Incredibly powerful NY Times Op-Ed: What Happened to Obama?

Drew Weston's incredibly powerful Op-Ed in today's NY Times. It's a must read IMO.


In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That’s what we saw in 1928, and that’s what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues — and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation’s food supply, and protect America’s land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.


IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.


More at above link.


ETA: these were all snips and aren't necessarily continuous paragraphs in the op-ed. It was powerful from beginning to end so choosing wasn't easy.

The part about his temperament not being suited for this moment in history (paraphrasing) struck a cord with me.

He is the man who should have come after a fierce and demanding liberal. After the bushes the idle rich were fully in control. We needed an FDR to change that. To change it before it destroyed our democracy. After we had had a President who stood up to the handful of greedy little men who want an oligarchy run by one party much like the old Soviet Union, then Obama would have been perfect. But now he is just perpetuating the status quo.

I was thinking of our national mood when we elected Obama - we were so sick of the know-it-all my way or the highway swagger, we were seeking a conciliator, someone who bespoke of balance. Little did we know how vilely the Repubs would come on, in response to our 1st black President, an avowed progressive.

Here's a discomforting thought for you: how do you think Obama will feel and respond when he (undoubtedly) reads this op-ed?

It was the same old Puke talking points and dog-whistle words

I'll translate:

o Lack of experience (i.e., uppity colored boy)
o Never wrote anything in college (i.e., uppity colored Affirmative-Action awardee boy, and he wasn't a professor so he never had to write peer-reviewed research)
o "Voted 'present'" (i.e., uppity colored boy who understands politics in Illinois)

What else do you expect from a right-wing birdcage-liner like the New York Times?

And here WE are, toeing the Puke line, buying the Puke propaganda, feeding into the race-hatred, doing the Puke's work for them.

Jackie Robinson grounded out on his first major league at-bat. I guess if we were his general manager we should have sent him back to the Negro leagues right after that.

You're reading clever propaganda from a right-wing Puke rag and calling it "brilliant."

Shame. And shame again.

have observed. All this author has done it put it in writing. Do NOT underestimate the intelligence of the people here or of the American in general. We are not blind. And please refrain from the race-baiting. The people who elected this president didn't elect him because he was black, they elected him because they believed he was the best candidate in the campaign. And those same people who are now so disappointed in him, are disappointed in a man who has not lived up to the promises he made, NOT in a black man. He himself would reject your premise. He would not want YOU focusing on his ethnicity, he said it many times himself and I assume he still feels that way, and on that he was correct.

Shame on YOU for introducing an ugly element into this issue that was not and is not part of the equation. That is YOUR problem apparently and it would be appreciated if you did not project it on to others.

"The people who elected this president didn't elect him because he was black, they elected him because they believed he was the best candidate in the campaign"

This is very true, but what is also true is that the people who DIDN'T vote for this president did so largely out of race-hatred and fear. We see this every day in Teabagger rallies, in the violent rhetoric and coded language they use all the time.

And we see this language being used extremely cleverly in this hit-piece. It's calculated to discourage what was an ecstatic and enthusiastic electorate from falling in behind one of the signature presidencies in American history. It's THIS STORY that's divisive! Can't you see that? Can't you see where it's coming from?

All the pointless crap he spews was the same pointless crap we refuted from the Pukes BEFORE the election. And he's bringing this same pointless crap back up again, as though he STILL has no experience. The man's the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for pete's sake! And here's this hack trying to pull the rug out from under him with this paternalistic, "tsk tsk...I'm so disappointed in you."

Just the sort of attitude a race-bating Puke would use on an "uppity colored boy."

Re-read this stuff and see if you don't see the same language I'm seeing in it. It sounds like it's coming from a Democrat if you just scan it. But really, that's what makes it so clever - it's written like a Democrat who's given up on his President. It's nothing more than encouragement for Pukes to read and go "See?! We've got him on the ropes now!"

That's what I'm saying.

At the one time our President needs us to stand behind him and support him, we get this kind of fifth-column attack piece and buy into it. That's the sad thing.

are certainly known, to Democrats. He is not some 'hack' or 'pretend Democrat'. He advises Democrats on how to win elections. So to begin with, you are way off base regarding the author himself which pretty much undermines the rest of your comment.

Leave the president's ethnicity out of this. Millions of people did not vote for Clinton or Bush, or Reagan or even Jefferson. Did they refuse to vote for them because they were white? Or maybe because they didn't agree with their policies?

You are trying to find excuses for this president. You insult him when you use his ethnicity to try to do that. He would definitely NOT agree with you.

As for racists, yes, there are sadly racists in this country, but they are certainly not those who elected this president. And that is who the author represents. People who had so much faith in him, and people he has sadly disappointed.

This author will influence NO ONE. He has merely put into words what those who voted for the President are now feeling.

He can turn things around. He spent the last two and a half years insulting Progressives every chance he got and equating them many times, with Republicans. Do you think that is a good strategy for any politician? Maybe if he hired the author of this article, he could learn how not to alienate the very people who most supported you.

and Chicago School economics. Obama is a miserable failure.

