Obama is not a "cool guy"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

He is not a "player" No endearing "little bit bad" about him.

He is not a "schmoozer" No back room cigar smoking deals over scotch with Congress.

He is not nuanced, he's black and white

He is a little bit anal, bit too regimented to be a real buddy

He saw atrocity and thought - let's bomb Assad's military facilities. It's worked before. Makes sense to him - didn't even think to take the pulse of the people. His mind didn't even go there.

He's actually a lot like Carter. Good and decent man - who doesn't have enough political savvy and game in him to be effective in a world that is full of game.

Only hope he can pull it together enough to stop the onslaught that's coming...the all out effort to defund ACA

[liberal_at_heart]

1. How about the all out effort to defund education and suppress wages?

He was willing to stand up for the Syrians. Why won't he stand up for us?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Surely I didn't sleep though him speaking out against education spending

and decent wages did I ?

[liberal_at_heart]

6. He embraces Race to the Top and Common Core Standards. He goes along with the status quo of

not properly funding our K-12 schools and our universities. He proposed a $9 minimum wage. We need someone with enough courage to fight for a living wage, not just a minimum wage. We need someone willing to fight for funding for our schools and willing to drop Race to the Top and Common Core Standards.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Ah, you made me realize I missed his strongest character trait - he's a pragmatist.

There is really no telling what he is for because his mind probably says "oh hell, there's not enough
votes to do anything about that...."

[liberal_at_heart]

14. being a pragmatist makes him a great doormat for corporate interests.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. how?

[NYC_SKP]

2. I think the ACA will survive the all out effort.

And I think it will regardless of Obama's skills.

The opposition is in disarray and their former constituency split and fragmented.

The more ACA rolls out the more people will like it, I think, so it will survive of it's own merits, helped by the RW's own lack of cohesion.

I hope.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. I hope you are right. I was think about this today because a

poll came out saying support was waning. And, I was thinking that Obama is
in a weakened position due to Syria and it's like dominos falling for him.

Well, they won't repeal ACA...but surely they will try to defund it, don't you think? Bet Congress
rallies and votes to defund. And, if the worse happens, and the Senate does the same, it will come down
to Obama veto?

[NYC_SKP]

12. I was listening to some RW radio, it's all we get, and....

the consensus seemed to be that any effort to defund ACA would be symbolic only and unsuccessful.

I was happy to hear that.

But you never know.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. Really? Cool. I can go to sleep not worrying about it ! Thanks NYC_SKP

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

3. There's a difference...

This is what the election map looked like when Carter ran for re-election:


This is what it looked like when Obama ran for re-election:


Obviously he has a little bit more political savvy and game in him than Carter - and I think with everything that Obama has had to deal with, he has been incredibly effective. It's all about striving toward the ideal - and everyone's definition of the ideal is different.

[bananas]

15. The main difference between Carter and Obama is ...

"Obama: I Would Be Considered Moderate Republican In 1980s - ABC News"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101793318

"Noam Chomsky: Obama Would Have Been Called a ‘Moderate Republican’ in Recent Decades"
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-obama-would-have-been-called-moderate-republican-recent-decades

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. You are so right.....I should have definitely cited the number crunching electoral

vote expertise as an exception. But, wasn't that really the number crunching electoral brainiacs in
his campaign? I don't know.

But, point taken...guess I was just thinking about how, sadly, Carter turned into a joke for the masses and I am sad that it seems like we are on the precipice of it happening to Obama as well.

I also totally agree with your "everything Obama has had to deal with" statement. Over the last couple weeks I have thought - who in the world would want to be prez - with the entire universe second guessing your every move

[jberryhill]

18. Obama ran against McCain twice?

I'll bet Romney was pissed about McCain getting all those states.

[NuclearDem]

20. My home state being blue raised eyebrows.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

[BeyondGeography]

7. Qaeda thinks he's got plenty of game

And there are no deals to be made with Congress. When there were deals to be made in Illinois, he pulled up a seat at the poker table and made them.

And, wait, who was that guy mopping up the stage with Mitt Romney at the FP debate? Jimmy Carter never kicked public ass like that in his life.

Other than that, nice post.

[Cha]

33. Yeah, those fuckin' Somalian Pirates musta wondered

wtf? We were told this guy had no game.

[geek tragedy]

9. The top two popular vote totals in American history.

Barack Obama and Barack Obama.

