Bob Herbert: "Obama/Democrats wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in 2008."

[Better Believe It]

Op-Ed Columnist
Wrong Track Distress
By BOB HERBERT
June 28, 2010

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nation’s rotting infrastructure.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation — short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obama’s historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Mr. Obama had campaigned on the mantra of change, and that would have been the kind of change that working people could have gotten behind. But it never happened. Job creation was the trump card in the hand held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but they never played it. And now we’re paying a fearful price.

The Obama administration feels it should get a great deal of credit for its economic stimulus efforts, its health care initiative, its financial reform legislation, its vastly increased aid to education and so forth. And maybe if we were grading papers, there would be a fair number of decent marks to be handed out.

But Americans struggling in a down economy are worried about the survival of their families. Destitution is beckoning for those whose unemployment benefits are running out, and that crowd of long-term jobless men and women is expanding rapidly.

There is a widespread feeling that only the rich and well-placed can count on Washington’s help, and that toxic sentiment is spreading like the oil stain in the gulf, with ominous implications for President Obama and his party. It’s in this atmosphere that support for the president and his agenda is sinking like a stone.

It’s not too late for the president to turn things around, but there is no indication that he has any plan or strategy for doing it. And the political environment right now, with confidence in the administration waning and budgetary fears unnecessarily heightened by the deficit hawks, is not good.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opinion/29herbert.html?ref=bobherbert

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Bob Herbert is worth listening to.

I hope that President Obama reads his column.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

2. They could have hit home runs ...

... but instead, waited on pitches to take walks and meekly hit singles. Never an instruction to "Swing away."

Perhaps a similar outcome in many areas, but they didn't even try for the real change, the stuff most of America wanted, expected and worked to put them in place to do.

Breaks my heart. We can do better, we need to do better.

[Deep13]

136. +1 nt

[nightrain]

148. I think there was a bunt involved...

[Bluebear]

3. Bob Herbert never really loved him!

:cry:

[ThomWV]

21. Reporters are not suppose to love those they report on - that is part of the problem.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

152. exactly.

[me b zola]

4. Recommended n/t

[grasswire]

5. I used to think that Democrats in Washington just lacked strategists

The proud history of the Democratic Party was theirs to crow about; the agenda that put people and families first was/is righteous, the war against wingnuttery should be an easy one to fight in public opinion.

But now I know in my heart of hearts that they are having things the way they want them -- weak kneed and lily livered -- and that agenda more often benefits corporations than it does workers, and cronies more than people in need.

It has been a bitter disappointment to me.

I'm a Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean Democrat. Where are the candidates who will stand with them?

[blm]

58. Unfortunately, the chief strategist for the Dem party the last 20 years has been Bill Clinton and

his devotees have been tapped for too many powerful positions.

[truedelphi]

69. Most people remain unaware of the fact that Rahm Emmanuel was

Clinton's strategist on how to put together the wording on NAFTA.

And then Obama recycled Mike Taylor, who back during the Clinton era helped Monsanto get into bed with the government for its GMO's. Obama now has Mike Taylor running the FDA.

[Enthusiast]

113. This isn't good,

this isn't at all good. NAFTA is destroying the middle class. Monsanto is endangering our lives. The FDA has become mostly a rubber stamp for corporate misdeeds.

[Dr.Phool]

159. Don't forget Dick Morris and Mark Penn.

A marriage made in hell for conservative votes.

[jobycom]

156. But Bill Clinton did what Herbert is talking about.

Bill Clinton DID give America a jobs package, and put 100K teachers in classrooms, and 100K cops on the streets, and jobs DID grow, and small business grew at unprecedented levels, and those below poverty shrank at unprecedented levels, and Clinton raised taxes on corporations and on the top 1% of wage earners to eliminate the deficit. Oh yeah, and when he realized his inherited war was unwinnable, he brought his troops home.

The only economic complaint about Clinton is that he strengthened the whole economy, including corporations, and they used that strength to deregulate themselves and to reverse Clinton's economic plans under Bush.

[blm]

166. Clinton set the stage for that reversal, too...and it's the Clintonites now embedded

in this WH who are pushing the most conservative and most hawkish actions.

And...If Clinton is so against war he hasn't convinced his wife who has sided consistently with the hawks as Senator AND as a Sec of State.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Alas, Obama, despite the sloganeering, ran as a centrist and is governing like a centrist. K&R

[Oregone]

12. That sloganeering won votes

Obama was like a Rorschach painting hanging in a hallway full of Che Guevara posters; oh, I just wonder what people would perceive with all the fancy dressings and undertones surrounding the main feature.

I went up to Portland, and was surrounded by a crowd of 60K+ people there to see Obama. Im sorry, but those people weren't there to see a "centrist". That isn't what they perceived they were there to support and vote for; they wouldn't of stood that long in the sun, in those numbers, for another centrist of a blander flavor. People simply don't get out and about for more of the same.

People fooled themselves about Obama; but he didn't make that incredibly difficult to do.

Its going to be a tad bit tougher to do it again (but never underestimate the ability of the American people to delude themselves)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Yep. Just like Dubya's populist, have a beer with me, schtick.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[Oregone]

20. Damn it

Your title made me want to quote that same verse

I Shall Be Free. :)

[JDPriestly]

101. Dubya could fool his base because, well, many of them aren't that bright

And those in Dubya's base that are intelligent are so greedy and so corrupt that they would just snicker about how he was fooling fools.

Obama needs to understand that, while Clinton fooled many of us, we aren't stupid. We learned from what happened after Clinton left that so many of Clinton's policies were awful especially NAFTA.

[Renew Deal]

141. Not stupid

But foolish

[Renew Deal]

139. What have Gore and McCain accomplished as president?

:shrug:

[Knight Hawk]

73. Yes

I agree with your post.I think that Obama actually believed he could and would deliver on his promises or certainly die trying but when the economic collapse hit just before he took office it knocked him off balance .A more seasoned,mature developed politician/leader would have had a better chance to recover.He was just not prepared in a number of areas ,including personality,to handle so many incoming misells.

[Hydra]

74. Welcome to DU

But I'm afraid you are mistaken. President Obama is no fool...but he never wanted to come in as a reformer, no matter that he suggested he might be.

If you have any doubts, watch the inauguration again. It was quite the eye opener.

[northernlights]

107. the people he surrounded himself with suggest otherwise

the economic collapse was the golden opportunity for substantial, fundamental change. In the same way the W rode 911 to destroy our foundation.

But instead of using that opportunity to leverage change, Obama and his administration used it as a shovel to dig us deeper into the hole W put us in.