That is all.

Thank you.

:-)

Thank you.

I busted my ass for that candidate and nary a one of us on DU did it because of his color but because he inspired us, like John Kennedy and Martin Luther King,Jr did. You really had to work hard to pull racism out of that well reasoned and hideously painful and correct article.

It's way past time to stop pulling these tar baby (yeah, I said it) straw men out, and start talking about the really, really huge problem we have. We needed FDR and he passionately promised FDR and he hasn't followed through. We are fucked twenty different ways. I'm not at all sure he can win another term and it has nothing, nothing, nothing, and did I mention, nothing to do with the color of his skin. If he were lily white, we would be in exactly as much trouble as were in right now, no more, no less. He was a magnificent candidate and has been a lousy President. President Carter, btw, was also a lousy President. He's an awesome human (as I still believe Obama to be) but he wasn't good at being the President.

Candidate Obama had ground troops, ready to do anything for him after he was elected, and he and his staff ignored us and let us lay fallow and even, on many an occasion, used us as their whipping boys and girls to show the right how centrist and good he is. And why not? We've got no where else to go, do we? Thing is, that's right and it's infuriating. I'm so left, I'm a socialist and yet, I could have written every fucking word of that piece. You might consider going back without your black chip on your shoulder and read the whole thing. Whether you agree or not, is moot. We have a problem, Houston.

That's completely ridiculous.

While you were hearing race in every one of the points you found in one paragraph (really, "lack of experience" means "uppity colored boy" to you?), three years ago the author of that article was helping Obama write his most major speech on race.

If Obama can trust that man to understand and talk about race, I can. And meanwhile you need to work out why it is you hear "uppity colored boy" in every sentence.


(And PS, if you're going to say you couldn't read past the fourth paragraph, why quote stuff from the 22nd paragraph?)

It's the first time I've cried. I've been angry for a long time but this just laid it out with such storied elegance, my heart broke.

We GOT a Hoover

When we opened the box, it was a Hoover.

You're far too kind. We got Neville Chamberlain.

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney seem like the type of guys that would eagerly use the power of the NSA to compile dossiers on potential enemies and use any negative info to "own" certain politicians. Who knows? Maybe Obama is one of those being controlled.

Or, he simply made a deal with the powers that be to get elected and is a consumate liar.

there was a thread up 10 days or so ago where that was the subject --

discussed it with some network/anchor?

Unfortunately, this isn't only about Obama -- we have nation at stake --

and suffering citizens --

and if Obama were being threatened, we are all threatened and should know about it!!

I'll go with that. :thumbsup:

Finally.

Jack Kennedy. He made his worst mistakes when he listened to the Establishment experts instead of going with his gut. Here's hoping Obama decides to go with his gut.

page 4:

THE real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.

*************************************

If Obama decided he was President of the Working Class and began to speak and act such, the Working Class would get behind him in ways that would make the Ruling Class tremble in fear.

If the answer is A. or B., he'll write in "all of the above".

Would he just do it!

that is exactly what got him elected.

Then he waited on the side of the road with Sachs, Morgan and BOehner for the first bust to come along and pushed them straight under it.

I have no idea what this goose is going to say during the next election campaign - hopefully it is sorry as he fails in the Primary.

win the general, as the Repukes are certain to nominate someone so piggish, repulsive and skin-crawling (think Romney\Palin) that even I will hold my nose to vote for Obama, all while recognizing that he and his party do not represent my interests any longer.

I don't. But I also don't think he can win the general at this point. Even, if elections were legit.

He spouted empty rhetoric (like B. Clinton) about hope, he never sounded like Kucinich, Sanders or Nader.

No moderate will ever be behind the working class unless you're are talking about the true unmoving center where Kucinich is.

Outstanding editorial.

K&R.

Obama may know things which make him afraid of what the powers we don't see may do to the United States.

Countless times to justify what Bush did and did not do in terms of foreign policy and the wars and everything else.

It was a cop-out then, and it's a cop-out now. And if you accept that answer now then I'm assuming you accepted that answer back then in the lead up to Iraq and with regard to torture and Guantanamo and everything else he did.

of the kitchen." And Harry St. Truman kicked the ass of his Repuke do-nothing Congress in 1948.

If Obama can't or won't be FDR, could he at least channel a little HST, for God's sake?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Brilliant piece of writing.

"Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue."

...powerful nonsense

The notion that "most Americans" have no idea what the President and the Democratic Party stands for on "virtually any issue" is utter nonsense.

It's a crap opinion, especially given the fact that the Boehner and the teabaggers have taken a big hit over the last several months.

NYT editorial: Race to the Right

Here's a good example of how an MSM title obscures what the President says

And this:



Utter make believe!

Obama slams GOP budget plan, calls for preserving Medicare and raising taxes on the rich

It's easy to keep ignoring what the President says for a narrative spin.

it wasn't a "Republican bill." They, not the President, wanted the country to default. Remember?

