Is Obama One Of Us?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Is Obama One Of Us?
by Cenk Uygur


If Obama does not say he's going to fight for the public option on Wednesday it will be tremendously disappointing. I'm not the first to say that (though I might be one that has said it the most often). But I do want to try to explain why so many people have that feeling.

First, we rightfully believe that the public option is the heart of health care reform. Without it, the system stays pretty much as it is with some tweaks around the edges. I have written about this many times, so I don't want to rehash that argument.

I have also said many times that this isn't just about the public option or even health care reform. This is about the central idea of Obama's campaign - are we going to have real change in this country or not? If Obama tweaks the system but leaves it largely intact, most people are under the impression that that is not the change we voted for.

Are the lobbyists still going to run DC? Are the politicians still going to work for corporate America or the highest bidder and not for their constituents? Yes, these questions are very much in play during this health care fight, but they will be present on every issue. And if Obama is planning to surrender to those interests in the name of accommodation, negotiation, compromise or just getting "something" done, then it's going to be a long four years. Then we dared to have hope in the wrong guy.

read more here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/is-obama-one-of-us_b_278288.html

[Buzz Clik]

1. Jeebus effin' Cristo! Is Cenk not getting enough attention these days?

:eyes:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

5. He is certainly going to get it now. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

8. I always saw him as calm and rational. Lately, not so much.

It seems that he feels his credibility/popularity (?) is linked to extremism.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

13. Cenk is asking a question

he is not making pronouncements, he is not throwing Obama under the bus he is asking a pointed question and one that should be asked. The answer like Cenk states has not been answered yet.

[ihavenobias]

14. Most people stop reading after the title.

I very much doubt that most of the people who'll leave angry comments in this thread will have actually read the entire (short) piece, with a couple of exceptions who'll chime in (the exception that proves the rule).

Or maybe they'll read my comment and read the whole thing just to spite me. ;)

[TheEuclideanOne]

58. I totally disagree.

Extremisn? Are you nuts? I think that he spelled it out exactly as it needs to be spelled out. If you want an example of real extremism, go watch Glenn Beck. If you want somebody who calls it the way it should be called, then watch (or read) Cenk. If you are considering his position on this to be an extremist position, then you really do not have an understanding of what the implications to Obama not supporting a public option will mean. Can you explain what exactly you mean about him turning into an extremist? Can you also explain what you think the impact of his not supporting a public option will mean?

[Usrename]

68. That's what I thought, too.

Extremism? To want to see a stake driven through the heart of healthcare for profit?

:wtf:

[bvar22]

24. Yea! Cenk din't get the MEMO!

It has been decreed from On High that the "Public Option" is only an unimportant "thin slice".
How DARE Cenk think for himself!
He is making the whole group think parade look bad by not marching in step!

Double Plus UnGood on Cenk!

[Warpy]

2. I think it's a bit soon to vilify him as a traitor

just as it's a bit soon to declare him one of the country's best presidents.

Hyperbole sells. Unfortunately, it eventually gives the user a reputation for hysteria.

Uygur is just going to have to wait with the rest of us to see what happens over the next 3 years or so.

[TiredOldMan]

7. I agree. But this first seven months has been very disappointing.

[Warpy]

10. He has always been a centrist

and not a radical reformer. His voting record spoke loud and clear.

I didn't support him in the primaries. I just realized the country would not survive four years of McCain/Palin.

[Skittles]

12. YOU KNOW IT WARPY

I too knew when the people finally woke up it would not be pretty

[JDPriestly]

77. If he has always been a centrist, he should have run as a centrist

and not as the change candidate. He is not changing anything. He promised no lobbyists in the White House. He seems to have hired mostly lobbyists for his prominent positions -- or at least people with such strong corporate and industry ties that they might as well be lobbyists.

