How Obama outsmarts his critics -- on the left and on the right.

[pnwmom]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

SNIP

[T S Justly]

1. Oversize pant load.

For grouping leftists with fascists.

[msongs]

2. but you have "nearly universal health care"... except for the tens of millions who don't nt

[pnwmom]

9. It hasn't fully taken effect yet. No one knows how many will fall through the cracks then.

But the numbers are good in Massachusetts, which has basically the same plan -- much better than in the rest of the country.

[FarLeftFist]

35. True, Mass. ranks #1 for healthcare in the country.

[eridani]

64. The numbers are wonderful for the 85% majority who won't get expensively sick

They are an unmitigated disaster for lower income, older sick people. Before reform, the percent of total bankruptcies due to health care costs was 59%. Now it's 50%. Big whoop.

[TheWraith]

106. And you're STILL ignoring that most of the reforms aren't in effect yet?

So are you completely clueless about what you're pontificating on, or are you deliberately ignoring that fact in order to try and prove a (false) point? It's one of those two.

[eridani]

110. Wrong. In MA very similar reforms have been in effect for several years

And they are bankrupting and killing older sick people. We want to extend this nationwide because why?

[Motown_Johnny]

25. we were up to nearly 50 million uninsured

Are you suggesting that we should not have passed a law which covers the vast majority of them just because we can't cover every one of them?

Nobody bats 1.000. We need to save the lives we can now and then continue forward to save more later. The only other option is to fail again and wait another generation for another shot. Just think of all the good that could have been done if we were able to get something done back when Clinton was in office. We would now be working on improving that plan instead of being back at square one.

[bornskeptic]

38. It isn't a matter of not being able to cover everyone.

Those who are not covered will only be thoswe who choose to be uncovered, or aren't aware that coverage is available. Everyone who wants coverage will have access to coverage at an affordable price. The 3% who are expected to remain uncovered would include people newly eligible for Medicaid and unaware of the change in policy. It would include those, such as Christian Scientists, whohave religious objections. It would also include many young healthy people who could easily afford coverage, but prefer to get by cheaper by paying the penalty. The 3% nonparticipation rate is not that much different from what is seen in the European systems with mandatory insurance, which include Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. X 2

[DiverDave]

20. HUH?

I read something differant, I guess.
I thought it was a good piece.

[eridani]

3. Dupe from Good Reads

You'e a few days behind.

[joshcryer]

4. I responded to your elitist aplogia in Good Reads.

Feel free to respond there.

If I'm on your ignore, however, I understand.

[eridani]

6. It's the snotty beltway people and their apologists who are the elitists

They just don't give a rat's ass about my neighbors, who are mostly in that 48% of the population with no discretionary income who are being devastated by the "new normal." They're all doing fine, and could care less that we are on track for 20 years of no net job growth.

They're the ones who offerd up Medicare and Social Security in the "Grand Bargain." They're the ones who keep mewling about deficits, austerity and "shared sacrifice."

In 2008, I made sure that that one irregular voter was able to vote for Obama. She's white, late middle age and low income. Her records had inconsistencies, and she had gotten notices that she was not registered. She didn't have a computer, so I got online, found that she was listed, and asked someone from the elections department to get back to her. She said she had not voted since voting for Clinton in 1992, but that this year was really, really important.

What was apparently not very important to her after 1992 was voting in 1994, and I'm sure you all remember what happened that year. There is a widely shared mythology that the 90s were some sort of apex in prosperity, but that is not the case. The tech bubble disguised a lot of the harm caused by outsourcing and welfare "reform," even though Clinton managed to blunt some of the worst Republican excesses. The real value of the minimum wage rose, but came nowhere near its peak in the late 60s. http://www.epi.org/issueguides/minwage/figure1.pdf

She and people like her have not seen any motion toward improvement in our economy. She can't afford to get sick, and people like her in Massachusetts had their budgets destroyed by mandatory insurance to the point where they can't afford to pay for a doctor visit. Where are the policies that will help her?

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant09092004.html

The truth is that Dottie would vote for any candidate, black, white, crippled blind or crazy, that she thought would actually help her. I know because I have asked her if she would vote for a president who wanted a nationalized health care program?" "Vote for him? I'd go down on him!" Voter approval doesn't get much stronger than that.

