The Self-Destruction of Barack Obama

[Bernard Weiner]

l Bernard Weiner l



By Bernard Weiner
, The Crisis Papers

President Obama has lost his 2012 bid for re-election.

He has made key decisions in three areas that, unless he alters his approach (not likely), could well guarantee a Republican victory: an embarrassingly rolled-out, badly-compromised health-care reform bill; his continuing slavish subservience to those on Wall Street that took the country into the economic toilet; and his sad imitation of CheneyBush's imperial campaign in Afghanistan.

(Obama's only hope for 2012 may depend on Sarah Palin getting the GOP nomination. Even better if Glenn Beck or Dick Cheney is her running mate -- tickets, I'm appalled to say, that have been mentioned seriously. The Democrats can only hope to face such Republican candidates.)

If Obama goes down to defeat in 2012, he could take with him any hope for a major revitalization of American democracy after eight years of wrack and ruin under CheneyBush. And Obama's own Democratic majority in Congress might well suffer, perhaps quite badly, at the polls in November of 2010.

Yes, yes, I know that Obama's only been in office for a month shy of one year, and dumping on the guy may seem way early, especially given the humongous mess he inherited from his disastrous predecessor, and the vicious, destructively partisan warfare being waged by the Congressional Republicans. Still, as we approach the New Year, some summarizing truths need to be spoken now, and loudly, if we are to gain anything from the current situation in the way of possible alterations of course that can still be made.
 

TIMIDITY IS NOT GOOD POLITICS

The long and short of Obama's present dilemma lies in his inability and/or unwillingness to use his massive electoral mandate in the service of the kind of systemic change he promised and that most Americans thought they were voting for. He seems afraid to step out of the D.C. Beltway manner of thinking and acting. Or, more likely, he is behaving the way he is because he really feels comfortable with the elitist/corporatist power-wielders and doesn't want to rock any boats.

Instead of being a transformational president, in the mode of FDR, willing to think boldly and move courageously, he's quickly turning into a lame-duck Democratic place-holder for whomever comes next. The incremental change he's willing to fight for is not the the major-change platform he ran on, certainly not on health-care reform, not on helping middle-class homeowners, not on extricating the U.S. from mistaken wars.

America needs major surgery, but Obama is supplying little more than Band-Aids while trying to pass himself off as a successful surgeon. The Democratic base is not buying what he's selling, especially liberal/progressive Dems, moderate Independents, and Republicans who voted for Obama because they were appalled by the extreme rhetoric coming from the crazies in charge of the GOP. In the eyes of these voting blocs, which overwhelmingly backed Obama in 2008, he is just your average politician, promising anything to get elected but not fighting and following through when it counts. No wonder 25% of Democrats already say they probably won't vote for him again.
 

EXAMPLES OF WRONG-HEADEDNESS

It didn't have to turn out this way.

•  Millions of citizens were energized to work for and vote for and contribute to Obama's campaign. I was one of those in the political trenches, sending money, ringing doorbells, writing editorial columns, etc. Even though I saw him as little more than a pragmatic centrist, Obama seemed unlike a traditional politician and made promising speeches about taking on the entrenched power structure in Washington and in the country in general, enacting major reforms.


As one who was a bit inside the campaign, I can verify that the energy and hope in 2008 was palpable. Finally, FINALLY!, this was our chance -- after backward-looking Reaganism, after greedy and power-hungry CheneyBushism -- to turn things around, cleanse the foul-smelling stables, get America's priorities right. Maybe Obama wasn't a true progressive, but he wasn't Bush or Cheney or McCain or Palin and his liberal tendencies might come to the fore.


It's plain that too many liberals let their fervent dreams of change cloud their assessment of the man. Now, even in his first year, everyone can see that he's pretty much a politician of the old school, willing to compromise and triangulate and water down, often even before the fight is joined. In short, he is averse to taking on the powers-that-be, in part because he is a product of and a true believer in that status quo system. Or, too naively, he hopes he can convert the opposition to voluntarily do the right thing. Ain't gonna happen.
 

• How else to explain Obama's wishy-washy support of true health-care reform? OK, he won't accept the single-payer, Medicare-for-all approach that would be so simple, cost-effective, universal. We understand his reticence while bemoaning his lack of courage. But not to fight tooth and nail for a robust public-option plan that was supported by two-thirds of the American citizenry in polls? All along, he could have made clear that he would veto any legislation that did not include that robust option, and thus altered the debate and outcome. Instead, his chief of staff and other key Democrats effectively indicated for weeks that even the much-compomised, less-than-robust public-option could disappear with no great loss. With a jerry-rigged "trigger" substitute and buy-in for some, Obama still believes he can claim a "victory," placate his base, and thereby boost his electoral chances. He and Rahm have badly miscalulated.
 

• How else to explain Obama's embrace of the very financial players who helped get us into our current economic trauma? Not just the financiers on Wall Street (who, not incidentally, are still engaged in some of the very greedy tactics that created the mess in the first place) but bringing those types into vital policy-making roles in his administration: Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, et al.? Obama's dedication to propping up a corrupted form of capitalism makes him seem to be moving the deck chairs around the Titanic, rather than charting a new, more secure, more economically-just course. We've hit the economic iceberg, but are blithely continuing on toward the next catastrophe.
 

• How else to explain Obama's mirroring of CheneyBush's penchant for anti-democratic secrecy ("state secrets"), and their neo-con, American-exceptionalist foreign/military policies?
 

• How else to explain Obama's abysmal, CheneyBush-like record on civil liberties: asserting the right to hold detainees forever without charging them or bringing them to trial, to "render" them to states that engage in extreme torture, to continue domestic spying on U.S. citizens, to claim to be fighting "just wars," etc. And to the amassing of enormous powers, a la CheneyBush, in the Chief Executive's hands? The political lesson here seems to be: If you build it, they will come -- and not leave.
 

Yes, of course we're glad, and infinitely relieved, that the McCain/Palin ticket was not elected and are encouraged in so many other areas of governance with Obama's appointments, his record on the environment and global warming and science and so on. But he's sold out in so many important ways that his future, and the hope for vitally-needed meaningful reforms, is not bright.

Unless Obama is willing to make a drastic shift in course, he's going to be a lame duck, one-term President. Those who worked so hard for him are starting to abandon him, or are being pushed out (example: Greg Craig) because of ideological differences in approach on the wars, the economic bailouts, torture, holding officials accountable for war crimes and unconstitutional behaviors, civil liberties, etc. 

 
AND WRONG ON AFGHANISTAN

But even more than his arm's-length behavior on health-care reform dragging Obama down in the public's estimation, it's the escalation of the war in Afghanistan that may well doom his political future -- in much the same way Vietnam destroyed the effectiveness and presidencies of LBJ and Nixon.

In trying to play to every faction with his newly-announced Afghanistan policy, Obama pleases no one. Obama may think that means he's in the comfortable middle and has maneuvered skillfully with his triangulation, but, in truth, it suggests that his policy is pretty much a congealed mess.

At least Obama has the good sense to understand that "winning" in Afghanistan is impossible, as imperialist powers like the Brits and the Soviets in different centuries finally had to concede in the end. And so, Obama is launching a major escalation of a lost war mostly not to win it but to buy a little time in order to extricate U.S. troops on our own schedule (which just happens to coincide with the 2012 election). "We came in to help the Afghan people stand up for themselves, but it turns out they are so factionalized and corrupt that they cannot successfully be helped. We tried and now we're coming home." That seems to be the Obama scenario.

The $30-billion allocated for this escalation is money poured down a rathole, funding that could do wonders in helping nation-build and create jobs back in the U.S. This cost does not even include the brave young men and women in the U.S. military -- along with thousands of innocent Afghan civilians -- who will be slaughtered and maimed in this Vietnam-like quagmire of a war. (Karzai and a goodly number of U.S. generals figure we're in Afghanistan for anywhere from five to 20 years.) 
 

