Tonight's results prove it...Obama needs a TOTALLY different strategy for '12

[Ken Burch]

Tonight proved "bipartisanship" doesn't work.

Tonight proved "centrism" doesn't work.

Tonight proved letting the other side control the debate doesn't work.

The prez needs to listen and learn.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. He needs a whole different strategy for 11/03/2010. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

37. Bingo! n/t

[Dawson Leery]

2. I prefer the parliamentary system.

Your side wins, you get 4-5 years to govern, if they like you, another term comes your way, if not, then you're out.

[JI7]

3. there were many different results, HEath Schuler won, should Obama be like him

[Ken Burch]

6. No. Heath Shuler's never been worth a damn thing to this party.

He only shows party loyalty on trivial side issues.

[Radical Activist]

4. Tonight's results proved it. The left needs a TOTALLY different strategy for the next two years.

For all the time you do pointing the finger at Obama, it would be healthy for you to look inward for a change. That's true for much of the left.

We have a President who asked for a movement of bottom-up change. At least 1/3 of the left responded by becoming back-seat drivers who contributed little, and that includes most of our pundits.

[villager]

8. Because "centrism" has proven so electorally successful this evening?

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

16. Obama has more progressive accomplishments than any President in 40 years.

And what he first proposed on every issue was to the left of what the Senate would pass. So I don't know what "centrism" has to do with it.

[Ken Burch]

22. And what the Senate did pass wasn't worth anything.

So Obama should have worked WITH the activist base to build pressure from below, instead of constantly keeping us out in the cold.

No good at all came from back-room negotiations as the sole administration strategy.

[walldude]

46. Yes he has, but those accomplishments didn't put people

back in their homes or back to work. Did you see the DU poll yesterday? A majority of people are doing worse financially than they were when Obama took office. Now I understand that this isn't Obama's fault or the Democrats fault but what do you think people who don't follow politics are going to see? They aren't going to vote Democratic because Obama improved stem cell research, or improved the VA. People vote with their pocketbooks. And their pocketbooks are dry. Again not Obama's fault but to sit there and blame people for being backseat drivers is a crock. If we don't put the responsibility where it belongs, on the Dems and Tim Kaine then we will suffer the same fate in the future.

[Ken Burch]

10. What you are calling "backseat driving" WAS the movement for bottom-up change

It couldn't be "a movement for bottom-up change" to just support whatever Obama did, no matter how conservative he got.

Obama stopped the movement(or at least let Rahm stop it)by taking a "shut up and leave it to the grown-ups" attitude). Everytime he did that, whatever passed ended up being watered-down to nothing. And in fact, the biggest "leave it to the grown-ups" thing of all, the insistence of making everyone buy an insurance policy(imposed just to appease the insurance industry and an utter failure at achieving even that worthless objective)was the biggest issue the right used to drive people away from us this fall.

I'm not uncritical of the Left, but you aren't PART of the Left, so why should I trust you? All YOU want the Left to do is to stop BEING the left. We can't become uncritical supporters of whatever the admin does(as you are)and still claim to BE Left at all.

And Saul Alinsky would NEVER have settled for the pathetic, hollowed-out healthcare and finance reform bills, neither of which will ever be "made better" in the future.

[Radical Activist]

14. You believe in a weak and pathetic movement

if you think Rahm or Obama ever had the power to "stop" it. If that authoritarian attitude is what you believe then I have a lot more respect in the power of social movements than you do.

You're showing your true colors. You think anyone who supports this progressive President isn't part of the left. That's such a pointless and self-defeating attitude for progressives to take.

[Ken Burch]

17. I did NOT say that people who "support this progressive president" aren't part of the left

I was talking about UNCRITICAL support.

It wasn't progressive to enthusiastically support the final version of the healthcare bill, for example. Or the final version of the finance reform bill.

Neither was worth celebrating. They were tiny gains at best.

What I was saying was that the progressive position was to put up with the final versions of those bills, then IMMEDIATELY push for improvements.