[Knight Hawk]

168. Not the same

Bush was in office for 8 months before 911,it gave him time to get his sea legs in office .He also had been a governor of a big state and come from a "political family" to say the least, and had many heavy weights (I am not saying they were good people but were experienced people in the ways of the world and Washington)around him to advise him and guide him through the crises ,indeed to "use" the crises to further their agenda.They knew something about war.After all Dick Cheney was a former Sec of Defence ,his father was a pilot in WW2 and former Vp and Pres .and head of the CIa etc,etc.This was right up their alley and having the likes of Richard Pearl and his cronies to advise Bush what to do gave him some support.Obama arrived at the white house already in a deep hole and we will never know if he might have picked different advisers and cabinet ministers if all had been smooth .He was inexperienced in sailing on the high seas and you do not learn that over a weekend.He did not have the connections and the built in rapport to nearly the number of heavyweights that Bush had. He was much easier to con if someone wanted to.He took the "safe path".

[northernlights]

185. So W surrounded himself with "heavyweights" and Obama with lightweights?

Like Rahm Emmanuel? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton? Larry Summers? Bob Gates? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

whatever....

[Bluebear]

186. wow

[Enthusiast]

114. I frequently hear that

"People fooled themselves about Obama." I simply do not agree. We were fooled but we did not do it ourselves.

[rurallib]

115. During the campaign I warned many of my friends that Obama

was too conservative and lacked the will to change.
Oh no they told me, this guy will change everything.
They were not listening to what he said. No, I think many, many of them fooled themselves.

[liberation]

143. In the end it did not matter...

The 3 front runners from the Dems this past election cycle were: Obama, Clinton, and Biden. Who were basically different variations of the same DLC theme. People ended up choosing the "exotic" model.

Obama is a milquetoast nice fellow, I don't think he is as horrible as some of the posters claim he is. But then again, I am a liberal and I don't care much for the center-right agenda of the DLC so I am not thrilled either. And in the end, when it comes to politicians I only care about their policies, not their winning personalities and beautiful families as those are personal issues that have little affect in my life since I don't know the Obamas personally (and chances are I never will).


But I must say, some of the cult of personality displayed by his followers is a tad spooky to say the least.

[liberation]

138. Well, It takes two to tango, no?

:-)

[closeupready]

129. Gitmo is not centrist. Illegal wiretapping is not centrist. Sweeping war crimes under the rug is

not centrist.

[reformist2]

7. Things weren't bad enough in 2008.

I have a feeling the Dems are going to get a second bite at that apple...

[pattmarty]

59. HOPE springs eternal, I suppose.

[liberation]

140. And the more things CHANGE.... you know how that one goes

[Oregone]

8. This guy just doesn't seem "pragmatic"

[tom_paine]

22. Almost like he wanted a pony or something immature or retarded

[Oregone]

25. Oh my, these children need to grow up

Maybe another fucking retard for Universal Healthcare or Gay Rights

[Better Believe It]

28. I want a pony and chocolate cake! That's what this is all about!

Working people are faced with the biggest crisis and attack on our living standards since the Great Depression and some suggest we are acting like little children wanting a pony. I guess those folks must still be working at six figure jobs.

But they feel our pain!

[flvegan]

9. Hm. 10 minutes.

Yet there's no accusations about the OP hating Obama. No replies not addressing the OP but showing tons of pretty blue links to how Obama did this thing and that thing...that one time he helped those ducks cross the road, so forth.

[AtomicKitten]

23. You know what's really interesting?

Purposely overlooking this kind of obnoxious drivel in your tally of crap standard posts:

1. "Bob Herbert never really loved him"
2. Leave Obama Alone pic.
3. "I want a pony"

[Skittles]

76. indeed

[Better Believe It]

10. Here's some of FDR's bold actions taken within a year of becoming President.

Feel free to compare.

Roosevelt certainly didn't diddle daddle around with puny half measures designed to appease Republicans and right-wing southern Democrats.

Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act.

Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[pattmarty]

60. Yeah, but. Ya have to remember that Obama ONLY had 255 in the.....

............House and ONLY 60 in the Senate. Oh yeah, the White House too.:sarcasm:

[Yavin4]

11. When Bob Herbert Has An Answer to Navigating Around Dems Like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln,

and Mary Landrieu, all of whom have the power to block anything that Herbert wants to do, then let me know.

Mr. Herbert makes the false assumption in his editorial that all Dems think alike and vote the same way, and that it was lack of temerity, not pragmatism that is the reason for the admin's so-called tepid solutions.

Obama got all that he could possibly get out of this congress.

Maybe Mr. Herbert should spend more time chastising his own paper, and other media outlets, for poorly informing the public so that so many vote against their best interests.

[Bluebear]

13. "Obama got all that he could possibly get out of this congress." LOL

Like the public option which HE took off the table, for instance?

[Ignis]

14. Oh, shush. It's not like the Public Option was in the 2008 party platform or anything!

...Er...right? :shrug:

[Yavin4]

33. Because He Knew That Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Others Would Filibuster It

That's what I mean by getting the most that he could out of this congress.

He's not a king. He cannot rule by fiat. He cannot wave a wand and make things become law.

[Bluebear]

37. Do you ever tire of the "wave the magic wand" schtick? How impotent you make him sound

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[QC]

45. Between the magic wand and the constant demands for applause,

I sometimes wonder if some people here think that Obama is actually Tinkerbell.

[Bluebear]

51. #37: "It seems to me that you love making anti-Obama post!"

:cry:

[Cherchez la Femme]

93. I think

they really believe that.

Personally I hate criticizing our Democratic president & would much rather praise him

...if only he would give many more reasons to!
:cry: too

[sendero]

61. He may not be...

... but a drug addled moron was a better president if you use as your measure GETTING SHIT DONE.

[pocoloco]

128. And that is the main reason everyone is pissed off!

Nobody wants a wimp president!!

[xxqqqzme]

167. Nope. I'm pissed off

because I thought we might actually have a leader for once. I was not a huge Obama supporter but I am a democrat so I'm voting for the nominee. I did not like some of the rhetoric I heard from him during the campaign. I did believe he was a leader though. I am extremely disappointed the leadership he demonstrated during the campaign did not move into the oval office.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

82. you just want a pony and Prez Palin

ADMIT IT, PT

[Bluebear]

85. I want Palin On A Pony!!!

:silly:

[Cherchez la Femme]

90. Our pony, but

HER saddle!

Sorry, I couldn't resist :>

[Skittles]

91. I'm thinking of another picture entirely

:o

[rpannier]

95. A flying pony that will take her to the stars

and Never come back

[ChairmanAgnostic]

154. there's an adult store that has that on DVD.

At least they swear it's her.

[Bluebear]

172. That visual i don't need lol

[ChairmanAgnostic]

179. So sorry, and so close to dinner

[Better Believe It]

43. What filibusters? The fake pretend procedural filibusters that can easily be stopped?

[liberation]

146. Yup those ones...

... apparently, having the GOP put their mouths where their money is (pun intended) by forcing them to filibuster legislation destined to help the majority of Americans, and thus forcing them to display their true colors for all to see and provide the Dems with enough ammunition and fodder to bury the GOP for a generation at least. Well, apparently that is an awful thing.