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

So what, if anything, can be done about this trifecta of disasters: an endlessly-compromised, less-than-satisfactory health-care reform; a senseless, immoral war in our names (fought, to a large degree, with outside-the-law mercenaries); and a slow, partial economic recovery that helps the wealthy and corporations -- the insurance giants, the financial/banking sector, the pharmaceuticals, the oil moguls, et al. -- but not the American working- and middle-class?

Though the momentum currently is with Obama and the Democratic leaders, none of these issues are done deals as of this writing. We should be putting immense and unrelenting pressure on the President and our members of Congress to at least place tough, enforceable regulatory sanctions on the Wall Street robber-barons; to stick with the robust public-option on health-care reform; and to not fund the Afghanistan escalation. These oppositional actions could be accomplished through phone calls, petitions, letters, online agitation, sit-ins at their offices, protests on the campuses and in the streets, creative political theatre at a wide variety of venues, etc.

That's short term. Long term, we must work to fertilize the field in various states and Congressional districts for liberal/progressive candidates to run against conservative Democrats who too often side with the Republican extremists. Obviously, no Democrat can be 100% in correct votes for there are occasionally issues, or political realities in the field, that will lead to a bad vote on a particular bill.

The targets, though, are those DINOs (Dems in name only) who habitually desert the Democratic caucus to side with the worst of "conservative" positions on key popular issues. In the Senate, think Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and that crew. The House is replete with conservative Blue Dog Democrats who proudly perform their obstructionist role time and again by siding with Republicans on decent legislation. At the very least, those politicians should have to face solid, viable liberal opposition in the primaries. That way, even if the Blue Dogs eke out victories, a potential progressive base can be identified and built on for future campaigns. And, who knows?, threatening these conservative Democrats with opposition in the primaries could affect their votes right now.

Even more long-term, we must start thinking, and talking, about the alternatives open to progressives in the 2012 presidential race. Including joining with many other Americans who are turned off by the current stranglehood on power held by elite forces seemingly beyond our control. Among these options might well be the founding of a viable third party.#--BW


Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at various universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor for the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently is co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).

Copyright 2009, by Bernard Weiner
First published 12/15/09 by The Crisis Papers

[villager]

1. Ah, the Panglossians have begun the unrecs!

n/t

[Eric68601]

3. Yeah well

Yeah well, I'll toss in a REC to counter at least one. President Lieberman will make it all better.

[elocs]

61. Right, and it was so important that the very first response was used to point it out.

Nice work.

[democracy1st]

2. K & R I'm just blown away by his weak leadership . What does he stand for ?

[slay]

5. I'm pretty shocked at how bad it is too. Our real chance for change is GONE.

Just as the 60's looked promising then faded away, Obama has done the same in a remarkably short amount of time - for all the reasons talked about in the article. I couldn't be more disappointed. The best thing we can hope for at this point is for a strong Dem - maybe Howard Dean - to challenge him in the 2012 primaries. Maybe somehow he'll turn back into candidate Obama, but I just don't see that happening. Sorry for the reality check diehard supporters but even yall have to see at this point that he is just not the strong leader we need to lead us into a positive, progessive future. He just isn't. I mean come on - more WAR in Afghanistan AND the worst so called "health care reform" possible - I mean do we not live on the same planet as CANADA or the UK? Can we not learn from example? Are we that arrogant? How fucking stupid do they think we are? Argh! :banghead:

Unfortunately most Americans are too busy to really pay attention so we probably won't get a Dem challenger in 2012 so that means either 4 more years with Obama, which is looking less likely by the day, or some Republican asshole. The future is looking as dreary now as it did under Bush. :(

[Goldstein1984]

65. Re: Howard Dean

I've been watching pitiful Senate Democrats defense the compromised HCR bill on the news. Howard Dean is making a good fight of opposing the bill.

I'm thinking Howard Dean in 2012, too.

[Daemonaquila]

88. I'll still support Kucinich first...

but if Dean is the guy with the better shot, I'd vote for him.

[Goldstein1984]

91. Kucinich is good too

Any of these would get my support:

Dean/Kucinich

Kucinich/Dean

Sanders/Kucinich

Kucinich/Sanders

Sanders/Dean

Dean/Sanders

[DumbBassRepublicans]

113. How about....

Mickey Mouse / Donald Duck...!!!

Even THEY would be better than what we have now...!!!

Sad..... really, really, sad.....!!!???!!!

[wuvuj]

8. COMPROMISE...

...

[rhett o rick]

108. Sorry, what? nt

[spooked911]

100. he's a tool of the powers that be

and stands for them, in a nice multi-racial way

[MISSDem]

158. I believe you but I wonder who are these powers.

Seriously - who are they?

[IsItJustMe]

107. As the old song goes "Absolutetly Nothing". To be more accurate though, from what I have seen.

I would say that he is mostly for maintaining the status quo and enriching and ensuring the continued wealth of the wealthiest amoung us or the backs of the American public.

We have no honest choices any more. Corporate whores or crazy corporate whores.

An empty suit that can talk a lot of shit.

[cyclezealot]

144. We'll hope he gets his nerve back..

I was disappointed when he backed down on Xavier Bacerra as the US Trade Ambassador for Ron Kirk.. The US economy won't get better until we have fair trade... That retraction of Bacerra happened just before the Inauguration..
. I was always skeptical when he said, lets get along with the Repukes.. There is no getting along with those corporate clone , ass holes... The Dem's loose their majority in 2010, I predict Obama will face a special prosecutor..
Is Obama a bad person. I think not , just his lets all work together as a result of his community organization does not work in the big time... The Gooper attack has started in a legalistic sense.. The House Repuke minority is asking for investigations into Obama's deals with Big Pharma to gain their support for Health care reform... ... As if they ever asked about Dick Cheney's dealings with the oil gooones with his famous meeting with them soon after the Coronation of Bush/Cheney..

[struggle4progress]

4. The real problem is: we stopped making community phone calls and door knocks after the election.

The country has 300 million people in it. There's only so much one person can do, even if that person is President.

If we really want change, it's not enough to show up for a few weeks every four years

[katandmoon]

13. How does knocking on doors and making phone calls change anything?

It won't make Obama any less in thrall to Wall Street, big pharma, and Joe Lieberman.

[struggle4progress]

15. What wins in politics is being organized. Our opponents have the monetary resources to buy

organization, and so they'll beat us as long as we're unorganized. If you don't understand the power of organized communities, you simply need to learn some American history: poor people have always gotten their rights here by banding together to push for concrete reforms

[pundaint]

64. Yeah, we did that.

And now we find out that the guy we worked for was conning us. There ain't a damn thing we can do to change that for 3 more years, but we'll be active again in 12. Meanwhile we must get busy firing Congress.

[Goldstein1984]

68. Yes, but organization needs leadership.

What prominent progressive leader has recognized the discontent with an America of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations? What leader is willing to stick his neck out and go outside of the system and directly to the masses? Who is courageous enough to call for the tactics described in the post?

I'm waiting for a Bernie Sanders, or a Howard Dean, or somebody to step outside the system, condemn it, and challenge it with more than mainstream sound bites.

[jberryhill]

116. Organized to do WHAT?

I've gotten the emails from Organizing for America and done various things requested in them to promote health care reform with a "robust public option" that I THOUGHT we were organized to persuade others to support.

I DID that.

Now, I get a "WTF was that about?" from members of my own family.

I like Obama. I'm happy to have him as president. But I'm not going to make some sort of fool of myself to promote what HE is selling again.

Politicians can do all sorts of gyrations. That's their job. But don't ask people do do that to their friends, families, neighbors and others. That's just jackassery.

[Mojorabbit]

135. + 100

I did the same thing and I now look like a fool in front of my family and friends.

[jberryhill]

136. Try my own mother...

She was very nice to me today.

She said she was impressed with how long I kept thinking this was going to end well.