Quite a few of the Dotties of all colors came out for Obama in 2008. If Democrats don't start acting like they care about the lives of those people, they'll stay home in 2012. In the absence of economic improvement that is visible in their lives, this part of the electorate is likely to go back to apathy, continuing a very ominous and self-reinforcing trend.

They don't give a shit about pissy little laundry lists or bikini graphs. They want to know whether or not Democrats are on their side.

Or you and your well-off pals can just keep thinking that cuts in Medicare and Social Security, and the elimination of milions of public sector jobs don't matter. Thanks ever so much for ushering us all into a new dark age. Not.

[joshcryer]

7. Fortunately for you, you live in a state that actually GOTV in 2010.

Otherwise I'd really have an argument against your rhetoric.

Fortunately for me, my state GOTV in 2010, too, so we're on the same side here.

The difference is that a lot of other liberals in other states decided to sit home, and let the country fall into despotism, neglecting things like "cuts in Medicare and Social Security."

You don't think it matters? I hope you GOTV in 2012 because if you don't, and if I don't, and if a lot of liberals don't, the cuts will go into effect, because we won't be able to repeal the "catfood commissions" and it's going to happen.

Meanwhile the cuts can be stopped (particularly in Medicare, there are no cuts in Social Security, yet, but the Republican House has plenty of time to force compromising Obama into a corner).

Fact of the matter is, Democrats vote overwhelmingly for progressive legislation, even if in the end sometimes they fail hard on that regard (if only because they have a President who is willing to compromise). If the lesser of two evils paradigm doesn't apply to you, then there's nothing more I can say.

[eridani]

8. The cuts can be stopped IF DEMS MAKE IT AN EFFING ISSUE!

It is a huge winning issue, and it is too damned bad that people like Obama and Wyden are weakening us here.

I frankly don't believe that liberals in any state sat home. When Dean was DNC Chair, we had a 50 state strategy, and every state got financial help and paid organizers to help build party structure. As of 2008, that strategy was shitcanned, and you can blame that for the disentegration of party GOTV in states that were just beginning to recover organizationally. OFA preferred messaging based on laundry lists instead of on clear progressive values, and that was very damaging.

WA State lost less ground because we had a strong party structure before Dean.

[pnwmom]

10. I remember reading that the percent of African American voters was smaller in 2010 when Obama

wasn't at the top of the ticket, and I presume most of them are liberals.

[joshcryer]

75. The vote count proves that they sat home.

GOTV is a liberal task, unfortunately for us, we're typically the hard core activists who care, and we get the vote out. Because the vote was much smaller than 2006 we failed hard in that regard, this is just a basic analysis of the numbers.

[eridani]

79. In 2006 we had Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy

You can't do good GOTV without strong state party organizations, period. That went by the boards when OFA decided that wasn't necessary, and that they should hire people who pushed laundry lists instead of strong populist messaging.

[joshcryer]

83. It was worse than 2002. It was worse than 1998.

Look at the vote breakdown. I do think OFA did drop the ball, but there's nothing that they could've done outside of city centers because the teabaggers had completely demoralized the base with their lies. The media didn't help. It was in effect a massive voter suppression effort to make the Democrats out to be no better than Republicans, and to, in fact, place all of the blame on the recession on the Democrats. It worked.

[eridani]

87. Excuse me, but Democrats demoralized the base by not aggressively going after-

--teahadist lies. An aggressive stance in favor of traditional GOVERNMENT Medicare could have reversed that. OFA totally ignored the big lie, and thought that the weak tea of "well, now there is a free intorductory wellness physical" could overcome it. They did not WANT to defend the government as being good at anything.

[joshcryer]

95. What do you mean "going after tehadist lies"? You already showed that you agreed with those lies.

There are posts in this very thread talking about Cat Food Commissions.

If you buy what they sell, and then turn around and blame the Democrats for not aggressively refuting it, it's not their fault you bought it hook line and sinker.

We're talking post-Citizens United, massive money campaigns to buy an election. And they bought it full stop, no doubt about it. And we let them. To say that on one hand the establishment didn't fight hard enough, and on the other hand, agree with faux memes that the Republican elites fabricated, then you've rendered the "fight" moot. They had nothing they could do if you buy into the crap!