He misrepresented himself when he claimed to be the candidate for change. I can't see what he is changing. SCHIP? That program is not new. Private schools paid for with public money? Another lousy Republican idea. Extending the Blackwater contracts? Horrors. And Halliburton? They cheated us out of billions but their contracts are still in operation I do believe. Rendition? Going on as we speak. Torture? Wet noodles in response. Releasing memos but not photos and delaying prosecutions equate with continuing the torture. In our legal system, a penal code is either enforced or is worthless.

I am a realist. I am older. I have seen a lot of hopes dashed in the past. Here we go again. Obama needs to hear it loud and clear from us. We who are the activists will only be there for him if he is here for us now.

Kennedy ran against Carter in the primaries in 1980. (Obama may not remember. He was only 19 at the time.) Carter was not re-elected. Obama cannot risk having a strong contender to his left in the primary in 2012, but that is what he will have if he doesn't deliver the change he promised.

I concede: Obama gave an excellent speech to school children today. Excellent. That's what he does well: Deliver speeches. But that is not what we elected him to do.

edited to correct date of 1976 to 1980.

[Buzz Clik]

9. "Hyperbole sells." +1

[truedelphi]

47. I wanted to see a President come in that would make hay of his policitcal capital

After all, Obama came in with 62% of the vote. At a point intime when it would have been easy to overthrow the Corproate Masters, as they were the ones who had brought about the Economic Panic of 2008. And seventy six per cent of all of us want Universal Single Payer Health Care.

And I wanted those that we put in office back in Novemnber 2006 to do the same.

But since neither Obama nor Pelosi are big fans of the only meaningful reform out there - Single Payer Universal Health Care, I am at my wits' end.

Taibbi spells it out very plainly:

Obama wasn't the only big Democrat to mysteriously abandon his position on single-payer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Henry Waxman, the influential chair of the House commerce committee, have both backed away from their longtime support of single-payer. Hell, even Max-freaking-Baucus once conceded the logic of single-payer, saying only that it isn't feasible politically. "There may come a time when we can push for single-payer," he said in February. "At this time, it's not going to get to first base in Congress."

Taibbi seems to indicate only a big huge revolt on the part of those who want our country back will mean anything. But how would that work? Especially given that the media doesn't cover our revolts - jsut the RW num nuts crowd and their revolts.

[stray cat]

3. Almost sounds like a birther - "is Obama an American"

[ihavenobias]

15. I could see someone getting that insanely false impression if they only read the headline.

;)

[rhett o rick]

45. A drive by fruiting by the stray cat. Thanks. nt

[bridgit]

4. The response of a rapid-snap phone-in straw poll on the Hartman show says "No"...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

6. Well that settles it then n/t

[bridgit]

11. It's dirty, it's dusty, it's distasteful, it has dried bubblegum stuck to it but it's the base...

and someone will have to go down there and fix it

[truedelphi]

20. Cenk is sometimes better informed than the Hartman crowd

And sometimes better informed than Hartman himself

[tbyg52]

40. The Hartmann crowd agreed with Cenk, IIRC

I heard a bit of the Hartmann show on the way home.

[bridgit]

62. That's right, "What's your name where do you live & what are your thoughts?" very simple...

Just the way I like it so that any dichotomy so-perceived is for us to start figuring out right now!! It's somewhere less than proper to discount they that were themselves instrumental in having brought us here; their day in day out voices of reason. This may be our not-so-saving-grace; to shun like-minded people with us - just a thought

[truedelphi]

66. Just so you know

I have egg on my face.

I was irrational all day yesterday. And I no longer have "That time of month to blame."

[bridgit]

61. Mmmm, Weellll....not when it comes to organic chemistry

[matthewf]

16. k&r

[20score]

17. I'm disappointed in many things. Although I supported him in the primaries, and still support him,

I expected more. I never had delusions of Obama being like Bernie Sanders or Kucinich, (the FISA vote proved that)I thought he would fight harder against smears at the very least. He showed it could be done during the election. As soon as a lie came out, the campaign was on top of it. That stopped months ago - and that's why the crazies have gained so much ground.
As for the public option - we'll all find out very soon where he stands. (But really, there shouldn't be a question at this stage.)