[pattmarty]

64. Uhm, re-read post #10, AGAIN.

[Bluebear]

79. +

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Oh yeah, right, he strong-armed the Progressive Caucus

but he couldn't strong-arm the DLCers. RIIIIGHT.

My take on it is that he's a DLCer at heart and always has been.

[FedUp_Queer]

99. BINGO!!!!

You took the words right out of my mouth. I'm sick and GD tired of hearing the "he got what he could" BS. The point is HE DIDN'T EVEN TRY!!!! Hell, Bush got everything he wanted out of a Democratic Congress and a fake election. Reagan too (yes, he won the Senate, but the House was still solidly Democratic). Maybe there's a pattern here: Republicans run and elect true believers and push their agenda; Democrats are convinced they have to run and elect mealy-mouthed "moderates" (whatEVER the fuck THAT means) and push "moderation" from the get-go. Conservatives/Republicans seem to have balls; Democrats/liberals don't. And one more thing: what the hell more could he have wanted when it comes to a Congress? Find ANYWHERE he used the bully pulpit like Raygun did.

[JDPriestly]

102. Obama would not know how to get juice out of a ripe tomato.

He just doesn't know how to pressure the likes of Ben Nelson or Lincoln or Landrieu.

[Le Taz Hot]

134. He knows how just fine.

It's just not what his corporate masters ordered him to do. He's doing EXACTLY the job he was hired, er, elected to do.

[jaysunb]

16. Amen

Well stated ! :thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

24. +1

[Oregone]

26. +1 to the +1

Leave Obama alone already

[AtomicKitten]

29. LOL! Your post contains the maximum amount of obnoxious drivel allowed in one post. nt

[Oregone]

30. And that, my friend, takes real skill

[T Wolf]

111. I will leave him and his fellow Faux-Dems alone - come November. Fool me once... nt

[Better Believe It]

18. All one needs is 50 votes plus Vice-President Biden casting the tie breaker.

And the bogus Republican "procedural" filibusters can be easily stopped by the Democratic majority in the Senate.

How that can be accomplished has been fully explained and documented many, many times on Democratic Underground.

The Democrats control the Senate and make the rules.

So Let's not have any more lame excuses to justify inaction and paralysis by either the White House or Democratic majority in the Senate.

Enough of that nonsense!

[Yavin4]

31. You're Incorrect

You need 2/3 majority of the senate to change the rule regarding filibusters. Not 50+1.

[USArmyParatrooper]

35. WRONG. Changing the rules requires a 2/3 majority

[Yavin4]

39. The Amount of Mis-Informed People Here on DU

is truly amazing.

[yowzayowzayowza]

42. Truly.

:argh:

[Better Believe It]

46. Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can rule that 51 Senate votes can end filibusters

If Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option".

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above options whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing these options. By BBI.


---------------------------------------------

During the filibuster, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as President of the Senate, ruled that the debate over a rule change could be ended with a simple majority. Mansfield opposed Rockefeller's ruling and introduced a motion that was quickly tabled, 51-42, thus endorsing the majoritarian decision of Rockefeller. Conservatives were outraged and Mansfield, Byrd, and Minority Leader Robert Griffin attempted to overturn the precedent. Ultimately a proposal by Sen. Russell Long to change the cloture limit to 3/5 for two years and then revert back to the original 2/3 limit led to a compromise between the two factions to overcome Rockefeller's ruling.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

[Better Believe It]

48. And ..... Senator Reid forced Republicans to engage in a traditional filibuster in 2007!

There were only 51 Democrats plus two independents in the Senate that year.

--------------------------------------

Reid forces traditional filibuster

During the summer of 2007, Senate Republicans were successfully filibustering the Levin-Reed amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Department authorization bill that would set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a statement saying:

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.” But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces. I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down. If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

-------------------------------------------

After Republicans filibustered for 24 hours, Senator Reid, as one would expect, caved into the Republicans. -By BBI

Democrats Won't Force War Vote
Effort Halted After GOP Blocks Proposal
By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 19, 2007

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

The vote followed 24 hours of Iraq speeches on the Senate floor, stretching from 11 a.m. Tuesday until yesterday's 11 a.m. vote. Cots that had been brought in for the overnight session were wheeled back out to a congressional storage facility, after being used by just six senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071800482.html?hpid=artslot

[vi5]

27. One answer would be....

Don't have Obama campaign for them.

Another answer would be to have Obama actively support more liberal primary opponents, but I realize that's crazy talk.

But him not actively campaigning for them is one possible solution. He's not really doing anything himself to "inform the public so that so many vote against their best interests" when he's out there campaigning to see that they get re-elected.

[Yavin4]

32. So What. They Don't Care About Obama

Mary Landrieu could care less if Obama campaigned for her or not. Obama lost Louisiana. She owes him nothing.

[vi5]

41. Who said anything about Landrieu.....

He campaigned for Lincoln. He actively used the power of his name to campaign for her to win the primary, which presumably means he wants her to win the general election. The same woman who voted against what he supposedly wanted on several key issues.

So yeah.......that's fine. It's his choice to do so. But then please, PLEASE nobody tell me that there's NOTHING he can do about Congress because of the conservadems. He can support more liberal primary opponents. He chooses not to. Again, that is fine. It's his choice and he owes me or liberals or leftists or whatever nothing. I understand that. If that's someone one here or elsewhere's position then I'm fine with that. I agree. But the notion that there's just nothing he can do about the conservadems is utter horseshit.

[sabrina 1]

44. So, none of these people were in the Senate when

Candidate Obama declared how he would be able to do what other candidates could not? He was lying in the campaign according to you?

You need to discard that excuse as all you are doing is harming the president. The truth is, and many people are coming to that conclusion, that Obama is on the side of Privatization, of Health Care, of Public Schools, of Social Security. And that as he said himself, in the HIR Bill, he got 95% of what he wanted.

If the WH wants votes from their party, they CAN get them. He didn't need Lincoln, Nelson or Landrieu to change their minds about anything, they helped with the excuse that they couldn't 'get the votes' for a PO.

The truth is if they wanted a PO, they would have gotten the votes. They never intended to, and that's the sad reality. There was no fight FOR a PO, arms were twisted to DROP it, see Dorgan, Kucinich et al, whose amendments were killed by the WH and their votes extracted after it was clear that there was not going to be any fight.

Stop fooling yourself, no one else believes the fairy tale anymore. Besides, any President who cannot get his own party to support him, is weak. I do not believe that is the case with this President. He just has a different agenda which he manages to get the votes for, but it's not the agenda we thought he had.

[pattmarty]

62. Uh, see post #10. Then get back to us.

[RainDog]

68. since they're all as dirty as pigs in shit, it should've been easy to "convince them"

to take one for the team.

