TYT: Another Terrible Obama Mistake

[The Northerner]

Run time: 06:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyLnZYJ6Vzk   Posted on YouTube: April 01, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 317   Posted on DU: April 01, 2010 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 5079

 

[HALO141]

1. Why...

do people keep posting tyt video? He's not smart or entertaining. He's just a loudmouth.

[johnlal]

2. And your opinion is the only one that matters.

[ihavenobias]

3. Give him credit for a very substantive, well thought out rebuttal of the points made in the video.

;)

[HALO141]

6. Thanks.

[xocet]

10. Indeed...

Did you see that the DU reconfigured the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=emotion_table">Smilies lookup table and discarded the SARCASM: tag due to lack of use?

[JHB]

71. Gee, you're right. Couldn't find it at all.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[tango-tee]

49. Self-delete.

Sorry, wrong spot.

[theFrankFactor]

4. Hmmm, I like 'em for one. Good thing you're not the media Nazi around here.

[Jimalene]

7. Because

I for one like to hear someone talking with facts and common
sense. Cenk does not blindly follow either side. 

[pattmarty]

55. Oh really? I think you are one that likes your "own facts".

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[paulsby]

15. you are kidding me right?

fwiw, i think olberman is a clown, but TYT and maddow are imo spot on

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[tango-tee]

50. However, Cenk is a lot smarter and more entertaining

than your post.

[pattmarty]

54. No I believe you're wrong, you must be thinking of Limbaugh, Hannity.................

..............O'Reilley, Savage, Coulter, Beck, Steyn, do I need to add any more "loudmouths"?.

[DeSwiss]

56. He's smarter and more entertaining than you'll ever be....

...welcome to IGNORE.

[Enthusiast]

57. He is exactly right on.

Watch and see if his prediction is right, then complain. Obama is not what you want him to be nor what you think he is.

[theFrankFactor]

5. What kind of a Shit Head Could Agrue With Cenk's Points? I Wanna Hear That Shit!!!

[zulchzulu]

14. Arguing with Cenk is like arguing with a run-over squirrel...

He obviously has no clue that the oil and gas industry have had open permits and drilling contracts in millions of acres of land FOR DECADES and have done little about drilling in those areas.

Why?

Because if they flood the market with oil and gas, they don't make a profit. It's BASIC ECONOMICS 101.

Why would they drill in Virginia waters with the Land Lease 220 that even the Navy is against, since one of the biggest ports in Norfolk, VA would have to steer around these new rigs.

First of all, the EIS studies are not done there. Don't look up what EIS stands for. I know. If you don't know what EIS stands for, that's like saying you know baseball except can't figure out what that piece of wood the players carry around does. Same with environmental law and getting offshore drilling approved...

Does Cenk know what an EIS is? Fuck no.

Secondly, the pushback from people along the coasts against any governor who wants to do offshore drilling will be huge. Consider that every East coast and West coast governor except for VA has come out against offshore drilling... there's that.

Cenk is probably more of a tic-tac-toe guy when chess is what you need to know how to play.

[Autonomy]

21. Your seeming arrogance aside, I have to agree

Cenk is shortsighted on this one, but not for the reasons to which you allude.

The companies who are drilling off the Virginia coast do not have a large market share, so your claim that they want to keep prices high by not flooding the market is incorrect. The Nash Equilibrium is designed for just this kind of case: it takes into account the competing identities of players instead of assuming they are a monolithic entity. The companies drilling in American waters would rather have a larger piece of the pie for themselves, even if it means decreasing the size of other oil companies' slices. You're using "BASIC ECONOMICS 101" when you need to be using graduate level game theory.

No, the reason Cenk is wrong is because he assumes Obama will be continuing to negotiate with republicans. But that day is done. This is not a first move against the republicans; it's the next move toward self-definition in a mindless, wave-like mass media field.

[ihavenobias]

22. It's not about Econ 101, it's about Negotiation 101

To prove my point, let's think about HC reform. The Dems/WH proposed a half a loaf solution (public option) rather than a full loaf (single payer). Even a mediocre haggler knows you don't open with the offer you want to end with. For example, if you want to sell your house and end up with $300,000 in your pocket when all is said and done, you would NEVER list your house for $300,000. Obviously interested buyers would come back with a lower offer ($250, 280, you get the idea), and in the end you wouldn't end up with your target of 300k. So the opening offer should be higher than what you think you can get, so that when you negotiate down, you end up with something close to what you actually want. This is negotiation 101!