I remember the funny episode the night before DADT was repealed: The "wiser ones" all over the the TV declaring it would never happen because that's not what Obama wanted.

Then I remember the hundreds of pieces on the Internets declaring that the President would announce cuts to Social Security in his SOTU, cuts that still haven't been announced.

Then there was the claim that Obama was only going to announce withdrawal of 2,000 troops from Afghanistan, but the announcement was 33,000.

Obama agreed that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid were on the table for the Gang of 12.

By the way, for every service person and dollar withdrawn from Iraq, a matching one has been added to Afghanistan. I think that's called a card trick.

Obama's defenders keep citing what he's said: "...title obscures what the President says", Obama slams GOP...calls for...", "It's easy to keep ignoring what the President says..."

But his actions tell you everything you need to know.

His sycophants have become sadly predictable...

We've heard what he 'says' ....


Obama's 'Pivot' To Jobs - The Deja Vu Reel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp-oqAQl6Ic

and he is communicating very well, to those who will listen!

I guess he (Obama) created the reality he wants on order to ignore the reality we - the peons - live in!

and failed to react with sufficient stimulus to avoid this depression . . .

Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

and that's a really, really big problem. The campaign Obama communicated almost flawlessly, the President, not so much.

Westen's argument is simpleton silly... Ignore the amen chorus.

That's just disrespectful. So is the "amen chorus". I could just as easily say that about you and other Obama supporters.

The truth is that Obama has done some good things that are very important. However, he has also done stupid things and has, many times, comprised beyond necessity. These compromises have turned what could be great progressive victories into moderate victories that feel like, and sometimes are, failures.

Obama isn't working with reality, I don't think he understands reality anymore (if he ever did). Obama is simply doing what feels is right and unfortunately for the middle and lower classes, that means sacrificing quality in the hopes of mass approval.

I'll admit, for the first year and a half or his presidency, I was a huge Obama apologist. Moreover, I was an Obama supporter from the moment he started running in '08, before people flocked to him in mass exodus, so I'm not just some disgruntled Hilary supporter. After Obama was elected I believed that he was doing everything right and that we needed to be patient and listen to what he had to say with an open mind. I agreed with him on virtually everything and I defended him from loads of people. In the end, however, I saw that Obama just wasn't doing what needed to be done. He has not fought hard enough for the poor and middle class, no matter how many moderate victories supporters will point to.

Obama is just a president. Not a Democratic president and certainly not a progressive president. Just a typical president. If anything a moderate republican president, but not the president I was hoping for. The only thing I'm hoping for now is that he'll prove to me that he is in fact that typical president and not a republican one.

puleze

There are tons of democrats available -- a long, long list of them --

Many NOT pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporate money --

The mask is off -- time for Obama to move on -- !!

Let's show some courage for a change --

Voting for the "lesser evil" will only do what it's always done ...

moved the party and the Congress further to the right --

Is that where you want to go?

many democrats, many on this forum, do not know what the President stands for, which way he is going on many issues.

As long as you believe that you know what he really stands for, you should be able, in your own wards, to tell us all.
War, torture, taxes, SS, all these matter to the American people.

I am tired of people saying that I just do understand this president. Because I really do not understand him. And I am looking hard to understand. A great leader does not leave the people he leads to question the direction he is leading.

... He collapsed like an empty suit and signed a cuts only deal regardless of what he "calls for"

eloquence of this piece. Here's another 2-paragraph zinger (from page 2):

"Those were the shoes — that was the historic role — that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public."

**************************

Compromise is great as a value and tactic WITH PEOPLE WHO SHARE THAT VALUE. But compromise with bullies and thugs is just appeasement of the Neville Chamberlain variety.

... behind the scenes, resorting to every means at their disposal, ethical or otherwise, to silence this voice. They can't refute it, so they're trying to keep it from propagating. Thanks to the OP for reposting this.

What is the basis for your claims and accusations? How is your statement any different from the self-righteous speculation Limbaugh engages in?

:scared:

"When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend."

On health care, after 100 years of attempts, this President got it done.



"more seniors receiving free preventive care, discounts in the donut hole"

HHS announces free birth control for women in the U.S.

He also established apath to get to single payer

Those who believed it better for the health care bill to fail were definitely willing to wait for a better opportunity.

as opposed to all the mindless shit-flinging that passes for criticism at DU. The lower bullshit-to-signal ratio will naturally provoke less response.

K&R, by the way. I read this piece this morning and thought it made a number of good points.

Wow. That's crude. I had to check above to make sure this is, indeed, DU.

See ya.

by the same power elite forces that apparently finds that unnecessary today.

for those who do not know the story of the coup that almost was, check ou tWiki and other sources.
while the Congressional investigation that followed tried to cover it up, a later report admitted the existence of the plot to overthrow FDR and seize power.

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

I think this is one of the most significant events in American history yet very few people even know about it. Check out this quote by JFK.

"I understand better every day why Roosevelt, who started out such a mild fellow, ended up as ferociously anti-business. It is hard as hell to be friendly with people who keep trying to cut your legs off." - JFK

Obama snivels and appeases and places equal blame on those who are trying to keep the teabaggers and other domestic terrorists from completely destroying the country.