Obama may have campaigned as a centrist, but the problems he encountered when he took office required someone who could look past his own prejudices and desires to have the kids at the republican lunch table like him.

they required big changes - and he had SO MUCH of the country behind him. Instead, he wasted his political capital on anti-choicers in admin positions, Goldman Sachs give aways at tax payer expense, and homosexual bigots on the inaugural stand.

Obama played to the wrong crowd.

Krugman should've been in there, not Summers. He should've done a wholesale dismissal of Bush's religious right appointees, not added his own, and focused on job creation via new infrastructure and green energy projects to put people who were in the manufacturing sector to work rebuilding this nation.

Democrats have talked about this over the last two campaigns - and if Ohio hadn't had Blackwell manipulating the vote, Kerry very well could have won on that very same platform. (and some think he did.)

So, when I hear people talking about how the blue dogs must be appeased, I think about how they held back civil rights for decades until FINALLY a democrat had the guts to tell them the democrats were going to do the right thing whether the dixiecrats liked it or not.

Our nation has been better off for this action - this action, in fact, made Obama's presidency possible.

A little recognition of that reality of American life would be nice.

The fact is that dixiecrats will keep this nation as backward and stupid as the majority of people who populate the south until a STATESMAN or WOMAN drags them kicking and screaming into the modern world - and ten years later they will pretend it was their idea anyway.

[Enthusiast]

116. Thanks for the excellent post, RainDog.

Great points you make and all true.

[MissDeeds]

122. +1

Well said, RainDog.

[asdjrocky]

188. Spot on. nt

[JamesA1102]

78. Well said nt

[JHB]

110. Why is(and was) the Republican lockstep block assumed to be unbreakable?

Show me where there was a concerted effort to put the heat on the Republicans for their Soviet-grade obediance to the Party line, for their constant politically-driven obstruction, and I'll take that "all that he could possibly get out of this congress" a little more seriously.

[ChiciB1]

119. Obama GOT ALL HE COULD POSSIBLY GET.... As A VERY Long Time

Democrat who has ALWAYS worked for and supported Democratic Presidential candidates, and voted Democratic too, I AM sorely disappointed with this administration! I DON'T BELIEVE FOR one MOMENT that Obama GOT ALL he could possibly get! I don't know if it's inexperience or WHAT, but just the very latest FOPAH about firing a perfectly GOOD person tells me MORE than I want to know!!!

While I realize that ALL administrations pay attention to polls, comments, questionable practices, appointments... THIS WH seems to simply let FOX and adversaries continually CONTROL any agenda they MIGHT have had!!

Blame "we the people" all you want, but THE BULLY PULPIT is STILL a POWERFUL position that seems to get eroded more and more as time goes by! And PULLLLEEEEZE spare me all the "would ya rather" stuff, because I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE I BELONG ANYMORE!!

As one who has been flummoxed by what this administration AND our very own Democratic Party is doing, I simply want to hide under my bed so many times because of continual BAD NEWS!! And yes, TOO MANY American people can point fingers at themselves, but can ANYONE deny just how hard and long some of us worked for THIS President and so many Democratic candidates and we seem to be left holding the bag!!

I'm really at my wits end and wonder if I have ANYTHING to contribute to help, therefore I find myself blogging less and less just to AVOID the STRESS!!!
:shrug: :nuke: :grr: :cry:

[SammyWinstonJack]

135. +1000!

[AngryOldDem]

15. Sadly, I don't think "large-scale nation building" is possible in this climate.

Unless, of course, it's some other nation we're building. :sarcasm:

Yes, I know Obama inherited a shit storm of problems. And we're told all the time that things take time to change, and that change is slow, etc., etc., etc. But too many people are beginning to see through these platitudes, and wonder if "hope and change" was polispeak for "more of the same." I think if we saw just glimmers of hope on all fronts, from the wars to the economy, patience wouldn't be running so thin. Instead, people -- from teachers to those with crappy health care to those who need their unemployment to survive -- are essentially being told the same thing: "Take a number -- we'll get to you eventually." Not good enough for an administration half way through its first term.

That said, there is just as much blame to be placed on the other side of the aisle as well, beginning with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. They are deadset in their efforts to block Obama at every turn, the public be damned. That's also why I say I see little hope of any kind of consensus to solve the problems that face us.

But as of now, we have a Democratic president and Democratic House and Senate. We **have** a majority. We need to start **acting** like we are a majority, before it's too late, if it isn't already.

I'm glad Herbert spoke up.

[Subdivisions]

17. '...over-reliance on fossil fuels...'

Ah, and the truth of all that is wrong with our economy lies there right out in the open yet so obscure to so many people.

Oil is current $77.44 per barrel. THAT is what's killing the economy and popping all the bubbles.

What we are seeing are the long-predicted effects of GLOBAL peak oil production and the past 6 years of decling oil production.

[Yavin4]

34. Good Luck With Re-Urban Planning America So that We're Not Dependent on Cars

to buy a roll of toilet paper.

[Subdivisions]

40. I have no allusions. I fully expect us to fly right off the cliff into the Olduvai Gorge. n/t

[Selatius]

63. We either re-structure, or we're going to collapse economically.

Given the hurdles, it seems likely the US is on the path to economic collapse or at least consigning itself to little more than a regional power.

[RainDog]

72. yeah, good luck expecting the democrats to do anything that requires a spine

because it might make a republican say something mean.

[breadandwine]

155. A little warning about the angry Democratic base.

If the base gets angry loud and quick enough, WELL BEFORE THE FAll ELECTION, it could push the party into having enough spine to win this thing.

But at the rate we are going, the base will not rise up fast enough to force the party to start fighting by election day.

And they certainly won't be able to push the party to reinstate Howard Dean, for instance, by election day.

So it could well be that all this anger within the party will only have the effect of getting the angry Democratic base to stay home on election day.

Therefore it might be better for us all to cool it.

I fear that the party is so afraid of showing a spine that the anger could end up being counterproductive.

Because the leadership of the party is simply not going to show a spine no matter how much we holler at them to do so. They do not know what a spine is. Never heard of it.

If the party leadership is really as comatose as they appear, attacking them could simply cause Democrats to stay home. The problem is the party leadership actually doesn't even know what we're talking about. And there is no sign that they will figure it out by election day. So getting mad at the party could do more harm than good, as frustrating as the whole situation is right now.