Yep, not an ounce of political savvy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. i agree, the campaign, the electoral victory was pure genius and savvy. But

my point is really more about governing and the PR it takes. Case in point, ACA....besides here, among people
who give a shit - what kind of campaign has been led to counteract the intense push to demonize it ? People
spit out the word Obamacare like it is poison in their mouth. And because there is no "campaign" to educate the masses on what is going to happen...the right has filled the void. A poll was shown yesterday that showed support for ACA declining. And yet, not a single word in simple English, explaining what will happen and telling them not to worry. No campaign carried out by all Dems to repeat over and over, on every media outlet "The Republicans do not care about other human beings and that everyone can not see a doctor when they are sick."

[geek tragedy]

22. The ACA passed. Every other effort had failed.

It is much easier to misinform and inflame than it is to educate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. I agree..it passed..but there have been years since then that the demonizing

of it has taken place - and I don't know about you but I haven't seen any education/bully pulpit to counteract this, have you?

[geek tragedy]

25. Welcome to the world of Citizens United. nt

[CakeGrrl]

11. In over his head? I think not.

He's clearly not a Washington insider schmoozer. That's clear from the contempt and disrespect the Beltway press corps shows him.

But naive, over his head? I think not.

I think it's the great condescension to keep asserting that a Harvard-educated attorney who taught the Constitution is in over his head.

I love that armchair internet warriors keep telling him how he needs to bow and hew to the Constitution as if they know it better.

I think his nuance lies in the fact that everyone reacts to him in the now, the short term - while he works for long-term effects.

And he's no bombastic Alan Grayson. Apparently some people need loud voices and soapboxes and arm waving to feel like something's being accomplished.

But the critics need to make up their minds, because they seem to be quite at odds. Either he's the dumbest-luck bumbler there ever was, or he's a warmongering, sneaky bully, depending on which hero du jour (Putin, Snowden, Greenwald...who's next?) they want to elevate against him.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Good reply...but I never said he was "in over his head" or "naive" Agree

totally about your statement that people react to him short term while he is thinking long term

[CakeGrrl]

31. Point taken, thanks

I just think he's more quietly successful than he's given credit for. To say the least!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. I didn't mean to imply he wasn't successful in anything he did - just that

he is a good and decent man and there are probably some things that would work better if he was a bit more schmoozy. It is sad to me how constrained he is because of the House. You have got to gives those schmucks credit...they have pretty much neutered him legislatively. I always think if we on DU could mobilize in the real world to take back the House - there's no telling what would happen.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. Key difference--Obama was reelected in a landslide and

Has gotten major legislation passed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. That was then and this is now. When is the last time he got legislation passed ?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. Don't move the goal posts

You said he was about as politically naive and ineffectual as Jimmy Carter. I refuted it.

Nothing more to discuss.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. I am comparing what I fear is coming down the pike for O to what happened to JC. Sorry

I should have been more specific.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. When the Republicans agreed to look past his black skin and work with him. Not sure I understand

your question. How can ANY president work with THIS Congress?

[JustAnotherGen]

51. +1

The House is worthless.

[KittyWampus]

29. IMO, he takes the long view. And history will see him that way. He paved the way to Single Payer

that alone makes him progressive in a way many don't see right now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Yes. Wonder how many nights he stays awake and thinks about what else

he might have gotten done when we had congress. Easy to regret in hindsight, huh

[brush]

32. Are we talking about the same president?

You're waaaaaay off. O is the ultimate player. And if you don't think so ask Bin Ladin.

Oh, you can't can you because President Obama put him in an early grave. You might even say he "played" him.

And he certainly played Assad into agreeing to cough up the chem weapons.

Kerry was in on it too. You're naive and certainly a non-player yourself if you think it was an accident for the Secretary to mention a possible negotiated settlement at his recent presser.

And did you happen to notice how Putin and Assad jumped all over Kerry's titillating mention of a possible settlement? Putin not just because he wants to look like an international statesman but because Russia has been reported to be the source of the chem weapons. What an international embarrassment it would be for those weapons to be the cause of an air strike. Assad wants the settlement because he remembers what O did to Bin Ladin.

Oh, Obama's a player alright. Seems it's too nuanced for some to see. Even some in the press kept going on about Kerry's "off-handed" remark about a negotiated settlement. It was a surprise to them. Not to O, Kerry and Rice as the President not only talked with Putin about a surrender of Syria's chem weapons at the recent 2013 G20 but also a year ago at the 2012 G20.

And while talking about possible negotiations for over a year, O, Kerry and Rice kept up a united front about possible strikes to keep the pressure on.

Assad blinked! It's called using the power of the United States without firing a shot.

Now that's what I call a player — not some Bush/Cheney shoot first and ask questions later.

You need to reexamine because some things seem to be going over your head.

[Cha]

34. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!

Thanks for getting it, brush.. so well.

[brush]

36. Hey, Cha. Good to hear from you again. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Hmm.. I think this post "went way over your head," but thanks for the civil discord. nt

[brush]

40. Explain, no hit-and-run comment dumping pls. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. You made some great points....why turn off the other person with

belittling comments?