[chervilant]

118. Gee, thanks

for perpetuating the MYTH that we can organize and effect change in our current political landscape. Too many people have been brainwashed by the Corporate Megalomaniacs and their media lapdogs (witness pathetic 'conservative Republicans'). Too many politicians are enamoured of the enormous sums of money they currently receive from the vile corporatists. Too many citizens are functionally illiterate or incapable of comprehending what little they CAN read. Too many people on this ENTIRE PLANET expend huge amounts of time and energy externalizing responsibility and playing the dreaded 'blame and shame' game!!

We humans are perched on the crumbling edge of an evolutionary abyss. If we don't get a BIG clue soon (shall I even MENTION the overpopulation elephant under our collective 'living room rug'?!?), we will experience exponentially the inevitable consequences of our rampant hedonism.

If you are tempted to label me a pessimist, please bear in mind that I've been an advocate for humanity for most of my life. I'd like to believe you're right, even now that the evidence is overwhelmingly negating your assertion.

[jberryhill]

137. "rampant hedonism"?

Ummm... just as a point of reference, what is the general vicinity in which you make most of your observations of humanity?

Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

110. Knocking on doors is the most effective form of campaigning.

The corporations buy ads and fancy websites. Kucinich would be electable because he got media attention in 2008. If we organize and walk door to door for him starting now with hand-outs and information every month or so, we can get him the kind of name recognition he needs. Same for Dean.

I am great at "tabling." You stand at a table, say on the sidewalk or some other public place and hand out information about your candidate. People stop and talk to you. You cannot obstruct the sidewalk, but, for instance, you can walk through a public park and offer your information or set up a stall in a public square outside a farmer's market or other regular public event;

[jberryhill]

46. Nonsense - I urged anyone I knew to support a "robust public option"

I thought I was HELPING.

The only thing I helped to do, by thinking I was supporting the effort, was make a lot of folks realize that what Obama was selling isn't what we're getting.

The MISTAKE is doing anything before realizing that you're going to be left out on some Arctic ice floe by yourself, and derided by the White House for insisting on what Obama said he wanted.

Fuck that.

[freddie mertz]

51. I bought the line too. Went out and stood against the tea-baggers at events in PA.

Not a big deal, but I believed at the time that I was supporting a president who was committed to real HCR with the public option.

We all did. 100s of us at these events.

Then came the "sliver" speech and great unraveling. From that point on, it was more about pressing congressional reps than anything to do with the president.

And now we have come to what seems like a predetermined end.

And for supporting what the president himself said we should support, I (and so many others) get called a "hater."

I'n sick to death of it.

[Goldstein1984]

69. In my very first post on DU, I called for dissent, and...

I was unreced up the butt.

Too many put party and status quo ahead of change.

We need to appeal to values, not party. The party is compromised--corporate-funded.

[Hestia]

131. You're absolutely correct . After the Inauguration, I/we all waited for our next job,

what is it that needs to be done, where are we needed the most? How do we fight the right with the media (within hours of the inauguration). I stupidly thought that we would see some state leadership, who saw the money and enthusiasm that we sent to the campaign and get us organized, when in reality all we saw/see is sour grapes at the thought of the money we sent to someone else.

After listening to the right pontificate endlessly about everything from Michelle's arms to the First Dog, OFA finally sent an email saying that they will be coming to my bodunk town. Finally! Some action! A 23 year old guy who is not from our state and is clueless on the how politics works around here, met us at one of the absolute worse places in town. Also, he decides to meet the day before school starts. 6 of us show up. I asked him endless questions about current events and how were those going to be answered, etc. I find a place to meet next time, since he is going to all organize us and shit, and he runs when he sees me at a rally in another county, and haven't heard one email from anything that is going on in this state, period.

I look around for some people who want to do something, but all they want to do is have us sign petitions. As if that works. If so, there would be jobs, prosecutions and health care for all.

So...since we need ideas to be thrown out on the table that would be non-violent and get TPTB's attention, I say we have a collection one day not going to work. It would have to be on the QT at first, until something like this could be organized. We've got our Winter Holiday to get through first. Then, quietly get the meme out that something like this could might happen.

That's all I have for the moment. Anybody got any ideas to get their attention? To prove to them that we really are pissed and are quite serious about it?

[jberryhill]

139. "I say we have a collection one day not going to work"

Yeah... I'm self employed, and going on strike against myself isn't probably going to persuade me of much. Other than maybe seeing a shrink.

But, yes, I also believed that President Obama's election would be the beginning of a larger organizing effort.

I'm thinking the ONE campaign provides focused action leadership more effectively than OFA. ONE actually targets specific legislative proposals and you know WTF it is you are trying to accomplish.

With OFA, on this issue, the big deal has been to make "1,000,000" phone calls in favor of "health reform". Well, no shit. Who doesn't want "health reform". Even the Republicans _say_ they want "health reform". I can just run an auto-dialer all day long, cycling through the Congressional switchboard and shout "Hello, I want health reform." Yippee!! I've been organizled!

I'm starting to think OFA is kind of like those emails you get if you ever put your name into classmates.com or some other online marketing thing.

[Hestia]

164. You're right, the concept of Not Going To Work One day becomes a how does this effect me campaign

What is the link to ONE? With all the Take Action and Send US Money emails, you'd think that I would have received a link. Howard Dean's group (Progressive in Action? Progressives For Action? Is that it? The one his brother runs?) seems to be a great one to get behind also.

[pundaint]

63. don't blame the victim

[grahamhgreen]

73. It's because he started to ask us to support corporate give-aways instead of real reform.

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. We need: an economic populist, anti-corporatist party.

I see such a party doing very well. Dems should've for decades now, run such alternate candidates in primaries, as you suggest. They have no excuse for not doing so, except that... the party pols secretly want DINOs instead of Liberals.

The American people as a whole have ditched the corporatists of both parties. THAT'S what's goin' on. The people get it. The pols don't. Or don't want/intend to.

Yup, it's time for a new party. I don't see the Dems reforming and kicking out the DLC. Too bad we don't already have such a party NOW. We need one.

I agree with all that you say about Pres. Obama in 2012. I have to wonder... how did his corporate nature gel with being a community activist? It seems schizophrenic. That's what fooled most of us, I think... we couldn't imagine that a community activist could turn out to actually be a corporatist. Who knew? Well now we do know.

I still like him. I still hope for a turnaround. But I see that this is who he really is. And I won't accept corporatist policies just because he's the mouthpiece for them.

Sad. It didn't have to be this way. It's how he made it. And the Congressional like-minded Dems. We aren't leaving them, they left us.

[depakid]

19. TIMIDITY IS NOT GOOD POLITICS

Sums it up in a nutshell.

[tomm2thumbs]

31. +1

[dflprincess]

42. And pragmatism makes bad policy

From an commentary in the Mpls Star Tribune December 5. Written by John Marty, DFL state senator and candidate for governor:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/78561822.html?elr=KArksc8P%20<img%20src=

If 21st-century progressives had led the 19th century's abolition movement, we'd still have slavery. But we'd have limited slaves to 40-hour workweeks, and we'd be proud of the progress we'd made….

…This timidity can be explained by decades of defeat at the hands of right-wing politicians like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, which caused many progressives to retreat from a politics of principle to a supposed politics of pragmatism -- which is not only lacking in courage, but also has proven highly ineffective.

..But with the current politics of misguided pragmatism, some progressives calculate what is politically acceptable, and then determine what they will stand for. For example, using this "pragmatism," President Obama decided to push for health insurance for more instead of health care for all.

One cannot totally fault the president for failing to push for comprehensive reform. He shied away from principle-based reform because he knows that members of Congress working on health reform take big campaign contributions from the health insurance lobby and other powerful interests. He knows that they are afraid of nasty campaign attacks and believe they need the big money to win reelection….

…It's time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The Minnesota Health Plan -- which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now -- is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

Refusing to fight for what's right because it is "not politically realistic" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

[Goldstein1984]

80. We need to step outside of the system

Timidity is a function of fear, and politicians are afraid of offending their corporate masters.

Progressives need an anti-corporatist leader to organize them. Someone to rally people willing to go completely outside the system to change it.