[RainDog]

160. I'm putting my energy into things that have some possibility of reward

like information about prop 19 in CA - something the democrats in the state have chosen not to endorse, even tho the rational response to 73 years of lies and prohibition would be an endorsement to end the madness - an endorsement that would demonstrate that the democrats had a spine - and an endorsement that would reflect the will of the majority of liberals.

if someone wants to vote for a particular candidate or not - that's each person's choice. there are reasons to vote that go beyond democratic candidates.

you make the assumption that I am not already one of those who has been discouraged from voting for a candidate - and that this truth should not be spoken because of the fear of a contagion of disaffected liberals.

this, again, blames the voter for the failure of the party.

sorry, but I am not here to enable bad choices by democrats. they are public servants. when they do the will of the people, I support them. when they do not, they discourage voters.

why should I ever vote for a democrat who does not believe in a woman's right to privacy in her own medical decisions? why should I vote for a democrat who sides with religious bigots who compare women in the priesthood to pedophiles? why should the democratic party EVER field such a candidate when such a candidate does not reflect the party platform or the will of those who vote for democrats, as well as the will of the majority of the population?

Nelson, for instance. If I lived in his state, I would never vote for that asshole. The principle at work here is that Nelson has harmed women - he has insisted on legislation that treats women as second-class citizens in regard to health care and their status as adults, for that matter. He doesn't deserve the vote of one single person who views such actions as reprehensible.

please do not try to put the blame on the democrats' failure to attempt to enact their own platform onto voters whose only voices in the matter are their choices at the ballot box.

Obama's recent choice to make health care decisions more difficult for women with high-risk illnesses in regard to health care - his VOLUNTARY choice to restrict women's rights - is repulsive to me. Of course, it's not just this one issue. It is a pattern on his part that makes me wonder if I make myself hold my nose and tamp down my gag reflex to vote for a misogynist who sides with religious idiots over the health of mothers and other women.

If you can't understand this - well, that's why Obama's support has fallen - and will continue to fall if he continues to be a toady for the religious right.

[Better Believe It]

162. They understand us perfectly. They have spine. They stand up to liberals/progressives.

They aren't stupid.

They support their Wall Street and corporate base.
"
Meanwhile, those who oppose Wall Street and corporate dominance of politics should "cool it"!

I disagree.

[ChiciB1]

175. I Understand Your Thinking, HOWEVER, Given That THEY Are Leaving

us "we the people" to show SPINE, I keep wondering if there isn't some OTHER way to make THEM work harder for us????

This is my MAIN problem as I don't WANT to support Repukes, but don't feel falling in line with the reality of the comments previously made by RAHM, such as "don't worry about the base!" To KEEP voting without demanding more is simply proving HIS point. So we just "do it" because we can't fathom the alternative and the message they receive is 'we will support' simply because!

There MUST be some other way and yet thousands of us here don't know what to do! Frustration is all we seem to be getting and to reward our frustration we will NEED to keep voting for SPINELESS Democrats!

And what about 2012? Who is on the horizon other than Obama? I would LOVE someone like Grayson even knowing full well that him being a candidate isn't going to be a REALITY! He speaks my language and I could name several others, but it's slim pickins!

So they have our backs against the wall and continue to game the system in their favor! It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, therefore I can't speak highly or with real conviction about supporting the Democratic Party as I see it now! I find myself NOT speaking out with pride as I once did, actually I find myself not speaking much at all! I don't know HOW to defend them, and feel for my own self integrity that compromising is nothing better than doing what Repukes do. Follow the party line no matter how wrong headed it seems! That's just not in my DNA and I find no real pleasure in having to make less than complementary statements about issues that have either gotten so watered down or in some cases COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN!

We sit on our asses at our own peril, but unfortunately we pray that somehow this once great country called America will rise up for "we the people" once again! Granted there have ALWAYS been problems that can't be achieved easily, but I remember a time when we saw AND felt that those of our kind ACTUALLY wanted to work for US and not so much for BIG BUSINESS!

Bottom line, campaign reform is the ONLY way we're going to get back to basics! It's been ALL ABOUT THE MONEY for waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long! And who is there who will stand up and bite the hand that FEEDS THEM??? I don't think we are seeing THEM right now for sure and it really SUCKS!!!

[Enthusiast]

118. How else will we get to WallMart? nt

[liberation]

147. You know there are automotive alternatives to the petrol fueled combustion engine, right?

Cars don't have to disappear, petrol engines do. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

[Mimosa]

36. K&R n/t

[tilsammans]

47. Bob Herbert for President!

Hear, hear! :applause:

[IndianaGreen]

49. Reads like an epitaph

:-(

[Karmadillo]

52. Mission Accomplished!!!

nt

[Bluebear]

54. #37 above: "It seems to me that you love making anti-Obama post!"

:silly:

[WinkyDink]

53. AND the Health-care initiative is looking like it will cost the middle-class more money.

[nightrain]

150. yep. as many of us have been saying for a year or more...

[Ramulux]

55. This guy is 100% right

The biggest thing Obama has going against him is simply the scale of the problems we are experiencing in this country. In order to fix these massive problems we need to have massive solutions and Obama seems content to offer up these little reforms which are not going to fix anything. Health care and financial reform did not address the actual problems that exist within those industries.

He spent a year of his first term fighting for a health care bill which does nothing but give out free money to uninsured people. Thats not a bad thing, but it in no way addresses the glaringly obvious problems that exist within our for-profit insurance industry.

Now we have a financial reform bill which simply does not address the issues which caused the economic collapse. Again there are some good things, its just nowhere near good enough.

So while these bills may have been decent they are not going to do anything to fix our system. Now if you add in all of Obamas huge failures like the war in Afghanistan and this debt commision of his, its a wonder why anyone fully supports the guy.

[bvar22]

56. I disagree with Bob Herbert on only one point.

Herbert says "its not too late for the president to turn things around."

It IS too late.
President Obama and the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership has squandered a HUGE popular MANDATE for "CHANGE" by spending 18 months pandering to Republicans.
They will NEVER regain the wave of Passion and Support they had immediately after the election.
Obama NEVER used his Popular MANDATE.
Had he called us to come STAND WITH HIM on the Capitol Step during Tea Bagger Summer,
MILLIONS would have showed up in support.
We could have had a decent Public Option and much stronger "reform".
Instead, the battle field was conceded without a fight.

It IS too late.
A MANDATE unused is a Mandate Lost.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[tilsammans]

71. Well said

This has been my fear all along. By insisting on bipartisanship that doesn't exist, and ultimately kowtowing to Republicans, Obama has squandered valuable political capital.

:rant:

I'm pessimistic about his ever getting it back.

[asdjrocky]

189. So sad, and so true. nt

[Overseas]

57. He certainly describes what I was hoping for

and why it would have been great to do right off the bat.

Could've even been bipartisan on it by saying-- We're being bipartisan with the traditions of the Republican party-- fiscal responsibility-- need to help local economies and people survive, and stronger on defense-- we will uproot the war profiteering of the Bush years that built a lot of waste into our system. We can't be bipartisan with the Modern Republican Party because they've abandoned their most important traditions and driven our country off some economic and ethical cliffs.

Sigh...

Now we have to hope that our president will go more FDR in his second term.

[pattmarty]

65. IF he gets a second term. If the jobs picture is like it is today..........

......there is no fucking way he will be re-elected. AND, do you really want a repeat of this? After November it will only go downhill.