Oh noes! It just MAY happen again, so let's not do anything?
We'll be good, Mr. CEO's, please oh please don't take us over!

THAT'S the United States of America?!

We still do have a Constitution, and we still do have our Courts (rightward leaning as the SC is), and I'll keep any hope and faith I have left on them, not the latest personality-cum-demigod who in actuality works for US.


JFC, I didn't think it possible, but this situation and its ersatz 'reasoning' is becoming more and more insane.

This was an amazing read today, particularly in the shell of what used to be a terrific op/ed section.
I really don't understand why Obama is running again. Obama shows no passion for the job, nor does Michelle for her role. A year ago I thought he would announce his intentions for a one-term and go home. At this point, I have no idea what his intentions are nor his aspirations for a second term. He totally has lost any direction he may have had to begin with.

I think Obama will stick around --

Look at the corporate contributions - !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1679672&mesg_id=1685277

Michelle is a great woman and she was not elected. *grrrrr*

I'm not sure President Obama has lost passion. I believe he knows facts which would frighten the hell out of the public if he revealed them.

This is one excellent read. Just excellent.

This is no hit piece, this is the truth!

And you're right.

Incidentally, his book the Political Brain is a dynamite application of psychological principles to political work.

what are you implying about the NYTimes?

they were anxious to fold -- vs internet, etal I presume --

Their three or four decades long alliance with ExxonMobil -- allowing them to use the Op-Ed

page to spew disinformation and lies about Global Warming to confuse the public --

was immoral and criminal ...

and because it was technically an "ad" it couldn't be replied to in any manner

by readers -- as dictated by NYT's policy!

Or rather a campaign speech for his re-election. WPA didn't happen until the equivalent of this year, after FDR got a large majority in Congress (which Obama, as we all know, didn't).

"would have"

What he DID do was to fall in line with his big donors, believing their claptrap about fixing what they broke.

They will skin him alive every chance they get. And they did.

Really sad to see him go this way.

Which explanation of the several offered in explaining Obama's unwillingness to fight for us, does everyone buy? I'm afraid it's the one about him, Obama, not being the one who we thought he was, what we invested him with. I could hear/see it also, during the inauguration, in Obama himself. Yes "WE" can, you know - that he wasn't who we really thought he was. Not his fault, really. Maybe he already has served his political purpose - in being elected as a "change" figure, with such a significant majority of the vote, we know we do have it in us, as Americans, to reach for and realize a truly progressive leader. Just not him.

I feel strangely much calmer after reading this op-ed. I think the reason why is that it answered questions I have mightily struggled with about Obama. I am so drawn to him - I believe he a very moral, sincere, genuine, intelligent man and I respect him immensely. Yet I am extremely displeased and unsatisfied with his presidency. But not because I think he is dishonest or incompetent. This op-ed lays it out for me, I don't have to struggle any more, and I am accepting that 1) Obama may well not be our next President, 2) I am happy for him and his family to go on their way as the lovely people they are doing good in ways they undoubtedly will; and 3) I guess I'll just have find my own bootstraps, in the meantime, while I wait for that truly transitional leader that I know is out there, who I know we can elect, and who I hope shows up before it's too late!

This op-ed helped me let go, which is what I needed. I daresay (esp. reading the comments), it will do so for a large number of other Obama supporters, who have been having the same questions, but couldn't articulate them, and didn't want to --

re-elected. He made history and signed some good legislation. He has nothing to prove. Good luck on your next candidate.

and you aren't alone. Thanks for expressing this so well.

But at least I cried. I've been too angry to do that for going on 2 years.

I think you are further in your grieving process than me. I haven't been able to cry yet. Still stunned, partial denial, roller coaster -- having trouble letting go of hope, but over the hump. Don't know what the future holds for all of us yet, but preparing for the worst.

THE real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won’t realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.


...But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.

I don't believe Obama is completely responsible for the state of affairs we're in.
Although he has the Senate and the White House in his favor, he does not have the ability to control the House.
His method of appeasement at this point is hurting him and he needs to become more forceful.
The larger question is IF he gains control of both houses of congress and is re-elected imagine the things he could accomplish.
I see how he tries to get something done but when the Senate Minority Leader has stated that he will do anything to insure Obama's defeat in 2012 how can you argue that he is not effectual. It's so much easier to see hoe the republicans are in-effectual and want to bring him down.

dems or progressives or whoever finds the right person for the job. I hope he gets re-elected but that might not be the case and I think we need to be ready for that.

These extraordinary times demand an extraordinary leader... Barack Obama is not the one.

I don't believe he is completely responsible, either. That really isn't the point of this commentary, which I am grateful to have read.

What I've read in this opinion piece has helped me put into context, framed by the history I've studied, that what we need ... what will save the United States of America ... is not in the form of BHO.

And, that is sad indeed.

Now I will seek more freely as I see each person coming into focus and think, "Are YOU the one?"

