There Were Lots of Clues

[Time for change]

Most liberals, myself included, have become progressively disenchanted with President Obama since the beginning of his administration. With the recent health care debacle that disenchantment has reached such an intensity that for the first time I consider it unlikely that he will be re-elected. Therefore, barring unforeseen circumstances, I am hoping to see a serious challenge to his re-nomination from the Democratic left.

The main reason for our disenchantment has been Obama’s turn to the center or center-right since being elected: His decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute Bush administration officials for their use of arbitrary incarceration, torture, and preemptive war seemed inconsistent with his outspokenness against these crimes as a U.S. Senator; his rhetoric in favor of fair trade during his campaign gave way to following the advice of his free trade advisors as President; his campaign pledges to focus on relief for homeowners gave way to a massive bailout of Wall Street as President; and most recently, his campaign promise to offer public health insurance to all Americans was dropped as President.

Yet, even as he campaigned substantially to the left of where he ended up as President, there were several clues to his center leaning tendencies prior to his winning the Democratic nomination. The purpose of noting this is not to criticize those who supported him all the way. I have a lot of respect for those who worked so hard for his election, in the hope of a “change we can believe in”. But if I’m correct, and the clues were there, we would do well to consider what those clues might have been, in the hope of being better able to recognize similar clues in the future. Let’s take a look at some of the pre-election clues regarding Obama’s centrist leanings – which I wrote about during the 2008 primary season:


CLUES TO OBAMA’S CENTRIST LEANINGS PRIOR TO HIS 2008 ELECTION VICTORY

One America or Two Americas – Obama’s explosive debut onto the national scene

My first awareness of Barack Obama came as the result of his appearance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when he exploded onto the national scene with his “One America” speech. The contrast between the world views of John Edwards and Barack Obama was starkly evident at that convention. At the same convention where Obama spoke of “One America”, the theme of Edwards’ speech, consistent with his presidential campaign, was “Two Americas”. That theme indicated a straight forward acknowledgement of the increasing income disparity in our country to Gilded Age proportions and 37 million Americans (12.7% of the U.S. population) living in poverty.

Obama’s theme of “One America” was optimistic and hopeful, and it was very enthusiastically received by a large number of Americans. Edwards’ theme of “Two Americas” was more daring in the sense that most Americans don’t like to hear criticism of their country. But it certainly depicted the reality of the current state of our nation much better than Obama’s speech did. I did not share the enthusiasm for that speech that so many other Americans, from both the left and center did.

An article in The Nation appearing soon after the Convention opined that it isn’t difficult to reconcile Obama’s “One America” theme with Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme. The basis of that opinion was that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, whereas Edwards was speaking of the current reality. But it’s not at all clear to me that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, rather than what he considered to be a reality. For example, Obama said “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America”. That’s a nice aspiration, but it was stated as a fact rather than as an aspiration. And it’s not true. I agree more with what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject, in “The Conscience of a Liberal”, as much more reflective of current reality:

The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement…

Excessive “bipartisanship” – throwing liberals under the bus

I gained my first in-depth familiarity with Barack Obama when I read his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. I found the first chapter to be extremely irritating. It reeked of “bipartisanship”. In his effort to bend over backwards to be fair to Republicans he disparaged his own party and cast them as too liberal. That made me especially unhappy because the book was released just as our country was in the midst of a crucially important election campaign for the control of Congress. Here are some excerpts that indicate what I consider to be Obama’s unfair yet subtle criticisms of Democrats or liberals, followed by my editorial comments:

I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised... We Democrats are just, well, confused… Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction.

Those are awfully tough words for a politician to use against his own party. The Democratic Party is not the party of reaction – the Republican Party is. It is statements like these that have great potential for political use by Republicans.

There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment and achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups.

The New Deal exemplifies what is best about the Democratic Party. It lifted millions out of poverty, and it served for many decades as a bulwark of financial security for the American people. Republican encroachment against New Deal programs since the early 1980s has been one of the worst things to befall our country. This statement by Obama is something I would expect more from a Republican than a Democrat. It belittles the best of the Democratic Party, and it obscures the pressing need we have to reverse Republican encroachment against perhaps the most successful group of programs the U.S. Congress ever enacted.

When the term “interest group” is used in a pejorative sense it is generally taken to mean a small group that has a financial interest in a particular political outcome. Thus, if the oil industry participates in the writing of energy legislation, it is acting as an interest group. Groups such as the International Red Cross, human rights organizations, or the ACLU, on the other hand, are not “interest groups” in that sense. It seems to me that lumping such organizations under the term “interest group” diminishes them by implying that their purpose is merely to enhance their own wealth or power.

In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action…

In the first place, members of Congress should be suspicious of all military action, and I have serious qualms about any Congressperson who isn’t. Secondly, this is a straw man statement if I’ve ever seen one. What military action could he possibly be talking about that Democrats were suspicious of but shouldn’t have been suspicious of? If anything, Democrats and Republicans both have been way too eager to facilitate military action that they should have been suspicious of. A statement like this does nothing but give credence to the Republican myth that Democrats are “weak on defense”.

In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems… We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans…

What on earth is he talking about?

We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.

Wait for a White House scandal? We’ve had a whole pile of more White House scandals right in front us than our country has ever seen, and yet we hardly do anything about it. What is he talking about? Words like this serve only to inhibit Congress from exerting their responsibility to hold the Executive Branch accountable for their actions.

And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.

When’s the last time that happened?

Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use.

There he goes again giving credence to another Republican talking point: The stereotypical “tax and spend” liberal.

We know that the battle against international terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas… But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices – belligerence or isolationism…

I find the implication that Democrats have acted as isolationists in regard to George Bush’s “War on Terror” to be ridiculous. The truth is much the opposite – Many Democrats as well as Republicans served as rubber stamps for the Bush administration’s grab for ever more power and adventurism in foreign affairs. The Iraq War and Military Commissions Act of 2006 are two of the most egregious examples.

Yet publicly it’s difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock…

In other words, he’s implying that Democrats are equally to blame for the incompetence of the Republican Congress prior to 2007.

I began silently registering … the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily….

Denunciations of imperialism came too easily?? The United States is currently the most feared and imperialistic country in the world. We have done tremendous harm to numerous countries over the past several decades through our imperialist adventures. Denunciations of American imperialism within our own country, especially among politicians, have been far too infrequent. To imply otherwise is to condone and facilitate more of the same.

And the freedom from the constraints of monogamy or religion was proclaimed without fully understanding the value of such constraints…

He wants us to be constrained by religion?

And the role of victim was too readily embraced as a means of shedding responsibility, or asserting entitlement.

This sounds like Republican talking points against programs to provide safety nets for the vulnerable – as if they haven’t been cut enough already.


Obama’s purposeful appeal to Ronald Reagan admirers

In early 2008, Obama stirred up a good deal of controversy by talking about Ronald Reagan in an apparently favorable light. Here are some excerpts:

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s the government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

This is not a one time incident. Obama also mentions Reagan in “The Audacity of Hope”. After saying that he was disturbed by Reagan’s election in 1980 and his assaults on the poor, Obama continues:

I understood his appeal. That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government… For the fact was that government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money… A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities… Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, and loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of a common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster….

I found these words of Obama to be unnecessarily disparaging of liberals while fawning over Ronald Reagan and his policies – policies that did immeasurable harm to our country.