[USA_1]

70. Presidential Executive Order 6102

President Roosevelt signed that EO and took gold from the wealthy elites in order to strengthen the dollar and the economy. He had the emergency power to do so under the
Constitution even though the right wing cried that he didn't.

Similarly, President Obama had (and still has) the authority to create an EO that would confiscate the $12 to $20 trillion sheltered overseas by the wealthy elites. This money could be used to dissolve the Republican created deficit, reduce or eliminate the income tax, and put every one back to work. All this without raising taxes by one cent. Unfortunately, Obama lacked the guts and the initiative to do so. Instead, he borrowed more money and put us into further debt. The result has been limited success.

On top of all that, he took far too long to get the medical reform that was pledged during the campaign off the ground. This stupid delay allowed the Republican opposition to get organized and to water it down. Unlike Bush and other Republicans who just go ahead without Democrat approval with their agenda, Democrats too often play the game of wipe ass and wait for the Republicans to criticize and to destroy their agenda. And they do so on purpose because they are not looking for genuine, lasting, reform.

There is still time. If Obama ever develops some fucking balls, he can create an EO and take back the money that has been stolen from the public. But you know he won't do it. Nor will any Democrats do it. They are just too lacking in principle, in initiative, and most especially, in guts.

[Skittles]

75. wasted, failed to act, didn't even try....

gawd it is getting so fucking old

[Jakes Progress]

84. So you agree that the wasted chance, the failure to

actually do something, and not even trying is getting old.

Good. More are coming to that obvious conclusion every day. I spent hundreds of hours campaigning and canvassing for Obama. I, too, had the hope. I lost it pretty quickly, but held onto some dreams. His attack on public schools and expanding war were my last straws. Others held on for longer. What was your last straw?

[Skittles]

92. aw hell, I pegged him during the primaries

anyone who really listened to him knew the score

[Jakes Progress]

181. You must be so awesome.

[Bluebear]

192. She is!

[begin_within]

80. Too many Dems in Washington are too deeply tied to corporate campaign money.

I think that's the reason they have got almost nothing truly progressive done.

[Jim Sagle]

81. He didn't waste it, he murdered it. That was his job and he did it well.

[kenny blankenship]

83. Sums up my feelings.

How can people be so utterly clueless? For 30 years this country has needed to make an exit from the Reagan Era. An opportunity to make a change like this (like we desperately need to do) comes around in the life of this republic approx. once every 70 years. Turning points are "once in a lifetime opportunities". We just passed one when our financial/economic system cratered under weight of its own fraudulence and we COMPLETELY BLEW IT. Or rather, we completely blew the corporate crooks who ran the country into the ditch. It's not just Obama, of course, it's practically the whole party that blows corporate goats, w/ a few bright exceptions.

[McCamy Taylor]

86. I think Axelrod wants the GOP to retake Congress so Obama will have a better

chance in 2012. He can run on the "It's mostly the Republicans fault" platform.

I have seldom seen such a bunch of spinelss, scaredy cat losers than the present administration. Their fear of being one term is almost palpable. Reminds me of the last one termer, Papa Bush, who was so scared of not being re-elected that he made sure he was not re-elected. Forget change. The new mantra is safe .

[Jakes Progress]

87. “For all sad words of tongue and pen,

The saddest are these, 'It might have been'." -----John Greenleaf Whittier

Herbert hits a sore spot here. It is the wasted chance, the frittered away opportunity, the once-a-lifetime opening tossed aside that is the most heart-breaking.

The other applicable quote is bvar22's sig.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[ProSense]

88. Yet a week later Herbert wrote this:

"A Jobs Program That Works," and no one paid any attention.

[RetroLounge]

183. Nice try DLC hack

Now go back to your GD : P ObamaDungeon.

_!_

RL

[asdjrocky]

190. Wow, another stupid link that has nothing to do with the story.

What a surprise.

You do know how obvious you appear, don't you?

[Cherchez la Femme]

89. Corporations are people too!

& their votes are just as important as any lousy citizen's, who well could be unemployed, freeloading slackers!

Besides, what's more important: bipartisanship with those lovely Republicans who work so well with us and keep us honest or satisfy, even in part, those who donated their time and money to get these Dems elected?

I know, obvious question!



--do I really need to put on a :sarcasm: tag or is it akin to Poe's Law?

(if not coined yet, call it Cherchez's Law)


edit for clarity

[VPStoltz]

94. The Dems did this? NO! Ain't it typical though.

When WILL these people get it together?

[laughingliberal]

96. K & R nt

[Steely_Dan]

97. I as well as others...

have been saying this for months now. And I might add, we received some of the most vicious comments from those who saw themselves as cheerleaders for the Obama Administration. As far as I'm concerned, the Obama Administration is playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win."

-P

[grillo7]

98. Sadly True...

Even though I've tried to comfort myself with "Obama's done a lot" type sentiments, this article nails the heart of the problem with Obama's leadership. There was such a tremendous opportunity in which we could have really accomplished great things, and I still don't understand why the administration wasted the opportunity to actively engage the public in a New Deal sort of way. Instead, everything felt anemic and half-assed. Some huge sums of money were thrown around, which was beneficial no doubt, but much of it was kind of nebulous in where it went. And what became of the green economy? High speed rail? Etc., Etc. I know some work is being done on these fronts, but they're essentially invisible in the public eye. There should have been a massive push to mobilize these things in an invigorating and highly publicized way that would create jobs AND keep the energy going we had from the beginning.

[JDPriestly]

100. Obama needs to hire a completely new team.

No one would dare to criticize him if he does it before the November election. People would applaud him if he simply announced now that he is changing his course and appointing a new team for success for the nation.

[leftstreet]

103. K&R

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[McCamy Taylor]

105. Excellent. And he is right. It is not too late. Obama could get on TV tomorrow

and say "Congress is stuck in gridlock so I am going to use my executive powers to battle this war against recession and unemployment" the same way that FDR did back in his innaugural address in 1933.

This is so easy. Obama's political advisers must be on the payroll of corporations or hoping for corporate jobs when they leave the WH. That is the only explanation I can come up with for their mishandling of what should have been a political cakewalk for their man and the Dems.

Thank god the GOP is absolutely clueless. This is pretty much our only hope right now.

[FlyByNight]

106. The fundamental power structures remain intact...

...as with the convoluted healthcare reform law and now with finreg. Seems to be the DLC and Obama way.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[JHB]

109. Will Bob Herbert now be joining the "under the bus" brigade?

Awfully un-"pragmatic" and un-"serious" of him.

[democrank]

112. Herbert is right.

[bigwillq]

117. K and R

I agree with the article. It started when the DEM Congress took over in 2007, though. DEMS wasted the majority from the start.