Sums up my thoughts exactly and far more eloquently.

Its actually very depressing. However, we are trapped. People have been predicting from day one that the 2012 election would be fought in hard times and so comes the accepted notion that it will be a very rough campaign and a close election.

Without the left and center-left this Presidency is flat out over. He won't be able to win without the base in an election that looks to be a close one. Since its unlikely there will be any other nominee but Obama he is what we have like it or not.

If we stay at home on election night we will get a far worse president. Somebody who targets the new deal for destruction just when we need it most.

but in some ways he is the wake-up call that we need. We're not going to have a knight in shining armor storm in and save the day - we workers are going to have to band together and fight for economic equality. It is good to have the blinders off, I think, even if it is frightening on some levels.

I will say, as the obligatory first line, I intend to vote for President Obama. That said, if we get a batshit insane Republican President, which is becoming alarmingly more likely by the minute, it might help the left to organize and to fight back. I think we're all so shocked that this man we fought so hard for turned out to be such a poor President and we're kind of wandering in the desert, confused about what to do.

In other words, I think we are being murdered by a thousand cuts because we don't see how dangerous a weak Democratic President is but we would know that our necks were on the chopping block if President Batshit Bachmann was staring out of the boob tube. In the eight long years of dumbya, we were finally starting to coalesce, to fight back and when Obama got elected, we got thrown under the bus and haven't been able to mount an effective defense (much less offense) since.

I will say, as the obligatory first line, I intend to vote for President Obama. That said, if we get a batshit insane Republican President, which is becoming alarmingly more likely by the minute, it might help the left to organize and to fight back. I think we're all so shocked that this man we fought so hard for turned out to be such a poor President and we're kind of wandering in the desert, confused about what to do.

In other words, I think we are being murdered by a thousand cuts because we don't see how dangerous a weak Democratic President is but we would know that our necks were on the chopping block if President Batshit Bachmann was staring out of the boob tube. In the eight long years of dumbya, we were finally starting to coalesce, to fight back and when Obama got elected, we got thrown under the bus and haven't been able to mount an effective defense (much less offense) since.

I disagree with the DUers who consider Obama to be an agent of the corporatocracy, someone who pretends to favor social programs while conniving at their destruction. This piece gives a much more sensible explanation.

The author quotes FDR's famous 1936 speech:


I've thought since soon after the Inauguration that that quotation epitomized our problem. Our problem is that you can't imagine Barack Obama welcoming anyone's hatred. As the author of the linked piece notes, Obama didn't tell a story of the nation's problems that pointed to a villain. Instead, he tried to be the bipartisan or nonpartisan or postpartisan conciliator. That would work in some circumstances, but not here. The combination of the country's objective problems plus the subjective attitude of the Republicans (extremist and obstructionist) meant that we needed another FDR.

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1681833&mesg_id=1685820">stated:

and progressives- the people and orgs that pledge to get their backs when they elect them ignores the right's best weapon- talk radio.

the sad part is how much time is wasted by the left thinking that it matters what obama says and does- it doesn't because they let the right can message over anything the left does.

:rofl:

effective undermining democracy, shortcircuiting democratic feedback mechanisms, and moving the perception of the center to the right

it's been 'successfully' used to swiftboat and weed progressives out of local primaries and pass and stop referenda for 20 years, since reagan killed the fairness doctrine, and the left's analysts have had no clue.

imo -- voters who are aware -- liberal websites which constantly point to

our Goebbels' style corporate press and rw radio hosts like Rush --

and lots of emphasis on the nut who has just departed -- can't think of his name.

If you are saying that the Democratic Party has been SILENT re talk radio then

that I could agree with --

They've done nothing really to fight to restore the Fairness in Doctrine Act --

and many elected Democrats don't respond to the insane comments made by hosts on

rw radio. With that I can agree!

It's not that they have "no clue" --

Like many other issues the Democrats have been SILENT about it seems to have more

to do with corporate money buying their silence --

Either that, or we have to believe that our elected officials are really dumb?

and in that sense there's no way for the patterns to be observed and studied until after they've been accepted and absorbed.

analysts and strategist read and watch TV, so it's the perfect weapon, invisible to those it attacks.

most all reaction to talk radio is based on the outrages that get attention as opposed to the real work they do- the repetition and volume used to sell lies and distortions, etc., and create the alternate reality that the tea party, for instance, used to rationalize their debt ceiling position. limbaugh had been telling them for months, and did today. that if we had defaulted we would have paid our debts first and then had to make automatic cuts in everything else- like to those 'bottom feeding' and 'parasitic' govt workers, teachers, etc.

Can't think of the name of David Brock's group -- but they've been doing it for

more than a dozen years now, I'd say --

and others, as well --

How many reports do you see here on DU every week?

And, if you're listening to rw radio, why not report what you're hearing to DU'ers here?

Believe me, women's groups know what Rush is doing -- and had a campaign for a long time

to "flush Rush"!

What we need is the Democratic Party to actually do something about restoring the

Fairness in Broadcasting Act -- !!