[eridani]

97. The Catfood Commission was presented to the general public as tasked with reducing

--the deficit--by Obama. It was stacked with people who despise both Social Security and Medicare. I know beltway types regarded it as theater, but average voters sure did not. The establishment presented the Catfood Commission as real, and that was a disastrous message. What did the most powerful Democrats say to anyone in 2010 to convince people that we were on their side? The big Citizens United money went into attacking PPACA for "cutting Medicare." You still haven't told me why Obama and other top Democrats did not bother to defend government Medicare and justify cutting subsidies to private plans which were supposed to be better, but weren't.

[arely staircase]

102. the average voter never knew anything about it;still doesn't. IMHO

most voters are low information participants. i would be shocked if more than a small percentage of voters knew there was a deficit reduction committee, much less who was on it, what it proposed. it would be interesting to see the responses of a random sampling of voters when asked what they thought the "cat food commission" was. i'm guessing the answers (after the overwhelming "never heard of it&quot would mostly have something to do with actual catfood.

[eridani]

108. The people in my precinct had not a clue about who was on the commission--

--but they sure the hell knew that there were some people out there who wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. And who appointed the Catfood Commission?

And stocked it with sworn enemies of Social Security?

Must have been Bush, yes?

[joshcryer]

74. Post-partisan Obama who said he'd look at deficits?

Campaign promise kept. He said it right there in his nomination speech.

He did exactly what he said he'd do. I'm sorry you apparently weren't paying attention.

[eridani]

80. Wonderful. Let's keep campaign promises even if they contradict what voters want

Brilliant.

[joshcryer]

82. You gotta respect him for that. I personally saw his deficit hawking and war hawking...

...as a very negative thing.

Voted for 'em anyway because McCain would've been 10x worse.

[eridani]

86. I respect him for many things, but not that

Any Republican asshat would be worse, of course.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. Social Security is forbidden by law to add to the deficit.

It has a multi-trillion dollar surplus, and is fully funded as far as the eye can see.

Slashing Social Security is theft.

[woo me with science]

18. THANK YOU.

This is the sort of arrogant, tone deaf apologia from inside the beltway that has people convinced that nobody in Washington gets it or cares. This brand of utter condescension and insistence that they don't understand what they are living every single day is exactly why people are protesting in the streets.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. +1000000!

[FarLeftFist]

45. Jeez, didn't know Obama was going eradicate world poverty in 3 yrs.

[eridani]

61. Ending world poverty =

taking the ongoing economic disaster in America seriously? Because why?

[Wind Dancer]

112. Wow!

You nailed it!

[TheKentuckian]

17. Assimilating the language and accepting the conservative policy toolbox are not things to develop a

swelled head over.

It seems the Democratic position is that the Republicans have always generally been correct until sometime between Bush and the Teabaggers and then mostly a matter of degrees.

The Turd Way logic is a bust, the more we move toward the opposition the more extreme they become and at each stop the fake political "center" is deeper into the Reich Wing.

Screaming elitist and then funneling money to the wealthy and stridently supporting the status quo profit centers is a shameful place to be.

[woo me with science]

19. You nailed it. Republican talking points are now bipartisan talking points

in policy areas across the board. Budget slashing, payroll tax cuts that threaten Social Security, free trade, indefinite detentions, the surveillance state.

I wrote an OP about this a while back. This is about the corruption of the very heart of the Democratic message, and we are reaping the very concrete, devastating effects.

[Major Hogwash]

51. Why not?

President Obama isn't screaming elitist at anyone.

Sheesh.

[eridani]

62. No, just some people posting in this thread n/t

[joshcryer]

73. Those "assimilating the language" are those who bought the Republican lies and...

...suppressed the vote. Simple. I'm being told that Obama was going to "cut Medicare and had a Catfood Commission."

That rhetoric came from both the left and the right. Why is that? Because the right created the idea, and the left ignorantly ran with it without appreciating the politics of the matter. The Right Wing is extremely good at double-speak, we see it with manipulators like Ron Paul who has a small percentage of advocates on the left (and don't tell me that they're not advocates, the polls show that close to 10% of Democrats or liberals would vote for Ron Paul).

As soon as the left started using the term "catfood commission" (all because Obama said he wouldn't have a deficit commission taken completely out of context), they signed their own elective death certificate.

[eridani]

81. Obama killed us in 2010 by appointing a deficit commission in the first place

--loaded with opponents of Social Security and Medicare. Beltway elitists may deride this as theater, but ordinary people take it as an attack on what little retirement security exists nowadays.