[brush]

48. I thought you were open to engage in the conversation nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

52. Guess I need to grow some tougher skin, huh

[brush]

53. Nah, you're fine

Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm from New York so I guess I get kinda "in your face" at times. Sorry.

[eridani]

35. But he managed not to see the atrocities of cluster bombs, depleted uranium

--and white phosphorus.

[brush]

39. He can't solved every problem from every other administration immediately

Reminds me of some words from a Billie Holiday song "Crazy he Calls Me."
Here's a link:

It goes something like this: "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

I remember early in his first term when many progressives turned against him, basically out of impatience because he hadn't gotten around to fixing "their issue" yet. Even the repugs feigned impatience also because after a few months he hadn't fixed everything Bush/Cheney screwed up, even as they attempted to block every move he made (yet he still got an amazing amount of things done, including the ACA which had eluded every president since Teddy Roosevelt).

That impatience caused us the 2010 election and the House as many of those so-called progressives deserted him and the party as they stayed home on election day because they were pissed.

He's not up for re-election again but 2014 is coming and deja vue seems to be repeating itself. I don't recall a sitting dem president ever getting so much harsh criticism from those in his own party — much of it seems to be unvarnish hatred even, I'll even go there by mentioning the "R" word. This stuff is unprecedented.

[eridani]

41. "Noticing" sarin but not "noticing" white phosphorus is bogus

I'm actually not disappointed with his foreign policy, simply on the grounds that we just can't expect to end the American empire by changing presidents. He's on board with the bipartisan imperial project that has been going on since WW II, and no one could get within 1000 miles of the White House unless s/he agreed to go along with it. That goes for Elizabeth Warren too, BTW

[brush]

42. Not sure he's "on board"

He's not an unintelligent man. I would venture to say, being the deliberative man we've found him to be, he picks the battles he thinks he can win, and has time for quite frankly. Some issues come to the front burner and have to be dealt with. Others . . . maybe don't get the attention they deserve.

And as far as American imperialism, I agree with you on that and that it's bipartisan. However it goes back way before WWII. Try the 1890s. It's apparent that he's avoiding the interventions, coups and outright war/occupations of most administrations since then (Libya, Eygpt, etc.) but I think he understands that our foreign policy stance/mindset of the MIC is not going to be changed easily by one president with just under 5 years in office.

It's like the song says: " . . . the impossible will take a little while."

Below is from an earlier post of mine:

In the 1890s we sent Navy gunboats to help ex-pat American planters overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy, and hundreds more interventions, occupations, invasions, coups and out right wars have followed on up to the Iraq war.

We have been continually at war or occupation or involved with coup fomenting for over a century, no matter what party is in power because the arms manufacturers, the admirals and generals and their bought politicians — the military-industrial complex — demand it and the profits they make from the wars, otherwise they have no reason for being.
(read "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinser)

If there are no wars we don't need arms manufacturers (G.E. General Dynamics, Ratheon, et al), we certainly don't need generals and admirals, and we don't need their political puppets.

This is who's calling for the Syria intervention, along with their paid-for mainstream news outlets. Funny how Boehner and Cantor and the rest of the repugs are silent now, but when Bush was president they were very vocal in support of military intervention.

Obama doesn't want to intervene but being the "President of the United States" is a heavy, heavy load because you're shouldering all of the above baggage and complexities while worrying about if it's not done how the critics will be fierce in their condemnation, and if it is done, the condemnation will be even fiercer.

One day a president is going to have the strength to say "No, war is outdated, it's so 20th century. We need to sit down and lead the way through negotiation."

Only the most powerful country, the one that can wipe Syria and Assad off the map with it's weapons has the power not to use them, thus giving it the ultimate power.

The last graph seems to be what's happening with Syria — at least the "power not to use them, thus giving it the ultimate power" part.

[eridani]

43. Syria was not a boogeyman until the empire decided to notice it for their profit

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. We have never been at war with Southasia.

[11 Bravo]

47. The US has used Willie Pete since I was in the Army (a LONG time ago). I have seen it deployed ...

(and at the time was pretty fucking happy to have it). But why is President Obama now to blame for its existence?

[eridani]

50. By your logic, the Syrian government should be happy to have sarin

I was just asking why Obama (re the OP) "noticed" sarin, but did not "notice" white phosphorus.

[jakeXT]

38. Your cause is right, god is on your side?

[kentuck]

46. I think Obama is on the right path with Syria.

Bombing is unpredictable.

However, I am very skeptical that he can stay on the path? The MIC and our Intelligence both want war. How dare an uninformed President get in their way?