Is Obama a "stealth" progressive? (Could be.)

[tblue37]

This is a reply I posted on another thread. A few DUers asked me to post it as an OP, so here goes:

I do wish Obama would lean harder and more obviously toward our side, but I actually suspect that he might be less effective if he did.

I thought Jimmy Carter was a wonderful president, in the sense of caring about all the right things and always trying to do the right thing, but I also realize that his was a failed presidency, because he did not play footsie with those who have all the real long-term power in Washington. The Beltway "village" took him down. The Dems in Congress refused to work with him and, at every opportunity, they undermined him. The Beltway media types mocked him and made him a figure of ridicule for the whole country, though he did nothing to deserve such mockery. (Remember the "attack rabbit," "malaise," and his cardigans?)

Sure, the Republicans were awful to Carter, too, but they didn't even have to be, because the Dems and the MSM did so much damage that even if the Republicans had twiddled their thumbs, Carter would not have been able to accomplish much, and he would have been a one-termer—even though everything he said and did has been proven appropriate and often prescient. If we had a Kucinich in the WH, the same thing would happen. Kucinich is cut off at the knees even by his own party whenever he tries to do anything right, and the MSM has made him an unelectable object of ridicule where the presidency is concerned.

One of the things the Washington snots were most pissed about with Carter is that since he and Rosalyn were low-keyed, decent people rather than party-hearty extravagant oligarch types, during Carter’s tenure the night life in Washington was dull for those who liked to attend a lot of fancy cocktail parties arranged around a glamorous White House couple. This is one of the reasons they loved the Reagans so much.

When the Clintons came in, the snooty Washington "village" said such things as Sally Quinn's, "They came in and wrecked the town, and it wasn't their town!" The oligarchs looked down on the Clintons as being Arkansas "hillbillies," not of the same impressive social status as their own.

I think Bill Clinton, with his poor, outcast little boy's need for approval from those of (perceived) higher social status, felt the sting of being looked down on in Washington. Since the end of his presidency, it seems, he has done everything he can to ingratiate himself with those who snubbed him while he was president.

Obviously I can’t say this is what Obama is doing, but I am hoping that Obama is simply aware of the obstacles the entrenched powers can throw in his way if he isn’t seen to be sucking up sufficiently.

Yeah, they block his better efforts anyway, partly because he is Black, and partly because it’s in the DNA of the rich and powerful, the MSM (and the Republicans, of course) to do everything possible to undermine and destroy a Democratic president or anyone who even slightly seems to be on the side of the people rather than the oligarchs. And, of course, any decent policy approach is automatically going to rub them the wrong way.

But I am hoping that he really is playing umpteen-dimensional chess, playing the smiling patsy for the oligarchs, while incrementally sneaking in policies that do some good now and blossom into perhaps even more good in the future.

Take the health care bill, for example. I am livid about what was given away from the start, without even negotiating, and I am sick over what is gives to the private insurance companies. But it also provides many benefits that will help real people, some now, some in a few years when the rest of those benefits go into effect. Meanwhile, he is encouraging states to experiment, and I suspect there is some hint-hint/wink-wink going on to get some to experiment with single-payer medical care.

With his resistance to seeming to openly support the Wisconsin labor protests, he is refraining from making it about himself—which would draw disastrous fire from the loudest wingnuts like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilley, etc., whose pronouncements would be played up by the MSM and then used to rile up those who have been voting Republican because of their allegiance to FOX and the wingnut mouthpieces.

A lot of people are going to reflexively reject anything associated with Obama—again, perhaps largely because he is Black—so the wingnut propaganda appeals to them, giving them a reason to hate him other than because he is Black, so they can disguise their racism. Thus they are powerfully conditioned against anything he openly espouses. (Look at how loudly some right-wingers protested about Michelle’s suggestion that maybe kids could be given better food an encouraged to exercise!)

Even if they are on the side of the protesters, or part of the protests themselves, if Obama had made it about himself, some of those who have been newly turned against the Republicans might not have been as easily awakened by the Republican assaults on their rights all across the country. They would have been distracted by the wingnut rants about Obama.

I have to hope this is what he is doing: behaving like a stealth reformer, sneaking in incremental improvements while presenting himself as not beholden to the progressive base and not threatening to the oligarchs.