The system is rigged to perpetuate itself. It can't be changed by following rules. That's why the powers that be love to make new rules, and the rules always work to their advantage. (e.g. USA Patriot Act; the current HCR bill that mandates millions on new customers for insurance companies)

[AndrewP]

102. +1

[TexasEditor]

60. " We need: an economic populist, anti-corporatist party"

Absolutely.

[Goldstein1984]

72. Both parties are corporatist

I worked for Williams Petroleum years ago, and we had a "Williams Employee PAC." The company Vice President of Communications would call an occasional meeting, and assorted politicians would come and speak to us.

In the end, the rule was: "Always donate to both candidates--cover your bet."

Corporations buy everyone in politics--it's a good investment.

[Fading Captain]

101. Sing It People: 6. We need: an economic populist, anti-corporatist party.

This is the lesson.

[Demeter]

7. I'm Not Holding My Breath

Obama may have seen the light last week--far too late for an indication of either intelligence or political savvy. He COULD pull his Presidency out of the toilet.

But he will have to start firing people like Timmy Geithner, Larry Summers, and Rahm Emmanuel...THAT would be change I could believe in.

It would also be change long overdue.

[truedelphi]

122. I like your sentiments but am so confused.

According to the attitude of many here, Rahm appointed Obama?

And until Rahm surrenders his power, Obama can not do a single thing about any situation except let Rahm do as he wants.

[TexasObserver]

9. Recommend. It's a quality read, and, unfortunately, far too accurate.

[pjt7]

10. Nice article

Hard to take on the money men,war mongers,spooks, media, insurance industry & pharmacuticals.

They certainly own the majority of D's & R's. & certainly own Obama & Michelle.

[placton]

11. shhhhhhhhhh

truth is not welcome to some people :sarcasm:

[midnight]

12. I would say the President has been too polite to those who have and to those

who have run this country into the situation we are in. To those who are still losing their homes, not being treated for basic health care, dying from chronic conditions, it has been a very tough pill to swallow. The President has made it clear that the money changers are running this country, and he will do his best to get us a coin or two. Other than that could everyone please behave..... And that costly war is a safety concern that need to provide safety? I think most Americans want safety at home.

[DumbBassRepublicans]

114. President Polite....

Yep.

When he came on the scene, we all thought, another "JFK...!!!"

Yeah. Right....

Actually, I supported Hillary, was fairly upset when she lost, but I listened

to Obama and thought, "Now this guy's got some serious charisma, so maybe he can do something..!!"

I was happy to vote for him, but boy oh boy, how I wish Hill would have won...

NO WAY, would we she have put up with all of these right-wing, fear-mongering,

be-against-everything, republican NUT CASES...!!!

Hillary's far-right-wing conspiracy theory notwithstanding,

she would've laid down the law, and kicked the republicans' butts, which is the ONLY thing they

understand..!!!

IF Obama doesn't grow a NEW set of balls, it's gonna be an ugly, ugly, future for democrats...!!!

:(

[boomerbust]

14. Bernie

Less than one year and you have already stuck the meat fork into Obamas back. I predict you will need knee surgery in the near future. Hope you have a good insurance policy to cover such an unexpected surgery.

[Kermitt Gribble]

29. So you think

the country is headed in the right direction? Why don't wait a little longer to see what other ways this govt can plunder and pillage the middle class.:eyes:

[boomerbust]

32. Not at all

Just saying that calling Obama a failure after only 10 months might be a bit prematyre.

[Kermitt Gribble]

33. I would agree

if his cabinet weren't a bunch of corporate crooks, but, they are. And, unless they're replaced, we can expect more of the same for the next 3 years.

[liberation]

77. Arbitrary deadlines are a red herring which lost its luster a while back

Here is the hint: people are not having issue with the duration of Obama's policies but the DIRECTION.

I don't need to wait until we see California to tell the pilot that flying West is not the best way to get from NY to London... get it?

[bobshin]

124. ...three years later. It's less than four years and you have already stuck

the meat fork into Obama's back...

when's this (progressively longer time frame) meme ever going to end?

[4dsc]

16. Obama needs to clean house with this advisors

I firmly believe its not so much Obama's fault but rather the fault of his advisors that keep giving him bad advise.. Heck, I could do a better job than they are..

[dgibby]

25. Whenever I see someone

blame Obama's advisors more than Obama, I can only surmise that the poster thinks Obama is A. Too stupid to appoint good advisors, B. too stupid to know when he's getting bad advice, or, most likely, C. Can't bring him/herself to critize the POTUS for choosing the wrong advisors in the first place.

[chimpymustgo]

59. [phone].

[Kermitt Gribble]

28. Wake up.

Obama is a very intelligent man - not some vacuous invalid like reagan was in his later years.

[pundaint]

66. as opposed to being a vacuous and vital man before that.

[Kermitt Gribble]

89. Gasp! You caught me!

I'm a closet Reagan fan lol!

I wouldn't say he was a genius, by any means. He was cunning enough, though, to fool millions of middle class people in to thinking he was the greatest president ever while he destroyed their livelihoods right in front of their eyes.

[liberation]

78. You do realize intelligence is a neutral concept right?

Is that it? Is that all some of you have to justify the deflection of criticism against this administration? That Mr. Obama is "very intelligent?"

I am not interested in the IQ of the president if there are almost no policies coming from his cabinet which match my interests even remotely.


Oh, and BTW didn't Mr. Obama express his admiration for Reagan during the campaign? Me thinks that waxing poetic in admiration for a vacuous invalid fool... is not necessarily the hallmark of an overly intelligent commentator...

[Kermitt Gribble]

85. Cool your jets there, sparky.

I was replying to the above poster who is insinuating the HCR mess is the fault of Obama's advisers, not Obama.

[DumbBassRepublicans]

117. You're ABSOLUTELY right....

President Obama is very intelligent, very eloquent, and he was obviously raised in an environment of
high ideals....
Unfortunately, there's what he would like to have happen...
and then there's reality...
And, the reality is, republicans are a bunch of far-right-wing,
moronic, fanatical, holier-than-thou, do-EVERYTHING-they-can-to-hurt-Obama, JACKASSES...!!!
THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF EVER HELPING OBAMA...
THEY WANT TO DESTROY HIM...
AND, IF THE U.S. SUFFERS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR SELFISH, IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR...
SO BE IT....!!!
MOST OF US KNOW IT, BUT BARRACK JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO GET IT...!!!
BLINDED BY HIS VISIONARY PERSPECTIVE OF THE HUMAN RACE...
I THINK PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN ABOUT 500 YEARS TOO SOON...!!!
:(

[pundaint]

133. That might have some legs if he didn't renew the patriot act,

or hired a staff that believed the way he campaigned. Sorry, there's just no evidence to support the out of his control argument. Yes the Republicans are resisting, but he isn't even trying to deliver on his campaign.

[Goldstein1984]

81. Obama selected those advisors

He's responsible for their decisions.

[nightrain]

17. knr! Thanks! A very cogent essay. As many of us here on DU have been saying for months!

[Lasher]

18. So much for sticking with the robust public-option on health-care reform.

Got a plan B?

Good article.

[The_Commonist]

20. Palin/Cheney

I can't even imagine the destruction that would cause...

[pjt7]

22. third party is the only political hope

eom

[emilyg]

35. That no longer makes me feel better.

[get the red out]

57. Me neither

but it seems to be what people want as "punishment" for all of us.

[gorfle]

21. Awesome post. K&R!

This guy hits all the major points:

* Wishy-washy support of true health care reform
* Abandoning his pre-election financial advisers in favor of Wall Street cronies who got us in this mess to begin with.
* Continuing Bush's policies of "state secrets" (so much for transparency)
* Continuing Bush's policies eroding civil liberties (rendition, surveillance)
* Escalating the Middle East wars

I mean seriously. On the last four points how could it have been much worse under McCain? It's exactly how I would have expected the Republicans to run the show.

We need an alternative in 2012. Dean?

