On President Obama's Separation of Democratic and Progressive Values...

[xocet]

It always has been up to President Obama to define and articulate the Democratic side of any political argument. After all, he has the bully pulpit and is the leader of the Democratic Party. This articulation of Democratic principles is important because, without a clear articulation of these principles, there is no defined middle ground on which a compromise can be reached: the middle ground is defined by point and counterpoint - the Democratic and Republican positions, respectively. When President Obama suggests publicly what policies are acceptable to him (i.e., to progressives this may be read as compromises preemptively ), he thus defines the middle ground and, invariably, it lies to the right of center. If he supported progressive principles (what generally have been considered to be Democratic principles), this negotiation strategy would be tantamount to political malpractice or, simply put, blatant incompetence.

However, President Obama would likely not have risen to his present position if he were incompetent, so it remains that he does not support what have in the past been considered to be Democratic principles. Further, it seems that these formerly Democratic principles have been relabeled as progressive so that modern Democratic politicians may achieve separation from them yet retain the support of the Democratic base. As evidence that President Obama does not believe in progressive values and prefers separation from them, one has the recent quotation of President Obama by Sen. Sanders: to wit,

"Obama held up a half-full glass of water and told him: 'That's the problem with you progressives. You see this as half-empty.' "

(www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/republican-opposition-to-elizabeth-warren_n_902165.html)

A current statement of President Obama's probable political legacy is compactly presented in Glenn Greenwald's current article - of which the following four paragraphs seem to be the core:

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama's legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

This dynamic has repeatedly emerged in numerous contexts. Obama has continued Bush/Cheney terrorism policies – once viciously denounced by Democrats – of indefinite detention, renditions, secret prisons by proxy, and sweeping secrecy doctrines.

He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorising the war.

And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programmes that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is defeaning – and depressing, though sadly predictable.

(http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/21-6)

Presuming that one were again to canvass on behalf of President Obama, how should this legacy be defended to the potential Obama voter? Which principles that have President Obama's full support should be named?

Should it be said that he defended Wall Street, that he allowed the Republicans to manufacture a debt crisis, that he failed to produce a cohesive political messaging strategy and led the Democratic party to defeat in the 2010 elections, that he failed to close Guantanamo Bay, that he failed to stand up for human rights and international law, that he was overpowered by Republicans while they were in the minority in both houses or that he was willing to entertain changes to the social safety net? Which of these should be named?

Instead, should it be said that he means well (and as such is better than his Republican opponent) or, simply, that he is a nice guy?

If the last two statements are the only positive, general and clearly-delineated assertions that may be made regarding President Obama and the political legacy of his first term, it would do well for him to remember the adage that nice guys finish last.

[DJ13]

1. K& tried to R

[ProSense]

2. Here,

I've added links to Greenwald's statement to counter his claim

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama's legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

Note: the above links were added to prove a point.

The notion that President Obama is weakening the "left's political agenda" is bullshit.

As for his other examples.

"He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorising the war."

What Greenwald and others who make the "war on whistleblowers" claim always fail to mention is that Obama is cleaning up Bush's mess here. NYT:

<...>

Describing for the first time the scale of the Bush administration’s hunt for the sources of The Times article, former officials say 5 prosecutors and 25 F.B.I. agents were assigned to the case. The homes of three other security agency employees and a Congressional aide were searched before investigators raided Mr. Drake’s suburban house in November 2007. By then, a series of articles by Siobhan Gorman in The Baltimore Sun had quoted N.S.A. insiders about the agency’s billion-dollar struggles to remake its lagging technology, and panicky intelligence bosses spoke of a “culture of leaking.”

Though the inquiries began under President Bush, it has fallen to Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide whether to prosecute. They have shown no hesitation, even though Mr. Drake is not accused of disclosing the N.S.A.’s most contentious program, that of eavesdropping without warrants.

<...>

Under President Bush, no one was convicted for disclosing secrets directly to the press. But Lawrence A. Franklin, a Defense Department official, served 10 months of home detention for sharing classified information with officials of a pro-Israel lobbying group, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., a top aide to Mr. Cheney, was convicted of perjury for lying about his statements to journalists about an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson.

The F.B.I. has opened about a dozen investigations a year in recent years of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, according to a bureau accounting to Congress in 2007.

<...>

Bush launched the investigations and now Obama is cleaning up the mess. Drake home was raided and he was terminated during the Bush administration.

So what's the spin: Absolve Bush for launching the investigations, add a qualifier for Bush's convictions and repeat often "Obama's prosecutions!!"

It's bullshit!

Had Bush not launched these investigation, Obama wouldn't have to go through the process of cleaning up these loose ends.

As for Libya, Greenwald stretches the truth ("in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorising the war"). Not only did the Senate vote in support of a no-fly zone (Bernie Sanders was a co-sponsor, the votes Congress took were inconclusive, both votes failed.

[xocet]

3. Interesting...

Your reply contains a collection of links that is, at best, tangentially related to what is stated in Greenwald's article and is not even related to my points. Some of your links are to your own posts. Some of your links are duplicated within your posts. ProSense, thanks for providing them, but maybe you should address the post instead of addressing your fantasy of what the post contained.

NEVERTHELESS:

President Obama has utterly failed at messaging and defining a core set of Democratic policies. Some of the chief progressive (originally: Democratic) policy aims are: human rights, education, social welfare, fiscal responsibility and health care.

In each of these, his lack of articulation of a clear and forceful message to the opposition has hurt the Democrats. Mostly, your links bring up bureaucratic issues that are much less than what is expected of President Obama. In weighing what President Obama has accomplished, one should recall the latter part of Luke 12:48 - "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A48&version=KJV) It is not legitimate to pretend that he was not given a great advantage in the results of the 2008 elections.