For example, you start with single payer knowing full well it would never fly. After all, politically the right and MSM reacted as if the Dems had proposed destroying private insurance, private hospitals, private drug manufacturers, etc. The rhetoric and political damage couldn't possibly have been worse, and yet in the end we get a watered down corporate giveaway/mandate. In other words, it's not only terrible policy, but also terrible politics. Even supporters of the bill have to concede this point.

Now the Obama Admin is doing the exact same thing with energy policy. They're giving away all of their leverage and giving a low opening offer, which means the end result will be watered down, corporate, right of center policy. Again, even the staunchest Obama supporters have to concede this point. The opening offer should be all about dramatic green energy policy, stuff that would enrage corporate interests and the right wing, because experience and recent history show they'll blow up and be outraged regardless of how timid an energy policy is proposed. Except that you have some leverage, and you can negotiate down to something better than a glossed up Drill Baby Drill Dem Style.

PS---Who says he's not negotiating? That would make this move even more nonsensical, outside of the motive of getting more corporate funding for conservadems for 2010. I disagree with that strategy, but at least it's logical.

[Mithreal]

23. Triangulation 101

I really hope you get a response on Obama's negotiating style.

[Autonomy]

24. I am guessing you did not intend

to reply to me, given the length of your post and the posting time.

[ihavenobias]

25. I did a copy and paste from further down in the thread.

I thought my response had some relevance. Because again, the problem here is that this is terrible politics if the ultimate goal is good policy in the end. But if the goal is more corporate funding for Dems in 2010, yes, in that sense it's good politics.

But apparently we disagree on if the WH is still trying to negotiate. I think they ARE. And if they're not, the only motive is 2010.

[Autonomy]

26. I think you're assuming

that Obama is negotiating with republicans because we've gotten used to that appearance in the last year. I don't believe he is negotiating with republicans. He is bypassing them and going straight to the intangible -- self-definition via escaping all pigeonholes. Don't get me wrong; that's not his sole reason for opening drilling, but it's what makes the "negotiation" angle irrelevant.

[ihavenobias]

27. If he's not negotiating he should go with a better policy.

Sort of like if he wasn't going to get any Republican votes anyway, he should've started with Single Payer and allowing us to negotiate prices with drug companies. If he couldn't get enough corporate Dems to vote yes on that, the next step would be to move down to a Medicare-Buy-In. Down from that, a "public option" and allowing us to get drugs from Canada. Down from that, lowering the Medicare eligibility age, etc.

Even if he's not negotiating with the R's, he's negotiating with the Dems and special interests (for campaign funding and to reduce push-back). So the negotiation angle is always relevant.

[Autonomy]

28. He would never have been able

to overcome the "socialist" label had he pursued single payer. That's not to say he is giving the repubs or teabaggers anything: it's not them he is worried about. The fulcrum of the lever is an intangible perception that he is fighting against the teabaggers for. They want to label "socialist" to stick. That's why they started an organized campaign to so label him before he even took office. He wants to avoid being labeled by anyone. Kierkegaard said, "Once you label me, you negate me." The worst thing that can happen to a president is to have a label stick. Perhaps it's the ONLY bad thing that can happen to a president, or any politician. I don't believe Obama is trading marbles; he is going for ALL the marbles at once.

I am guessing we are not going to agree on this. Interesting discussion, nonetheless. :)

[ihavenobias]

29. They ALREADY call him socialist - marxist - communist - radical leftist.

That's why our watered down, corporate friendly HC bill was especially disappointing, because the political downside was as IF we had passed single payer and prescription drug negotiation. The perception on the right is that the Dems rammed through a Government Takeover of HC, and a decent number of 'moderates' and independents (sadly) have or will come to that conclusion.

The best way to overcome BS charges of socialism/communism is not to water down legislation. As we see, watering down legislation did NOT soften the drumbeat from the right wing media (parroted often times by the MSM), it remained just as loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJkKQl0-3s0|Teabaggers have become more threatening and violent> since we dropped the Medicare-buy-in/Public Option. Think about that for a second. It was never about policy. The Dems could've adopted every single Republican idea and the right would STILL have called them all of those ridiculous names. And uninformed/misinformed Americans would STILL believe in the ridiculous names.