He ends up looking reasonable and genteel to the wishy-washy middle, while the Republicans look more and more insane as they violently reject any reasonable suggestion he makes—even if it is one they themselves originally came up with. They are making it virtually impossible for them to field a candidate against him in 2012, and even their much touted 2010 sweep might end up doing them more harm than good in the long term, because they are overplaying their hand and revealing themselves too soon. Maybe he really is running rings around them and playing rope-a-dope with them.

I am not saying this is for sure—or even probably—what is going on, but this is the hope I have to cling to if I am to avoid despair, even though I often feel rather Pollyannaish doing so. I fear, though, that even if it is true and he is playing stealth progressive, he may be allowing the right wingers to do so much damage in the short term that it will not be able to be reversed in the long term.

[chowder66]

1. Great post!

I tend to agree with you and I am hopeful that he can wedge in a more left leaning agenda in his next four years.

30 years of republican conditioning and regressive rule is hard for one man to beat back in 2.5 years. I think a deft political hand is warranted and I personally believe that Obama has greater faith in the intelligence of his democratic support.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. k&R eom

[gateley]

3. K&R. nt

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[chrysb52]

5. There is certainly some truth to this

I have come to believe that the U.S. President in today's world is, by definition, the representative of the status quo. I think we get a glimpse of this in Obama's public stance on gay marriage. When he ran for President, he said he was opposed to gay marriage but supported civil unions. To me this is a very, very politic and very carefully worded stance. It gives "just enough" information without appearing too progressive. Therefore, no independent voter with socially conservative leanings could ever accuse him of being pro-gay marriage. Now that the momentum has clearly shifted and there is no doubt that the public is way ahead of the government on this issue, he states that his position is "evolving." It's safer for him to be slightly more aggressive, but he's never going to really lead on social issues.

Like many Democrats I hoped that he would be front and center on many urgent and pressing issues that need to be addressed. I now believe that that isn't realistic, which is sad in a way, but understandable. I think Obama takes very seriously his duty to be President to all American people, regardless of what his personal beliefs might be. It probably has to be that way. Secondly, he is a very circumspect guy. He's not really a firebrand or a rabble-rouser by nature.

I believe that others in government and in political discourse are going to have to play the roles of fire breather and movement leader. Anthony Weiner is a great example. I hope he goes far.

There ARE a couple of things that worry me about Obama. One is the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" notion. When you are playing with the big money boys it is so, so easy to become one of them. When I saw who he appointed to his economic team, for instance, I cringed. The whole Robert Rubin gang of Wall Street apologists, Summers, Geitner, et al. Not exactly a Power to the People crew. So is Obama "just another Corporatist," or does he simply play one on TV?

The other thing that troubles me is something, as a career salesperson myself, that I consider a monumentally bad error in judgment and execution. He "over-promised" and then he "under-delivered." Yikes! You never, EVER do that! People get seriously pissed when you raise their expectations only to dash them a few months later. That is epic fail territory no matter how you spin it. All the lofty rhetoric and pie-in-the-sky promises were certainly in stark contrast to the cautious, rational, sometimes passive approach to leadership that he actually employs. Did he simply fall in love with his own voice? Hmmm...I wonder.

In any case, we here on the ground, in the trenches, struggling just to try to make sense of our lives, are not amused. And while we're at it, I can REALLY do without the dismissive attitude and all the insults to Progressives that have come from his administration. There is something very wrong when the Democratic party treats its base like the ugly girl at the dance. There's a real tone-deafness there. What's up with that?
Maybe that kind of elitism masks some self-doubt and insecurity.

I will say that I am extremely glad he tackled health care reform first. I believe that instinct was dead-on. As you say, he forced the issue into the mainstream and took the first step toward making the case that universal health care is a RIGHT.

Now the rest of us will have to keep fighting the good fight to keep it that way.

[lib2DaBone]

16. Triple invisable chess.. he's waiting to make his move....

.. he doesn't want to come on too "strong".

[bluestateguy]

6. I think he knows what he is doing

We forget and we underestimate his political skills and acumen.

He rose to the presidency at a faster pace than any politician since Woodrow Wilson. He was not the Democratic Party establishment candidate for 2008. Hillary Clinton was, and she had all of the establishment support. Then Obama did something that Republicans could never do: he beat the Clintons.