Health care

Obama was the second of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates to come out with a comprehensive health care plan. John Edwards came out with a plan in February 2007. It was a plan for universal health coverage, which included a strong public option plan for any American who wanted it. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman reviewed the plan and then concluded in an op-ed titled “Edwards Get it Right”:

So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable. Yes, that includes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama came out with his health care plan three months later, and Clinton followed four months after that. Krugman had good things to say about all three plans, but he explained why Obama’s plan was a little weaker than the other two. Krugman became especially concerned when Obama began attacking the health care plans of his two main rivals using Republican talking points that were inaccurate. Krugman had this to say about that:

My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

I will add that the Obama plan has become immensely weaker during the current health care reform debate. It is also worth noting that when Obama’s plan as a presidential candidate included the public option, health care insurance was voluntary. Now that it no longer includes a public option as an alternative to private insurance, it is mandatory.


OBAMA’S DILEMMA

For all the above reasons I think that that there were lots of clues prior to the 2008 presidential election pointing to a substantially more conservative Barack Obama than most people realized.

Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to consider the unique and substantial pressures that President Obama has been faced with. I say that not to defend his policies, many with which I strongly disagree. Nor do I wish to cut him slack for them. Yet I do think that his somewhat unique problems deserve consideration.

Many of us, myself included (notwithstanding my many concerns about an Obama presidency), were elated and amazed to see the race barrier broken in a presidential election. We thought that this historic precedent could lead to a new era in terms of race relations in the United States. I thought that even a moderately successful Obama presidency would go a long way towards combating racism in our country. Millions of Americans would see their racial stereotypes go by the wayside as they became used to the idea of a black president.

But I now see that I was wrong about that. Though a comfortable majority of American voters voted for Obama in 2008, there is nevertheless a very sizable minority of racists who will never give him credit for anything under any circumstance. With people like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh ready and eager to pounce and misrepresent any action of his in the worst possible light, that sizable minority is maintained at a fever pitch of intense hatred. Obama may believe that moving to the center will placate them, but it should be clear by now that it won’t.

As a result, President Obama is now the target of perhaps as much intense and widespread racial hatred in his own country as any single person in the history of the world. He could move to the right of Attila the Hun, and they would still call him a “Socialist”. He’s received a record number of death threats, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them were acted upon. Or alternatively, if Obama threatened the interests of the Military Industrial Complex I wouldn’t be surprised to see him knocked off in a scenario that simulated a “lone gunman”. It’s hard for me to imagine what it would be like to be the focus of so much potentially violent hatred.

The truth of the matter is that, notwithstanding the fact that our country elected a black President in 2008, it could only have happened to one who was acceptable to the corporatocracy. If President Obama had threatened the interests of the corporatocracy they would undoubtedly have showered the full force of their wrath upon him, as they did against Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2008, and other Democratic primary candidates who appeared to be especially threatening to them, particularly Howard Dean in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008. Add to that the pockets of virulent racism in our country, and Obama would have stood little chance of being elected in 2008. Likewise, if he threatens corporate interests as President he will become the target of unremitting corporate attacks. Undoubtedly he recognizes that and continues to act accordingly.

I don’t say this to make excuses for him. I don’t like many of his policies, and I won’t support them. But still, I think it behooves us to be aware of the problems he faces.

[amborin]

1. good post k&r

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. He ran as a left-of-center centrist and is governing as a right-of-center centrist. K&R

He is also, essentially, an ambitious politician who weighs the polls and looks toward the next election. And, as an ambitious politician, he fears breaking with the corrupt system in which he has made his career.

[glitch]

14. Only if the center has now shifted to Neo-Con.

While it may have where power currently resides, I seriously doubt it has with We The People.

[pnwmom]

54. That's ridiculous. He's not right-of-center.

He campaigned as a moderate Democrat and that's what he is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. As I said, he ran as a left of center Dem and is governing as a right of center Dem.

Or, if you prefer, a left of center "moderate Dem and is governing as a right of center "moderate" Dem.

And, I'm being generous when describing him as "moderate" rather than conservative.

[pnwmom]

58. He didn't campaign as a "left of center Dem."

And he's not to the right of center now.

[ThomCat]

60. You're delusional if you really think so.

He ran as a populist. He's ruling as a corporatist.

[quark219]

73. +1 N/T

[The Hope Mobile]

93. EXACTLY! nt

[DKRC]

99. +1 nt

[jobycom]

101. I think he ran as both.

There were a lot of us here pointing out that he wasn't a populist, that he said things contradictory to other crowds. Most of us were treaty very, very badly for it.

[JetCityLiberal]

124. +2 ThomCat paid attention

he is a big time corporatist.

Paul

[MissDeeds]

145. Exactly

Right on both counts.

[RetroLounge]

157. You nailed it Thom!

+1

:hi:

RL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. From what perspective?

From the DLC, or Blue Dog, viewpoint, he could be considered a moderate. From the progressive, democratic socialist, communist, anarchist, viewpoint, he would be considered right of center to conservative.

As a leftist, I see him as conservative.

[pnwmom]

62. Sarah Palin is conservative. John McCain is conservative.

Olympia Snowe is center-conservative.

Obama is a moderate democrat, somewhat to left of center.

[The Hope Mobile]

94. No, that's what we thought but the proof is in the pudding. He's right of center.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. Sarah Palin is NOT conservative.

A generation ago she'd have had no career at all because she is radical RW fringe. Prior to Reagan, anyone with her beliefs could look forward to nothing more than a career in the local chapter of the John Birch Society.

[dana_b]

133. Palin and McCain are past conservative

sorry - you're off the mark here. Obama is for the corporations on Wall St., not us. He and much of congress are for the insurance industries, not single payer which would help ALL of us, he's for increasing war and excusing torture. There is nothing leftist about any of that.

[ThomCat]

159. Your idea of center is so far to the right that it's loony.

:eyes:

If you really, truly think that Obama is center left that you have absolutely no perspective of where the left really is.

[Hawkowl]

122. You are mistaken

If you look at the polls on the ISSUES, e.g; Afghanistan, troop withdrawl, public options etc, Obama is too the right of the majority of Americans. He isn't just right of progressives, or the left. He is, by definition, right of the center.

Can you dispute that?

[rhett o rick]

150. He campaigned to undo the crap that bush* brought us. Still waiting. nt

[ThomCat]

59. You're Blind. He had definitely moved a hell of a lot to the right.

On free trade he has moved to the right. He used to be against NAFTA and the other free trade agreements. Now he won't revisit and alter the agreements, and he is negotiating new ones.

On LGBT rights he has moved to the right. He has lied to our community repeatedly while supporting homophobes and homophobic policies.

On (not) supporting unions he has moved to the right. Auto and Teachers unions most obviously.

On the environment he has moved to the right. Now supporting voluntary changes instead of mandates.

On Healthcare he has Definitely moved far, far to the right. He used to support Universal health care.

On the wars he has moved to the right. He used to support a withdrawal from Iraq, and it doesn't look like that is ever really going to happen. Even when he claims the troops eventually leave, he's planning to really leave tens of thousands behind as a permanent presence, with an unknown number of civilian mercenaries. And then there is Afghanistan, which he is escalating endlessly, he he clearly has no idea what victory would look like or how he would know how or if we have won.

On rule of law he has moved to the right. He claimed he was against torture, and even claimed he prohibited it. But international observers testify that we still torture in Gitmo and CIA prisons. We still don't adhere to the Geneva conventions, and we are still using military tribunals with gerry-rigged rules. Once in office he shocked people by deciding to support Bush's policies, and deciding to keep the spy powers Bush gave himself.

On energy policy he has moved to the right. He promised a massive investment in renewable energy and a campaign to free us from dependence on fossil fuels. His investments in wind and solar have been only a few hundred million dollars. That's peanuts. He has done nothing to cut us back on oil consumption, least of all the military (the biggest user and polluter in the US with fossil fuels).