K&R

[bvar22]

26. Which begs the question that Cenk asked.

Obama proved he could effectively fight back during the Primaries.

THE Question:
Why has Obama chosen to NOT fight back against those who would kill or castrate the Public Option?

[quiet.american]

18. Democrats don't do ourselves any favors.

Bill Clinton is now by and large fondly referred to as "the Big Dawg."

But DU would have spent eight years being apoplectic over him if it was around then, if all this Obama shirt-rending is any indication. And it may have been only four years, given all the "never again" posts over Obama.

[ihavenobias]

19. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, GATT, Rendition, the Telecom Act of 1996 and deregulation.

Deregulation (and disastrous trade policies) that directly contributed to the massive financial crisis. And that Telecom Act directly contributed to the sad state of our mainstream media. He was the best Republican president we've had in the last few decades, and I give him some credit for not blowing up the national debt like Reagan and Bush.

But as an unwise woman once said "thanks but no thanks".

[truedelphi]

21. Being an unwise woman myself

I will echo that one -- "Thanks. But no thanks."

[quiet.american]

25. Which ultimately leads to what point?

When the (R) wins, we spend our time bemoaning that the (R) won, or was selected, as in the case of Bush.

When the (D) wins, we spend time tearing him down in non-constructive ways.

I'm sorry, this kind of "Is Obama One of Us" just doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the conversation.

[bvar22]

27. Opposing BAD Policy....

..is NOT tearing somebody down.
It IS fighting for REAL change.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[quiet.american]

28. I'm talking about all the shirt-rending, not constructive discussions on policy. nt

[ihavenobias]

30. Ah, but the shirt-rending applies political pressure which in turn can force change.

This is an undeniable fact. Besides which, Cenk has discussed policy on this issue a million times in previous shows and articles.

[quiet.american]

34. There's shirt-rending, and then there's shirt-rending. :)

I just don't agree with the premise that if Obama doesn't do this or that in the way we're looking for him to do this or that, then he's not "one of us."

[ihavenobias]

38. Also keep this healthcare discussion in the context of how the economy has been handled.

Most top economists believe we should have temporarily nationalized the banks and slapped down strict regulations (or at least have undone the deregulation). Instead the Bush bailouts were continued AND we have no new regulations. This was after two known pro-Wall Street, pro-deregulation guys were put in charge of everything (Summers and Geithner).

And of course there is the very weak handling of the previous administration and its crimes. Failing on healthcare would complete the tri-fecta and for many progressives, completely kill any and all faith in this administration.

If this was ONLY about healthcare I think you'd have a stronger point. But you have to put it in the context of the other major issues that have been tackled so far. Then the disenchantment would seem to be much more reasonable, wouldn't you agree?

[tbyg52]

41. I sure agree, especially on the economy.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but all I've seen is money being thrown at it, both openly and covertly, and no change otherwise.

[ihavenobias]

I'm really looking forward to seeing Michael Moore's new movie.

I think he's going to go after all parties involved, regardless of party.

[tbyg52]

48. Yes, I sure wish it was opening here sooner - have to wait until October. nt

[Enthusiast]

67. Me too.

At least we will get some truth from MM.

[quiet.american]

42. A stronger WH Communications department would be a big help.

I pretty much agree with what you said.

And while I admire Robert Gibbs, I find myself wishing for someone in that position who can tear the throat out of Fox News, et al. by getting out in front of all the propaganda.

Personally, I would have liked to have the banks nationalized, too. However, it would have had to have been done on a razor's edge, with a full-out public relations offense from the WH, because we know the Republican echo chamber would have cried "Mussolini" from the rooftops, even though some of their talking heads were also suggesting it.

[ihavenobias]

46. I agree.

I think the most frustrating thing about all of this is that the Republican echo chamber HAS been crying 'Mussolin/Fascism/Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Kenyan/Radical Leftist/Terrorist', etc. Partly because of lobbyists and special interests, partly because of political calculations and partly out of beliefs, this administration has been center-right.