Then he was elected the first black president of the United States, something people said for decades could never happen.

I think he knows what he is doing, even if we can't always figure it out right away.

[jaysunb]

7. K & R n/t

[solara]

8. K&R

Really good post!

:hi:

[Hatchling]

9. Stealth Progressive?!

His "Progressive" is so stealth it's invisible. I can't put faith or hope in something I can't see.

[Scuba]

17. Bingo! Besides, why do Progressives need to hide? n/t

[Armstead]

10. Interesting post and discussion

It's good to see a fresh take on things.

Here's my reply to your original post, which I too am reposting.

I Think, however, what we need is an enlightened, smart and progressive version of GW Bush or Reagan....By that I mean someone who doesn't give a damn of what the Beltway Oligarchs and the Cocktail Party Set think of him because he has an agenda and doesn't plan to stick around Washington when he's done.

Say what you will about those two, they had an agenda, and they largely succeeded in carrying it out. (Yes those agendas were a disaster, but we're talking tactics not the quality of results.)

I would prefer Obama to take that approach. He would not have to be a lonely outsider, because he would truly be there as representative if the people, The Oligarchs might laugh at first, but if he really fought for liberal and progressive reform, he could at least begin to loosen their stranglehold. If he actually cast his lit with the average people, there's a lot more of us than there are of them.

[Shiver]

14. I agree with both you and the OP.

My hope, and my gut, tells me that this could happen with Obama's second term. Not having to worry about re-election, and hopefully with a Democratic Congress and Senate, he would be able to shift more to the left, hopefully showing more of candidate Obama.

Hey, it's not that crazy of a theory...

[vroomvroom]

11. "Lean Harder"?? -- How about Lean at least a Little.

If you asked distant future generations if the President was (D) or (R) based on the decisions and not knowing which President i will bet a good majority would say the president had to have been a republican. Let's be honest.

[phleshdef]

12. Based on that standard then, people must think Nixon is a Democrat.

What you said isn't valid anyway. No one is going to call a President that spent nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus to stabilize an economic crisis a Republican. Nor would they a President that passed a healthcare bill that provides subsidies to pay for health insurance on a sliding income scale (its still welfare, whether we like the way its structured or not) or told health insurance companies who they could and could not turn down for insurance and how much money they were allowed to spend on noncase expenses or who ended the ban on gays in the military or who gave people tax credits to trade in old cars for newer, more fuel efficient cars or who gave women more rights to legally challenge pay discrimination or who strengthened hate crime laws against GLBT folk or who doubled food stamp funding or who createad the most diverse cabinet in American history in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation.

But please, respond with an obligatory post full of cliches about helping banks and not ending the wars at the drop of a hat and throw in some Bradley Manning nonsense while you are at it.

[tblue37]

19. Well, compared to recent Dems, Nixon was far more liberal,

so he could be mistaken for a Democrat in that sense.

[Armstead]

28. I'll respond by saying look at Nixon's proposal for health carer reform

It wasn't single payer, but it was more "liberal" then what we have under Obama and a Democratic Congress.

[phleshdef]

31. And it still failed to go anywhere.

[Armstead]

32. Um, that's beside the point of this discussion

[phleshdef]

35. No it isn't. Ideology is worth less than shit if there is no accomplishment to back it up.

And that point has everything to do with the OP.

[Armstead]

37. That was Nixon in the 1970's.....He was hardly a progressive iderologue

So the fact that a douchebag like Nixon failed to get something fairly good passed in the 1970's justifies 30 years of inaction after that, and is a good reason not to try anything meaningful now?

Jeezum...That sounds like justifying not attempting anything ever.

And, once again, that's a diversion from the specific discussion at hand, which is how the actual policies of President Obama compare to other presidents in terms of liberalism.

[phleshdef]

39. Wow, if I didn't say it, you'll just make it up and pretend I did!

You can clearly see that I was responding to the statement that "People could read a hand picked list of X's policies and think X was a member of party X". Its an idiotic way of analyzing a Presidency to begin with. Pointing out Nixon was to illustrate why thats idiotic.