On financial policy he has certainly moved far to the right. He promised a campaign to save main street. Instead he continued Bush policies shoveling money to Wall Street without conditions or oversight. He continued to give hundreds of billions to wall street, but only a few million to the unemployed and those who lost their homes. His policies supporting a "jobless recovery" show that he supports the recovery of corporations, not people.

Can you show any issues in which he has stayed to the left, or even better, moved to the left? Are there any issues at all in which he hasn't moved to right?

You have to be truly blind to think that Obama hasn't moved to the right. He has moved so far to the right he's almost a Republican at this point.

[winyanstaz]

116. any farther to the right and he will fall off the cliff

[go west young man]

134. In regards to energy there was his dropping of the windfall profits tax

on big oil before he even entered office even though he campaigned on it. Link here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B206W20081203

[Ignis]

142. Damn, TC. You're on a roll.

:patriot:

[wolfgangmo]

89. Moderate democrat = right of center

Only in America would he be considered not right wing.

[CrispyQ]

105. Today's moderate dem is yesterday's conservative. -nt

[Echo In Light]

115. 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. Preserving status quo is top priority

[leveymg]

141. There's been a shift-right across the field. Nixon was more liberal in some respects.

But, I worked for Obama and the Dems knowing that a lot of progressives, me included, would probably be disappointed by the reality of his policies than the inspiring quality of his campaign rhetoric. But, if you listen to the words without reading in one's own hope, he's doing pretty much what he said he was going to. As for HCR, America will get the HCR Bill and the Congress we deserve, because we put them in office and never, ever hold anyone in Washington accountable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. "Moderate Democrat's" ARE right of center.

The center has shifted so far to the right in the past 20 years that today's centrists would have been RWers in previous generations.

Think about it - JFK, in his day, was lambasted as being a RW warmonger. Goldwater was a far right nutcase. Both of them are to the LEFT of centrist Dems today.

[Cleobulus]

110. Uhm, the Democratic party is a right-of-center to right wing party...

the Republicans are a FAR right wing party. If you don't believe me, ask anyone from Canada or Western Europe.

[scubadude]

111. Here's the rub, the center now isn't where it was even 10 years ago.

There used to be liberals, many liberals, but over 4 decades of concerted effort designed by the Republicans and paid for by corporate America, the center has been moved rightward quite a bit. If you looked at where Obama is today using the scale from before the Republicans re-defined it, he would be a moderate Republican.

Economically Obama's upbringing was fairly comfortable. Hi lived much of his life in other people's vacations. Comfortable indeed.

I refuse to use the Republicans machinated view of the political spectrum. I'm stuck in the 1960's and 1970's...

Scuba

[fascisthunter]

125. uh yes he is... his policies and those he hand picked for his admin

prove it...

[Orsino]

126. He's not ending the wars...

...isn't even entertaining the idea of single-payer public health care, and won't hear of marriage equality. He's right-of-center.

But he ran as fairly right-of-center, too.

[tonysam]

154. No, he isn't a "moderate" and never was, if people were paying attention.

"Moderate" Democrats don't push for wholesale privatization of public education.

[sandnsea]

3. Krugman supported a mandated plan

And now people oppose Obama's plan because - tada - it has a mandate.

:crazy:

[rurallib]

9. I don't believe Krugman endorsed mandated insurance from insurance companies

I saw Krugman endorse single payer or at worst a public option. Under those circumstances mandates make sense.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Krugman was supporting Hillary, wasn't he?

And her plan was based on corporate mandates.

[rurallib]

32. I don't believe he was ever allowed to endorse a candidate by name, but

When I saw him in Iowa he all but endorsed John Edwards, who was a single payer guy.
I wish you would cite some columns or blog entries where he came out for insurance mandates or for Hillary. I certainly don't remember that.
Since you are the one saying Krugman did this I would expect you to back the accusations up with some material.
Coming on here and making a statement like that without supporting material is not good strategy. People usually call you out.
I know that Krugman was one who came out last week and said basically take what you can get today.

[pnwmom]

55. No, John Edwards's health plan was almost identical to Hillary's, with a strong

public option. In fact, she modeled her plan after his.

[Time for change]

34. Her plan was not based on corporate mandates

None of the 3 leading Democratic candidates presented a health care plan that involved corporate mandates (and I'm pretty sure that no other Democratic candidate did either). All three of them presented a plan with a strong public option (though Obama's was a little weaker than the others) which ALL Americans had the option of choosing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&oref=login

[Sparkly]

82. WRONG.

Not "corporate mandates."

[pnwmom]

56. Yes, he's still supporting a mandate. There's no other way to achieve

universal insurance than to require everyone -- even the currently healthy and able-bodied -- to participate.

[EOTE]

83. And without a public option or some other form of competition

(not some watered down co-op program), a mandate is worse than worthless.

[wolfgangmo]

91. you seem to have some basic misconceptions about how insurance works.

Let me explain from the point of view of a former insurance agent ( who quit because of the sleezy way the companies operated even back in the 80's) and as a current owner of a medical clinic.

Insurance is based on the concept of shared risk. That is to say that large pools of folks pool their money to cover the disasters of a few. The larger the pool of participants the greater the spread of risk and the less chance of any disaster wiping out the pool of contigency money. The larger the pool the lower the individual and group risk. This was the original idea back when farm folks got together to handle crop failure etc.

But then private companies took over the mutual and co-op insurance plans and drove claim payoff down in order to maximize profits. They started to cut people off.

The entire idea of a public plan was to have a large pool of risk to compete and set the standard for the private companies. By setting mandates and then parcelling them out the the multiple private plans (who don't give a shit about you and I or anyone on main street) we have both split the risk making all claims more at risk and also not putting ANY incentives in place to have the private companies do anything than sit back, cash the checks from the IRS collection service and figure out more ways to purchase politicians and screw the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

147. He did not support mandated insurance in the primaries. In fact

he said clearly that to do so would meant 'some kind of enforcement' and he stated that he did not think it would be right to force people to buy insurance they could not afford. I liked that Obama, the one who is in the WH now, doesn't resemble him at all.

He also flip-flopped on the Fisa Bill, something that was simply inexplicable considering the magnificent speech he had given opposing spying on the AMerican people.

I don't understand him at all. I don't know what he believes, because he has changed his mind so often. I do know one thing though, when he changes his mind, it is always to go further to the right.

[rhett o rick]

151. The only way to have universal health insurance is to mandate it? Please think about how absurd

that is. Second, Medicare does not mandate coverage. They have a penalty for late sign up. Mandated insurance will not sit well with most Americans, even those that are not affected. Talk about big government. You shall buy insurance or else. If we had a robust public option guaranteeing decent coverage and premiums, a mandate wouldnt be so hard to swallow.

[Time for change]

29. Krugman supported a mandate in a plan where ALL Americans had the option of

choosing a public plan with generous subsidies for those who couldn't afford health insurance.

That's very different than mandating that people buy private insurance.

[sandnsea]

40. And the votes aren't there

and so he supports the plan we have. And the House bill has very generous subsidies and increases Medicaid to 150% of poverty, for everyone. If Krugman has got common sense on the Senate, why can't the people who supported him, Hillary, Dean, Kerry and every other subsidized insurance plan over the last 5 years or more.

http://2288beckleyrd.blogspot.com/2007/09/hilarys-health-care-proposal.html

[clear eye]

156. # of votes depend to a large extent on whether the President demands they be there.