[joshcryer]

84. Another campaign promise kept. What's interesting is that instead...

...of looking at the commission for what it was, a worthless piece of crap that didn't do anything. We decided to buy the Republican line that it was taking everything away from everyone. The Republicans are masters at manipulation. And I personally don't blame the Democrats for it. I blame the people who got duped. I didn't get duped.

[eridani]

88. Why would the general public think that the commission didn't mean business?

Not everyone is inside the beltway, you know. Anyway, the Republicans, in campaigning to seniors, didn't say shit about the Catfood Commission--they attacked PPACA for supposedly cutting Medicare, when all it did was cut Medicare Advantage subsidies. Instead of campaigning aggressively in favor of GOVERNMENT Medicare as more efficient, Democrats said nothing at all on the issue. I personally do blame Democrats for failing to promote a strong message in favor of public goods.

Those inside the beltway have not a clue about why Elizabeth Warren is such a rock star. It is because she has a strong message in favor of public goods, and directly attacks the notion that rich people get rich all by themselves. She defends the necessity of having a strong infrastructure of public goods in order to make private achievment possible, and the necessity of taxing the wealthy at high rates in order to pass the gift of good infrastructure to the next generation. Not only the Democratic base, but many uncommitted voters are desperate for this message.

It doesn't even have to be Grayson-style in your face. Warren is a mild-mannered church lady type who wouldn't say shit if she were standing in a pile of it. Obama and other Dems have the choice of using this messaging, but they refuse to.

[joshcryer]

90. Activists should've known better, a lot of them did, particularly in the cities.

They GOTV hard (one reason Colorado Stayed blue), but other states with larger conservative numbers, we failed hard. Look at Russ Feingold:

Extremely close in 1998:


Did well in 2004 (Kerry election):


But horrible in 2010:


Activists are responsible for GOTV and they should know better, regardless of whether the "voters are demoralized." Voters will sit home if they're not pushed to vote, they'll sit home if all they hear is that the other team isn't different from their team. Russ Feingold and Grayson's loses are proof.

[eridani]

93. GOTV does NOT work unless voters think that things will change in their lives

And Democrats refusing to actively defend public goods like Medicare and Social Security, and sticking to "low key" messaging sank us. In my canvassing I used my messaging and not OFA's, which helped keep WA State blue (I pointed out that most of our Dem congressional contingent was defending Medicare and SocSec, and a couple were weak, but that all three Repubs wanted total destruction) but still had somewhat reduced turnout overall.

In 1998, there were far fewer party activists getting out the vote. in 2004, there was a huge influx of new people due to Dean and Kucinich, most of whom went on to work for Kerry (or should I say, against Bush). In 2008, there was a bigger influx yet, but unlike the class of 2004, most of them did not stay active. Goes to show that progressive issues are better motivators than personality politics. Our best year, 2006, featured Dean's 50 state strategy that Obama abandoned in favor of weak tea messaging by OFA. Besides the war being an issue that year, people were furious at the Bush attempt to privatize Social Security.

[TheKentuckian]

104. What in the world is it to appreciate about these commitees that Obama forces?

It was a Republican notion he adopted and ran with, that is his fault not anyone else's, the TeaPubliKlan sponsors had fallen off in a fit of oppositional insanity and he choose to keep recyclying the concept and probably will again once election season has passed. He also put a bunch of corporate heads on the thing, especially Simpson and Bowles.
The politics of this are disgusting, offensive, stupid, counter productive, hoobbling, and have only and can only move the debate toward the opposition lines, even if when pressed they fold. He punted ideologically and accepted their frames, a political black hole that we cannot escape.

It seems to me that the attempt at elective suicide comes from the Turd Way oriented and/or tolerant. The coalition holds almost exclusively due to fear of the opposition and the batshit crazy nature of the same that makes them dubious at best with the larger electorate, not relentless pushes for deficit reduction (which focus was wrought by the same beltway bullshitters and the coporate propaganda arm) in the heat of a fucking demand crisis.

[leveymg]

11. Phrased differently, Obama's major accomplishments are: 1) he paid Wall Street trillions so

that the big global banks wouldn't close their U.S. operations, altogether; 2) now, we'll all have to buy mandatory private health insurance; and 3), gays, too, can now openly blow up people in Arab and South Asian countries.

The Long March continues.