[Armstead]

40. Believe it or not, I agree that not everything should be seen as party-based

However, I do think that if the actual performance of some Democratic politicians is more in alignment with the conservative position of Republicans than with liberal or progressive values.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. It failed to go anywhere because Ted Kennedy killed it for being too conservative

The political landscape of the United States was completely different in the 1970's. This was before you had millions of working class people voting for a party whose economic platform benefits only the richest 2% (and their economic platform actually benefited a lot more people than the richest 2% back then) because they believe that Democrats kill babies. Abortion wasn't even on the radar screen, neither was gun control, gay marriage, nor any of the other issues that today's Republican base actually votes on.

Besides that, Nixon didn't really give a shit one way or another about domestic policy. He proposed things that the Democratic congress would like so that they would look the other way while he started a secret war in Cambodia and did enough illegal wiretapping to make George W Bush look like a champion of civil liberties.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. It was also in the Pre-Reagan era

Every so often there is what is called a re-aligning election. 1932 re-aligned the country to the left and 1980 swung it back to the right. What was politically possible before 1980 was not politically possible after 1980. The country's attitudes changed drastically.

The bottom line is that it's damn near impossible to build the coalition needed to pass legislation that would benefit the masses when the substantial portion of the masses will never support it because the don't like that the President is black, or they thing he was a Communist, or a Muslim, or born in Kenya, or kills babies, or whatever ridiculous bullshit motivates Tea-Baggers.

From 1932-1980 people actually voted in their own economic interests and that's why you could pass legislation that benefited most people economically. You simply can't do that very effectively when a large chunk of the masses have become foot soldiers for the richest 2%.

[Pirate Smile]

64. Great point.

[kath]

70. "a large chunk of the masses have become foot soldiers for the richest 2%." -Yep - it's SOOOO damned

bizarre. And it's why we're in the shit we're in. In-fuckin-credible.

[Chris_Texas]

13. No. He is a corporatist representing his employers.

[zalinda]

15. Yup, and I look like Pamela Anderson. n/t

[Scuba]

18. Why should Progressives need to hide? n/t

[tblue37]

20. Because the MSM is a powerful propaganda arm for the RW, and

although most Americans are liberal on most issues, they don't realize it because they have been so effeictively propagandized.

[Scuba]

21. Perhaps they don't realize they are liberals...

..because Progressives are hiding. How about if Obama came out with the following? You think the people would support him?



I’m announcing today new direction for America, including:

Within 10 days I want Congress to pass new tax laws that spread the tax burden fairly across the economic spectrum, with those benefiting most from our society contributing commensurately.

Within 20 days I want Congress to pass laws that protect the right of workers to organize and have a voice in the operation of US businesses. This will include raising the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all working families.

Within 30 days, all US military, diplomatic and contracted personnel will return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives being wasted on these wars, we will instead provide aid to these countries, and to other depressed areas where atrocious conditions breed terrorists.

Additionally, I am ordering the Department of Justice to investigate those who led us into these wars to determine if war crime charges are warranted. If so they will be prosecuted with vigor and any ill-gained profits shall be returned to the people.

Within 40 days I want Congress to pass a simple plan to provide Medicare for All so no American is denied care or has to suffer financial hardship because of health problems, and no American businesses are saddled with health costs that keep them from competing fairly with foreign competitors. This plan will include a “safety net” to guarantee every citizen is provided the food and shelter necessary to survive difficult challenges in their lives.

Within 60 days I want the Commerce Department to present a plan for maintaining and improving the infrastructure of our great country.

Within 80 days I want the Secretary of Education to present new plans to guarantee all Americans have access to our public schools, from pre-kindergarten through advanced degrees.

Within 120 days I want Homeland Security to present a new plan for securing our borders from those who would do us harm while allowing appropriate travel and visitation to our many friends around the world. This plan is to include a path to citizenship for those who serve in the US military, or who came here as children and are now productive members of our society.

Within 150 days I want a Constitutional Amendment passed prohibiting political spending by corporations or any other entity or individual not qualifying as a person with citizenship in this great country.

Within 180 days I want the Department of Energy to begin another “Manhattan Project” to enable us to cease our dependence on fossil fuels. As this effort will no doubt take time, I am announcing the nationalization of all US oil and gas reserves, as well as other reserves owned by the citizens of the US that are currently being extracted from our soil for private profit without regard for our environment.

I am also ordering the Department of Justice to begin immediately to root out crimes of corruption within our government. In concert with this, I want Congress to pass term-limit or other laws to ensure elected officials are serving for the benefit of the American people as a whole, not to gain wealth or power for themselves or their friends.