He could have threatened to recommend that Senate Dems go to reconciliation rather than pass a rotten bill. He could have used his bully pulpit to defend the rights of states to pass single payer if they wanted to, and followed up w/ carrot and stick talks w/ Dem Senators. No one forced him to choose for his cabinet and OMB and only listen to the options of those who want to shrink the public portion of Medicare w/ an appointed and unrecallable panel of "experts" from the medical, pharma & insurance industries who recommend changes to it that can only be blocked if Congress moves heaven and earth to vote down w/o debate the entire package, crucial provisions and deadly alike, w/i 30 days after they get it during the holiday month of December! He used actual arm-twisting to try to get that passed apart from the reform bill and failed mostly b/c of the vigilance of Rep. Charles Rangel. But he called for it to be slipped into the current bill, and if your coverage in the public portion of Medicare is slashed in 2015, don't say I didn't warn you. Also please stop implying that a U.S. President has no power. That's an insult to the man and the position.

(Gee, golly willikers. If I'm working my head off and just getting by in this great country I get to go into a plan, Medicaid, that has such a shortage of doctors that I might die waiting to be diagnosed.)

[ProSense]

44. That is not true.

Hillary's and Edwards plan were mandates that would in fact garnish wages. Edwards wanted to garnish the premiums.

[Time for change]

75. What part of what I said do you think is not true?

[paulk]

102. people oppose Obama's plan because it has a mandate

without something to offset it - like a public option.

[Warpy]

4. He's doing just about what I expected of him

He's not making the situation measurably worse.

I had such a low expectation because I was familiar with his voting record, not his rhetoric.

[rurallib]

11. He is doing what I expected

He is doing what he said he would do when he was campaigning in Iowa. I was very leery. My bottom 3 were (from the bottom): Biden, Clinton, Obama

[Warpy]

13. Yeah, mine, too, but Biden was jockeying with Dodd for his position.

[robinlynne]

5. clues? He said he would put the republicans at the table even as they were torturing and murdering

and plundering our nation! Far more than clues. He announced it. I will sit down with the republicans and create a compromise, right when we needed to put criminals in jail for so many crimes.
That is exactly why I voted for Edwards in the primary.I did not think sitting down at "the table' with the far right was a feasible idea. And it really is not.

[Skittles]

6. so many clues it was practically stamped on his forehead

[QC]

10. But anyone who dared point to those clues got run out of here quick. n/r

[Skittles]

15. not me

I didn't let the bush freaks run me out of Texas and I won't let the cheerleaders run me out of DU; I am a FIGHTER.

[QC]

20. We lost a lot of good people then, loyal, longtime DUers who were

hounded out of here by a screaming, shrieking mob of newcomers that was allowed to take over the board and run roughshod over everyone.

[Skittles]

24. yeah, I know

it fucking sucked

[QC]

26. It changed this place forever,

and not in a good way.

[Skittles]

31. we survived eight years of bush (12 years for us Dems in Texas)

we'll survive these clueless idiots too

[goldcanyonaz]

72. Yep, I remember that well, it was just awful.

[murielm99]

92. Have you noticed the silence from many of those people now?

They have not been tombstoned. They are just no longer present acting as cheerleaders. Some of them were very young. Others were just simply politically naive. I am sure a few were trolls.

Remember the mass alerts, the hit lists? I was sure I would be booted out of here.

[Zhade]

51. Clinton wouldn't have been any better. She lied just as much.

Tuzla, for one.

[Skittles]

65. I doubt she would have endlessly kissed repuke ass

[PassingFair]

112. As a LEADER of the DLC, it was WELL KNOWN that her lips were suctioned to the 'pukes...

Did you miss her IWR vote?

It was a contest within the party
between a KNOWN and an UNKNOWN.

I was pretty proud of Democrats
dumping the obvious DLC candidate
in a bid for change.

Turns out it was a Hobson's Choice,
though.

[sabrina 1]

148. She would, her husband is best friends with Bush Sr.

and Babs calls him her 'son'. They are all the same. DLCers who want to drag the Democratic Party to the right. Obama is more ashamed to be associated with liberals than with rightwingers. Hillary was involved in prayer meetings while in the Senate with some of the most rightwing members of Congress. This fundie religion thing from both of them really bothered me also.

There was so little difference between Hillary and Obama during the primaries, I supported Obama because he did not vote for the war (although I know now that he would have for political reasons) and his opposition to Inusrance mandates. But I was not enthusiastic about any of them. The OP has outlined many of the reasons why in Obama's case. But what choice did we have?

[The Hope Mobile]

95. +1 nt

[pleah]

143. Yep. n/t

[bridgit]

7. E-yup

[FLPanhandle]

8. How could anyone be shocked, surprised, or dissappointed?

He is exactly what he appeared to be. A centrist who doesn't want to fight but quietly work out deals.

My only surprise is that he has been more effective than I expected.

I just don't see how anyone could not see this coming back in the primaries or before?

[avaistheone1]

12. Obama has overseen deals that favor the corporations.

[FLPanhandle]

17. and that surprised you?

He never was a Dean, Kucinich, or even an Edwards. He is, and always, was a corporate friendly, centrist, who governs from a backroom bargaining table.

[avaistheone1]

19. So what/where is the CHANGE Obama campaigned on?

I don't get it all.

[FLPanhandle]

25. It's a campagin slogan, they are and always have been meaningless

Change is just a common theme.

1992 - Bill Clinton ran on the slogan "Its time to change America", FDR - "New Deal", JFK - "We can do better", or Reagans "Are you better now than 4 years ago?".

Slogans contain no substance...Did you think people really believed "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage"?

[QC]

22. That was clear from the beginning.

(In the Panhandle, too, by the way.)

[FLPanhandle]

27. Cool...no hurricanes this year :)

[QC]

28. Almost makes up for 2004-2005. n/t

[deutsey]

18. Democracy Now's reporting on him during the campaign kept me from

seeing Obama as anything than what he's been since the inauguration.

I still see him and the Dems as better than the Republicans, but the differences in many areas are becoming increasingly marginal, imo.

[stray cat]

21. Clues? How about obvious facts and stances he campaigned on

Anyone paying attention knew Obama was more of a moderate than most on DU would appreciate it. However, as far as dems go your choice was largely Hillary Clinton, Obama or John Edwards. None of whom are the liberal most DUers demand.

[glitch]

23. Obama campaigned as a centrist, he is governing as a neo-con.

We are not fooled by the shifting goalposts and the attempt to make solidly corporatist as the new "center".

By the way, another grand slam timeforchange.

[swilton]

30. Some of the world's revolutions

have been the results of leadership changes which have failed to live up to or meet rising expectations assicuated with those rising expectations.

Regarding, the racial hatred in this country. I think that many hoped that Obama's election would validate the demise of many racial barriers and stereotypes in this country. I now think that such barriers are less easily reduced with the cult of personality, and basically that is a lot of the attraction of Obama. A large part of the racial hatred is based upon ignorance and when I look at the creationists, global warming denyers, and other forms of ignorance, the racism is not surprising. Saddly, when I hear about Obama's goals for educational reforms (invest in math and sciences and more than likely at the expense of humanities) this is unlikely to change. The other component of the racism is poverty - while there are many who are wealthy that are racists, it is the poor and disenfranchised who feel victimized and are looking for targets responsible for their situations...racism becomes a function of identifying and blaming the other.

These are trying times for Obama as up until now, the left had been giving him some slack and protecting him from the far right tea baggers, racists, etc. It now appears that he will be left with few allies he can trust and this will force him to continue to rely on his lackeys and sychophants. Thus, I see it as unlikely that the Obama presidency will bring us the changes we had hoped for and this country so desperately needs.

[Time for change]

132. I agree with all you say about racism here

With regard to Obama, hopefully he will be flexible enough to understand that he can't win another election without the support of the left, and he will change course accordingly. But I just don't see that happening.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[paulsby]

35. i've got a raging clue nt

[inna]

36. HUGE K&R!!!

:applause:

:yourock:

[Time for change]

139. Thank you

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I knew he was no populist, because I've seen real populists

and know how their sincerity and integrity shines through. Obama was so clearly acting a role.

