Let’s Not Morph Obama Into Elizabeth Warren Quite Yet...

[demwing]

He’s not suddenly Paul Krugman: Let’s not morph Obama into Elizabeth Warren quite yet

BILL CURRY | SALON
SUNDAY, JAN 25, 2015 07:00 AM EST

"Populist State of the Union with a fiery tone has liberals excited. They'd be wise to remember Obama's true nature"

What should we make of this new Obama? Are he and his new agenda for real? For liberals, these are tender questions. When Obama first appeared, their response was almost worshipful. Even today, many liberals treat Obama’s progressive critics as apostates. Given their deep investment in him, the vitriol of Tea Party attacks and the looming specter of GOP rule, it’s easy to understand why. But it’s crucial now for his liberal critics and defenders alike to see him as he is.

<snip>

Obama’s failure to reconcile words to deeds detracts mightily from the grab bag of ideas he offers under the catchy title “middle class economics.” As noted, these policies could really improve people’s lives. But while he’s out thumping for them, he’s in hot pursuit of what he hopes will be his last coup, approval of the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership. It’s such a popular idea he chose not to breathe its name in his speech. What he did say was worth sampling if only to savor its cleverness: “China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. We should write those rules… That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but fair.”

He doesn’t want another free trade fiasco like that awful NAFTA, just “trade promotion authority to protect American workers.” Surely we can all be for that.

Nearly all left-leaning Democrats oppose the TPTP: Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Bob Reich, Elizabeth Warren. One can’t imagine Obama changing his mind on it any more than one imagines him asking any of them to help craft his new populist agenda. As he likes to reassure his donors, “I’m a market kind of guy,” meaning he comes as close as a Democrat can to being a market ideologue. And yes, there is such a thing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/hes_not_suddenly_paul_krugman_lets_not_morph_obama_into_elizabeth_warren_quite_yet/


more at link....

[Autumn]

1. Here's the slight problem that many of we Democrats have.

We remember. What has been seen cannot be unseen, seeing their actions in the past makes it hard to see them morphed into progressives. No matter how many want to convince us that they can be.

[Enthusiast]

2. Joe Stiglitz should have the President's ear. If the President wishes to do the right thing.

[sabrina 1]

5. He should have been appointed to Treasury. And definitely should be an adviser to a Democratic

President. That none of the President's economic advisers are Progressive speaks far louder than all the words we hear.

[Enthusiast]

7. Yes.

The social issues, while significant, are not as important as the economic issues when we evaluate a potential candidate. Social justice won't mean much if they keep using it as a tool to distract us while they rob us blind.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I've really puzzled about this recent stuff.

I guess TPP is the big payoff, and once he's OK with the Powers on that, he can be permitted to make some nice, progressive noises reminiscent of his 2008 campaign, and maybe even do some minor-league progressive things.

But this populist shift, and a few other things (e.g. the "new car smell," the fact that his campaigners are all trying to sign on to the as-yet-nonexistent Warren campaign) are enough to make you think you're dealing with a dual personality here. (And no, I don't mean that clinically or literally.)

[demwing]

4. I feel the same... this is the Obama I voted for in 2008

maybe he's been there all along, maybe not. I'm not even sure how much I want to meditate on the question, since he's not our next candidate.

the post is more of a cautionary tale I guess...we're goingto be picking a new candidate soon, and we should understand who we support and why.

There are several reasons that we could use to convince ourselves to vote for Hillary, not the least being that I think she'll win, and keep a Mitt Romney or a Rand Paul out of the people's White House.

But is she who we WANT?

If she wins, will we get a replay of the Obama presidency? I really don't want another 8 years of wondering whether our president has our back, or has us backed up to the wall.

[sabrina 1]

6. I think the most important questions any Dem Candidate should be asked to answer before getting

our support are eg: 'Who will you be looking at for Cabinet Positions'? Treasury eg. No more Wall St Insiders. Defense: Are there no Democrats?

No doubt we will get evasive answers such as 'I assure you I will pick the most experienced people for my cabinet'. THAT is not going to work.

I want the candidates to name names.

Electing a Democrat should not mean returning those we threw out to positions of power, as happened with this administration. We still have Bush appointees in key positions in Defense eg and National Security. THAT is what we voted AGAINST.

So to me, the makeup of the President's cabinet will determine how that president will govern. And should be a top priority now that we have experienced the likes of Clapper and Gates etc which had we known, or thought to ask, ensured no change at all in FP or National Security or all the issues we were so opposed to, spying on the American people etc.