Again, the best way to get past the socialism/communism charge is to pass strong bills that actually deliver substantive change. Because once people see that they'll realize the fraud behind the name calling and labeling. They'll see real-life positive results. Instead we passed a corporate mandate with tons of loopholes. When the premiums for most Americans fail to go down (or actually increase), they'll blame the "government takeover" of healthcare, instead of the true culprit which is the unfixed private for-profit insurance industry. That will reduce political will to push for real change, and will give more power to the R's and corporations so that they can undo the positives of the HC bill. You know, like cutting the subsides.

[Enthusiast]

58. ihavenobias, I agree. nt

[Mithreal]

30. -1 "The worst thing that can happen to a president is to have a label stick."

And ALL the marbles, too?

Where do you get this stuff?

[theFrankFactor]

31. What a Convoluted Load of Shit.

Yeah, Obama needs to do what's necessary to GET THE TEA BAGGERS TO STOP LABELING HIM AS A SOCIALIST!????

Fuck Kierkegaard. This is how Democrats win respect! Sell out, cower and capitulate.

You go with that horse shit.

[Autonomy]

34. You're actually using a similar method of analysis

Except that the outcomes you are giving priority are: respect, and the antitheses of "selling out, cowering, and capitulating". However, you're not accounting for the inevitable reaction against the application of unilateral power. And, no, I am not talking about teabaggers. Or even republicans. It's already assumed they are organized against him. But if that were enough for them to bring him down, he never would have won in the first place. No, they need to create an atmosphere where they can define him in the long term, rendering him helpless to define himself.

It's not about getting the teabaggers to stop doing what they do. It's not allowing the labels to stick to Obama, and stick to the teabaggers instead.

[theFrankFactor]

35. That's a Looser's Philosphy IMO. The thing to do was to stand tall and show strength...

he has played a media game but failed on both making love to Republicans and delivering the goods. Tom is correct. The HC bill is shit and it's shit because of DEMOCRATS not Republicans and that includes Barack Obama.

If you think making concessions to Republicans is going to win him favor or change public opinion for the better I hope your right but I don't buy it.

[Autonomy]

40. I am not saying concessions

I am talking about autonomy, the ability to be self-determining in the long term. It's an important distinction from my POV. I would prefer I am correct, too. But my participation in this discussion has been more academic and analytical than partisan. I'd rather we gotten single payer, too. We've only now been able to get HCR in 100 years of trying. Why is that? It's far too simplistic to blame it on corporate interests. I am interested why.

[Mithreal]

42. Strange, academic means repeating phrases like "ALL the marbles"?

Wasn't really reading a lot of academics in your responses, maybe the wrong word?

I know one label that Obama avoids at all costs, so maybe there is some substance to your idea that Obama wants to avoid labels. When I made four attempts to get the local NAACP to help with organizing during the 2008 Presidential campaign, I was angered at the time by their lack of any interest and lack of any hesitation to say NO. Their disinterest makes more sense to me all the time now.

[Autonomy]

65. Academic.

Moving on.

It's making sense to you, and you're coming to the wrong conclusion. Because you don't get it. You are applying activist sensibilities to a practical problem.

[theFrankFactor]

36. UNILATERAL POWER!!!???? That's awhat a fucking majority is for!

C,mon man! You can't bargain with these cunts.

[Autonomy]

39. I've said it 4 times

no one is bargaining with them. It seems like you keep personalizing it. You're actually correct in any given situation. The majority is for making opening moves. Long term plans are for keeping majorities. Notice how the repubs tried to appeal to the people that the people were against health care when polls said they were for it. Repubs want to get out in front of the blowback that will inevitably happen when Dems seemed to use unilateral power, which people find distasteful.

[zulchzulu]

37. You can be arrogant when you are correct. Jus' sayin'.

Cenk is over his goddamn fat head. Again. Go back to the Repigs, you ass.

[Mithreal]

41. When an overbearing fool. I don't think "correct" means what you think it means. Jus' sayin'.

Thank you for demonstrating more of that Bush era logic.

And your President welcomes all former Republicans, even the ones who are just Democrat In Name Only, but you knew that.

Cenk is a solid Progressive, I know that must hurt, especially when our President isn't. Cenk also has the right to stand on Democratic Party principles and I know how offensive that is to many here. A lot of folks grow out of conservative ways and elsewhere here you mention purity, no? Interesting type of purity it is you seem to advocate, with Obama or against him.