[WonderGrunion]

15. You forgot something

Well, many somethings:

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751

And this isn't even the PolitiFact list

[leveymg]

24. That's all you got? You've gotta be kidding.

Here's my response to another one of these silly long list of impressive Obama accomplishments posts at DU previously. See if you can do better in your reply.

1. Ending the Iraq War.<...> Escalated the War in Afghanistan, and started five others, including a looming war with Iran.

2. Twelve billion dollars in new funding to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.<...>After two billion federal dollars diverted to fuel the growth of charter schools in the last two decades, the Obama Administration endorsed a doubling of direct federal funding. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/education/25educ.html

3. Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, welcome gays into the military, and appointed more openly gay officials than any president in history.<...>Bravo, but no more than any Democratic President should have and would have done.

4. Passed $789 billion in economic stimulus in 2009.<...>A third of the Stim went to tax cuts. And, for context, $16 trillion in extra liquidity went to big banks in QE2.

5. Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during all 8 of Bush's years.<...>Unemployment rate is still higher than when he took office. Obama has cut public sector jobs. There are still a record six million long-term unemployed, the highest number in the post-war era http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

6. Voluntary disclosure of White House visitors for the first time in US history.<...>Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than did Bush, imposed the Espionage Act, and continues a widening campaign against those who dare reveal corruption and wrongdoing in military and intelligence matters.

7. Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court.<...>See 3, above.

The rest, mostly padding the resume . . . not very impressive for a guy who had an FDR size mandate, and returned Hoover results in economic policy and Wall Street reform.

Not very impressive.

Not very impressive.

[snooper2]

39. We are almost at war with Iran, and he started 5 more wars?

I know you are a little bitter still but damn it must suck to wake up in the morning

[leveymg]

55. Sane people don't laugh about wars, assassinations, sabotage and embargoes.

Sychophants, ignoramuses, and people just plain in denial of reality. Maybe you're right about one thing - it must be blissful to be one of those people who wakes up without a thing on his mind in the morning.

[snooper2]

56. No, laughing at your over-the-top comments...so 5 wars...name them please

[leveymg]

58. Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya . . .

We're now in the pre-war or post-war hostilities stage in at least five countries. Don't forget Afghanistan, of course, and the three-fold troop increase there, along with residual hostilities and counter-terrorism operations in Somalia, along with active U.S. covert operations that have spread to several dozen additional countries in recent years.

I was probably being conservative in my estimate. Sorry about that.

[snooper2]

60. mkay

[eridani]

63. A perfect example of the Dems' serious messaging problem

Here's a clue for you. Non-political junkie voters (the vast majority) don't give a flying fuck about laundry lists. They care about what is happening in their lives. In the lives of half of them, 48% don't have any discretionary income at all.

[arely staircase]

103. their opponents have messaging problems too, case in point

using terms that 99 percent of voters are unfamiliar with - like catfood commission, that is a showcase example of political junkies-only talk.

[eridani]

109. My neighbors understood well enough when I canvassed them in 2010 n/t

[arely staircase]

111. then i draw the conclusion that your neighbors keep up with current events much more than the

average voter.

[eridani]

114. They don't actually. But I've developed enough trust as a PCO

--that they believe me when I talk about issues.

[fascisthunter]

26. very well done

it's tiring to that folks have to keep reminding others here that he hasn't been all that.

[DCBob]

12. Excellent article..

of course the critics wont get it.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Real unemployment is 15% and steady

The wealthy have never done better. And our Constitutional rights are evaporating.

Brilliant.

[JoePhilly]

21. And Obama killed Social Security too!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

33. No. But he called for it to be slashed.

Why do you find that funny?

[pnwmom]

40. Obama never called for Social Security to be slashed. Why are you pretending? n/t

[eridani]

65. No? What do you think the "grand bargain" was all about?

Are you saying it wasn't a serious offer because Republicans refused it? Here's a clue for you--chained COLA = slashing Social Security.

Social Security and the Future of the Democratic Party
Preliminary research from Strengthen Social Security

1. Public support for Social Security is very high – it is a core value for people so Democrats take it away at their peril.
• Numerous surveys show that 75% to 80% oppose cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the federal deficit. The public understands it has no relationship to the federal deficit because they pay special taxes for it.
• 2010 election eve/day poll showed STRONG opposition to Social Security cuts – 73% Democrats, 72% Independents, 72% Republicans, 61% Tea Party.
• 7 out of 10 voters oppose raising the retirement age. It is especially strong among blue collar voters: non-college men and especially non-college women, which are core labor constituencies in the key battleground states.

