With Rahm by his side, Obama proves he has learned the lessons of Carter and Clinton.

[tritsofme]

Carter and Clinton both enjoyed large Democratic majorities in Congress, but in large part due to Democratic in-fighting they were never able to get their agendas off the ground.

Now with Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel as his right hand men, President Obama will likely face the friendliest Congress any president has seen since LBJ.

Get ready for some fireworks. Republicans won't know what hit them.

[bluestateguy]

1. Rahm Emanuel gets things done

He engineered the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006.

He will be 1000 times better than that fool Mack McLarty was in 1993-94.

[bullwinkle428]

2. Mack McLarty...we hardly knew ye!

:rofl:

Talk about a name long-forgotten...

[Larkspur]

10. Rahm wasn't that smart

Ned Lamont changed the dynamic of the 2006 race by making it OK for Democrats to talk about Iraq and criticize Bush-Cheney-Lieberman over their heavy handed positions on Iraq.

Rahm believed that Dems should avoid talking about Iraq and should pretend to be Republicans.

[TheWraith]

15. Um... yeah...

Because a failed challenger in Connecticut has a ton more to do with the national mood than, say, the fact that the war had been revealed as a sham.

[Larkspur]

17. Ned Lamont won the CT Dem Primary

That victory is what changed the debate for Democrats on Iraq. After Ned's primary win, Democrats across the nation rejected Rahm's advice to not talk about Iraq and they talked about getting us out of Iraq and that is the main reason why Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

Ned's amazing victory on August 8, 2006 -- he overcame a 59 pt deficit to win by 4 pts -- was earth shattering and paved the way for Obama to win CT's Prez primary on Feb. 5, 2006. CT was safely in Hillary's column until Obama's Iowa victory and with Lamont's history, CT voters were open to change. By the Feb. 5, 2008 Prez primary, a majority of CT voters had turned against Lieberman and had buyers remorse. That buyers remorse benefitted Obama in CT. Note that Obama got blown out in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Obama only won CT, Maine, and Vermont in New England's Prez primaries.

Rahm is a pro-corporate whore. He supported the Iraq war. He also blamed Howard Dean for the Democrats not winning more seats. Rahm is a complete a@@hole.

[Robbien]

3. Rahm hates progressives and loves big business and war

So if you are ready for more bills in favor of welfare for the greedy rich and more bombs dropped on Arab countries, then you are okay. Everyone else will be surprised at the shit which will be coming out of a Rahm managed Congress.

[stray cat]

5. I suspect Obama can manage to be president even with Rahm at his side

Obama doesn't seem to be a wimpy pushover....

[Robbien]

7. If you listen closely to Obama's speeches

He is very business friendly, just take a close look at what he wants for health care--big insurance. He is strongly in favor of "protecting Israel" from all its neighbors. And protecting the environment is not on his priority list, he is even in favor of clean coal.

Rahm will only strengthen these tendencies.

[JNelson6563]

6. He will have to do what Obama wants

Surely you're not saying President Obama is going to be walked on by the likes of Rahm? I mean come on!

Ye of little faith.

Julie

[Robbien]

9. Not what I meant

I believe Rahm is to the right of Obama, but not that much. Obama is very conservative. And Rahm will be happy to serve those interests.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Pakistan and Afghanistan are not "Arab countries"

[PennyP]

13. Remember guys, he didn't get in on the lib vote alone

There were plenty of centrists, moderates, and even conservatives and republicans that voted for him too. He rode into power on a broad coalition. Now before anyone gets heated at me, let me add that he knows damn well that he owes a great deal to the libs, it is much of their grassroots blood, sweat, and tears that brought the rest on board.

So have faith in Obama. He WILL have to offer the right and the center some part in his policies, or it won't work, but at the same time, the left will be getting more of their issues attended to than we have in a long long time (Clinton was a good president, but he didn't give the left nearly as much as he could have). I happen to think he is smarter than me, and I'm pretty good at listening to the other side without being blinded by my own prejudices, and finding the good stuff, you know the common ground, but without losing sight of my core principles. And if I can be good at it, I happen to think he will be a GENIUS at it. If he can only count on us to support him even when we sometimes don't agree, he WILL be able to put an end to the maddening slide to the far right fringe that our country has undergone in the past decade. Then in his second term, he will be able to steer us a little further to the left and towards social justice.

This doesn't mean that progressives should stop working for their agendas, but just that we need to take the long view-- stick to our guns, but with an understanding that we can not over-reach. Nothing that is worthwhile and lasting can be built in a day, and neither can the perfection of our union. Obama's gonna need all 8 years to accomplish change, lets be patient with him and open with him and let him know what we think, but always be willing to listen to his reasons why he makes the decisions he does.

[Robbien]

14. Don't over-reach

Standard order given to Progressives. Don't over-reach, compromise.

What is meant by compromise is that big business and the rich get everything while workers and the environment get nothing. Now that's a good compromise.

Remember it was Rahm and Obama who led the Democratic party $700B bailout team calling Dems to convince them to support the bill.

[PennyP]

16. You really think the environment and workers will see "Nothing" under Obama?

And yes, we DO need to compromise on some issues, if we want to stay in power long enough to have the time to enact some more rock solid and long lasting reforms. There is nothing wrong with compromise if we make SMART compromises, and make sure the other side gives more than it gets, which I think he will. But to blow forward with a fully progressive agenda on all fronts while ignoring the fact that this is a diverse country, will only drive away those voters who helped push us over the edge and give us a good mandate.

I'm not saying we shouldn't expect progressive policies, I'm just saying we shouldn't act like spoiled impatient brats with no grasp of the big picture and the long view, and expect us to be able to enact them all at once and in full force. Don't kid yourself, the culture wars are not over, and while the right is in shambles at the moment, they are wily and will try for the centrists again (you know the folks who made the margins close enough to allow the right to steal two elections). And if they get enough of the centrists, we lose again.

The culture wars are above all a propaganda war, so Obama is going to have to play it very smart by trying to be progressive enough to enact a true change agenda and please the liberals, while not driving away all the folks who took a chance on him because they believed he would be willing to compromise. All I'm saying is that we not make it hard on him by making knee jerk reactions to his every decision, without letting him reveal his plans.

[Altean Wanderer]

19. Well said, but progressives need to hold Obama accountable n/t

[PennyP]

20. I agree...and we will (nt.)

[Captain Hilts]

4. Clinton's first budget passed by ONE vote-Gore's. He did NOT have a "large" Dem majority. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. 57 Democrats in the Senate and 258 in the House

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States_Congress

[Captain Hilts]

12. "Dems" like Sam Nunn made sure Clinton was not going to be a progressive prez.

From Ruth Marcus's column this morning;

Yet the experience of President Bill Clinton's rocky early months -- remember gays in the military? the BTU tax? -- suggests the steep political price of governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left.

For the current congressional leadership, the memory of losing control in 1994 still sears; when Clinton took office, it seemed unimaginable that Democrats would ever lose the House. Now, the enlarged contingent of Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats applies additional countervailing force.

Clinton's 43 percent plurality made him look weak in the eyes of Congress; Obama's victory puts him in a stronger position to resist demands from Capitol Hill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110404478.html

[LSdemocrat]

18. Tons of DINOs in that bunch

Same type of DINOs that voted for Reagan's budgets that voted against the Clinton agenda.