That's ok, it's pretty transparent.

Edit to add: And this isn't even a principled stance by Cenk, more of a question again on strategy and negotiating. I'd have to watch again but that is what I remember. Questioning Obama's negotiating position is now OBVIOUSLY Republican, omg.

[ihavenobias]

66. Kick for oil spill disaster.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

[theFrankFactor]

33. Man, yeah look what that chess bullshit delivered on health care! Someone's got Obama turd on

their nose and it ain't me.

When Republicans pushed for this I guess these 3D Chess masters were all Kierkegaard and shit about it huh?

[zulchzulu]

38. So you wanted Single Payer to die on the vine in the middle of last March to be Pure?

Ferchrissfuckinggodamnmotherfuckingsakes... I am for Single Payer.

I also have the political maturity and fortitude to know that if you had Single Payer as the first thing out of the box after fighting the Usual Bastards for the last 100 years, you are shooting your last cannon ball over the cliff to land in a puddle of aardvark dung.

It's like every goddamn baseball player coming up to bat and swinging for the home run with wild abandon. It's like a band playing the solo to Freebird before the drummer even finishes snorting his last line of coke and coming on the stage. It's like Newt Gingrich waiting for his dick to show up.

You catch my drift?

[theFrankFactor]

47. Here's the thing... Mr.Spockama?

YOU think this is just smart politics. I think it's corporate SHIT ASS DEMOCRATS FAILING and that includes Mr.Spockama. Apparently YOU think we're on the road to Progressivism! I think we're on the road to Republican take over...AGAIN!

I can't tell if it's a love affair for Barakie Bear, a sense of superiority or denial but I think you're wrong. If you're not? Well, fuck me! That's awesome! Let's keep playing this groovy 3D Chess where shit smells like rose buds! I hear Mr. Spockama raised CAFE standards! See! Compromise right?

Bull shit. This administration is filled with Clinton era shit heads and corporate insider punks and that doesn't spell a Chess game to me.

[Texifornia]

43. Cenk is wrong, again

Obama bashing makes for easy content and research is HARD!

Hardly any of the OCS has been "shot" (seismically searched and evaluated) with the exception of Virginia, which won't be developed to any extent because there isn't a high likelihood for significant recoverable reserves. Some of the eastern Gulf has been shot but even attractive areas came up dry in exploratory wells drilled decades ago.

I would be amazed if more than 250,000 Bbl/D ever came from the OCS outside of arctic Alaska. In 5-10 years decisions will be made on which exploratory wells will be drilled. Years later the handful of locations destined for production will be subject to strict Norwegian North Sea like environmental restrictions and will more likely be gas rather than oil.

So, in a decade or more, there is a small chance that the risk of offshore spill may increase slightly. Hell, that'd be worth it if the only thing we got was an increase in CAFE standards. As a negotiating position President Obama undermined the Reps. entire strategy, locked down many unconvinced Independents, who are largely in favor of offshore drilling, and in actuality gave up next to nothing.

[ihavenobias]

44. I don't think we watched the same clip.

I don't recall the main thrust of the clip being about how much oil we'd get or anger over oil spills. It was about theme of bad politics, weakness and caving in to Republican talking points and ideas. Feel free to disagree with the specifics on those points, but saying "Cenk is wrong, again" and then getting into issues not related to the clip doesn't make much sense.

[Mithreal]

48. +1

[Enthusiast]

59. +2

[tango-tee]

51. I've found a simple remedy for posts like the one you just responded to.

As soon as I see "Obama bashing", I stop reading. To me, these two words have become a giant a red flag. Perhaps I'm doing some posters who use this term wrong, but on the whole I believe this rule is serving me well.

[Mithreal]

45. Forest 4 The Trees? Miss the point entirely? And "Obama bashing", that's the cherry on top.

Come on, you have to tighten up and listen more closely. You have opportunity to persuade people who will actually listen to what you have to say if you make an attempt to understand where the other person is coming from. Admittedly, the Obama bashing comment makes me think you are one of the "supporters at all costs" crowd and have no intention of listening to a counter argument. I'm probably wrong, right? I don't think Cenk would disagree with you on the significance of the actual drilling, it was more about the approach, strategy, bad bargaining.

[flyarm]

67. perhaps you remember this...........or not..