And to speak out about the vilness of rw talk shows --

most strategies to go after limbaugh, etc go after the talkers themselves and their national sponsors, who are easy to find alts for, instead of shaming local advertisers of the stations and pressuring stations with protests, etc, and the universities and pro sports teams that broadcast on those stations

media matters is david brock's but it mainly points out outrages- great work, but there is no way to study their material broadly.

and who is the idiot just removed from TV?

Right -- Media Matters -- remembered it but too late to edit --

There are always people studying these things ----


But if you really want to change it, it has to be done by Congress --

and they're not enforcing any monopoly laws -- anti-trust laws -- and haven't

been since Regan years --

That's how we got where we are now!

We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine --

virtually unchallenged. catch 22. they scream FREE SPEECH!

glenn beck was a successful project but that's the difference between radio and TV and why radio is more effective for them.

the way to do it IMO in radio is to shame the local sponsors of the stations until the stations start losing advertisers and have trouble with overhead. and picket the stations.and get those universities that broadcast sports on those stations to look for alternatives. and the pro teams. rachel maddow just put together a week of racist clips from limbaugh- it happens all the time and those universities need to find alternatives- their students and faculty shouldn't put up with that- and at least it goes contrary to their 'mission statements'.

without drawing too much of the sort of attention that Paul Wellstone attracted.

what we need is for the Republican party to be destroyed at all costs. HIs approach is the exact opposite of that.

That is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And very bad for America!

Obama squandered a historic opportunity.

peace~

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and Marilyn French's Beyond Power have helped me understand how capitalism promotes greed and entrenches its sycophants in a financially stultifying hierarchy, which concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a VERY few at the expense of the VERY many.

I am never surprised when someone born and raised in capitalism fights tooth and nail to defend it, because that is how the system works: dangle the proverbial wealth carrot so that the hoi polloi is deluded into believing 'we too can be wealthy if we just work hard enough and live frugally.' How many of us still believe THIS myth?

And, the 'almost half' of us who are functionally illiterate and easily manipulated will have a pure-dee conniption if anyone reminds us we're just as likely unlikely to win the lottery as we are to get rich. (They'll have plenty of time to bitch as they wait in line to buy their lottery tickets...)

The vast majority of 'both parties' are now aligned with the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, and our global economy. For these obscenely wealthy hedonists, hegemony is sacrosanct. They will use EVERY means available to safeguard their hegemony, including (but not limited to) destroying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unions, and public education.

When even the 'left leaning' folk buy the corporate lies--like the sycophants here who seem certain that Obama is our Good Witch Glenda, sure to put everything aright when we click together the heels of our fabulous ruby slippers--I think it's highly unlikely we'll avoid our impending catastrophic economic reordering.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch...

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/08/more-politics-101-obama-is-smarter-than-us.html

Save the vitriol. We're all on the same side here.

That is a fundamental point and should be clear by now.

Although saying we're all on the same side NOW is a little optimistic, we had better
all be on the same side come November 2012, because one thing we can all count on is
the Republicans uniting behind whichever idiot they trot out as their candidate. They
read the NYT, too. If the editorial gives them the idea that we'll abandon Obama for
not waving a magic wand, I sincerely hope they have been lulled into a false sense of
security.

PCTC is correct: when Bonehead said he got 98% of what he wanted, just wait to hear
the teabaggers whine and complain about how little he got. Go to Richard Viguerie's
"Conservative HQ" to see how the far right sees Bonehead. When you read about how
they think he caved, you might see some language that sounds strangely familiar.

The only difference is that Obama came out and said he wanted something very different
from what he got. Unlike Bonehead, he's not saying there's only 2% left to accomplish
to get to his goal. Bonehead has been Speaker for 8 months. Obama has been president for
two and a half years. Bonehead is just starting to realize his limitations with a
fractious caucus. Obama figured that one out during the health care debate. Both are
acting according to what they have learned. I expect both will be doing a lot more of
that starting in the fall. I only hope Obama uses his head start wisely. One thing he
has to have learned by now is that there IS no compromise with the teabaggers or the
well-heeled financial puppeteers who pull their strings. Obama's future depends on
how well he manipulates the stress between the teabaggers and the rest of the Republicans,
just as the Republicans' future depends on how well they can convince Democrats to stay
home in the next general election.

To anyone who would tell me there's no difference, I say just this: Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan vs. Roberts and Alito (McCain said he'd nominate more SC justices like them).

There could easily be one or more vacancies on the SCOTUS between 2013 and 2017. Who do
we want making those nominations, Karl Rove or Barack Obama?

Neither. Howard Dean.

He's the only one who could actually pull the team together in short order. He's the only one who can effectively primary Obama and win and then win the general election. That said, he won't, so I will vote for Obama for the very reason you stated. But my vote doesn't count for all that much, nor yours for that matter. All of us here will be voting, most likely. We certainly know better than most Americans what is at stake and therein is the problem. Joe the Plumber is now unemployed and he thinks it's President Obama's fault. And he might well think Batshit Crazy Bachmann doesn't seem all that bad. And she's purty, ya know?