[Loge23]

23. It should be the end of the two party monopoly

The country has become too big, too diverse, for two idealogies (Dem/Rep) to represent.
The two parties - for all of their debating and bickering - have become an entity to themselves, the people be damned.

[Goldstein1984]

82. The two-party system is a self-perpetuating system funded by

corporations that ensure their interests come before those of the people.

They sell the trickle-down bullshit that what's good for corporations is good for the people.

It's time to end the dogmatic support of the two parties we have.

Watching all of the pathetic support for the half-assed HCR bill today on the mainstream media has convinced me the system is completely infiltrated with corporate toadies.

[debbierlus]

24. He is the corporate golden boy and what makes you think they will LET him lose

They kept Bush in for two terms.

Our election system is so corrupt, do our votes even count?

I don't know.

[natrat]

26. no, in close elections they throw it in the middle of the night literally

[Goldstein1984]

83. Our votes count to put somebody in office

After that, the corporations take hold of the leash

[alterfurz]

92. TPTB are perfectly content to let Obama eloquate about change

as long as nothing actually changes. And so far he seems OK with that as well. Still, maybe the country's deepening slide and growing desperation will yet compel this obviously smarter/more decent politician towards real, fundamental change? At this point, that's about my last "hope" left!

[dgibby]

27. Excellent. Thank you so much. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

30. he has burned bridge after bridge - and continues lighting 'em with his base

he can't talk his way out of this one

[snake in the grass]

34. I don't believe he is...

...too terribly threatened in 2012, mostly due to the internecine war going on in the GOP. However, 2010 could mean we lose seats in the House and Congress, which will only make his 'bipartisan' approach all the more difficult.

Next time vote progressive.

[pscot]

58. Maybe

But given the president's tanking polls and liberals on the verge of rebellion, Hillary may already be re-thinking her options. And Howard Dean could raise a small army any time he has a mind to.

[Vidar]

36. K&R.

[cstanleytech]

37. After 8+ years of republican misrule and mistakes what exactly do you think he can do?

It's not like he can wave a magic wand and say "Let it be so" when it comes to passing bills or anything, he has to deal with congress and the senate and if they don't agree with him his hands are pretty much tied.
Ya wanna put pressure then put in on those who can vote for bills to passed that Obama can sign, you want change then call and or write to your senator or your congressman and urge them to work with the president and if they refuse then work to get someone else in office who will.

[defendandprotect]

53. What did FDR do ... ??? Did he have a magic wand . . . ????

[cstanleytech]

130. He still had congress and the senate votes, thats the key you and others seem to be missing.

No president can really make many sweeping, lasting changes to our nation without winning their vote.
We got a decent president now but what we need is a better senate and congress and that means lessening the power of both the far right (but oh so often wrong) republicans and the lobbyist in washington.

[defendandprotect]

146. I'd suggest you read the Jane Hamsher article ....the problem is CORPORATISM....fascism...

And a lack of leadership willing to fight it --

You can't fight corporatism by inviting the DLC into the White House --

Nor by electing a president who is overwhelmingly supported financially by

corporate interests.

We've known corporations/elites have been buying government and its agencies

-- we've know it for more than 40 years -- yet, many want to pretend that evidence

doesn't exist.

Can you really pretend that much of our Congress -- much of the Democatic Party

is pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporate interests??????

[cstanleytech]

162. I dont know where ya pulled the following from

"Can you really pretend that much of our Congress -- much of the Democatic Party

is pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporate interests??????" nor even how ya reached that since I didnt deny that, at all
:spank:

[Hestia]

138. You're right, FDR went straight to the people. No matter how grim and dour the news was, the people

respected him for being included and being part of the discussion. He told the truth and sold it. He knew it was the truth and did it. Obama spoke to us with that truth, and then turns schizophrenic late November when he threw out most of his entire campaign staff and brings in the Goldman Sac's Squad? It's those people who spoke the truth to him, listening to us and they are now gone.

I honestly feel that Emmanuel is behind all of this. All avenues to Obama have been shut down. No more virtual town halls, no q & a's -- nothing. Nobody lives in a bubble that thick, not in this day and age.

...and then there is that quiet, small voice that says, "you should have paid more attention to the article that quote his Law Review (what? fellow student?) who said that Obama hung out with the Federalist Society group at Harvard and none really with the liberals. Those are the one's he paid the most attention to, and one of them is now one of his economic advisors".

[defendandprotect]

147. Agree on Emmanuel/DLC -- Conyers is also pointing to him . . .

However, the stage is set for corporatism in a total take over of government and our

elected officials.

FDR understood capitalism and explained it to Americans -- it's CRIMINAL ACTIVITY --

THEFT -- CORRUPTION OF GOVERNMENT -- based on LIES, PROPAGANDA, VIOLENCE, ASSASSINATIONS.

Could America really still be sleeping still after 1963 and what's happened since?

I don't think so -- I think that corporations pay leaders to pretend that they will see

to America's problems and citizens can "rest" assured that will happen.

Bait and switch --

Finally, like with the environment and Global Warming it is too late to react.

[Hestia]

163. 1963 demoralized the entire country. We lost our national soul when JFK, MLK & RFK were

assassinated.Everyone knew deep down who we are really working for. The mass protests scared the crap out of TPTB. Then Nixon really goes after the "people", with the draconian drug laws & OPEC, Reagan batting clean up with the dismantling of the New Deal laws. People were working too damned hard to really grasp the concept of what is going on in world views. When you have to start working 50 hours weeks, but getting paid for 40, the price of food and incidentals exploded when Reagan came into office, so now everything you buy costs more. When do you have the time and energy to pay attention to what is going on when you are chained to a desk or a machine for hours on end? And you aren't allowed a toke after work to help you unwind from it all because you may lose your job?

It's the keeping us busy all the freakin' time that has allowed the black magicians to take over. Just when people were getting a little breathing space during the Clinton years, 9/11 becomes the new mantra. Then we have new and improved gadgets to really occupy people's time. Who's got time to read the news when you just got a text or you need to run update your Facebook page?

It's the constant drag on our time that is killing us. Put down the cell phone and *look* at what is going on. Oh but can't do that, google has new phone coming out. Meh...

[unblock]

38. disappointing though he may be so far, the ONLY way this will hurt his re-election chances would be:

if there is a serious primary challenge. that is one of lichtman's 13 keys to the presidency and so far, things continue to look quite bright for obama. a serious primary challenge would turn one of the keys against him, but if the disappointment is not enough for a primary challenger to gain serious traction, then obama has nothing to fear from his current approach. if anything it has the pragmatic, if cynical, advantage of helping to shore up his coffers with corporate contributions.

in this light, bringing hillary on board would seem to be a genius move as part of a re-election strategy. it's not impossible for her to resign her post and run against him, but it makes it awkward to differentiate yourself when you were part of the administration.

[blackbear79]

126. Hillary will jump ship soon

She has not been in the inner circle of the Obama administration. No one will have a problem differentiating her from Obama. She already has a campaign war chest and can raise money faster than any other candidate besides Obama and maybe even faster than him. This could be the bloodiest Primary we have ever seen. You know she wants nothing more than to be President. I think Obama could actually be a Bush senior type candidate running for his second term, not really having the fire in his belly.

[unblock]

132. don't doubt that about obama.

bush senior lacked the apparent campaign enthusiasm because he was always interested in actual governance. not that he did it in a way that i cared for, but he wanted to *be* president more than he wanted to *run* for president.

obama may be the reverse. i think you'll see him light up more once campaign season comes.

[defendandprotect]

148. You may think things look "bright" for Obama, but I think you should look at Jane Hamsher's

article on CORPORATISM - FASCISM -- and come to realize that things look dark for the

nation and our people.

Unless we protect competition from the two party system -- that is provide IRV voting

and take the foot of the two parties' off the necks of those who would compete politically

with the two national parties -- and rid ourselves of the computers* controlling our votes

and their outcomes -- then we are left with the GOP near-fascist party being the only

competitition for the Democratic Party. In that case, the Democratic Party will continue

to be moved to the right.