Despite that, the right wing is enraged, and led to believe the administration is far left. It's horrible because the administration COULD be very progressive and the reaction wouldn't be *that* much different. So they're taking the political heat and opposition all for corporate, center-right policies. We get the worst of both worlds.

And since corporate, center-right policies don't help the country much (and often hurt it), people will continue to be angry. The left for reasons we're aware of already, the right because the right wing media keeps them in a state of constant fear and anger, etc. But the most dangerous and depressing part is the the moderates will also grow disenchanted when they don't see substantive, positive change, and the right wing media and corporate MSM memes about the failure of a "liberal" administration and Democratic party will reach them. That means hard right, corporate and social conservatives could take control and push the country off a cliff altogether.

[quiet.american]

49. Good points. No argument there. nt

[bvar22]

39. Did Cenk "rend" his shirt?

I didn't see it.

Isn't your hyperbole just more "shirt rending"?

[quiet.american]

43. If you like. nt

[burning rain]

57. Look, Cenk's great, but if there's going to be shirt-rending,....

let's leave that to Ana. :evilgrin:

[ihavenobias]

29. That when we elect D's we want them to ACT like D's.

How's that for a simple answer that unfortunately depends on an insanely difficult and complicated process that includes serious campaign finance/lobbyist reform.

PS---Read the entire article, not just the headline you keep repeating. You can still disagree with it at the end but using the title alone as a club isn't really fair.

[quiet.american]

33. Who said I only read the title? I did read the whole thing.

I'll tell you this -- I like Cenk. I look forward to watching his clips and usually agree wholeheartedly.

What I disagree with is the tone of, if Obama does not do this, or do that, in this way, or that way, there is no good that will have come from electing him.

If Hillary had won, the same criticisms would be posted about her.

Let's face it, if we truly want someone who "is one of us" we'll need to find a way to finally put Kucinich in the WH. And yet, I have a feeling that once Kucinich would be faced with getting things done in this political environment, we'd even see, "I'm so disappointed in Kucinich" posts.

[ihavenobias]

35. Fair enough, I respectfully disagree but it's a reasonable point.

I like the fact you point out it's a disagreement with tone and choice of words. That's relevant because a lot of the negative Cenk comments lately have been throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[quiet.american]

37. 'Preciate the conversation. Cheers. nt

[burning rain]

22. I think Cenk's on the money.

I'm a public option guy, myself, but I'd certainly consider the option of regulating the living hell out of private insurance--but big insurance would hate that as much as public option, and it's largely their hatred that drives corporate sell-out senators. So it would surprise me if senators who opposed public option would back the heavy sort of regulation necessary to compensate for lack of a public option.

[bvar22]

31. If I believed that THIS Congress....

...is capable of "regulating" the people who bought them, I would agree.

These are the same people who regulated the Wall Street Banks after the Bailouts....
Oh wait.
.
.
.
My bad.

ANY "regulation" passed by THIS Congress will be written by the Health Insurance Industry lobbyists.
It will be unenforceable, have meaningless penalties (if any), no explicit and funded oversight apparatus, and be easily avoidable.

"Regulation" will probably rely on the individual consumer filing a law suit against the Health Insurance Industry (from a hospital bed)....kind of like NOW.

[OhioChick]

23. K&R n/t

[bvar22]

32. K&R.....to +11

The Centrist/Corporate Borg is busy today.

[pleah]

36. K&R

[pleah]

44. Obama is a centrist, but he knows damn well WHY he was elected.

I'm just feel sorry for all the people that thought we would see real change. Even I thought just maybe this time we would and I knew before the primaries that he was not liberal/progressive.

[Ghost Dog]

50. Did John Pilger give the right answer here?

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=545 (Text of an address given by John Pilger at Socialism 2009 in San Francisco)

...During his brief period in the Senate, Obama voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for the Patriot Act. He refused to support a bill for single-payer health care. He supported the death penalty. As a presidential candidate, he received more corporate backing than John McCain. He promised to close Guantanamo as a priority and has not. Instead, he has excused the perpetrators of torture, re-instated the infamous military commissions, kept the Bush gulag intact and opposed habeus corpus.