Obama: “Oil Rigs Today Generally Don’t Cause Spills”

Obama Repeats Katrina Oil Spill Myth To Defend Offshore Drilling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm8gLmuTvJ4&feature=play...


By: David Dayen Thursday April 29, 2010 1:42 pm

snip:

What a difference 18 days makes. Here was Barack Obama, on April 2, before the BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, claiming that oil rigs are safe to justify his position on offshore drilling:

I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.

Not only does this quote look ridiculous in hindsight, it wasn’t true at the time, as Brad Johnson points out:

Obama’s claim that oil rigs did not cause any spills during Hurricane Katrina is simply false, as the Wonk Room reported in June, 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other conservatives made the same false claim:

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a “major spill.”

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/29/obama-oil-rigs-t... ’t-cause-spills/


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and perhaps you remember posting this to me, as a reply to my post, of what the Sierra Club was saying when Obama announced he was opening millions of miles of US coastline water ways .....

let me remind you of your comment..........



It's embarrassing how some environmental groups are so goddamn knee-jerky. Maybe they need more money... as one who gives to the Sierra Club on occasion and actually worked for Greenpeace for a stint, I know how it works.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

now let me do a little educating of you.....we already have dead birds showing up on our beaches .......if I remember correctly you made jokes of me worrying about our turtles that lay their eggs around this time each year on our beaches..and then let me tell you that tonight on our news ..local Fla news..we were told that the Panhandle would most likely have the oil on their beaches by Monday or Tuesday as the winds are changing to the east..over the weekend..

We were given a warning on tonights local news.. that the oil could come as far down as Clearwater beaches..that is CLEARWATER..which may not be clear at all when this is done ..and that is my back yard..so i will tell you how angry I am that our beautiful pristine beaches may be fucked for decades..of which youuuuuuuu..laughed about and mocked when many of us posted warnings of what could happen with existing and more drilling in our Gulf and all around the gulf states and states with millions of miles of coastlines Obama had open for drilling!

You have alot of nerve writing and posting anything in these threads now!

Alot of damn nerve!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And do not forget how Obama broke his promise to Floridians during his campaign...damn the internet huh??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss&NR=1

[florida08]

8. thanks for posting

I sure as hell don't know what Obama or Emanuel are doing and am beginning to think neither do they. What was it McCain said after the passage of the health bill? Could it be any plainer than that? Looks like they're playing 52 card pickup

:popcorn:

[flyarm]

68. or three card monty.......a con game ......

remember this is what all democrats and Floridans were told by Obama when he was campaigning for our votes!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss&NR=1

[flyarm]

69. self delete dupe.

[jgraz]

11. Ugh... somebody make it stop

:banghead:

[20score]

12. I think both the politics and the policy suck on this. The idea was wrong under Bush, it's still

wrong. Although not nearly as bad as continuing the mountain top removal. That's criminal.

[zulchzulu]

13. Wow. A clueless kneejerker with zero comprehension about offshore drilling opens his cakehole...

...and makes a fucking doofus out of himself.

Does this moolyak even know that the oil and gas industry have had open permits and approved drilling contracts for offshore-drilling for over 6+million acres of land (underwater) for a couple decades?

I know this moolyak has been a Repuglican in the past and "suddenly saw the light", but can the guy fire up Google on his laptop and do a little research on this?

Obama is punking the Repigs and is going to get some decent energy policy passed or have them on record saying they are against offshore drilling if it's proposed by him.

This guy should stick to reporting how runny his morning shit was.

[Mithreal]

18. -1 doing your cause the justice it deserves, quite the poet too.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RnzGcjJEbYs/SHZJozmfoNI/AAAAAAAABD8/c6brJk0kOIM/s400/w+as+cheerleader.jpg

Both sides got um.

[CherylK]

19. +1 nt

Cenk rocks!

:toast:

[ihavenobias]

20. Explain how this isn't (at the very least) terrible negotiating tactics...

To prove my point, let's think about HC reform. The Dems/WH proposed a half a loaf solution (public option) rather than a full loaf (single payer). Even a mediocre haggler knows you don't open with the offer you want to end with. For example, if you want to sell your house and end up with $300,000 in your pocket when all is said and done, you would NEVER list your house for $300,000. Obviously interested buyers would come back with a lower offer ($250, 280, you get the idea), and in the end you wouldn't end up with your target of 300k. So the opening offer should be higher than what you think you can get, so that when you negotiate down, you end up with something close to what you actually want. This is negotiation 101!