Like Global Warming -- and decades of overt right wing political violence -- there is a

window of time when the public can react and a time comes when it is too late. Can the

American public, if they truly understand the right wing political violence in our nation

from 1963 onward, truly still be asleep? Or are those leading us pretending to sleep?



*

You have to understand not only how the computers have stolen power from the voting public --

but how the LARGE computers used by MSM since the mid-1960'a have also moved the power to

corrupt our elections into the hands of our corporate-press.

Prior to that time, MSM could only report the actual votes cast for candidates.

Yeah -- they could have people sit around and BS about what the likelihood of this or that

happening in a particular race, but that's all it was -- BS/talking.

The large computers gave them the ability to not only report actual votes but to PREDICT

races -- and to CALL races. Not only the power to CALL races for candidates, but to CALL

states and electoral votes. And, ultimately, to CALL national elections for president.


They then REVERSED all of that in 2000 -- taking back a CALL of the state of Florida for

Gore and RECALLING it for Bush.


How often has the public's attention been brought to this illegitimate power that computers

gave to our corporate press?


Additionally, the individual computers as we all know are hackable and have likely been hacked

in every election beginning with Humprehey/Nixon in '68 --

We might ask, was there ever a Nixon "Southern Stragegy" or was it actually computers that

that were the new GOP strategy to steal elections and create a new false reality?

Coincidentally, the computers began coming in just about the time America was passing

The Voting Rights Act to expand voting rights to African-Americans and other minorities whose

votes had been suppressed!

[bertman]

39. So much truth in so few words!! K & R. What just dawned on me was the realization that

President Obama's rise in the party from Illinois Senator to U.S. Senator to U.S. President was so meteoric that he did not learn the skills required to MUSCLE legislation through a balking Congress. That skill is not just the result of one's personality traits, but also one's experience in the trenches. Maybe if he had spent another eight years in the Senate watching other Senators and Presidents do he head-busting and arm-twisting necessary to get things done, he would be better equipped to fight for us.

On the other hand, his style seems to be that of conciliation, regardless of the issue.

I will be astonished if President Obama veers left AT ALL in the coming months and years.

[defendandprotect]

149. This isn't a problem of personality traits nor a lack of perception . ..

the problem is CORPORATISM -- FASCISM -- and I'd highly recommend Jane Hamsher's

article to you -- one or two versions of it are posted here at DU.

[bertman]

151. Thanks, dandp, I soak up all of Jane's commentaries I can get my hands on.

[DemReadingDU]

40. You're back!

I'm missed your Crisis Papers essays.
http://www.crisispapers.org/

[Kablooie]

41. Unfortunately we need a tough fighter, not a deep thinker right now.

We need more of a Teddy Roosevelt.

[DumbBassRepublicans]

129. Carry a BIG stick.... and shove it up LIE-BERMANN'S ass....

"Ask not, what big business can do for you...
Ask, what you can do for big business...!!!"

LOL...!!!

It'd be funny, if it wasn't so true...!!!

:(

[Divine Discontent]

43. The best Republican in Democratic clothing they could have asked for - and the teabaggers

and the racists (I know, same thing) want to bitch about him? He's continued far too much B*shit!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divine Discontent]

49. you may want to look into google on the name and title of his writings 'the crisis papers', as your

'stoopid' is showing.

[Raster]

56. Please, my friend, do a bit of discovery before trashing a long-time contributor to DU.

Unfortunately, post count is not generally a good barometer of substance, as your post more than adequately demonstrates.

[pundaint]

71. What a cogent and compelling criticism

So if he first dismissed 1000 other posts for irrelevant details, then his comments would be as good as yours?

[Blue Owl]

45. This is exactly how I feel

Thanks Bernard Weiner, for putting into words what so many of us are realizing.

[Better Believe It]

47. Thank you for your article.

[Divine Discontent]

48. Compromising with the bastards who made America the disaster it is, was wrong-headed at best

and suspect at worst!

Whose side are they on...

[defendandprotect]

50. Heard some of Schultz again today -- evidently Conyers says obama listening to Rahm . . .!!!

And that's a big problem -- !!

Schultz will be on at 6 tonight and is fairly fired up on health care issue --

[defendandprotect]

52. Great Post -- !!

That's short term. Long term, we must work to fertilize the field in various states and Congressional districts for liberal/progressive candidates to run against conservative Democrats who too often side with the Republican extremists. Obviously, no Democrat can be 100% in correct votes for there are occasionally issues, or political realities in the field, that will lead to a bad vote on a particular bill.

The targets, though, are those DINOs (Dems in name only) who habitually desert the Democratic caucus to side with the worst of "conservative" positions on key popular issues. In the Senate, think Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and that crew. The House is replete with conservative Blue Dog Democrats who proudly perform their obstructionist role time and again by siding with Republicans on decent legislation. At the very least, those politicians should have to face solid, viable liberal opposition in the primaries. That way, even if the Blue Dogs eke out victories, a potential progressive base can be identified and built on for future campaigns. And, who knows?, threatening these conservative Democrats with opposition in the primaries could affect their votes right now.

Even more long-term, we must start thinking, and talking, about the alternatives open to progressives in the 2012 presidential race. Including joining with many other Americans who are turned off by the current stranglehood on power held by elite forces seemingly beyond our control. Among these options might well be the founding of a viable third party.#--BW



Randy Rhodes started talking about this last year before the election in the sense of. . .

"after we win and get a few things straightened out" ... we have to start strengthening

competititon ---

Wm. Greider and Michael Moore are saying the same thing --

[Zoeisright]

54. Sad but true.

I'm not a young person, but I really had hope with President Obama. I have been let down AGAIN. And I am very disappointed in the spinelessness of the Democrats in Congress. I don't think there's any hope for this country anymore.

[Raster]

55. Thank you! Long past time these issues are brought to light!

Well written, excellent analysis of the situation!
:kick:

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. In the early days of Obama's tenure, I said that two things would estabish

his sincerity or otherwise: fixing the election system and the MSM. Although, as a financial illterate, I could not have foreseen the economic cataclysm in prospect, and his 'eccentric' handling of it.

[elocs]

67. "Timidity", that describes Obama. Big on rhetoric, words, and promises.

The fatcats got all that they wanted, even if they didn't want it. Other than cash for clunkers, what did the little guys get?

So far it seems this quote from John Greenleaf Whittier seems to sadly fit Obama:

“For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'.”

Oh what might have been.

[ima_sinnic]

75. timid and conformist

I see him now as just an ordinary, thinking-inside-the-box, status-quo-protecting don't-rock-the-boat noncommittal politician. Someone very common indeed, though he gives a good speech with false rhetoric about "changing things" and "yes we can," stealing from populists and saying whatever people want to hear--a true chameleon, a quality I've never respected in people, and I don't plan to start now.

[DeadEyeDyck]

70. If Obama had any nads

he would simply write his own health care bill and pass it with an executive order. It would be over with and once the people saw the benefits, he would be the hero of change and even the tea-baggers would sign on to free health care.

[DailyGrind51]

74. We voted for "FDR" and elected "Jimmy Carter"!

[liberation]

79. Nope it seems we got an economic Hoover with the international policy leanings of an LBJ...

... sans the sweeping civil rights reforms to match.

[MissDeeds]

76. K&R

Sadly, this is all too true. If ever this country needed strong and decisive leadership, it was after the eight years of BushCo. But what we have is pandering to corporations, bending to Repubs, and making concessions in the name of "compromise". Enough. At this rate, Obama will be soundly defeated if he wins the nomination. He is shedding support by the day. Even die hard supporters here are acknowledging that it is getting more and more difficult to defend and rationalize his decisions.

We must have strong leadership. If it is not going to be Obama, then we need to start looking for someone to run against him in the primary. Our country cannot withstand this inept and ill advised "leadership". The country deserves better, and frankly, so does the Democratic Party.