By categories:

Human rights is a fail on messaging and policy: President Obama appointed a milquetoast who has neither prosecuted those who illegally invaded Iraq nor prosecuted those who ordered torture. Instead, his appointee has swept it under the rug, so that it may be brought out again the next time a Republican president is in office. I cannot defend President Obama this choice.

Education is a fail since it seems destined to be corporatized at the hands of President Obama's appointee, Arne Duncan. I cannot defend his position on this choice, either.

Social welfare programs seem to be heading towards cuts that, if President Obama had any political foresight, would never have been needed. In fact, the whole debt crisis is one that has been manufactured by the Republicans. President Obama has accepted their messaging as valid and has run with it. More is to be expected of him.

Fiscal responsibility is a fail. The banks have gotten away with their ill-gotten gains. This point will be the hardest one to explain to an independent voter. Why have there been no prosecutions of those who have destroyed the economy, and why have they been allowed to profit by its destruction? Appointing Elizabeth Warren would have been a minor victory compared to actually taking the banks to task over their malfeasance, but President Obama could neither muster the fortitude necessary to appoint her nor to challenge the banks openly and strongly.

Health care is, sadly, also a fail. Single payer health care was taken off the table by President Obama, so that he could make a deal with the pharmaceutical companies. Everyone deserves access to health care. Instead of being strong, President Obama let Senator "They're-Gonna-Pull-The-Plug-On-Grandma!" Grassley et al. dictate the message. Thus, the message shifted to health insurance for all instead of health care for all.

So, is President Obama a weak, ill-focused, worthless politician or does he not share core Democratic (recently rebranded as progressive) values with his base? As stated before, he is neither weak nor incompetent. He just does not share core convictions with the people who have been variously known as Democratic, liberal or progressive and who are a significant and important part of his base, and, therefore, he will never fight for any of these important policy choices.

Though I will likely vote for him due to having no other choice, it will be a cold day in hell before I give his campaign either my time or my money again.

[ProSense]

5. Hmmm?

"Social welfare programs seem to be heading towards cuts"

Seems to be is definitely definitive!

"Health care is, sadly, also a fail. Single payer health care was taken off the table by President Obama, so that he could make a deal with the pharmaceutical companies."

Single payer, another broken Obama promise? Remember when Bernie Sanders said he had less than 10 votes in the Senate?

Obama Singles Out Drug Companies for Savings

But what about the secret deal!!!!!

"So, is President Obama a weak, ill-focused, worthless politician or does he not share core Democratic"

Well, anything is possible in a fact-free world!

[ClarkUSA]

7. Thanks for shooting holes through yet more bullshit memes attacking this President.

""Health care is, sadly, also a fail. Single payer health care was taken off the table by President Obama, so that he could make a deal with the pharmaceutical companies."

Single payer, another broken Obama promise? Remember when Bernie Sanders said he had less than 10 votes in the Senate?

Obama Singles Out Drug Companies for Savings"

[xocet]

10. Sorry. I seem to have accidentally become an unwilling observer of a ProSense circle-jerk....

Clearly, you are enjoying yourself and would like to be left alone, since you cannot address the issues of the post.

However, feel free to link to yourself some more, since you certainly seem to like that.

It is too bad that you cannot discuss the issues.

[mitchtv]

12. brings to mind Judith Miller

Cheney leaks a story, she publishes, and then when he's questioned on it,he says it's been in the NY Times.

[LaydeeBug]

4. You said, "the notion that he weakens the left's agenda is bullshit". NO IT'S NOT.

And then you didn't support it.

[The Big Vetolski]

6. Wrong, Keemosabe! It is comparing Obama to Bush that is

bullshit, instead of comparing Obama to Democratic Party values. Stop moving the goalposts like the Republicans who have probably shaped your young life(or should I say lives? after all, you are Prosense and therefore probably more than one person. Even someone as new as I to DU can see that) have done.

Look at the issues. Look at what has actually been DONE, or, just as importantly, NOT done. By Obama. Forget the Republicans. Forget the Blue Dogs. What has Obama actually done, not done, tried, or not tried?

If you continue to let yourself(selves) get lost in this D vs R mainstream media game you will never be able to see what is really important. The Democratic Party is supposed to be about ACCOMPLISHING what is really important. Not tallying up "victories" over ridiculous Republicans.

No offense. Just trying to help, dude or dudette.

[ProSense]

8. Hmmmm?

"Look at the issues. Look at what has actually been DONE, or, just as importantly, NOT done. By Obama. Forget the Republicans. Forget the Blue Dogs. What has Obama actually done, not done, tried, or not tried...The Democratic Party is supposed to be about ACCOMPLISHING what is really important."

What the hell has Obama done?

[The Big Vetolski]

9. My. That was quick! Lots of little blue lines conveniently linked to

one little blue line. I quiver before your Internet copy and pasting skills. :hide: and :sarcasm:

IMO, Obama has done little, if anything, to materially improve the lives of ordinary Americans. He has done little, if anything, to curtail corporate power and the power of the rich. He has not measured up to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Party that I have supported all of my half-century plus of life. You are free to disagree, of course.

I won't say any more tonight. I'm getting PUI, and have to get my 7 hours or so before I get up to go to work to keep a roof over my, and my family's, head tomorrow. 23 mile commute, too. It sucks.

Buddha laughs anyway. 'Nite, 'Sense. Sleep tight! Don't let the bedbugs bite!

[Bobbie Jo]

11. IOW....

I didn't read a bit of it, not even her own solid arguments.

Yeah, now would be a good time to call it a night. :rofl:

[Why Syzygy]

13. k/r