2. Democrats have limited credibility on Social Security issue at this point in time.
• Democrats used to crush Republicans when voters were asked: who do you trust to better handle Social Security? Today, they are losing badly to Republicans.
• Election Day 2010 voters favored Republicans on Social Security 31% to 28%. But
• Oct. 2006 poll: 48% Democrats to 20% Republicans
• Oct 2002 poll: 43% Democrats to 20% Republicans
• Oct. 1998 poll: 44% Democrats to 21% Republicans
• Same pattern is true for Presidents:
• Obama on 2010 Election Day: Voters said Republicans could be more trusted than Obama on Social Security by 33% to 26%.
• Bush in 2005: Democrats in Congress were favored over Bush on Social Security by 50% to 37%.
• Clinton in 1995: He was favored over Republicans in handling Social Security by 53% to 34%.

3. A damaged Democratic brand on Social Security will spell electoral disaster in 2012 and beyond.[This section is still being researched; we are looking at Senate races to make the strongest case. Obama believes he can win in 2012 even with a large loss among seniors, as long as he comes close to replicating his large surge in 2008 (a big if), although they have not said how large the seniors loss can be.]
• Democrats will not win seniors in 2012, but we must hold down our losses to a manageable level – maybe a 10% advantage for Republicans – if we are to hold (or at least minimize losses in the Senate and make up lost ground in the House.
• 2006: Republicans had no advantage among seniors – 49%-49%, when Democrats won big in congressional races.
• 2010: Republicans had a 21% point advantage among seniors – 59% vs. 38%.
• 2008: Republicans had an 8% point advantage among seniors – 53% vs. 45% in a wave election favoring Democrats
• 2004: Republicans had a 5% point advantage among seniors – 52% to 47%
• 2000: Democrats had a 3% point advantage among seniors – 50% to 47%
• 1996: Democrats had a 7% point advantage among seniors – 50% to 43%
• Beyond 2012, Republicans will have an easier time garnering the support of baby boomers if Democratic support for Social Security becomes blurred, an outcome that could impact national politics for many years.

4. Cutting Social Security will demoralize the Democratic base.
• It will be very hard to motivate activists in the party if the President leads the effort to cut Social Security. It will be seen as a betrayal of everything we have worked decades for.
• For unions in particular, the union leader’s credibility with its own members will be at great risk if the President leads the effort to cut Social Security.

5. The President can and should build support for his reelection and congressional Democrats by embracing Social Security as a crucial component of the economic security of American families. He should emphasize that:
• In an economy that is increasingly risky, it is the only program American families can count on to provide effective life insurance for their young children, disability insurance and retirement protection.
• Social Security as a core part of his commitment to protecting the middle class.

6. Protecting Social Security would be a bipartisan bonanza for the President and regain ground lost due to Republicans on Medicare.
• The President wants to be seen as working with Republicans. Why not ask them to join him in pledging to not cut Social Security. He will hit a grand slam with the public, which wants no cuts to the program and would like both parties to work together to protect the program. It will be a surprise move to the Republicans and put them in a box.
• Republicans were very effective in the 2010 campaign skewering Democrats as Medicare cutters. This was probably the single greatest attack Republicans had on Democrats with older voters. This could happen again with Social Security. The way to get this age group back is to go on offense on Social Security.

[bvar22]

67. Make NO mistakes, it WAS President Obama who offered cuts to Social Security.

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

Conyers added ""My response to him (President Obama) is TO MASS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROTEST THIS."


This declaration is significant both politically and morally as Conyers is not only the second most senior representative in the House, but was also the first member of Congress to endorse candidate Obama. Conyers doesn't merely draw a moral "line in the sand' but he presents a candid picture of violent contrasts between himself and the first African-American president."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

This IS a FACT.


[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[JoePhilly]

46. Wait ... I know ... he's going to annouce his plan to gut SS at the State of the Union!!!!!

Just like he did at the LAST State of the Union!!

And then again last March, and again last June ... and then again as part of the "super committee".

YUP ... definitely, absolutely, positively ... any second!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

68. He suggested that it be cut at the SOTU

Why do you think that trying to cut Social Security is funny? Stealing money is wrong.