[Goldstein1984]

84. Great Post!!! - Sums up the problem--Corporate America and a

lack of leadership in opposition to it.

The problem is that we keep expecting change from a bunch of people who dine together, golf together, attend functions together, and call each other "my good friend" all the time. Oh, I forgot to mention, we keep expecting change from people who are all on the same corporate payrolls.

[Doctor_J]

86. I won't be donating, walking, or pone banking in 2012

Seriously, what's the use?

[Joe Chi Minh]

87. It's ironical that he seems to be the right man in the right job. Just at the wrong time.

[dreamnightwind]

90. It's not timidity...

it's worse. Obama is extremely intelligent, and has amazing political instincts. What looks like timidity and lack of leadership is just us not understanding his real game.

His game is to appear to represent the interests of the people while actually being a corporate enabler. He's very skillful at this.

He's not timid at all. The times I see his spine are the times he's addressing progressives. He seems to have a real hatred of progressives. He looks down on us, mocks us, he thinks he's the adult and we're spoiled misguided children that don't understand how the world works.

It's not much different for most of the Democratic leadership. They're corporate phonies who would rather spend lunch with lobbyists and Republicans than with progressives.

Nothing new, it was much the same in the Clinton years. Al Frum and his ilk usurped our party quite awhile ago. Obama was smart enough not to tip his hand to the voters that these guys are his kinda people until after the election. Now we know.

I still think working through the Democratic primaries is useful (and for POTUS I'd support Dean), pushing for progressive representation, but there's real banging-my-head-against-the-wall quality to that, very few real progressives in the voting public.

So, aside from primary battles, we also need to work on an alternative to the 2 parties, and we need to work on it ASAP. I favor a left-right anti-corporate coalition, just because I can see it working, of course I'd much rather have a viable Democratic Socialist party.

[twitomy]

96. Your on to something..

"I favor a left-right anti-corporate coalition"

People here seem to think all RWers are pro-big business. Not necesasrily the case. Im talking about the rank and file, not the politicians. There were plenty of RW'ers against NAFTA, against these Wall Street bailouts, etc. It has been said here that the teabaggers were propped up by big business and insurance companies. Well this "reform" plan is a gift to the insurance companiesm, and the teabaggers are still against it. True, they are against ANY reform, I concede that. Fact is RWer and LWer are very polar opposites on social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, your joe six pack RWer and the left are not as far apart as one might think. When it comes to facing the big corporate interests, I guess it may be a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend with some RWers.

[dreamnightwind]

156. Yes we need Joe Sixpack

I have very little in common with the proverbial Joe Sixpack, but non-corporate leftists really need to learn how to find common ground with those people. Some of them are hopeless RW lunatics. Many of them, however, have just been duped. They're culturally conservative, willfully ignorant, they go to church, they don't like gays or hippies, and they have little respect for the environment, so it's a difficult marriage, but right now a necessary one.

If we can successfully articulate how unregulated global corporate interests are screwing us over, we can reach these people. Both sides should do their best to keep away from issues that divide us, and rise up together against the corporations.

My take on the Tea Party is that's it's a phony org setup by Dick Armey to make damn sure the anger people are feeling is directed squarely at the left instead of where it belongs, at the corporations. Unfortunately right now there's no one else speaking to Joe Sixpack so the Tea Party ruse is working. We need to change that.

I actually think there's a lot of momentum for such a coalition. Kucinich has shown signs of this (and it has gotten him called too Republican friendly by some on this site, but I think they're misunderstanding what's going on). Jane Hamsher is into it. Etc etc, the times are a changin', and forces are realigning.

We've fallen for the corporate divide-and-conquer stuff way too easily. Joe Sixpack is just the other side of the coin in many families, siblings polarize and grow up differently, at least in my family. These people are us, they just choose to live their lives differently. They have the same basic needs we do, and those needs aren't being met, because corporations are too damn greedy and are screwing both sides over royally.

So, how to actually approach such a coalition? We could try to work under the Tea Party umbrella, personally I don't think it's smart, it was started by the very corporate interests we oppose. I think we need a new tent, where left and right can both be comfortable together, and corporate interests are unwelcome. Tall order, high reward, absolutely critical to make this happen somehow.

[twitomy]

159. A very much a "marriage" of convenience to be sure.

The more the middle class gets squeezed, the more likely this marriage could happen. I really do dislike the demonizing on both sides. I have conservative familiy members. Yes conservative on the
issues you mentioned, but not the hater/bigoted, greedy etc etc as what they of their type is painted out to be. The dont accept homosexuality as "normal" but are not obsessed with it either. Certainly not racist, as one is married to a Black Women, the other a Korean. Not "Nazis" as a third is married to a Jew. And they all are cognizant of the fact that the middle class is getting screwed over and are pissed at what is going on in DC, and they were pissed at Bush too...

[dreamnightwind]

160. yes...

I think many on the left have families like this. Mine is amazingly right-wing except for myself (a few exceptions, but very few exceptions in a huge family).

My take on it is that there are multiple levels of issues we deal with. One level is what I call survival issues. Another level is something like lifestyle issues. When times are really bad, it's the survival issues that become most important. Having your basic human needs met (food, shelter, livelihood, safety). When we're dealing with survival issues, we have all of those issues in common across the normal left-right divide, so that division can be put aside while we concentrate on getting our basic human needs met.

Once we right the ship and have our survival needs met, we can return to a focus on lifestyle issues, which will again break on the left-right divide. In the meantime, we'll only succeed at wresting control back from the corporations, who are too greedy to meet our human necessities, if we make common cause with those on the right. I know, good luck with that, but I think our current situation demands it, unfortunately.

[twitomy]

161. I agree with you totally..

We just need a statesman(or woman) who can bridge the divide. No one out there I can see. Everybody is too damnm polarized. Our whole foundation of economic and monetary system is warped and the undue influence of large Corps and banks is a large reason for this. And no amount of "tax cuts" of the right or "stimulus spending" on the left will solve the problems, only paper over them for a while.

[varelse]

105. I hate like hell to agree with you about our President's attitude toward progressives,

but I can no longer deny the truth.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

111. please pass around whatever you are smoking. Sharing is a good thing

because what you post is so delusional, that we can only hope that your buzz explains it all.

[dreamnightwind]

157. Thanks for a good laugh

Delusion is in the mind of the observer I suppose. And if you were here I'd definitely share, disagreements or not, always happy to share.

[Lorien]

128. He mocked the "tired tactics of the 1960's and '70's" (which brought us

civil rights and the peace movement) during the primaries and said that Reagan was one of the Presidents that he most admired. I remember howls of outrage on both counts here on DU, but all that was forgotten once he became the candidate and we all jumped on the "Yes we can" bandwagon. I wept with happiness election night, but now I've never been so pissed or felt so cynical about politics...and that's saying a lot after eight years of BushCo.

[Enthusiast]

154. I was also puzzled by

what candidate Obama said about Reagan. At the time I thought, maybe he just doesn't understand what happened under Reagan.

I have tried, honestly tried to give President Obama every benefit of the doubt. That isn't working very well for me right now. I'm sick about the whole thing.

With the dawn of the new century we desperately needed solid, wise and good presidential leadership. Look what we got! And look at how we got it. Something was afoot, and it continues today, 10 years later.

[mnhtnbb]

93. It's beginning to look like the best thing about Obama is... his family!

[Optimistic]

94. This may be the most Pro-Buisness Right Wing POTUS ever

This guy we elected is more to the right and against the working people than any other POTUS in the History of the Country
..Us progressives would be better off with a Palin/Beck adminitration

[KoKo]

95. Bernie...so glad to see you posting again and your friend Partridge has another good post

out there on Smirking Chimp, I believe.

I've missed you both. This is an excellent read. Much food for thought along with Partridges ...Obama on the War piece.

[Dennis Donovan]

97. I disagree (about 2010, at least)

The GOP is being guided by incompetent, right wing kooks, and they're fielding incompetent, right wing kooks for candidates. Independents will avoid them like the plague at the polls.