However, his complete disavowal of anything that would please a left-of-center voter has angered and saddened even me.

He has not even done the things he could have done by executive order. As a straight person with many GLBT friends, past and present, who have been very kind to me, I know of no reason why he couldn't just drop Don't Ask Don't Tell with an executive order, just as Clinton instituted it with an executive order.

[laughingliberal]

39. Highly rec'd. I had no idea

Honestly, I was distracted through a lot of the primary season with issues of survival. My choices, though, were 1) Edwards ('04 and '08) 2) Biden 3) Obama. The irony here is that I did not want Clinton because I knew her to be more corporate friendly than I was comfortable with. Is it even within the realm of possibilities to ever again elect a non-corporatist president? Will anyone who stands for the rights of the people ever make it to within striking distance alive? I started out hoping for real change, a moving back to the left side of things on policy. As this past year has gone on I hoped for a little movement back to the left. Now, I'm just hoping we don't move too much further right.

[bertman]

41. I drank the Kool-Aid. I loved the guy despite his vote on giving immunity to the

Telecoms--which outraged me. He truly won me with his message of hope and change, and with some very concrete and unequivocal statements about how he would change things.

It's deeply saddening to see what has transpired since the Inauguration. I feel like I voted for a different person, but as your OP aptly demonstrates, the evidence was there all along for those who would see.

Your analysis is spot on in every way, Time for change. I wish I could find fault with it, but I cannot. So, here's a rec for your OP and for the power of a superior marketing effort.

[Time for change]

85. Thank you bertman -- You're in a lot of very good company

Feingold, for one. Feingold supported him strongly and early (I was quite surprised to see that). I think he's regretting that decision now. I'm hoping Feingold will run for president in 2012, but that would be a very difficult decision to make.

[Dystopian]

42. KandR. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

43. thanks for putting all this together! this will be another thread I

bookmark! :hi:

[Time for change]

140. Thank you

:hi:

[ProSense]

45. “Edwards Get it Right”? I love revisionist history

Edwards Explains His Mandate

Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)

So at the end of the day, if you don't have health care, your wages will be garnished or your credit will be damaged because a collection agency will see to it that you buy your insurance. You might even go bankrupt! And since it's called a mandate, we'll need a new IRS-like bureaucracy to handle all of this, but it won't be the IRS since a mandate is not a tax, it's just a required fee you pay to a private company.

Edwards was going to garnish wages for premiums. Progressive my foot!

Obama was and still is more progressive than any of them. A lot of people screaming about the unconstitutionality of mandates never entertained that thought when they supported Edwards and Hillary.

[saracat]

67. I never liked mandates but a huge difference is we got something for those mandates.

Now Obama is okay with mandates for nothing and restrictions on women. Whoo Hoo! And you expect dancing in the streets? And don't forget we will be "forced" to buy private insurance with little cost control.So who benefits?

[Time for change]

76. The Mandates that Edwards, Clinton (but not Obama) supported during the primaries

were mandates that included an option for a public insurance plan, and which were subsidized by the government on a sliding scale. They were not giveaways to the insurance industry.

[ProSense]

119. Garnishing wages was not the only thing that made their plans less progress.

"included an option for a public insurance plan, and which were subsidized by the government on a sliding scale."

That's the exact same public option Obama campaigned on.

He also had the more progressive bill which, as the current bills do, cover catastrophic care.

[Time for change]

123. Yes, Obama campaigned on a similar bill, and then threw it under the bus as president

So what's your point?

[lonestarnot]

46. K & R

[EndElectoral]

47. Excellent analysis. What's a liberal to do today? We've no say in anything.

[ooglymoogly]

48. I find myself in agreement with just about everything you write. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

49. Well, there you go again.

Putting all these stray pieces together and ending up with a coherent statement that pretty much reflects my own inchoate thoughts.

So WTF do we do, faced with the plutocratic empire? Is there a way out, a way ahead into a different kind of future, or are we trapped in an inescapable natural order like ants on a Möbius strip?

It it's the latter case, I guess the Möbius strip just ends up melting in the heat of global warming and we all die, another evolutionary dead end.

[Zhade]

52. My guess? Wait until the system decays and crumbles.

Not much of an optimist these days -- must be all those lies I hear about "change".

[Time for change]

78. What to do? Great question

I'm reading a book right now called "Endgame -- The Problem of Civilization", by Derrick Jensen. He promises the answer to your question, but it's towards the end of his book. But I can tell you at this point, the answer isn't pretty, though I think it probably will be better than the alternatives.

http://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Vol-1-Problem-Civilization/dp/158322730X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261492270&sr=1-1

[Overseas]

50. K&R. Wow. I had no idea the Audacity of Hope said those things.

I assumed it would be having the audacity to believe that government could be a force for good.

I did wince when he mentioned Ron in a favorable way. All he did was talk like Grandpa while his team was killing what was best in the USA and supporting death squads abroad.

So there I was, reading my wishes into the man, after he had said really dumb things about my party.

No wonder he wouldn't dash into the presidency like a modern FDR-- going with beautiful democratic ideas that were also very practical economically. How very sad.

[Time for change]

80. Well, I was hoping

Despite all the bad signs, I continued to hope (though I didn't vote for him in the primaries -- I campaigned for him in the GE, but I voted for Cynthia McKinney).

On primary day I intended to vote for Edwards, even though he had just dropped out of the race. Other than him, only Obama and Clinton were left on the ballot. My daughter called me in the morning and convinced me to vote for Hillary, in order to stop Obama. I remember part of my conversation. I said something like, "There's a good Obama and a bad Obama, and I'm hoping that the good one will take over if he gets elected". My daughter asked me what basis I had for believing that will happen. When I couldn't think of a good answer I decided to take her advice.

[Overseas]

160. Sadly, my book might be called The Blindness of Hope.

I put too much hope in the progressive comments in President Obama's speeches after my dear Dennis Kucinich was no longer an option. That's one reason I was interested to learn through Matt Taibbi that candidate Obama had used populist economic advisors who were sidelined after he won the presidency. They were there during the campaign, and I thought Obama had come around to realizing that the most practical solutions after the Bush global economic meltdown were to be found in establishing a 21st Century new deal.

And at the time I also didn't want a dynastic succession with Bush Bush and Clinton Clinton.

But now I wish I'd put more value on the fact that Mrs. Clinton had been investigated to the hilt already through her husband's presidency, so that could have led to a more interesting, possibly more productive situation. The smearing of the Clintons was old hat. Been there, done that. I hadn't realized how important it would be to GOP propaganda to have a brand new Democratic president to smear; that we would be wasting months combating a whole new range of derision.

I also undervalued Mrs. Clinton's being able to initiate the next healthcare fight at a point much further along in the debate, having already confronted our legislators' vested interests in the massive campaign funding and smear funding budgets of the private insurers. She probably was better positioned to echo the famous FDR statement about being hated by the moneyed interests and welcoming that hatred. She probably wouldn't have wasted months and months playing the self-defeating "let's be bipartisan" game, groveling for a 1% bipartisan vote that just made Democrats look kind of dumb, willing to give up our national health security for some political gamesmanship. That's also a very callous position to take; very undemocratic, letting 44,000 dieing early just be one more detail in the rush to keep things "fair" for the industry that had made our cruel system even worse since it last defeated national health insurance over a decade ago. We needed a truth-teller to declare boldly that any "triggers" had been blown off their hinges by the private insurance companies soaring private profits and new sport of coverage "recision."