[JoePhilly]

70. "suggested" ... that's your new position ...??????

Didn't you claim Obama's INTENT was to kill Social Security??

Now you want to claim he "suggested" cuts ...

Ouch!!

When do Obama's suggested "cuts" take effect???

I can't wait to see how much further back you walk you predictions.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Oh, he demanded cuts to Social Security, just not at the SOTU

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

At the SOTU, however, he merely debuted his cutesy "cut-vs-slash" word games:

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

Did you really not know this? Or are you playing games?

Obama's proposals would have plunged millions of seniors into poverty. I'm not sure why you - or anyone - would think that's a funny thing. I think you're better than that.

[Sheepshank]

34. and where is your repeated whine about the cat food commission?

You know.....the group that accomplished so very very much?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Pointing out an attack on Social Security is "whining"?

That's pretty sad of you to think.

[eridani]

66. I see you don't get it

Attempts to slash Social Security and Medicare are just fine if they fail./sarcasm

[TheKentuckian]

107. Yup, it isn't really attempted murder if you survive the attack, no matter how many attacks.

Is the game really just a boil down to saying such efforts are meaningless if they fail and blaming the TeaPubliKlans if they go through?

That is some cynical ass and dangerous philosophy, what is the upside over time?

[dmallind]

41. Steady? It was near 19 a year or so ago.

[FarLeftFist]

44. I read 21% 2 yrs ago, seems like it's declining, which means not holding steady.

[dmallind]

78. Yep - the facts sure seem that way. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

69. Check the U6 number for details. nt

[dmallind]

77. I did - unlike the person I responded to apparently.

16.6 to 15.2 in a year is "in the 15s and steady" in what world?

[MadHound]

16. Let me state that Obama is in sad shape when he has to have a conservative like Sullivan

Come riding to his rescue. Seriously, do you think it is a real good strategy to have the man who wrote "The Conservative Soul", endorsed Ron Paul, twice now, who is against abortion, progressive tax structures and universal health care actually coming out to praise the president?

Gee, I remember the days when Sullivan was rightly and justly disparaged as the conservative idiot he truly is. Now he is being lauded for saying nice things about Obama, nice things like how Obama is enacting legislation that is a conservative's wet dream.

Not a real good way of attracting true liberal voters.

[JoePhilly]

22. How dare Obama let Sullivan publish a positive critique!!!!!

[paulk]

94. +1

well said

[MadHound]

96. Hey there, long time no see

How's it going?

[paulk]

105. well, despite

having lost almost everything I've worked my entire life for due to the Bush recession and Obama's subsequent "recovery", I'm ok.

and, after several years of believing that pragmatism and moderation are the best ways to move forward politically, I'm returning to my more radical roots.

[SidDithers]

23. K&R...

The article seems to have struck a nerve.

Sid

[Major Hogwash]

49. Der sphincter.

That's why they squirm in their chairs.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. I have been using the phrase "he keeps his powder dry"

but "show-don't-tell" kinda works too.


I think he is just waiting until his detractors make fools of themselves with false claims so he can roll our indisputable facts showing how wrong they are.

I am looking forward to election season, this is going to be fun.

[JoePhilly]

47. +100

[EFerrari]

52. "Show don't tell" doesn't really work for an administration

that is even more secretive than Juniors.

[Romulox]

29. We're all aware that Andrew Sullivan is a Rightwinger/Neocon, yes?

[PA Democrat]

43. Sullivan says Obama's economic policies are "right of center"

Here at the 2:28 mark of this video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10177212

I'm at a loss to why people are cheering for this guy, most especially in his criticism of the left.

It's fine if he wants to point out how people on the right are completely wrong in their analysis of Obama because he obviously is not the socialist that they believe him to be.

But to go after liberals who are disappointed in Obama's economic policies (aptly labelled right of center by Sullivan), is where Sullivan crosses the line. Based upon Obama's campaign speeches (which included sharp criticism of the excesses of Wall Street), people have every right to criticize him on a number of issues, including bringing Wall Street insiders into his administration. That's MY biggest point of contention.

Furthermore, it appears to me that this article is being used in an attempt to stifle criticism of Obama period. There is a huge difference between saying you will not vote and saying you are disappointed in Obama. I'd guess that the majority of people here who criticize the president are going to vote for him because the alternative is just too horrendous to consider.