These and other policies we will put in place will cause a sea-change in how our country serves the citizens - We the People - rather than a tiny handful of super-wealthy who would subvert our democracy and plunder our wealth while denying even the most basic services for our citizens. Thank you for your support and thank you for standing up for the rights of all citizens.

[Solomon]

29. I wish you would please stop posting this naivete.

This is the third or fourth thread I've seen it in. It's unrealistic to say the least. Put the most radical person ever in the presidency and see how far he/she gets. Do you really believe a president, after the death of Kennedy, has that kind of power? Really?


To the OP. Great post. Obama has shown time and again that he takes what little he can get, rather than waste it all on attacking windmills. Those little increments will pay off down the road. Most of us don't have that kind of patience.

[Armstead]

36. Instead of blanket dismissals, why not actually address those issues?

I don't agree with all of those points myself, while agreeing with some.

But your blanket dismissals of it all as "naivete" shows a lack of "realism" on your part reflects defeatism rather than any real desire to begin moving the bar.

[Solomon]

51. Okay if you say so. Go ahead and find somebody else.

Somebody with "guts" and "spine" and "backbone", a real "democrat". Then let's see what happens after he/she gets in and finds out they don't have a magic dictator's wand to fix everything. Be my guest. The next person who says something good, you'll latch on and declare that person should be candidate. Go right ahead my friend. It's all so easy. You just have to "want" to do it, right?

I'll take what we've gotten so far from Obama anyday over spitting in the wind. That's not defeatist, it's common sense.

[Duende azul]

22. "presenting himself as ..... not threatening to the oligarchs" ?

And you honestly believe the oligarchs would be deceived that way?

They are agenda driven, they don´t care if Obama maybe holds a secret grudge against them.
As long as he delivers.

He fight`s their wars... no, he let´s the sons and daughters of the poor fight the oligarch's wars.
He gives them new business models (profits from mandatory private health insurance)
He doesn't confront them when they seriously fuck up, e.g. Deepwater Horizon
He let his criminal predecessor of the hook
He publicly gives credibility to Americas leading Crime syndicate - the Bush family
He keeps hanging around with the wrong people abroad, backs coups in Latin America
...

The oligarchs want results, Obama and Congress deliver.

Things could have been different had he used the initial enthusiasm to side with the people and confront the oligarchs openly.
I don't know why he didn't, and I don't care anymore. That opportunity was wasted.

You can only hope he won`t stand in the way, when people start taking things in there own hands (aka Wisconsin).

[sad sally]

55. Back in January 09, we sure thought the new guy on the job would

walk right in and start cleaning up the crimes left behind. Not so...he now owns those crimes: illegal undeclared wars, lost billions in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture and human rights abuses, un-investigated illegal financial practices that led to the need to bailout banks and other so-called financial institutions, misuse of FEMA money intended for the Gulf after Katrina, illegal wiretapping, and on and on.

By maintaining the status quo, the Obama administration has become part of the cover up - nothing to see here, folks; move on. Just keeping thinking about winning the future - the past is past.

[Vinca]

23. Like I'm a stealth skinny person.

Pass the ice cream.

[vicarofrevelwood]

24. President Wishey washey.

[LWolf]

25. Oh, please. Perhaps Hitler was a stealth Gandhi. nt

[Overseas]

26. K&R!

I hope so too.

[Autumn]

27. It's easier to believe he is an undercover agent

working on finding evidence against all the crooks in our Government than to believe he's a "stealth" progressive.

[tweeternik]

30. Agreed! "Could be" ....

I think his moves especially during the lame duck session of Congress (DADT, START)after the November elections demonstrated the multi-dimensional chess quality of his presidency. The man is in his heart a progressive, but in order "to get things done" he must pass legislation through a less than progressive Congress. This is only the beginning of the 2nd quarter of his presidency. We still have a long way to go ..... (Two terms = 8 years!) ;)

[s-cubed]

33. Your post is very thought provoking. I would add a bit to it.

Obama is described as a believer in the art of the possible in politics. He is also described by those who have played poker with him as being a very cautious poker player, not given to taking chances. These two characteristics, combined, fit well with what we have seen, and would also fit with your description. He might want to do more, but he is too cautious to try and doesn't believe more is possible. I do think he is inherently a good person, and less corrupted than most of our presidents. I, like you, fault his judgment on his financial advisers. I also think he does not do a good job of using his "bully pulpit" to shape what is possible. He wants to be a doer more than a communicator, and doesn't seem to realize that to do you have to communicate.

