Give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

[dawg]

(You're not going to read past the subject, are you? OK, go ahead and hit unrec. Like I care.)

If a credible challenger were to run in the primaries against Obama on the left, I would support that candidate. Obama is much more of a centrist than I realized, but that is not my main objection to him.

My biggest problem with President Obama is that he has a defeatist attitude with regard to the culture of this country. He believes that right-wing memes are so firmly established that he must always give them lip service while trying to sneak progressive legislation through under cover of darkness.

Case in point, the tax compromise with Republicans. Yes, they got their tax cuts for the rich. But we got a second stimulus package. The lower income tax cuts and the unemployment extensions constitute a major Keynesian fiscal stimulus that will help ordinary people. When Obama expresses confidence in the future based on the deal he made - this is what he is talking about. But he doesn't make it very clear, does he. And then everyone on this board takes his comments out of context and interprets them to mean he is praising the benefits of tax cuts for the rich. And why not? He bends over backwards to give lip-service to right-wing memes all the time.

Obama's supporters are right to point out how much he has accomplished for liberal causes. DADT repeal, both stimulus packages, and health care reform (however imperfect). But by my way of thinking, Obama follows a "win the battle, lose the war" strategy. He should have come into office roaring like a lion against all of the bad policies that had preceded him. He should be constantly pushing left wing memes and values. Talking about admiration of FDR, not Ronald Reagan.

Never, ever, ever should a Democratic politician talk about government "tightening it's belt" when we are on the edge of a depression. That may be how or diary families think, but in macroeconomic terms it is just *stupid*. Instead of giving props to what he thinks Joe Sixpack believes, he should be out to change their perceptions.

The rich have waged a 40 year propaganda campaign against the US people, and liberals have been largely passive. This President, for better or worse, seems to feel that the war of ideas is over and has been lost. He's just trying to get the best policy passed that he can, considering the circumstances. I really think he means well, and is on our side. I just totally disagree with his tactics.

Yes, we should speak out. Yes, we should consider a primary challenger. But let's not ascribe evil intentions to what is, almost certainly, a very good man who mostly agrees with us.

[RegieRocker]

1. Couldn't agree with you more and

if we don't stand up how can we expect him to stand up?

[Angry Dragon]

10. I do believe he asked for the job

He wanted to be "THE LEADER" of this country
that means he leads, and not wait for someone else to stand up.

Using a CEO analogy, as long as he thinks they are the salvation of this country,
A CEO has a vision and sells it to the people under him/her. They do not wait for others
to tell them how to run the company. The CEO has to stand up first.

The President spoke of the vision for this country as he was asking for the job.
I feel he has abandoned that vision. He does not fight for the people of this country.

It is his job to rally the troops, the people. If he fails to do that it is not
the fault of the people, it is his, for what ever reason.

He is not the leader that this country needs at this time.

[RegieRocker]

11. You man need a leader, I on the other hand

need a Representative.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Two different things

One is a president and the other is in Congress

[RegieRocker]

15. They are all representatives. They are elected

and serve to represent you. You may want a King I however do not.

[Angry Dragon]

17. Who the hell said I wanted a king??

Come back when you can hold an intelligent conversation

[Autumn]

2. Yes he has done a lot. But he has got to

stop validating republican propaganda and ideals. Neither Bush nor Reagan ever did anything to move this country forward. NEVER. NOTHING.

[KoKo]

3. Gave you a K&R...although I question that Obama "mostly agrees with us"

I think you make some interesting points. In another post here on DU Robert Reich is quoted as saying "Obama doesn't challenge the Republican Narrative." I worry that he truly believes the Republican Narrative and is more Republican than he ever was a Democrat favoring Reagan over FDR in comments he's made over the past two years and while campaigning.

If he's a Republican then I don't know what happens to the Democratic Party. I suspect it fades away as many Dems either stop voting or vote for re-election of what they will see as a fine Republican President even though he has that new "small D" logo attached to his name. It will be a shift that started with Clinton vision of Democratic Leadership Council (pro-business) seen through to completion.

[dawg]

9. I too, have considered that he may be less liberal than advertised ...

He *is* a centrist. But if he were a secret convservative, the last two years would have played out much differently. For example, despite the universal hate on this board for health care reform, it looks nothing like what a secret conservative would have passed. There would have been tax sheltered private accounts. These accounts would have been partly funded by the government for low-incomers, but would have served as vehicles for sheltering massive amounts of income from tax for high incomers.

There is much in that health care bill that deeply grieves the right-wing - primarily the medicare surtax that hits high-incomers in future years.

But people on this board want to believe he's a secret (evil) republican operative. Doesn't fit the facts. Maybe just human nature to believe weird shit rather than the truth. Same a the birther nonsense, if you ask me.

[RegieRocker]

16. magnetic compass went awry

[Pholus]

4. I totally agree -- but I've noticed that voicing ANY reservation causes MUCH angst among some.

I have *ALWAYS* qualified my criticisms with: I think he's done a really good job considering the cruddy situation he got dealt.

But I am pretty upset about a couple things where I feel he sold the ideals down the line too quickly or even indicated that the ideals were "unrealistic."

Well, ideals ALWAYS are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that you can't hold them or express them even as you're compromising.

Anyway, flame on....

