Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
3. Glad to see Obama attacking Sen. Warren
Sat May 9, 2015, 06:30 PM
May 2015

Our Party will not again represent us until the war is settled. Now it is begun.

CharlotteVale

(2,717 posts)
4. A few weeks ago Obama compared Warren to Sarah Palin on this.
Sat May 9, 2015, 07:12 PM
May 2015

Tells me everything I ever need to know about Obama forever more.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
5. Did you read the article?
Sat May 9, 2015, 08:38 PM
May 2015

What if he is right? How about a link so we can see the context? Otherwise your statement comes off as rather shallow.

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
7. Right about TPP not the Palin/Warren thing.
Sun May 10, 2015, 01:17 PM
May 2015

And I appreciate the links for context especially since the first one makes it very clear that Obama did NOT compare Warren to Palin. He compared some of Warrens extreme remarks to the Death Panel nonsense from a few years ago. The author of the article made the connection to Palin.

Hyperbole does not help Warren make her case nor does it help you make yours.

Again, did you read the article from the OP?

MBS

(9,688 posts)
9. I thought it was an interesting article
Sun May 10, 2015, 05:32 PM
May 2015

I'm not always a fan of Matt Bai, but I thought this one was pretty insightful, and got past the caricatured versions of both sides of the argument. FYI, I think that both sides (of Democratic POVs) have valid points.

A couple of passages that particularly stood out for me:

No one thinks this deal is going to be the ruin of American workers, when all is said and done. What they {opponents of fast tracking -ed.} think is that there has to be a moment when industry loses and the country finally turns its attention to the things you can do for workers, like raising the minimum wage (a more than reasonable suggestion) and relaxing rules that make organizing more difficult. Taking a stand against the trade pact is really just a way of taking a stand against 30-plus years of policies that favored business over everyone else.
And this is what so frustrates Obama, to the point where he would come to make his stand at the headquarters of a company reviled by labor, almost as a provocation. Obama, as his detractors have often pointed out, is a study in cool-blooded analysis and professorial debate; whatever his gift of oratory, his real passion is for the triumph of reason over histrionics.

So you can see how it would annoy Obama no end that no matter how many mitigating facts and figures he throws at the opponents in his own party, their determination to sink the deal only intensifies. What they really want, it seems to him, isn’t a better trade deal, but rather a time machine that can transport us all back to the moment before globalization began.

Obama assured me that he’s right there with his party when it comes to making the case for a higher minimum wage or limiting the compensation of corporate executives — all part of the national conversation about inequality and how to address it. “We are going to have to concentrate on getting our own act together to make sure that workers are getting a bigger share of corporate profits,” he said. “But I’m not going to shrink the overall economic pie just because we’re mad about some things that have happened in the past.” . .

If Obama can’t get fast-track authority through Congress, he won’t have much chance at negotiating a final deal. But if he can, then he might well be able to claim one last, major legislative victory — and the only one in his presidency with broad, bipartisan support. And not only that, but a victory that gets back to the promise inherent in his first presidential campaign — the promise to adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it.

appalachiablue

(41,102 posts)
11. In the interview, for one I would have expected the President not to refer to Sen. Warren
Mon May 11, 2015, 01:14 PM
May 2015

as 'Elizabeth' each time that saw. Why not Senator Warren, or the Senator? Does she call him 'Barack' or 'Barry', are they on a first name basis for public interviews?

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
12. I think it is biased
Mon May 11, 2015, 09:30 PM
May 2015

The author spoke for the opponents, and didn't really challenge Obama's points at all, just accepted them as facts. The author easily could have allowed the labor unions, environmentalists, and Warren herself to comment upon his points. He could have prepared for the interview by speaking with them first. Instead he bought into Obama's explanation that their opposition wasn't based upon the agreement, but upon their own biases.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama interviewed on TPP ...