[tblue37]

46. Your post very astute. nt

[tblue37]

56. *IS* very astute. (I missed the editinbg window.) nt

[tblue37]

72. How embarrassing! I made a typo in the correction reply--and I missed

the editing window in it, too!

(Sorry.)

[Jester Messiah]

34. The man is not Leading.

We can come up with ideas as to what he's "really up to" until the cows come home, but in the meantime he just looks ineffective and supine.

[Pirate Smile]

38. Two points that your post made me think of - a couple of things some people want to change but cant

and wont be able to regarding President Obama so it's an exercise in futility and increases frustration as they continue to rail on it and him constantly.

1. A lot of people seemed to actually want a Democrat with George W Bush's temperament. Someone who would tell the other side to just f@#k off and ignore or mock them. President Obama was never going to be that and it was EXTREMELY clear during the campaign that he was a consensus builder who doesn't demonize his opponents. He would stay calm and not rant about people or assume the worst (even when they deserve it). It was actually one of the traits Independents liked. I am constantly seeing people angry at him for "being" the type of personality that actually got him elected. It is just him. Blame it on the aloha spirit.

The best example of how he confronts and challenges Republicans is when he went to the House Republican retreat. He took questions and made them all look like total idiots. When he invited Republicans to the WH Health Care Conference at Blair House and put it on Cspan, it made him look reasonable and them look like tools. Republicans now avoid these types of interactions with President Obama because they know they will lose.

2. I remember reading an article on Obama from long before he was in the U.S. Senate. One of the strong points I took away from it - which seems to be another thing President Obama does that drives some activists crazy - stemmed from back at his time as a community organizer. It was about how issues would come up in state & federal government - health care reform, environmental issues, poverty issues. There would be a political/legislative fight. Politicians would draw their lines in the sand. Publicity & PR for all would be had, any legislation would fail but activists and partisans would make their rhetorical points, slam their opponents and the people who most desperately needed help - the poor and the uninsured - ended up with no help and just another legislative failure.

He would take incremental improvements (which could be built on over time) that would help the uninsured and working class over the politically satisfying (but ultimately producing little to nothing) symbolic fights which is what is generally seen as modern politics. He would GET WHAT HE COULD for the people who needed it. Usually the people who need the help are not the same as the activists who are pushing it and sometimes their needs actually seem to conflict (what raises $$$ to continue the fight & supports the organizations who do it is not incremental change, it is big symbolic battles).

Fight the battle and lose in a blaze of glory is preferred to the sometimes unpalatable compromises required to actually gain some progress. The HCR fight was a perfect example. People wanted him to "draw a line in the sand". He wouldn't do it. As Ezra Klein said on Real Time last week when Maher said "Obama should have ...." , Ezra said that 8 moderate/conservative Democrats would have bolted and we would have got nothing. Instead, President Obama wanted what he could get passed. Some people will never forgive him for it. I think this different mindset between President Obama and a lot of activists explains a lot of the tension.



(I typed this up quickly so I'm not sure that I stated it all that clearly or diplomatically.)

[Armstead]

41. Great post, although I don't agree with much of it

Seriously, its thoughtful and substantial.

[Pirate Smile]

42. Thanks.

:)

[tblue37]

47. Thanks for this. It is a great analysis. nt

[Solomon]

53. Ditto

I agree with it as well.

[treestar]

54. Terrific post.

Very good points. :thumbsup:

[japple]

57. You came through loud and clear...and right on!

[Pirate Smile]

58. Good. Sometimes, ya know, you're just not sure if you are getting your point through.

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

59. I love it when

I come to DU and read a post which blossoms to another, then has others add interesting well thought out and interesting perspectives to it.

This is one of those.

You stated your view quite diplomatically, and clearly-

Thanks for posting this.

[Pirate Smile]

60. Thank you.

:)

[grahamhgreen]

43. Stage 1: DENIAL.

[DirkGently]

44. There's no upside to giving Republicans & corporatists what they want. NONE.

If it's a political gamble to protect the President's 2012 ambitions, it's not worth it. Labor rights and education and help for the poor and environmental regulation and the rest of it are not bargaining chips to be tossed aside to ensure a second Obama term, IF that would even work, which it certainly may not.