I am quite depressed to realize that my book might have to be called The Blindness of Hope. I really did think that our being in such similar circumstances to FDR's time economically, in a plutocracy again, would automatically give the Democratic President the impetus to implement the Second Bill of Rights-- or at least blaze ahead with the public bailout that Medicare for All would have represented, and a green jobs program that would have strategically shored up the US position at Copenhagen and better prepared us to go forward globally in an era of limits on natural resources, without the very carbon-intensive brutal warfare we had used up to this point to secure our access to those resources.

It seemed so obvious to me. And that Bill Clinton type New Democrat stuff, pretending that 5% of cheating meant the whole welfare system needed slicing up, or that opening up to outsourcing would help our country because we'd put labor and environmental standards into those agreements, or that the private sector could perform government services more efficiently. We have lots of evidence now to prove those statements false. The Dotcom bubble burst, white collar jobs followed the blue collar jobs shipped overseas (in spite of those job retraining programs), and we zoomed on to the next bubble being hyped and bursting, with the gap between the Corporate Elite Top Ten percent and the rest of us growing even wider.

But the Obama team has been far more old fashioned and selfish than I'd expected. And maybe they thought, well hell, the GOP has floated lies about their actions for decades since Reagan, so we can keep floating those tired old New Democrat lies, pretending basic compassionate safety nets are a waste of money, even after they'd been ripped up through dogmatic refusals to raise the top tax brackets more than a few percentage points. Pretending privatization is effective when we have seen how much more expensive it is, and how much more corruption it has involved than when those services were done in-house. The Reagan Secret is merely to ignore empirical evidence and speak Pretend in a folksy manner.

The New Democrats were only "New" in their ability to ignore the basic values of the Democratic party after taking office. To be more like the GOP in floating speeches to enthrall their voters and doing what would enrich themselves and their Top Contributors. That New Democrat stuff was old even in its time-- pretending Grandpa Ron was right about it being Morning in America, time to let the rich get richer quicker by cutting taxes and public spending; global poverty and climate destabilization be damned.

The Democratic Party in the 21st Century, and especially 2009 when they had the 2008 mandate, could have really strengthened itself so much more by doing what was most practical when our country confronted the plutocracy it had become, and gone all New Deal right out of the gate. The Right had been fighting FDR policies vehemently for decades; jumping in with a 21st century version would have made The Democratic Party so much stronger. Really lifting all boats in a dramatic way would have proven the strength of core Democratic values through the practical positive results that would have ensued.

That was and is I guess, my Blindness of Hope. Give us jobs and we will spend the money in our states, towns and neighborhoods. There are lots of jobs that need doing in good government-- deferred maintenance, preparing for the era of limits on some strategic resources, improving public education (not diverting its funding to private schools), hiring enough people to enforce the regulations that control pollution and protect the public, etc.

Instead of a minimal, compassionate public bailout through Medicare for All, finally giving our people the basic compassionate healthcare other modern democracies have, we're looking at mandates to buy into a broken system.

And I'm trying to understand that pragmatic must mean selfishly serving the interests of ones small team, rather than the greater, longer term good of the millions who voted for you. Rather than effectively combating the Corporate Superpersons' hatred of FDR policies with new empirical evidence.

I was looking forward to Going Green being used as a beautiful filter for all our plans. Helping the USA become a stronger part of the community of nations, rebuilding our national reputation after it had been crushed by decades of destructive privatization.

[Time for change]

162. Don't let the hope die out

Hope inspires us to keep going and do what needs to be done. Big goals never come easy though. Hope is dashed, and then it needs to be resurrected. A lot of things that are started by my generation probably won't come to fruition until after I'm dead.

I love your quote about the only thing new about the New Democrats is ignoring the basic values of the Democratic Party. That defines them very well.

[bvar22]

53. Most on DU KNEW Obama was NO Liberal.

But I admit I AM surprised by how FAR to the RIGHT he has proven to be, and how MUCH he has worked to appease the Republicans at the expense of his Liberal Base.

I am bookmarking this thread for further study.
Thanks.

K&R

[Nay]

70. Thank you for the poll chart. I remember voting--and it wasn't for

Obama OR Clinton. The problem was, when we went into the voting booth, we could vote for McCain or we could vote for Obama. Naturally, we voted for Obama. And certainly some of the excitement was for the historical first of possibly welcoming the first black president.

I don't understand the many threads repeating the phrase "you KNEW what he was like!!! He was never a populist!!" etc. etc. Whether we knew or didn't know, we had little choice but to vote for him -- who the hell else were we going to vote for? That moron Palin, with a half-dead McCain hobbling along behind her? A third party, thus ushering in McCain/Palin? No one was willing to risk that then.....

But now? I'd be willing to bet that more people are willing to risk voting third party or not at all -- because the scales have indeed fallen from many eyes, and if all we are going to be given is the oft-repeated "republican" or "republican-lite," the independents will go republican and a lot of people will resume what they had been doing before the 2008 election -- not voting at all, because it makes little difference in their lives. In fact, Obama, I predict, will prove to have been a generation-long setback for the Democratic Party itself. Why? Because he got in and governed exactly like a Republican. Will it matter that "he wasn't as bad" as a hard-core rightwing asshole? No. Things are NOT going to get better on the economic front for a long time, and supports for regular folks are nearly as absent as they would be under a Pub. Add that to the generational/historical ignorance of what Republicans used to be like (Nixon looks like a flag-burning hippie compared to the Pubs these days), and you have a country that will remain abused, schizophrenic, tea-baggy, and angry. Just wait until everybody's unemployment runs out and several million more are homeless. That's where we're heading, folks.

[dana_b]

135. thank you

that's exactly what I felt and still feel.

BTW - not all independents will go Repub. Some of us are left of center. :)

[grantcart]

63. Your premise that "most liberals" have become increasingly disenchanted

with the President is not supported by polling. I know that the term "liberal" and "liberal democrat" will be reframed so as to include an ideological pure metric that will allow people to conclude that DU is the definitive authority on liberal democrats.

The facts are however that people who label themselves as "Liberal Democrats" are the President's largest supporters by ideology with 84% and that number is stable with a slight decrease. Only African Americans have a higher level of support at 90%.

The more conservative one identifies themselves the less support the President receives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x7085





edited to correct numerical error

[Time for change]

84. Interesting

There are of course different ways of interpreting polls like this.

I do believe that there is a tendency for Democrats (liberal or not) to voice support for their party's president, despite becoming progressively disenchanted with him.

I certainly do not consider myself a "purist". I was well satisfied with a robust public option from the beginning, considering only a little bit worse than single payer. But Obama's health care plan has moved far to the right since that time. So I have become progressively disenchanted with him, as have a lot of other people I know.

Liberals are also less inclined to voice disapproval of him IMO because of the virulent racism from the right. But I think that a breaking point may be reached soon, at which point his support among liberals will plummet -- unless he changes course.

You are correct that the polls you cite don't support my contention. I believe that it would take a much more detailed poll to demonstrate how his support is eroding among liberals.

[bvar22]

86. You are correct.

I still give Obama the highest marks possible in every public poll I have access to.
In private, I am beyond disgusted, and won't lift a phone, make a donation, knock on a single door, put on a bumper sticker, or put a sign in my yard to get him re-elected.
I suspect I'm not the only one.

His polling might look good (depending on the poll), but his support among The Left is very soft.

[waiting for hope]

64. K&R - I knew watching the debates

what kind of leader he would be, so I'm not as disappointed as some, just a bit more disgusted.

[saracat]

68. I am not so much disappointed as I didn't expect much but I am angry as I didn't expect it to be

this bad. I really didn't.