As hard as it is to believe, we don't have a strong enough candidate.

And while he surrounded himself with sycophants, he really has no one to blame but himself.

Meaning: I wish he had been now nearing the end of his second term as president. How different
history would have been, eh?

But he will be 62 in November, and is just not interested. If it matters, Howard has long said that
Obama has surrounded himself with advisers who are not up to the task and not as bright as he is, and
rather than pull them up to his level, they pull him down to theirs. They were good at running a campaign,
but not an administration.

I posted elsewhere about Howard:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1683582&mesg_id=1689193

him. But I'm serious about him being the only one who could rally Obama's dispirited troops.

The news came in about Wasserman-Schultz being named DNC chair, and he seemed pretty pleased with
the news. Maybe he'll have more of a role in party stuff than he has now when it becomes clear that
we need him. But that's up to DWS. As a good party man, he wouldn't say anything bad about Kaine,
even to me on a one-on-one, but it was clear he had high hopes for DWS. Can't be any worse, and she
does seem to realize the need for some realy dynamism at the the DNC Chair level. I just hope that
Obama's campaign realizes how important it was having Howard as DNC Chair in 2008, and that Obama
himself realizes how much better his administration would be with Howard in it than on the outside
as with his first term.

Perhaps a little too good. I'm not sure there will be an opportunity for that second term. Obama doesn't seem to be making the fast changes that he's going to need to make to pull his demoralized troops back. But I've never met anyone who was a Deaniac who wouldn't lay down their lives, money and time for him in a heartbeat. He's never bashed us to prove his centrist cred. Ya know?

Obligatory statement: Yes, I'm going to vote for Obama. I think I might just have to make that my sig line for a while.

He doesn't see it that way, of course. He got into politics almost by accident, and is the first to
admit he got into a presidential race having not the slightest idea what he was doing. Two years after
I first met him, he had Secret Service protection 24/7 and was on the covers of Time and Newsweek. A
year after that, he was just "Howard" again, and we could trade guitar riffs into the middle of the night
without a dozen guys with Uzis and earpieces hanging around. Howard has always been one to speak his mind,
and he took his lumps when it knocked him out of the presidential race in 2004 as well as of the Obama
administration nearly five years later. So be it. He has remained the same guy I met when he was the
outgoing governor of Vermont who was toying with the idea of running for president, and known mostly as "Howard Who?"

No need for the obligatory statement--I'm with you completely on that. I don't even want Huntsman picking the
next SCOTUS judge, much less any of the crazies.

has been derailed by people accusing me of electing Bachmann because I'm not going to go balls to the wall for Obama like I did in 2008.

Your statement about him being the same guy is pretty much why I think he should run again. I know what he stands for. I know he's more centrist than I am, but he's honest and as I become increasingly disillusioned by the veracity of politicians, he has always struck me as a man who wouldn't be corrupted by the system. As an interesting side note - I'm a nurse of 21 years and I've met many, many physicians and unfortunately have become predisposed to not like many of them (my bias) but even that little tidbit about him doesn't bother me. I fantasize that he would have been a doctor I could have liked (like I can ever know that! LOL).

I'm glad he has friends like you. It can get really hard when one becomes so damn famous, so quick.

Who knows if circumstances would allowed us to maintain any kind of friendship?
With me overseas much of the time, and him having the duties of office, I might
have seen him on occasional trips to Europe (who knows, I might have been his
ambassador to Germany or France LOL), if that.

With Helen, it's different, since I have known her for many decades as a colleague
of my father, but I only met Howard a couple of years before he gained national prominence,
and I'm sure the presidency changes everyone (except Bush, Jr., who is still probably
trying to figure out just what it was he thought he was deciding).

Bravo!

http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2011/08/lover-of-fairy-tales-casts-obama-as.html


"A lover of fairy tales casts Obama as villain-in-chief
This one is going to hurt.

In what seems like a bid to definitively cement the perceptions of progressives disappointed in Obama, psychologist Drew Westen, a student of the alleged power of stories to shape political perception, has put together his own master narrative about Obama -- a merciless tale of presidential FAIL. It's a quadruple-length op-ed (over 3000 words) on the front page of The New York Times' Sunday Review section -- a rhetorical nuke dropped on ground zero in the liberal heartland.

(snip)

Most of the indictment is familiar. Obama hedges and trims his positions (most notably the too-small stimulus). He avoids conflict and has made a fetish of compromise ("fetish" is Michael Tomasky's word, from a more focused and I think better grounded critique of Obama's conduct of the debt ceiling negotiations). It is hard to know what he stands for. And -- here is psychologist Westen's chief contribution to the indictment --he has failed to tell the story of the Great Recession in a manner that will advance effective progressive solutions."

Worth reading so follow the link and think about what you read.

OMG How evil!

And just another damn progressive writing it. (Were this author's fingers itching to type 'emo'?)
As for Westen being "a lover of fairy tales", strangely, reason is never given as to why the author casts him as such... but then calling someone "a lover of fairy tales" isn't quite an ad hominem attack.
Is it?