[Mike Nelson]

98. Obama Has Not Surprised Me

but I wish I would be. Still wishing... that means I think it's too soon to give up hope. We could be worse off, you know.

[NorthCarolina]

99. If this healthcare plan is the best Obama can develop with a Democratic majority

in the House AND Senate, then I truly hope he is defeated in the primaries by a more populist-progressive Democratic candidate. From my perspective it appears he may fast be approaching lame duck status.

[sweetroxie]

103. The man who killed HOPE

George Bush drove me into politics. And now Barack Obama is driving me right out. I used to be totally apolitical because I felt that no one really gave a shit about what I think and want and that the Political Process is just too big and too corrupt for someone like me to impact in any meaningful way. W pushed me over the edge so that I HAD to do or try to do something. Now I am back to my earlier cynicism. I now Know (again) that no one is listening to me and that my position and vote don't matter one bit. I too feel horribly disappointed and wronged by this president. I realize that I saw what I wanted to see in him. But it hurts to have such promise dashed in ruins. This system totally sucks.

[emmadoggy]

104. K & R. nt

[shireen]

106. good summary

i would like to think that Obama has a secret plan that will spring into effect in 2010, that he gave Congress a year to get their act together, they failed, now he's taking over. It's the fantasy of someone desperately trying to cling to hope. After all, if that's his political strategy, it's an incredibly stupid one because people are hurting NOW.

i'm so tired and disgusted of it all. If nothing improves and Dean decides to run, he has my support.

[JDPriestly]

109. And his biggest mistake -- He has chickened out on taking on the CIA.

That's his really biggest mistake.

But the fundamental flaw in his strategy is his timidity. I ascribe that to his immaturity and inexperience.

He acts as though he is quite confident. In fact, it is becoming more and more clear that his confidence is just an act. He always responds in timidity to every challenge -- even prosecuting the torture by the Bush administration.

Honestly. Prosecuting criminals who violate international and domestic law is a no-brainer. That is just fundamental if you want to earn the respect of your opponents.

Obama is looking more and more like an ineffective loser. Too bad.

If he had made it very clear even during the campaign that he was going to require Americans to pay whatever ransom health care insurance companies demand for health care insurance, we would not now feel we have been played for suckers.

Basically, Obama waited until two weeks before Christmas and the week of Hanukkah to let the cat out of the bag: The so-called health care "reform" is just a bail-out for the insurance companies.

The whole song and dance about subsidies is ridiculous. Subsidies of what? Not the poor, not the middle class but rather the INSURANCE COMPANIES> Subsidies out of what? Our own pockets in the form of taxes and for many of us ever higher monthly insurance premiums?

Obama has double-crossed us but good and he thinks he is getting by with it because we are all excited about Christmas.

I've got news for Obama. The stores are not overflowing with shoppers this year. They may do better than they did last year, but I only because the prices are marked way down.

American households cannot afford this health insurance scam reform.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

112. He will win 2012 people haven't forgotten how insane the GOP are just yet...

To vote anything other than Democratic is a literal suicide because the GOP have turned it up a notch and when they get back to power they'll make Lieberman seem a sweet natured old guy, in comparison. I'd rather deal with someone that says possibly 2011 than let's stay FOREVER AND EVER AMEN. People talk like we've got lots of great alternatives, sorry this is the only option and those still willing have to all we can to make this option work for us. It's not my party first it's my human survival as far as I'm concerned.

[chatnoir]

115. K&R

Thank you for posting this. Am so disillusioned at this point.

[earcandle]

119. Impeach Obama for obstructing services?

[blackbear79]

120. Fuck up a wet dream

I'm sitting here in shock. It has really just started setting in for me that the best chance for real health care reform is gone. Additionally the war is escalated, Obama has abandoned the fight on Global warming and we just exceeded the debt ceiling. Count me as one of the folks that stopped believing that any thing will change. A year ago he had it all, large majorities in the House and Senate, beloved by most of the media, the American people and the World. It's hard to blame this on Joe Liberman. He needs to clean out the White House staff starting with Rahm Emanuel. Someone has to be held accountable for this enormous fuck up and since Obama has 3 more years he's not going. If there has ever been an example of fucking up a wet dream...this is it. How soon before Hilary jumps ship and starts up the campaign bus?

Howard Dean 2012

[slay]

141. I'm with ya

love your last line - Howard Dean 2012. The man who should have been president. and you're right on - obama needs to clean house ASAP - maybe get some advice from Dean or Sanders and stop getting it from Rahm. :hi:

[inna]

121. proud rec #242!

:applause:


:yourock:

[ChiciB1]

123. Good Read... Too Bad That So Much Of It Is So Awfully TRUE!!

I'm so very disappointed... I thought WE WON, guess I, along with so so many others have been left holding and empty bag!

Third Party... could it happen? I don't know, but I do know that all the calls, petitions, writing or ANYTHING else doesn't seem to be doing a damn thing! I feel I got rolled!

[Riverman]

125. I agree with most of this article! Obama is too comfortable dancing

with the elite! He needs to made uncomfortable. He must have surrounded himself with a bunch of democratic, in name only, neo-cons, who will not tell the emporer he has no clothes and he refuses to look in the mirror. He does not have a clue about the deeply troubling discontent among a significant percentage of the people who worked for, paid for and got him in office, as the author correctly points out.

[inna]

127. DAMN!! I wish Obama read this OP.

I really do.

[Dinger]

134. Kick & rec # 258 From Me

Excellent

[slay]

140. Awesome article Bernard

I assume you are THE Bernard Weiner. I tried to send you a private message but the system says you're too new. LOL. Anyways, I'm just curious if you've heard of one of my ex-professor's work in your PhD circles his name is Matt Robinson, Ph.D. Here is a link to his pages at Appalachian State - he's in the criminal justice department. Links: http://www.pscj.appstate.edu/faculty/robinson.html and: http://www.pscj.appstate.edu/faculty/mattrobinson.html . He knows what's up and would be a true ally in the fight for what's right, as you can see by the links I posted. Anyways, again, great article!

[tinrobot]

142. This week is the first time I wished I had voted for Hillary.

[SharksBreath]

150. Maybe the Teabaggers were kinda right

when they used the term fascist.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini

The Government is forcing us to buy insurance from the corporations.

The Congress has been brought by the Insurance Corporations.

What would you call it.

[Richard D]

143. Sadly . . .

. . . K&R

[missmaude]

145. Barack Obama

Barack Obama was elected senator of Il because some Rethug named ryan had to drop out because it was revealed in his divorce papers that he made his wife jeri go to a sex club. Barack Obama would have faced a much stronger opponent; instead he got to run against a nut named alan keyes who was not even from Il.

[Froward69]

152. rpoe a dope

we saw it during the campaign. I believe we are seeing it with this god aweful Health care bill.

[certainot]

153. progressives cannot evaluate or strategize for dem progress while ignoring talk radio-

- the GOPs/lobbyists/right's most important tool.

evaluating and strategizing in a talk radio vacuum, while dems get beaten with 1000 radio stations blasting coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition, continues to be the biggest political blunder in political history, considering the time lost on global warming.

[zoff]

155. There have been a few mentions of a third party.

You could also call it the middle-class party. But how we get there and to our goals of a just society, is up for debate (and getting flamed which I wouldn't mind.)

I rec because of the excellent analysis. But I deviate from the methods. Desperate times call for different ideas, thinking outside the box or even guerilla tactics. We had better believe that the status quo is prepared for the emergence of a third party.

SOOO, I'd put my efforts into creating, not a third, but ONE party. I would do so by infiltrating the already well organized R's. Use the organized right against the status quo, and in the process the republican middle class will realize that they too have been had and have more in common with us than they think.

Edison got the light bulb right after hundreds of mistakes. If this ideas is a mistake, then we are one step closer to a solution.

There it is. So yea, Flame on!

(on edit)

This will also show democratic congress critters that our votes do count and backstabbing us was a bad idea.