And it would have been impossible to build a left based on enthusiastic support of the pathetic remnants of either bill that finally passed. Partial victories aren't victories at all.

And why SHOULDN'T Obama change anything? How can you say "more of the same" is the answer?

[JDPriestly]

26. Obama could have achieved significant change by going

directly to the people far more frequently during his first to years.

He did too much sitting down with insurance company big-wigs and members of Congress. He should have been out in public educating people.

I remember a time a few months into Obama's presidency when pundits began to criticize him for being on TV to much.

Obama responded by going on TV less often. That was a huge, huge mistake. Obama needs to be the teacher-in-chief of the country. He explains things very effectively. That's why the pundits didn't want him in their space.

Obama needs to get a better team so that he doesn't constantly have to put out fires like the BP mess and so that he can get on TV and educate Americans about why Rand Paul's vision for our country will make things much worse, not much better.

The next two years are going to be tough for Obama. I am hoping that he has finally figured out that he will get no cooperation from Republicans in Congress unless he, Obama, organizes a tea party of his own by getting his grass-roots people excited about what he proposes to do. That means Obama will have to forget about working with drunks like Boehner and start going to the districts of the congressmembers who do not work with him.

It wasn't that the Democratic base was unwilling to support Obama. It was that Obama ignored his base.

[jpgray]

11. To you, Obama's setbacks will forever be the fault of those he blames

Isn't that attitude a little silly? Feingold is a darling of the left, and at the same time he was one of the only candidates to stand by Obama. He contributed plenty, was loved by both Obama fans and lefties, and he lost.

You will see people hold his loss up both to bash Obama and to bash the left, but to do either is fucking idiotic. You can't blame one culprit alone for a vast and diverse election--whether your culprit of choice is the left or Obama.

[Radical Activist]

15. After many failed attempts you will still have no fucking clue

about me or what I believe.

[Ken Burch]

18. Then stop making people guess.

Enough already with the "you all should know perfectly well exactly what I won't come out and say directly" thing.

[JDPriestly]

27. Here in California, the left made substantial progress.

Obama would be wise to pull a Boehner on the Republicans in Congress -- and use his veto power frequently.

Candidates like Barbara Boxer who fought for women's right to choose (whether or not she was successful) are appreciated and win elections -- big time.

Russ Feingold was the victim of the Citizens United bill.

When will Obama suggest a popular movement to pass an amendment to the Constitution stating that corporations do not enjoy the rights of humans? When?

[Chan790]

23. OMG I finally get it...

your screen-name; it's meant to be ironic! :think:

Here I was thinking "What?"

I mean someone named Radical Activist on DU should be radical and activist and by the positions you stake out you're so very clearly neither.

[JDPriestly]

25. I' m a very well educated person. I know the world.

I e-mailed the President with numerous good ideas. But all I got was boiler-plate responses.

I suggested a way to avoid some of the foreclosures. No change was made.

Obama has allowed those who perpetrated mortgage fraud to go unpunished. No change in who is running our banking sector even though they ran our economy into the ground. The financial sector reform bill is just a wet noodle to the big banks. They will circumvent the limitations.

Obama promised transparency in government but appointed a commission to work behind closed doors on cutting the budget. And the make-up of that commission is stacked with anti-Social-Security activists. The outcome of the commission's work is predictable. Meanwhile, no real change in the attitude toward the excessive military spending. We currently have 192 nations in the United Nations and at least 740 bases overseas according to Chalmers Johnson. Couldn't Obama just close a third of those bases? Wouldn't that be smarter than cutting Social Security?

We who are retired have been double-crossed and forced to take more of the brunt of the economic downturn than any group other than those who are unemployed and those who have been foreclosed. The banks rake in interest from their credit card addicts but pay no interest on the savings of seniors who have smaller savings accounts in the banks. That is due to the policies of the Fed and the Obama administration. No really meaningful change to control the banks.