Yep, that argument sure sold me! Westen sucks!

at leat 5 1/2 years of Republican domination with no recourse.

If a Republican wins, of course, it's obvious.

if Obama wins, the current Republican bullying and subsequent Democratic capitulation will continue.

Either way, by 2016 the oligarchy of the rich will be more dominant and more deeply entrenched in American government than today.

There is no way out, barring a disaster that forces a different Democratic president on America.

I worked for Hillary in 08, I have seen the power of the Obama message up close. I refuse to believe in the doubters message. The President has shown a common platinum message in all of his challenges. That he is keenly aware of his own message and strategy.

I still believe.

I have a bridge we need to discuss...

-- read the balance of the article and have to say this is one hell of an article by

the NYTimes and this psychologist --

Only thing I didn't find was comments about his taking these wars into the second decade!

But he hit many of my main points --

Putting crooks in charge of the economy -- the very same crooks who gave us the meltdown!

The way too small stimulus -- only 20% of what was needed and obama settled for less than that!




Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it.

Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement...


The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts

Actually, this time last year -- an article appeared wherein the headline quoted Obama s

calling this a "depression" -- before I could post the article, the word "depression" was

scrubbed and replaced with "recession." IMO, it's urgent for the public to continue to think

that this is a recession -- less demands on the administration to do something than if it

was acknowledged that it is a depression. And, imo, it is indeed a depression!



The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts.

Author also covers his inconsistences and incoherence as another "hallmark of his presidency" --

specifically re Global Warming and energy -- off shore oil drilling and coal production!!

And on his cuts to Medicaid ....

He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day.

I read the whole thing and there is much that is heartbreakingly true in it.

Now, what the fuck do we do?

Obama needs to call out that villain, and do it in a hurry.

WTF....comes after consumers?

Serfs?

Obama seems to me to be acting like his Senate mentor Joe Lieberman. By being flexible & always willing to negotiate and change your positions you're always at the center of the action at the end of the day. You're the important one. You're the deciding vote. In this way you feel you're the most important player in the room when actually you're always morally compromised in the end.

I posted a link to this NYT Op-Ed on my FB page and one of the folks who almost never says anything political, encapsulated this almost perfectly:

"I really try and avoid politics BUT-all that truly needed to be said here was the last line "political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate." Amen"

I know the signs were there, but the man severely disappoints me. I gave the federally allowed maximum to his campaign. I volunteered as a precinct chair for him. Drug my kids out holding signs to show them how to get involve3d politically. Went with them to a rally to hear a great speech, I feel I should sue him for fraud. He capitulates to the treasonous Republican scum who are driving us to certain Third World status where you have the very rich and the starving. I worked in India for a couple of months, it sucks. I dont want my kids living there.

:hi:

He is a timid corporate centrist today.

Little of what has happened lately should be any surprise to anyone who was actually paying attention in 2007-2008.

Oh, and if he was only FDR too...or something.

MORE CONVICTION IN HIS OWN BELIEFS. MORE EMPATHY FOR THE POOR. MORE VISION FOR AMERICA'S GREATNESS.

That was the basis of my point.

FDR's achievement were the result of many things, including a clear vision and compelling narrative (which Westen seems fixated on) ... as well as a Congress loaded with Democrats ready to shepherd New Deal policies through.

What Happened to Obama?

By DREW WESTEN
New York Times

August 6, 2011






The sooner we accept these truths, the better.


Only then can we effectively regroup and redirect ourselves toward restoring the country.



It is up to us. It always has been.

Aye. Historians will surely appreciate the relevance ... and sheer depth ... of this argument.

He campaigned in platitudes. Foolish those who thought that he was something that he wasn't. Next time, people (including the media) should do their due diligence and not be blinded by style over substance.

:shrug:

...and that's the bottom line. :)

The article expresses my sentiments exactly. The Great Recession of '08 and the massive ensuing backlash against Republicans gave the Democrats a real opportunity to accomplish some long overdue FDR-level progressive reform, but they thoroughly blew it. It was exactly the wrong time in our history to have an appeasing, centrist, and cowardly Democrat at the helm. It's absolutely tragic that Obama and his Wall Street cabinet caused us to probably have to wait for decades for another opportunity like what the one we just squandered.

In retrospect, I can see where the left would have been better served if McCain had won the presidency. The continuing economic meltdown and the massive federal spending to bail out Wall Street while under McCain's watch would surely have resulted in the type of backlash that would ensure that a TRUE progressive (Sanders? Kucinich?) would have a good chance of winning a general election.

As the embodiment of liberalism among the vast majority of the electorate, Obama's failure to accomplish anything of a historic nature (and I'm not counting his watered-down, pro-insurance healthcare reform as historic) at a time that required boldness and purity of conviction will only serve to turn working class middle-of-the-road voters off to the virtues of progressive politics and help hand power right back to the folks who got us into this horrible mess in the first place.

This, I believe, will ultimately become Obama's legacy.