[quinnox]

30. "A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. "

At least Sullivan admits where he is coming from in this article. He sounds like he is proud of being a full blown cheerleader and Obama-bot.

[hughee99]

31. Ah, the old "chessmaster" line is making a comeback just in time for the election.

Don't worry about all the things you were unhappy with in his first term, they're really part of a secret plot to give you all those things in his second term.

[Scurrilous]

32. K & R

[FarLeftFist]

36. I like how this article exposes the left's anti-Obama crowd to things like logic, reasoning and fact

Like OMG he couldn't get to all of your pet issues in 3yrs! I guess we must just give up then. I'm sure that will give progressivism a good name! Riiiiiiight. Back to reality.

[Major Hogwash]

48. Most of them aren't worth reading though.

They all have pet peeves, but when you examine the position that the Republicans have taken for the last 2 years you can see why their specific issue wasn't addressed yet.

And I don't think I need to add that none of the remaining Republican presidential candidates running for President Obama's job would address that issue the way they want it handled either.

[EFerrari]

53. It's pretty appalling when issues that are important to the daily life of working people

are dismissed as "pet issues". Used to be, that kind of compassionless dismissiveness was a tactic of the other right wing.

[FarLeftFist]

57. It's pretty appalling that so-called Progressives would be knocking the HUGE progress this President

has made. Especially after only 3 yrs in office. It's as if they hold Obama to a higher standard then any previous Democratic presidents simply because they casted a vote for a black man. All that matters to the hyper-progressives is that he must do twice as much, twice as often, twice as well - and half as aggressively - for half the credit. well, more like a ten times as much, it has been shown.

Should we undermine the most progressive-minded president in at least a generation and will his failure to attain a second term help or hurt the progressive cause? Will his failure pave the way for a more progressive president or a less progressive president? Yes, everyone has "pet" issues none of which Obama did negatively affects the daily life of working people. Nice try though.

[EFerrari]

59. Your response begs the question of "huge progress". Or that Obama is in any way progressive.

And sure, working people have pet issues like jobs and the foreclosure tsunami, neither of which Obama has addressed seriously, let alone positively.

[FarLeftFist]

76. Your response begs the question who are you comparing his progressivism to?

Seriously. FDR? FDR had 377 House seats and 73 Senate seats. Is that a fair comparison? FDR backed down on healthcare reform, Obama passed healthcare reform. Obama even beats out FDR on Civil Rights by a landslide. I could keep going but I'm not even sure FDR is who you are comparing him to. Could it be some imaginary progressive strawman? Obama passed a stimulus, saved the auto-industry, has brought forth 3 jobs bills (not passed), etc. And the foreclosure tsunami is part of a bigger problem that he actually IS addressing. Anything else?

[bvar22]

42. Thank You for The Centrist Manifesto.

Centrism...because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who do!



YES. WE. CAN [font size=1]settle for FAR Less than the rest of the civilized World takes for granted.[/font]




[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[EFerrari]

54. Centrism, the midpoint between the right wing and the other right wing.

[slay]

101. +1

n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

50. K to the R

Plus he can carry an Al Green tune too!!!

[bvar22]

71. How times have changed.

Liberals with solid credentials like Greenwald and Matt Taibbi
are attacked with VENOM,
but conservatives like Sullivan are lauded for their brilliance on DUs greatest page.


I can understand HOW conservatives, moderate Republicans, and Reagan "Democrats" are pleased with the first 3 years
of the Obama Administration.
They GOT their pony.
I can also understand why TPTB will grant Obama a 2nd term,
and why no serious Republican will oppose him.

What I can't understand is HOW conservatives like Sullivan now grace the Greatest Page at DU.




[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[slay]

99. Excellent post

k&r for your post alone - it bothers me as well.

[Number23]

72. K&R dammit

K&R

[sendero]

85. He outsmarts his constituents...

.. by doing exactly not what he said he would do. Bravo.

[hfojvt]

91. I guess in the long view

the Bush tax cuts will finally be ended in 3009. Yes we can, it will just take 1,000 years instead of one or two. I just gotta take the long view.

[Skittles]

92. yup

even an end "win" doesn't mean you played the game the best you could

[slay]

100. You know it - that 57 dimensional chess he's playing is finally going to pay off

maybe.. one day.. after we are all dead.. bah..

[Liberal_in_LA]

113. thanks for the positive Obama post.