[bettyellen]

8. because so many people live in a black and white world, and it becomes a wedge, you know?

so I very much appreciate when people qualify and put things in perspective too. Many here so not... they belive Obama is at fault for the failing of every braanch of government all the time. That he could have turned the country around on a dime. I like to think they are naive and not trolls, but largely ther;s no value added to the conversation. Mindless rants, and no solution oriented thinking at all. It;s made me really wonder why I am still here.

[Edweird]

5. I read it and I am left with 2 regrets: 1) I lost 5 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

2) That I can only Unrec this once.

It doesn't appear as though you grasp what "the benefit of the doubt" actually means.

Enjoy your RW rhetoric and policies.

[dawg]

7. LOL

I am *such* a right-winger!

[Edweird]

20. It is what it is. What party claims that tax cuts create jobs?

[dawg]

21. Both of them.

Both parties claim that tax cuts create jobs. Now, I'm not an economist, but it is obvious to me that our economy is currently suffering from insufficient demand. The best way to stimulate that demand would be for government to spend money, preferably on infrastructure, education, and other things that will help us down the road. The second most stimulative thing would be unemployment benefits - you can count on that money getting spent and recycled into the economy. Third best is tax cuts for the working class. Most families could use the extra money and *much* of it would be spent. Tax cuts for the rich are the least stimulative. The bang for the buck is so low that it is wasteful to even consider them. That being said, even *they* will create some jobs. Just not as many as could have been created by a more liberal program.

I'm convinced that Obama thinks he's slipping good stuff through while speaking words that make the right-leaning independents happy. I think he means well. But I'm more like you than you think. I strongly disagree with what he is doing. He gives up too easily on policy. But worst of all, he parrots right-wing talking points when he should be trying to discredit them.

Bush said he would be a "uniter" not a "divider". Of course, that was a big steaming pile. Obama is *actually* trying to do it. Problem is, it can't be done. All he is doing is to make our position in the war of ideas and mindframes even weaker.

In terms of his post-election rhetoric, he is exactly what we *didn't* need. And for all his centrist posturing, I doubt that one single conservative will be swayed. ('cept maybe David Brooks)

[Edweird]

22. "Both of them" LULZ Like I said, enjoy your RW rhetoric and policy.

[dawg]

23. You got me. I'm a right-winger.

Me and Bernie, right-wingers both.

"I have talked about the negative aspects of this proposal. But I am going to be the first to admit that, of course, there are positive and good agreements in this. And what are they? What are some of the positive aspects of this agreement? Let me just tick them off.

No. 1, I believe very strongly, and I know the President does, it is absolutely imperative that we extend middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people. I do not think there has been any debate about that."

- Bernie Sanders, regarding Obama's tax "compromise" with the Republicans, from his epic speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

[Edweird]

25. RW policy is RW policy. Tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor is RW policy from hell.

It is what it is.

[bettyellen]

6. "the rich have waged a 40 year propaganda campaign against the US people" and some of us help them.

[zbdent]

12. What I would support would be a "tongue in cheek" challenger in the primaries ...

one who would use Obama's capitulations to the Republicans as an ATTACK on the Republicans themselves ... "thinly veiled" be damned ...

You know, like ... "Obama, trying to appease the far right Republicans, acceded to the demands of the Tea Party-controlled Republicans far too many times" ...

[TheKentuckian]

14. He doesn't mostly agree with me at all. He says he agrees with the Republicans

about 80% and that is pretty far off from the 1% I have.

You can't ignore that I might not be totally sold on the other 20% either.

I don't care if his intentions are evil or not, his policies are too often awful, his appointments corporate, his deals sell outs, his respect for the beliefs of the opposition too high, his unwillingness to fight battles he might lose too great, his faith in capital too deep for my tolerance.

Re-election?????? Shit, I'm on "No Confidence" due to declaring the power to extra-judicially murder Americans, maintaining the private Army of the Executive, denying due process, and allowing BP to dictate to our government, press, and citizens.

[Angry Dragon]

18. +1000

[emilyg]

19. +1

[JDPriestly]

24. K&R.

You explain exactly what is wrong with Obama.

[upi402]

26. sucker n/t

[anAustralianobserver]

27. I agree. He probably regrets he didn't play "new sherriff in town" more.

eg in hindsight he should have framed the health care debate from the beginning with

*both sides* of the debate - Country AND Western - ie single payer vs a public option (call it Medicare Plus or something)

in forums he initially controlled (as I believe he wanted to do, going by his "live on C-SPAN" campaign idea) while marginalising FOX News (which the Admin started to do but then backed down).

and promised a pure-and-simple VETO for anything less than a viable PO, or bust. If he lost it, make clear who blocked it, then admit defeat this round and just do the emergency private health insurance reform.

The right wing would have wigged out just the same OR MAYBE LESS because he would have just been rolling with the momentum of his legitimate political capital (which would have grown with his base and many independents even if he lost the battle).

I suppose the Dem monopoly corp-allied establishment put the fear of God into him starting in the last stage of his campaign and the president-elect period, and since he didn't have deep enough roots with the (marginalised) Democratic Wing of the Dem Party, the corporate PTB that controlled/limited the Clinton presidency made sure his presidency started off as ceremonial as possible.