[DeSwiss]

120. One word: YES.

K&R

[zipplewrath]

121. In Obama's defense

I actually agree with alot of this. The only thing I'll point out, in sort of a "backhanded" defense of the White House. They really didn't plan on HCR taking nearly that long. They really thought it would be done by the fall of '09. I suspect their original calendar had jobs programs in the spring and summer of this year leading up to the election. By the time the dust had settled, they couldn't find anything to pursue because the stimulus had sucked all the oxygen out of any government expenditures to actually do anything. And I suspect if you could find one honest staffer in the WH, they'd admit they thought their stimulus would have had a bigger effect by now.

There have been failures here, and it may have as much to do with scheduling as anything. But beyond that, and back to Herbert's original point, is one of the biggest "failures" has been a lack of audacity. HCR turned out to be little noticed, after the fact, by many Americans. If anything there's been some "anticipointement" because the vast majority of folks saw little or no change in the subsequent months, other than the typical annual increases in their premiums. One can argue the long term benefits, but in the short term mostly the administration is stuck with "see, it wasn't as bad as they said". The stimulus has probably kept us from hitting 15-20% unemployement, but again, the result is "it wasn't as bad as it could have been". TARP and the bank bailouts is in a similar vein, with the added bonus of having to say "yeah, they got bonuses, but the economy didn't tank". And the vast majority of folks have no idea if the recent bank bill did anything at all, good or bad.

A bigger stimulus, or one more focused on jobs could have been a bigger winner. More road projects, more school building, and more "smart grid" work such that people would have SEEN it right on their house, or neighborhood would have been far more effective. But Obama is all about the long view, the VERY long view. Probably a common issue for a guy that is thinking in terms of 8 and out.

[MissDeeds]

123. Herbert nails it

K&R

[Myrina]

124. Sherrod Brown was on with Ed Schultz yesterday ...

.... and Ed suggested an 'FDR like' jobs program. Why doesn't the WH and the rest of the Admin see that there is so much crumbling infrastructure in this country, that folks who are presently unemployed would JUMP at the chance to have a job repairing roads, painting schools, taking care of parks, planting trees ... shit, pay someone to dig a hole then pay someone else to fill it!

That income will stay local - keeping local businesses' doors open, filling tax coffers, etc etc ...

Just give people something to do and some kind of wage that they can feed their family with, and this country will regenerate itself from the ground up!

One doesn't need to be a Nobel Economist to understand that, Mr. President!!!

[CrispyQ]

125. Squandered is the perfect descriptive for this administration. --nt

[Mr. Mustard]

126. Here is a silly idea

how about doing it now?

Massage call to action around a jobs bill that re-builds the infratstructure and puts people to work/

Man, the rethugs are giving us opportunity after opportunity and team Obama needs to go for their throats.

They are running on Bush? Apologizing to B.P.? Blocking unemployment benies? Calling unemployed lazy. Editing videos from 25 years ago.

Um, now would be a good time with the mid-terms coming up and stuff like that.

I like and support POTUS, I do like him a lot.

But if there ever was a time to go on the offensive, this is it.

Stop apologizing for being liberal. Stop being afraid of the wingnut media.

Give us something big to rally around, we are all poised and ready.

Let's roll!

[Mr. Mustard]

127. Sorry for the typos. I am in a hurry.

[Radical Activist]

133. Thta's exactly what Obama is doing.

He has barely given a major speech where he didn't urge passage of a energy bill that would create jobs and rebuild our infrastructure. But instead of coming to his support to make it happen, many are ignoring his efforts and stay in constant attack mode. It's so unproductive.

[Dinger]

130. K & R

Excellent article.

[Radical Activist]

131. How does someone so ignorant get published in the NYT?

On second thought, it happens all the time, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Can someone explain why the relevant facts were left out of the article?
Obama has taken significant action toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels even before the BP gusher by improving mileage standards, investing in high speed rail, getting old gas guzzlers off the road with cash-for-clunkers, investing in electric car research and infrastructure, and promoting more transportation alternatives through DOT. Those are very significant actions.

He called for more direct job spending than Congress approved. Why lay the blame on Obama the dictator who apparently rules by decree? Isn't Congress at fault here?

He proposed another jobs program that Congress rejected. Why not blame the short-sighted Congress instead of attacking Obama for not supporting something that he ALREADY SUPPORTS?

Why not mention the job creation measures in the energy and jobs bill currently stalled in the Senate? The House already passed it and Obama has repeatedly, publicly pressured the Senate to act.

Obama already is rallying the public to do these things. If Herbert wants them to happen then maybe he should rally the public in support of Obama's efforts instead of spreading a false reality.

It's no wonder the public is unaware of what Obama is doing when columnists like this appear so completely ignorant of what's going on.

[SammyWinstonJack]

132. K&R!

[Deep13]

137. Yes we can, but didn't.

:(

[Uncle Joe]

142. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[Turbineguy]

144. Maybe

The repubs would still have fought tooth and nail against lowering the number of unemployed.

[davidwparker]

145. K&R

[DimplesinMI]

149. In my eyes....the Obama Administration is Finished...Time for a primary challenger

The treatment of Shirley Sherrod will hunt this administration with the African-American vote...and I can speak to this because I am African-American. Never again will I walk city blocks, volunteer my time, encourage other voters, spend my hours sending out mailers....for this man. He is confused and uncomfortable with his own race, which is obvious at this point.

Barack Obama is considered an African-American, period. Yes, his Mother, Material Grandparents and he has a White bloodline, within him. Still, when most of the public look at Obama, they do not see this.....they see a "Black" man. Obama is afraid to confront what the public sees, his race. Instead, he hides behind it, buries it and acts as if it does not exist....in a misguided fantasy if he does not deal with the issue of race, he alone, can make it all go away.

How stupid and just plain dumb thinking! Now, they terminated a woman Shirley Sherrod, who is African-American and do not have any issue with her race (highlighted by a great speech, that got her fired...dealing with "Race in America"), while WORKING, DRIVING, DOING HER JOB. What if something happened to this woman. Upset, knowing a rush to judgement just has taken place on his forced resignation. What if she did not have the courage to tell her story to the media and was so upset by the entire situation, she could not have properly drove back home.

It is time for a true Primary Challenger for this President in 2012!

[rschop]

151. RE; they wasted a once the once-in-a-life time opportunity

Obama wasted the once-in-a-life time opportunity because he and his administration “do not know how to create jobs”.

So they embarked into several controversial areas to deflect attention from this now obvious fact, and hoped no one would notice how incompetent they really were in failing to create jobs for Americans.

They are basically way too incompetent to see the big picture and figure out how to make policies that will bring jobs back to America. In 1990 and even 2000 we had a much higher percentage of manufacturing jobs in America but many of these jobs have gone over seas as corporations move more and more production and manufacturing off shore, and in particular to China and these jobs will never come back to America unless we wake up and understand what has happened.

In one of the nationwide newspapers a 23 year student in China stated: The Americans are stupid they export all of their factories to China and then they wonder why they have no jobs and why their economy is in the dumps.