Apathy and lack of emotion, lack of a CAUSE to vote for, killed the midterms, not liberal bloggers or insufficiently loyal DU posters.

Playing paddy-cakes with the Republican fiction that gutting a few million in public services and more de-regulation will somehow magically undo the economic crisis CAUSED BY DEREGULATION simply reinforces their false narrative and paints Obama as little more than a cushion against Republican attacks. A duller knife with which to cut us.

That's not going to motivate voters. Not conservatives, who will hate him regardles. Not liberals who fail to see the appeal of "super subtle" progressivism. Not independents, who come out to right a wrong.

To be a leader, it's not enough to stand for "less bad." Or even, the conveniently ever-distant "look to the future." You have to lead the discussion, not follow. Act, not react.

I'm not questioning the President's motives, because, for one, that doesn't really matter. Perhaps he is doing his very best, from his point of view, for all of us. This may be simply bad political advice. But bad it is. Bad for all of us.

[JustAnotherGen]

45. That was lovely to read

:-)

[tblue37]

48. Thanks. nt

[yodermon]

49. It's political Judo: use the opponent's moves against him.

The RW will attack Obama NO MATTER what he presents.
So, he spends his first term presenting really moderate, even right-leaning solutions.
The RW attacks it out of pure lizard-brain (racist) reflex.
They tie themselves in knots in the process (teabaggers, birthers, bachmans, becks, other infighting)
Obama wins '12 in a walk.
Then he spends his 2nd term implementing the only solutions that are even *left* to try, namely, progressive ones.
Check and mate.

And yes, I will share what i'm smokin. :smoke:

[WCGreen]

50. Given the demographics in this country, this could be the last gasp

of Republican.TPE...

Of course a newer and perhaps even nastier version might be heading our way but this group is certainly headed for the dustbin of history...

K&R

[YvonneCa]

52. Yes. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

63. One can only hope but if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast our nets.

The economic tomfoolery, capitulation to the megacorps, and utter unwillingness to drop the hammer no matter how dangerous, evil, and insane their actions is a dead give away as is the far right wing education approach.

If he's actually stealth then his cover is deep enough to create enough damage to offset any lil gems infinity level chess or whatever sneaks in.

There won't be any resources to attempt any liberal fixes unless you think this kat is about to go Chavez on steroids.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Liberal Dems like whatever he's doing because a whopping 87% of them approve of his job performance.

Job Approval among Dems: 79%. Liberal Dems:87%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

March 7-13 2011 Job Approval:

Liberal Dems 87%
Moderate Dems 73%
Conservative Dems 69%

It is clear that the liberal Democratic base remain his strongest supporters, despite constant demonization by his opponents.

[Armstead]

67. And a huuuge 47 percent approval overall this week

If some pollster called me and asked if I approve or disapprove, I'd say approve too.

But when it gets down into the weeds, there's a lot I disapprove of.

It's going to require more than 47 percent to win an election,

There's a difference between "demonization" and criticism.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Actually, Obama garnered 50% approval in yesterday's Gallup Tracking Poll

He'll win by a landslide in 2012. Mark. My. Words.

No amount of 24/7 demonization by his opponents is going to affect that outcome, either. :)

[Armstead]

69. I hope he does win by a landslide

But I can kvetch about him anyway

[ClarkUSA]

71. President Obama's approval rating has gone up to 51% today.

Landslide 2012.

[Faryn Balyncd]

66. You might be right...If so, it would appear that we must realize we will have to do everything on...

....our own, and that the best help we can expect to receive from the president is that he won't be the kiss of death to our issues, because he will continue to do nothing to support our issues.

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

[Ter]

73. A progressive that loves war, the unPatriot Act, and Gitmo

n/t

[HR_Pufnstuf]

74. a neoprog

.

[quaker bill]

75. Appearing rational

while the republicans propose shooting immigrants from helicopter gunships, attempt to restore the gold standard, attempt to invalidate all federal laws, and so much more, is the winning formula.

His very rationality itself has led the republicans to absurd reactionary stands that cannot help but alienate them from vast bulk of the voting public.

Well said, thanks.