I always initiate the donations to candidates, asking his input of course on amounts and frequency. I am the one who has instigated the political groundwork, and he is happy to attend meetings, go canvassing, etc. with me. He wouldn't probably do it on his own. We've done a lot of political volunteering together. We also like to discuss news of the day, whether foreign policy or domestic issues, as we read the newspaper over coffee together.

As for the ghettoization of women into the "women's issues" camp, I strongly oppose that attitude. Sure I'm interested in preserving abortion rights, seeking equal pay, and supporting child care issues (even though I'm beyond the reproductive and childrearing stages myself). But so is my husband: decidedly so. Imagine if men didn't take an interest in such issues, or straight white people didn't take an interest in issues of civil rights for racial minorities or gay people. Women are full citizens: they are not (nor should they be) only in it for self-interest. We're smart, we're informed, and we care about the economy and foreign policy as much as the next "guy." Any politician who considers him or herself to be progressive should treat women as full equals in the political debate. To do otherwise is to talk down to them.

I was shocked that Bob Reich did not get that. I tried to help him see it but failed. It's a huge failing.

where it was more likely that women were passive, esp when it came to politics.

I've seen women evolve over the years. A young woman now would be surprised by things I heard women say years ago. It is wonderful how women have come into themselves and become involved with things that directly affect all of us in this country.

I'm over sixty now ... so I'm hardly a whippersnapper! But I'm guess I'm young compared to my mother, who was giving the Republicans hell when she visited last weekend. The young folk in the family (in their 30s) were impressed!

survey/poll had targeted specific people, i.e., male adult 34-50yrs old, etc. I did some survey calling some years back regarding an equal rights amendment in NM. We had the names of certain voters, and we could only talk to these people. If anyone other than the person whose name we had was the only person home at the time we called, we had to move on to the next name on the list.

Because you made your beef about sexism, the follow-up by the Reich campaign people may have shaped their response to you along the same lines. Were they snarky and disrespectful? Yes, but you may have been perceived as being equally snarky to everyone you contacted at the Reich campaign because you were pissed off. That doesn't absolve Reich's campaign staffers for acting unprofessionally.

I had a similar experience with an Obama campaign staffer when I volunteered for his campaign in 2008. One particular staffer was exceedingly rude and unhelpful to me. Did I blame it on the entire Obama campaign and Obama himself? No, I did my canvassing for the campaign and when I returned with results, I avoided that particular staffer.

There are going to be assholes wherever and whenever. Don't take their abuse too personally.:hi:

First, it was a fundraising call. Second, I explicitly said I did NOT blame Reich or the campaign: I merely wanted to alert them to a problem, saying they should train their callers (I've been trained for many a campaign, and I've seen bad training and good training). Third, as I said, I was nothing but respectful and polite in my original email to Reich, which he read and responded to personally. It was he and his wife who responded with (to me) inappropriately ... so of course I take it personally. It wasn't the campaign or some stray worker: it was the candidate himself who flubbed. I also went on to say I voted for him.

Lastly, a "beef" about sexism? Typical of DU that women's "beefs" get no respect at all. And when you do complain, you get the "shrill" or "snarky" accusations.

just trying to offer an alternate explanation for why the Reich campaign staffer wanted only to talk to your husband. I meant to add that I could be totallty offbase and that the Reich campaign staffer was sexist. Again, try not to take politics and political chatter too personally. It just isn't worth it.:hug:

I wanted to share it here but can't find a way to copy links on the huffpo app.

Sid

It's not like he asked us to dig a trench.

If you didn't want to do it, don't bother. Someone else, who
didn't get their feathers ruffled, would be happy to do it.

I think the debt-ceiling stress is getting to people...

That pretty much frames the intent of your posts going forward, one would think.

Interesting how the convergence of the left and right poles who both want the President out of office is occurring at the apex of these discussions. It's almost as if the Professional Left is coordinated with the rest of the media.

Hmm.

Maybe that convergence is because the right is angry at Obama for one set of reasons, and the left is angry for a very different set of reasons (often opposite ones).

Just because neither is enthusiastic about Obama's performance does not mean they have anything else in common.

And it would be interesting to know what specifically you object to in the article itself.

How did the conspirators arrange for Obama to be so weak? How did they maneuver him into being such a disappointment?

"...A more disturbing explanation is that he simply lacks the courage to tell the truth. He wants most of all to be seen as a responsible adult rather than a fighter. As such, he allows himself to be trapped by situations -- the debt-ceiling imbroglio most recently -- within which he tries to offer reasonable responses, rather than be the leader who shapes the circumstances from the start.

Obama cannot mobilize America around the truth, in other words, BECAUSE HE IS CONTINUOUSLY ADAPTING TO THE PREVAILING VIEW. THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP."

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"He is well aware that the Great Recession wiped out $7.8 trillion of home values, crushing the nest eggs and eliminating the collateral that had allowed the middle class to keep spending despite declining real wages"

Because this is the core to the beginning and the continuance of our economic downfall. Keynesians say the problem is a lack of demand, and there is some validity to that, but the real cause of the crash was that the economy choked on an excess of debt. The debt level reach a point at which consumers could not pay and they began defaulting. That caused the realization that debt that was thought to be collateralized was not, that the securitization of much of the debt was fraudulent. It was the use of that $7.8 trillion of false home value as collateral for borrowing to sustain an artificial lifestyle that led to the crash, and the economy remains bad because that debt has not been cleared. $7.8 trillion of home value has been erased, but only $3 trillion of debt has been written off.

First it's one thing, then the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x726737

One may think his goal is to pander to and stomp rhetoric that would garner the most readership.

ETA: you know, your "impeach Obama" and your continued offensive on that vein, may be more well received on another site...freeperville comes to mind.

Not one positive post about any Democrat, ever.

UNREC.

skinned, most fervent fan would think of this as scathing.

Obama catches a lot more (quite rightly) here on DU on a regular basis. Could it be that those lambasting Reich and the article fear that it hits just too close to the bone?

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

:rofl:

someone is in?