Further, Obama has done very little to really put an end to the derivatives trading. And Obama could put an end to that because European countries would support him if he were willing to sanction any country that became a haven for derivatives trading. No change that will end the derivatives trading that nearly destroyed our economy.

Finally, Obama has done far too little to stop our trade deficit and bring jobs back home. In particular, his appointment of Hillary Clinton -- wife of the man who signed the NAFTA bill -- as Secretary of State assures the continuation of an unhealthy, anti-American trade policy. No change in trade policy.

The health insurance reform bill is a health insurance company's wet dream. Lots of new customers and no meaningful limitations on the companies' ability to raise their rates -- especially in conservative states in which Republicans will choose to ignore exorbitant rate increases.

Further, Obama dramatically condemned the Citizens United decision -- but has not moved to get passage of a meaningful amendment to the Constitution which could definitively establish that corporations do not have the same rights as humans. He seems to be flailing his arms at that nasty dragon, while showing no interest in really doing something to change the situation.

The big mistakes of the Obama administration were 1) saving the banks and allowing the homeowners who had, often, been defrauded by the mortgage lenders and banks lose their homes; and 2) allowing Baucus and other members of Congress to delay passage of the health insurance reform bill so long. That bill that resulted was not worth the commotion.

And I haven't even started on civil rights issues like closing Guantanamo and stopping the wiretapping and surveillance of innocent Americans.

Obama goofed. He goofed big. And now the whole country will pay for it.

[Donnachaidh]

30. blaming the left for a disaster brought on by this administration?

:rofl:

When the backseat drivers are ignored -- you get THIS. THIS is on the administration that spent more time ignoring the left and sucking up to corporate campaign contributors.

Wake up dude. Seriously.

[QC]

31. You don't think it's actively radical to blame the hippies for everything? n/t

[Donnachaidh]

33. that seems to be the sop of some here, but it's not true

After all, there was plenty of warning by thinking individuals who watched as the middle class lost daily, while Wall Street gave out taxpayer funded bonuses. Plenty of people questioned WHY we (the middle class) got lies and small change tossed out the limo windows - and then were berated because they said they would not do the *heavy lifting* again because they were too busy losing houses/jobs, etc.

the Dems knew full well what was coming. Calling half-measures of what was promised *historic legislation* doesn't cut it when you're losing everything you have, because someone wanted the term *bipartisan* as part of their *legacy*.

:shrug:

[QC]

34. Around here, skilled workers are begging for fast food jobs.

At a golf course where a friend works, an opening for someone to drive the beer cart got applications from accountants and other professionals. (Normally that's a job for a teenager who wants pocket money.)

One person I know spent most of the summer of 2009 living in a tent behind a shopping center.

Foreclosures are through the roof here. Housing prices are still falling. We have a record number of people on food stamps.

This is life all over the country for so many people. It's starting to remind me of those stories about the Depression my grandparents told me.

And in a time like this, we have an administration making deals with the banks that wrecked the economy and are putting people out on the streets, sucking up to the insurance companies, defending the outrageous bonuses, etc. and we wonder why people are not responding favorably???

Gee, it must be the fault of the hippies, right?

[Donnachaidh]

35. my DH was underemployed for 18 months

Throwing newspapers during that time and my disability, plus begging from EVERY charity kept the lights on. And even now when he's working (took a 25% pay cut to work) we still worry about what is going to happen this week, next week, etc. Our son can't find work because everyone else is looking for work.

When I see BP walking away from ecological disaster, when I see bonuses going to wall street people who crashed the economy -- I'm angry. And while I voted *D* -- can you imagine the rage on the other side? They have the same problems, but they also have the added fuel of *the other side* NOT helping them.

Ain't no hippies bringing the rage on this one. Of course, those same folks are set to get royally raped by Boehner etc., but they don't see it that way.

Obama shouldn't have offered Hope and Change if he had no idea what that would entail. And lacked the spine to do it. :shrug:

[QC]

36. I agree with every word. People should not promise

what they lack the desire or ability to deliver.