[MissDeeds]

149. I agree completely

I voted for Obama as a vote against McCain-Palin. I didn't have high hopes, but I did hope he'd lead - and lead as a true Democrat.

[puebloknot]

66. I agree that Obama is playing in a stacked deck, and I worry for his safety.

But I also read "The Audacity of Hope," and I was strongly put of by his religious references, as well as sensing that he did protest too much about his bipartisan leanings, which later became "Post-Partisan Politics."

I see him now as pretty much a disaster, even though I imagine the word "constraint" doesn't begin to tell the tale with regard to what he faces from corporate interests.

I've been having fantasies of Al Franken or Grayson from Florida running in 2012. Hutzpah is what we need now! (And maybe a bulletproof vest. Not kidding, either.)

Great article, as always!

[Time for change]

127. Thank you -- Wouldn't that be great if Grayson ran!

I believe that Feingold is giving it serious consideration. I would love to see that.

He would of course be attacked tooth and nail by the corporatocracy. But maybe if someone really stood up to them they could get the American people to see the corporate media for what they are.

[M_A]

69. very accurate, thanks

Some of us (self included) did see the the signs a year ago and are sadly unsurprised at Obama's actions. Many of us voted third party as a result of his winning the nominations so that we could really vote for a liberal and not just settle for (a little better than McPalin).

As a result of the spineless dems in congress (many of whom are there because we fought hard to get the there) and the dem nomination of the "not even close to liberal" presidential candidate the democratic party is losing not only support but membership. This lifetime dem will not be a member of a democratic party that does not follow liberal codes. I've (for the first time ever) changed my voter registration to "I". The next 3 years will probably tear the party totally down, perhaps it can rise from the ashes to be the liberal base of operation that it should be. If not I hope others join me and leave the party to strengthen a left third party movement.

[Time for change]

128. I live in a safe state

So I campaigned for Obama in Virginia, but voted for Cynthia McKinney in Maryland.

[Vidar]

71. K&R

[GeorgeGist]

74. You nailed it without saying it ...

the problem Obama faces is that he is a COWARD.

[Octafish]

77. The Military Industrial Complex knows how to really hedge a bet...

From March, 2008, a heads-up:

Obama’s 2006 Earmarks and the Crown Family

Your excellent post, Time for change, lays the record out for all to see. The guy has sided with the few over the people at every opportunity. And that is un-Democratic. Kicked. Bookmarked. Recommended.

[Time for change]

129. Thank you Octafish -- That's an interesting and I think revealing article you have there

[balantz]

79. I still find it hard to believe that so many starry-eyed people didn't see these things.

What on earth were they all paying attention to? Obama consistently showed himself to be right-wing and in opposition to Democratic Party core values and strengths.

Was it lofty rhetoric in his so-called dazzling speeches?

Was it the big money media production of electing the first black president?

Did the people like his smugness?

I'm still dumbfounded by the whole thing.

[zeemike]

81. While I agree with all that you have said I have a different view.

The focus on the president is not where we should be looking.
And I pointed out a clue to this some time ago when you had a meeting with your congress critter about bringing the tortures to justice....the aid talked to you said that you need to frame it as national defense instead of the morality of it.

WTF do you think that means but that the system is corrupt from the bottom up....and these aids and advisers are just as much in the pocket of the special interests as the politicians and there job is to frame the debate in a way that is acceptable to the corperatist....and so we continue to be punked on all sides and the winners will always be the corporations.

And so it may well be that Obama is a pragmatist and knows that this systemic corruptions will destroy him if he steps out of line....and I am convinced it can and will.

Frankly I think that our only hope is revolution that starves the beast and targets it, because as long as there is big money in our political system we cannot win.

[Time for change]

88. I've thought of it from that angle too

I think that the last section of my OP involves looking at the situation from that viewpoint.

Yet, I keep on coming back to the thought that "pragmatism" can be overdone, to the great detriment of our country. So I've come to view Obama as being way too "pragmatic" and not enough of a leader. Great leaders, and even good leaders IMO, throw away "pragmatism" and do what should be done, rather than what will quiet the PTB. I recognize that Obama would very likely jeopardize his life by doing that. But we really really need a president with lots of courage and less "pragmatism" IMO.

[zeemike]

104. I guess the point I was making was not to look for a saviour

Because he can't do it....only we can.
And I don't want to be saying that we are doomed but without a strong revolution...not with guns but with non violent non compliance with evil, it cannot happen.
And if it never happens it is not Obama's fault but ours.

And forget looking to our progressive organizations too because as they become more main stream they also become corrupted by the same forces that have corrupted the government.
So if we are to take back this country we must do it from the bottom up not the top down.

[rtassi]

114. I agree with you completely n/t

[Time for change]

130. Yeah, I basically agree with that for the most part

Though I change my mind from day to day :)

[zeemike]

131. Don't we all.

We seem to be on an emotional rollercoster...when something happens that gives us hope, the next day it is dashed on the rocks of despair.
Just as if we were in some mind control experiment, intended to break us down and make us submissive and docile.

[tomp]

87. paul krugman is wrong.

the central fact of u.s. politics is that the rich rule and both parties work for that purpose only. when we all finally get that, we will be getting somewhere.

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. Yes. It was a bitter blow, when Edwards was banjaxed by the usual sinister forces,

and Obama was so unremittingly vapid and equivocal about his agenda. But we suppressed our misgivings and dared(!) to hoped. If he loses the next election, I wonder if he will cross the floor of the House - seemingly, where he belongs - or simply retire from federal politics.

[freddie mertz]

96. I had strong reservations about Obama from the beginning, but by election time

I had warmed considerably and was impressed by his performance against McCain.

Since then, it's been a rather precipitous drop, much worse than I expected.

I still defend him against the pukes and tea-baggers, but not with the same vigor as before. It's impossible for me to defend the HC bill, though.

I don't know what to do about it at this point. Definitely not going to support him strongly anymore.

I frankly do not consider him trustworthy enough on basic policy to merit that support.

I would support any primary challenge from the left with great enthusiasm, and am prepared to go third party, in PA, during he next election unless we see a significant change in policy and leadership style.

[LWolf]

97. This is an excellent essay.

I always viewed him as a center-right candidate, which is why I was never swept up in the "hope" and "change" euphoria. I understood it, but it didn't touch me.

I am aware of the problems he faces. I'd be more supportive if he were trying, and failing, to move in a direction I want to go.

I, too, hope for a serious challenge to his re-nomination from the Democratic left.

[MasonJar]

98. I noticed early in his Senate career that several of his votes were

way to the center of my positions. It was one of many reasons that I favored Hillary, who is much more liberal on domestic issues and on women's issues internationally than Obama or Bill Clinton. After he was our nominee, however, I backed him fully because his campaign was so filled with change message, which by the way is the reason he was chosen over Clinton. I, therefore, feel totally duped. He should have run as who he is; he would have probably won anyway and at least we liberals would not feel cheated. I will never vote for a GOPer, but vote is all I will do next time. I will not donate and I will not walk the streets.

[Karmadillo]

100. There were billboards and bullhorns going 24/7. One didn't really need clues.

nt

[OnyxCollie]

103. K&R. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

106. I always said here that we had a 50-50 shot with him.

I was a DK, then Edwards supporter. I knew what I would get with both Clinton and McCain. For me, an O choice could go either way (depending on how glass full/glass empty I was feeling on a given day). I was never a true believer in the Hope thing, but was still hopeful my fears about him would be proven wrong.

With the pick of Rahm as COS, I knew that chances for real change was way out the door. :(

And with the current "health care" bill I became completely convinced a truly transormative President will never be allowed anywhere near the White House by the "interests" that really run this country.