HELLO. It is clear that a 23 year old student in China is immensely smarter that all of the dumbass economists that are in exalted positions around Obama. No wonder we have been completely screwed and unemployment will remain high forever!

Instead of free trade we need fair trade, with bilateral trade agreements. If you sell us you’re your goods, then you must buy our goods and the trade between us must be equal, or we will all go into a depression or a world war.

HELLO, how God Damn dumb can you get?

With such a fair trade policy we would have balanced trade and the 5-10 million jobs that have been shipped overseas would come back for the benefit of Americans workers who would either be making things to balance our trade or who would be making products for Americans. These jobs in turn would directly create another 5-10 million support jobs, and we would out of this Obama mess we are in. Will this happen? Not in our life time.

Of course these trade policies would make it difficult for the big multinational companies to move all of the jobs in America overseas. And the down fall would be that very rich people at the top of these companies would not be quite so rich.

[rschop]

153. K&R

[rschop]

187. Another K&R

[JustAnotherGen]

157. He made

some valid points.

However, I’m just about sick and tired of reading/hearing: “President Obama Needs to Create Jobs”.

I disagree. I believe the banks need to start loaning money to businesses (since they haven’t to date – just invested in treasury), who can then hire people, who will get paid, then spend money, and create more jobs for more people.

The banks, The Private Sector and Corporations are being selfish s.o.b.s. They are doing just fine. But the individual and the small business owners? Are being told to go hang by them – and the Democratic Party is allowing it to happen.

President Obama on the other hand needs to work with Congress to begin a major infrastructure overhaul. This will ‘help’ create jobs but it can’t be the end all and the be all. At the end of the day, while I feel terrible for the people of Aghanistan, we do need to pull out and put 100% of our ‘Federal’ efforts into rebuilding an American infrastructure that is in disrepair.

[NJmaverick]

158. Bob Hebert I will send you an engraved invitation to the real world

You may not like it though as it's harsh and all your dreams don't come true. In the real world, the Dems and the President have an impressive list of accomplishments of historic proportion.

[Mr. Ected]

161. Obama was simply more compelling than McCain

He was an effervescent tour de force. He came out of nowhere and won our fancy.

Alas, he inherited a mess and has governed defensively, rather than seizing the moment and realigning our direction as a nation. Perhaps he realized that Americans are not willing to sacrifice in order to achieve our goals, particularly when half the nation would call him out for it. Fox would ride his ass every day for it. He was certainly presidential, but in action, he's been marginalized.

[Better Believe It]

163. A dead fish is more compelling than John McCain!

[RainDog]

165. Fox News will ride his ass every day no matter what he does

Racists will continue their racist screeds no matter what he does.

This is something the "realists" do not seem to be able to comprehend. The reality is that the American people are at war with one another. Which America do you want? The one that slides into a corporate fascist state with two classes - the ownership class and everyone else - if not, the Obama administration should not make choices that reinforce this slide. Too Big To Fail is wrong - and the recent bill really did not address this problem adequately.

The reality is that there is no compromise over choice. You either accept that women are adult citizens with the right to make choices in consultation with their doctors or you side with a group that calls the ordination of women the equivalent of pedophilia.

Which side are you on?

Which side are you on?

The issue is that America's infrastructure is crumbling while Americans go jobless after decades of outsourcing - a Clinton-era legacy that should be corrected, in itself - but, to compensate and to create the groundwork for a rejuvenated middle-class, our nation should look at WPA sorts of programs like the ones that created the TVA and supplied electricity to poverty-grounded areas of the south.

Rather than privatize education, the democrats should look at the issues of poverty and lack of a social safety net for those children who struggle in school - rather than reward Bush-league educational programs.

I am so fucking tired of hearing that democrats cannot get anything done. Yes, they can. But they choose, instead, to coddle corporate CEOs and punish the middle class.

This is a sure route to defeat.

[leveymg]

164. Can we have our $3 trillion back, and start over again, please?

As if they allowed do-overs in this game. Maybe, we'll get another chance in 2040.

[RBInMaine]

169. He doesn't understand political reality, and this is over the top. Ever hear of the stimulus?

Obama said it would take YEARS to get out of an 8 million job loss. The stimulus, which was as much as he could get with RePUKE obstruction and also some conservative Dems in this DIVERSE party, has saved or created 2 to 3 million jobs and has given us the biggest investment in green energy ever. THOUSANDS of road projects, thanks to the stimulus. And Obama and most Dems would like to do more. The problem is mainly RePUKE obstruction. This guy doesn't know how congress works. And to just dismiss all the other accomplishments is horseshit. There are MANY issues, and they are connected. And, thanks to Dems, we are about to get unemployment extended and retroactively. If that doesn't show the difference between D's and RePUKES, I don't know what does.
Rachel Maddow, EJ Dionne, and many others tout Obama for as much as he has done. Is there more to do? Yes. But HISTORIC action HAS been taken, so get real pal. That so many people are recommending this and slamming Obama, I guess continuing to hope for the Nader presidency or some crazy fantasy like that, is just sad.

[nutshell2002]

170. "I guess continuing to hope for the Nader presidency or some crazy fantasy like that"

Why is it a "crazy fantasy" to hope for a candidate who does not appear to have been pre-approved by the establishment? Why is it that any true progressives are marginalized by even those here at DU?

[rschop]

174. RE: Ever hear of the stimulus?

The stimulus was nothing but a political sop to Nancy Pelosi, so she and her uber liberal moronic friends in congress could reward the overpaid unionized state workers who have kept her and her moronic friends in office.

It was never intended to provide jobs for anyone who was not already some worthless bureaucrat in a state or local government office.

It was also meant to pay for more Medicaid for poor people. But, these poor people needed jobs so they and earn enough to afford medical insurance, not get more state aid which will go away when we finally go broke.

OOPS, I misspoke we are already broke, but when the Chinese finally find out we are broke and quit lending us any more of our own money we will be really be screwed.

[rschop]

177. K&R

[asdjrocky]

191. You just k&r'ed yourself.

And your statement was rife with rw talking points.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

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

[skyounkin]

173. I disagree with this comment-

"it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work"

No, it wouldn't have been hard for them. They do NOT care. AT ALL. Get it through your head and stop thinking we can win by thinking they wouldn't stop job creation, health care for all, or whatever.

The don't care and they will never care.

[Skittles]

176. hope and change has become wasted opportunities

[earth mom]

178. The people have been screwed. Simple as that. nt

[bread_and_roses]

180. To late to R but I'll kick it (n/t)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

182. No earthly reason my comment should have been removed.

I did not receive notice or a reason either.

[ibegurpard]

184. He's being too generous

the "reforms" he's willing to cut them a break on are a sham.
Let's hope we can stop their idea of educational reform...handing our public education system over to corporate charter schools.