...

Chris Hedges, author of Empire of Illusion puts it well. “President Obama,” he wrote, “does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.” And so you are kept in “a perpetual state of childishness”. He calls this “junk politics”....

[jgraz]

51. If you have to ask...

:banghead:

[theFrankFactor]

52. Apparently Rham is Right - The "Democtrats" Will Eat Whatever SHIT is Put in Front of Them...

Its's only us "radicals" that make noise. Us "birthers". Man, FUCK YOU for that one.

These people that pull their butt cheeks open for "moderate" and "centrist" Obama are part of the fuckin' PROBLEM the Left has. He had all the marbles goin' in. He FUCKED IT UP! Why? He fucked it up because it's not abut the people that elected him. His cabinet choices were SHIT. I knew we were in trouble then.

No public option? Really? And that's... okay?

Well yeah, if your a fuckin' pussy.

Here's your shit sandwich Mr. and Mrs. Democrat. Mmmm, thank you!

Talk about lowered expectations!


CHUMP FUCKING CHANGE!

[Butch350]

54. Didn't he say in his fucking campaign....

That he was not going to be the democratic, republican, libertarian, green party president?

BUT A PRESIDENT THAT WILL REPRESENT all of the people?

[Butch350]

53. Aren't there at least a couple hundred of these posts already posted on DU?!

[ejbr]

55. k & r n/t

[AncientAtBirth666]

56. Do bear in mind.....

.....that it's essentially the Democrats in congress who are making the public option unobtainable. We have a majority that all the Republicans combined couldn't vote down, and yet the public option is probably going to die because it doesn't have the support of enough Democrats in congress.

To some extent, don't confuse betrayal with realism, because if Obama does choose to abandon the public option it's because he knows that realistically, he doesn't have the votes to make it happen. Blame and punish the Democrats in congress who don't support it, not Obama.

[JHB]

59. K&R for Cenk ringing the FDR bell (even if he didn't use those words)...

...FDR: "Now go out there and MAKE me do it"

[Seldona]

60. I sure hope so.

[fascisthunter]

63. kick and REC!

people need to read this and open their eyes or else nothing will be done.

[ooglymoogly]

64. Cenk tells it like he sees it

He does not look through rose colored glasses but sees things as they are. I admire him for that.

[jeffbr]

65. "we dared to have hope in the wrong guy"

[FiveGoodMen]

74. Not that we had a lot of other choices

From the beginning, it was pretty clear that we were going to get Hillary (who campaigned on much of the bad policy that Obama's now displaying) or Barack ... or a repuke.

The media wouldn't give much time to Edwards (I know, he's got his own problems, but so did his potential opponent), and they wouldn't even put Kucinich in the photo.

So we put our hope in the only possible choice.

But it hasn't been working out well.

[cadmium]

69. Cenk still thinks Pappy Bush was an excellent president. He does a

good radio show and I usually agree with him but I dont think he is much of an authority on who is with us or against us.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

70. no he doesnt n/t

[cadmium]

71. I have been a regular listener for several years. Has he

changed his mind? He has said that he thinks Bush was very good president many times.

[ihavenobias]

72. Nuance.

He believes Bush Sr's foreign policy was much, much better than Bush Jr's. And he respected that Bush Sr raised taxes despite his pledge not to, even though it was politically unpopular.

The End

[spiritual_gunfighter]

73. Cenk was a Republican until 2000 so up to that point I am sure

he thought GHWB was a good president, I am sure he had a lot of views he doesnt agree with today. I have never heard him say a good thing about Herbert Walker Bush, on the contrary actually.

[ihavenobias]

75. See my comment # 72.

That's what he praises the elder Bush for. You may not agree, but it's not insane or anything.

[JDPriestly]

76. Cenk speaks for me. Thanks Cenk. You said it perfectly.

Wonderful.