[RedCloud]

109. So how does it feel to be "used"? I think that sums up how I feel.

Like many here, I was happy to help turn previous red states blue. In fact, I was thinking maybe we should take on Texas, steer it away from the crazies.

But Obama sang us a sweet lullaby of hope. When you take hope away from people, you take away their rising expectations. This happened before Castro in Cuba.

After almost a full year on the job, he has done far too much butt smooching of the right. I don't recall Bush ever placating the left.

[ekathay]

113. political spectrum

So much hand wringing about Obama's betrayal of the left. And the rightists think he's a socialist. It's laughable, really. However you view his orientation on the spectrum, to assert that he misrepresented himself in the campaign and then betrayed his progressive base (as opposed to adapting and solidifying positions) is really naive. He never promoted himself as a progressive. His gift was to manifest as a blank canvas on which everyone projected their own needs and wants. If you look at the man's pre-election history, he is pragmatic and centrist in his views and performance. Confusion arises more from our projections than Obama's political orientation, which was and is fluid. I hate to break it to progressives (of which I consider myself one), but Obama was not our candidate and is not now concerned with serving our agenda. The author understates the case, though, when he says we'd better reckon with the challenges on this President's plate. If there is to be a leftist candidate to run against Obama in 2012 (and it's early to be speculating on that), they will most certainly face comparable - or worse - obstacles.

[rtassi]

121. "Manifesting as a blank canvas on which everyone projected their own needs and wants"...

a very fine analysis imo. great first post ... looking forward to more!
rt

[newspeak]

161. nah, to me the neo-cons and the talking heads

keep telling their audience that he is a socialist or left leaning, as if there is a difference between neo-cons and neo-cons. I believe they want the public to think there is a difference. Yeh, Obama is no FDR, he's no Wellstone, or any other politician who stood for main street.

[newtothegame]

117. Do you even have to look this deep into it? How about his voting record? Or lack of one?

Or his avoidance of taking stands on controversial issues by actually placing a vote? Wouldn't that have been a clue that you couldn't have any real expectations?

[whathehell]

118. Good post...those comments from "Audacity of Hope" were quite revealing.

Had I read that instead of Dreams from my Father, I would never have voted for him -- at least not in the primary...OTOH..Hillary is corporatist as well, in my opinion.

[pitohui]

120. people who pitted him aga. clinton had a lot of fantasies abt obama

they were and are both centrists, but the "i wanna pony" people put all their own fantasies on obama and then just closed their eyes when others pointed out that he wasn't the second coming of che guevara

considering the very difficult challenges he was faced with, i honestly don't know what people expected -- obama was supposed to wave a magic wand and change the world with his smile, i guess

for sure the racists will never give him credit, just as the sexists will never give clinton credit, all we can do is ignore the haters and keep on keeping on

i think obama has really done a lot, considering the huge mountain of mess he has in front of him, it is hard for me to see how anyone could do better

maybe he could have managed expectations better, but a campaign is not abt managing expectations, it's abt creating excitement so that he can be in the job to take action in the first place...

[sabrina 1]

152. What people expected, at least the people I know

was that he would not totally flip-flop on issues such as the FISA bill. I know, that was a huge warning and many realized that and did not buy his excuses. Still, reluctantly I support him even after that because there was no other choice.

I really wish you would drop the word 'pony'. It is over used and has no relation to the people I know who are smart, intelligent and are under no illusions about any politician, especially after the Bush years and the behavior of the Democrats then.

No one wanted, or expected any president to be able to undo the damage of the Bush years by 'waving a magic want or flashing a smile'. That is ludicrous. Where do people get that idea? It has to be a talking point since people repeat it and that makes me think they cannot defend the actions of those they support

What we expected with a Democratic majority was a beginning. If I had known Obama would choose Rahm Emanuel as his COS, Gates as SEC, Geithner, Bernanke and Summers for his economics team with Rubin hovering in the background, there is no way I would have supported him. Do we not in this entire country smart people who were not part of the problem to appoint to such positions?

Do you consider it a pony to expect some real Democrats in a Democratic presidents cabinet? Is it a pony to expect some move towards investigations of the corruption of the previous administration, not right away, but eventually? Even if he has said 'we'll get to it', that might have been a 'pony', but that's NOT what he said, he said 'never' because war crimes should not get in the way of us 'looking ahead'. I think we are capable of looking ahead as well as applying the law to law breakers.

It lowers the discourse when people throw around these baseless talking points. Not to mention how they diminish credibility. Thinking people use their own words ~

[GreenTea]

136. Obama is just looking to please modeRats & independents for reelection-FUCK the liberals Obama knows

liberals will have nowhere else to go, and in the end.... just as always, we progressives will vote for the Democrat...Obama or take a chance on an absolute, a hard core republican corporate fascist candidate being president....

Obama has us liberal progressive men by the balls & progressive women by the clit....We have nowhere else to go....

Third party? HA! Nader or some other liberal then what get maybe 2 to 5% of the vote? Most liberals will say fuck that and vote for the Dem to keep the republican asshole from getting in office by a slim margin they will tell us...it's that close!!

Obama/Rahm knows this very well, they know we progressives will be voting for him in 2012 or watch a fucking republican win the presidency.

I've been watching this same old shit for 30 plus years and it's always the same, I'm sick of it! As much as I don't want to, I'm still forced into voting for the fucking moderate Democrat -

And so will most liberals in 2012 - A few liberals won't but Obama knows it won't be a significant amount to really make a difference....So he's written us off Obviously since the day he was elected.

[sabrina 1]

155. Times have changed, and if Rahm thinks people will continue

to vote for the 'lesser evil' they are wrong. We did to get a majority. They should not be counting on it continuing, and not just from the left. If we get nothing of what was promised by this administration, I think they will be surprised. He got elected because of disgust with the Bush administration. Independents and some moderate Republicans crossed over to vote for him because they actually did want things to change. If that doesn't happen, it isn't just the base of the party he has to worry about. And no, they cannot count on us anymore. Some maybe, as they will start acting like Democrats again during election season and some will get all hopeful again. But for many, that will be too transparent if there is nothing to back it up with.

[whathappened]

137. why don't we just say it

he is'nt worth a chit for nothing , i have seen no change , and thats why i voted for him ,to change this mess we got in dc , he is no differant then that lieing cheating bush cheney clan

[pamela]

138. Brilliantly stated, tfc. Big K&R

I haven't felt terribly disappointed with Obama and I've been kind of confused that so many DUers are so disappointed. He hasn't done a single thing that surprises me. It was all there before the election.

The funny thing is, I still have hope for his Presidency but I fear that the left will bring him down, rather than the right. I think he is modeling his Presidency after Reagan-do unpopular stuff in the first year, hope conditions you inherited improve and play the smiling, congenial moderate to increase your popularity into a second term. I fear he may have miscalculated the left's willingness to play along with this strategy.

I think the best we can hope for is that this plan will work and he will become more popular and that the right will continue to paint him as an extreme leftist, thereby desensitizing the public to their "left-bashing" tactics. Then, maybe, we can elect true progressives. But it's going to be a long process. Republicans have framed the debate for so long now and Democrats have been on the defensive for so long. I think it would take a major change in tactics on our part to see real movement towards the left in this country.

[girl_interrupted]

144. K&R

[MissDeeds]

146. Great post

K&R

:kick:

[KoKo]

153. Such an interesting Post...hope more folks will get where you are coming from..

I've never seen you as a "Crash & Burn" but as "Reasoned." So ..it was good to read your concern that many of us have..but we don't want to get so overheated...but ..yet..we are VERY WORRIED.

K&R!

[Fly by night]

158. Excellent OP (as always). Troubling but excellent. K&R