Jobs should have been the top priority from the beginning. Jobs should have been the daily theme from the White House, and people out here in Bumfuck should have gotten jobs and seen their friends getting jobs.

Imagine if FDR had spent the first two years of his presidency giving tonguebaths to the bankers!

But then we're not exactly dealing with an FDR here, are we?

[chimpymustgo]

42. Remember they had a jobs summit one day!

I swear, these people are clueless. They they have no idea about the suffering people are going through? Or they have no idea what to do about it?

Or both.

[jgraz]

47. Oh please stop.

The political strategy you blindly supported just got its ass kicked. I suggest you stop blaming the left and start thinking up your excuses for 2012. You're gonna need them.

[Poll_Blind]

5. I think the President's press conference tomorrow is going to give us a very clear idea...

...if he's going to, ah, let's call it "Trying a different tack" or throw good money after bad and keep this silly shit up.

PB

[JCMach1]

9. He should probably 'man up' but I bet he is likely to 'belly up'

You just thought he was triangulating before... wait until the next two years.

[JDPriestly]

28. For starts, he needs to call Howard Dean back to the DNC.

The current leader of the DNC should resign. He is a good man, but his strategy did not work, and he could not get the activists to support Obama.

[Ramulux]

7. Dude

Obama doesn't even think hes a centrist, in his mind hes a strong liberal who is just a little pragmatic. We have no chance of convincing him that those paths didn't work because he doesn't even realize hes on those paths.

[AtomicKitten]

12. LOL.

[Ken Burch]

19. What's to laugh about. The status quo is what failed.

You can't seriously say we should go with "more of the same".

[FrenchieCat]

13. We need a new media, and we need to start working on it.....

otherwise, we look weak.

We need to listen and learn...not ignore who is driving
the narrative that voters voted for today.

[upi402]

20. we knew it.long ago- he needs to go back to Chicago

and we need a nominee that will FDR this house.

[Codeine]

21. It wasn't about ideology.

Centrism, progressivism, pragmatism -- those all mean shit when you don't have a job and you don't see any future for jobs ever being generated. People are angry, and angry people do stupid, destructive things.

Ever throw something or punch a wall in a fit of rage or frustration? That's what this was -- the electorate punching a hole in the fucking drywall.

[K8-EEE]

24. I agree especially in PA, OH, WI

Hard times and they want it to change.

[Skittles]

29. my bet: he will not change

[QC]

32. I disagree. I think that he will let his inner "centrist" run wild now

that he has an excuse not to give those to his left even the minimal lip service we were getting.

Look for extension of the Bush tax cuts, elimination of the estate tax, "reform" of entitlements, etc.

[myrna minx]

39. Yep - we can expect a hard turn to the right from this Administration

and a full capitulation from the Senate. :-( What a waste.

[newportdadde]

40. Yep I think you are right.

I expect exactly that, a lurch to the right with political cover being a Republican house.

[Skittles]

49. touche

I should have said, my bet is he will not change for the better

[The Uncola]

38. Should and would are two different animals.

Frankly, I think we are screwed and the "triangulating" fools are to blame.

ObamaCorp failed on a massive scale and chances of it turning it around now are almost zero.

[Lost4words]

41. A zebra cant change its stripes, we are stuck with him for a while longer

but Obama does not represent the future we would like to have. Stop trying to feed a dead horse.

[piratefish08]

43. he needs a new strategy for TODAY.

[jb2u1]

44. no more compromising

He needs to go way left. Trying to be half socialist doesn't work it just make you look like an idiot. He needs to stand up for the principals that got him elected!

[bullwinkle428]

45. Surely he understands the old axiom about the definition of insanity

as doing the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER again, and expecting a different result!

[donheld]

48. No, he needs a different strategy for 11/3/2010

Step up, show some real back bone. Take a firm stand, and stop caving to repugs. Listen to Paul Krugman instead of Goldman Sachs. When making a speech, actually mean what you say.