For example, you start with single payer knowing full well it would never fly. After all, politically the right and MSM reacted as if the Dems had proposed destroying private insurance, private hospitals, private drug manufacturers, etc. The rhetoric and political damage couldn't possibly have been worse, and yet in the end we get a watered down corporate giveaway/mandate. In other words, it's not only terrible policy, but also terrible politics. Even supporters of the bill have to concede this point.

Now the Obama Admin is doing the exact same thing with energy policy. They're giving away all of their leverage and giving a low opening offer, which means the end result will be watered down, corporate, right of center policy. Again, even the staunchest Obama supporters have to concede this point. The opening offer should be all about dramatic green energy policy, stuff that would enrage corporate interests and the right wing, because experience and recent history show they'll blow up and be outraged regardless of how timid an energy policy is proposed. Except that you have some leverage, and you can negotiate down to something better than a glossed up Drill Baby Drill Dem Style.

[flyarm]

70. he can't..the facts remain..

this is what Obama said in Fla when campaigning in Florida asking for our votes..then did just the opposite..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss&NR=1


3d chess isn't what we are getting ..we are getting three card monty!!

and for those who still "believe" the bullshit..I have some dead birds on my beach for you!!

[Mithreal]

17. Out-republicaning the Republicons, nice. Good going, Obama.

You're quite the triangulating genius.

"It was Bill Clinton who recognized that the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems," President Obama wrote in his book The Audacity of Hope. "Clinton's third way...tapped into the pragmatic, non-ideological attitude of Americans."

Clinton's "third way" was "triangulation," a term and strategy invented by his pollster Dick Morris. Triangulation is a candidate's attempt to position himself above and between the left and the right. A Democrat, Clinton insulated himself from Republican attacks by appropriating many of their ideas.

Obama is even more of a triangulator than Clinton.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/01-6

Long live the corporate party.

[Wetzelbill]

32. K and R

TYT is one of the best shows out there, along with Maddow, imho.

[democracy1st]

46. K & R x 10!

[szatmar666]

52. U BET AGAINST OBAMA U LOSE 10 OUT OF 10!

so far... but good luck with the kibitzn', I am sure Obama and the dems are listening to TYT. LOL!

[Mithreal]

61. I wouldn't bet against politically connected corporate citizens either,

doesn't make me want to be a corporation any more than I already do either.

Also, Obama triangulates. He put himself in the so-called center between the left and right and above the partisan politics. His positions are often hazy and being the head of the party he can claim victory any time something, anything really, passes the majority Dem Congress.

10 OUT OF 10? Is that the measure of success? Fail once or twice and maybe someone would accuse him of stretching? Will he though?

I don't bet against the well connected corporations, neither does Obama.

The rest of your comment is just bullshit, nothing new. There's no evidence Obama listens to ANY Progressives, bless his heart.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

53. On face value this blows, but if we take into account passing further green legislation takes a...

small miracle this is genius. Pres. Obama takes the argument off the table, he's already pledged several times to make America a leader in green technology one can potentially cancel out he other. He's always pushing for that forward step if he has to give a little he'll give a little, but things are always rolling ahead.

Biden " I didn't know till I joined this team, just brilliant the President was."

[szatmar666]

63. of course it's genius!

It will take decades to even see a drop of oil from these areas, if ever, and by then oil will be obsolete. If that's what it takes to get green energy off the ground I am all for it. TYT and fellow "lefties" couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag much less understand that "progressivism" means progress by government. You have to be in government to achieve progress and that's a lot of give and take.

Americans are too spoiled to be willing to pay the price of such a transition and Obama will need industry to shut up while he's doing it, at least he needs them fractured and divided on the issue. He's playing the game brilliantly so far: divide and rule. The right has done it to the left for 30 years, it's time we do the same. If we stay in power for long enough we can start pushing the culture to the left again simply because new programs like healthcare and energy will demonstrate that liberal "big government" intervention works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWGLAthgOg

[theFrankFactor]

60. 34,000 VIEWS AND RISING!

Not everyone is a 3d Chess Nerd!

[Jim Sagle]

62. Obama's not giving away the store to the Republicans, he IS a Republican.

Is there anybody left who down in his or her gut doesn't really know that by now?

[szatmar666]

64. sorry, wrong thread