NYT op-ed: 'What happened to Obama?'

[Newsjock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=4&ref=opinion
By Drew Westen
Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.”

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue.

Sorry, but you'll have to read the other 26 paragraphs at the link, since they are uncomfortable truths. Previous replies are here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1681296

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Devistating, but necessary. Must read.

k&r

[Cal33]

55. Too bad. He could have been one of the great presidents, but apparently

chose not to. If only he could get out of his obsession with bipartisanship!
But by definition, people don't get out of their obsessions. They're fixated!

[DesertFlower]

85. i agree. nt

[roguevalley]

169. me too.

[COLGATE4]

172. He pissed away his very real chance for greatness. In addition.

(and this is only my opinion), his performance as President will mean that it will be a long, long time before another African-American gets a shot at the Presidency again.

[bjobotts]

195. Look, I wish more from Obama too but this op-ed like others skips over his accomplishments completel

[bjobotts]

196. I can criticize Obama and support him at the same time knowing none of these issues would even be ad

addressed under repubs...especially now with the Gop insanity.

Government isn't broken...the GOP is.

This circular firing-hate Obama- cause we want more is exactly what the GOP wants. We will regret making Obama a one term president for ever.

[bjobotts]

198. Look around at the people who could even do half of what He's done.They aren't there.

[bjobotts]

199. If we make Obama a one term president we will regret it forever as the Bachman's & Romneys flourish

[bjobotts]

200. Scott Walker or Obama...Paul Ryan or Obama.The madmen are here.Auto bailout anyone?

[Cal33]

234. Don't worry. I'll vote for Obama over any right-winger. And there are a lot

of people like me. But if there is a Dem. primary, and the opponent
is one I approve of, I'll vote for the opponent. If Obama beats the
opponent, I'll still vote for Obama against any right-winger.

[Stand and Fight]

236. Do you think by posting all of your sentences separately helps?

[Stand and Fight]

237. It certainly appears that way to me.

[Stand and Fight]

238. You do know that you can use the

message box to post whole paragraphs, essays, or even books?

Try it sometime.

[vanbean]

219. Howard Dean. Alan Grayson. John Kerry.

We need another candidate.

[vanbean]

218. It is a must read just for this one paragraph:

"But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks."

[midnight]

2. The impact of how history will view his conflicting directions...

"the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans." And this is exactly why Obama let us know during this debt compromise that it might cost him the presidency....

[KoKo]

29. "Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze"

from the article:

Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

[animato]

56. Weren't most of his decisions based on the votes available in congress?

At least that's what I remember about healthcare reform and also the latest with the debt ceiling.

[Javaman]

95. he also stated that he wouldn't sign a health care bill without a public option...

when he didn't get one he signed it anyway. Nothing like integrity, huh?

[Hydra]

114. That's always the excuse given

The problem is, when he suddenly has the votes, like with the public option, he backpedals and strikes it, going so far as to say "I was never for it."

I read an article the other day that pointed this out. He pretends to support the Democratic agenda but behind the scenes he undermines it and pushes Congress to accept the Republican answer.

It's really very clever and insidious. Bush could never get away with this, nor any other Republican, unless they call the Armed Forces out. Obama can make it all happen, and still have you vote for him.

[OrwellwasRight]

156. Isn't he supposed to make votes happen and not just take votes as a given?

Get real. He is supposed to be a LEADER. Look, I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but at least he knew how to log roll, cajole, and deal to change votes. Obama takes losing as a given.

[hifiguy]

239. FDR and LBJ managed to get the votes

for New Deal reforms and the Civil/Voting Rights acts by exercising real leadership, not wetting their fingers and putting them in the air.

[saras]

87. When you stare into the abyss, you eventually find the abyss staring back

At that moment, when the abyss is looking into your eyes, is your one chance to knee it in the nuts. But you only get one shot.

[Javaman]

96. he chose to tap it on the shoulder.

"maybe we can work something out?"

history has walked past him.

[leeroysphitz]

3. I think discussion of this article is unwelcome at D.U. n/t

[Big Blue Marble]

7. Just curious, why do you say that? N/T

[leeroysphitz]

38. Because the first thread got put on double secret probation. n/t

[emilyg]

15. I would hope that is not true.

Good read.

[mzmolly]

4. Written by a corporate consultant no less.

http://www.westenstrategies.com/

One wonders who he's advising of late?

[KoKo]

26. And his book is recommended by Howard Dean & Bill Clinton...on the website you link..

“This is the most interesting, informative book on politics I’ve read in many years. Westen explains how our brains work and respond to different kinds of political messages. He shows what polls and other research are good for, and how a blind adherence to them can be self-defeating. His suggestions for what candidates should say – and should have said – should be read and studied by anyone who wants to understand modern American politics. This book is a handbook for how to talk about what really matters to you, written in just the way Westen says we should talk to voters – with vivid language, evocative imagery, and a sense of humor. It’s also a good primer on why attacks can’t go unanswered and how best to respond to them. If you want to know why candidates win or lose elections and what voters look for in a leader – whether you’re an interested voter or a candidate for public office – you have to read this book.” --President Bill Clinton


“Democrats have caught up with Republicans in being able to target voters, and we’re making rapid strides in rebuilding our party so we can talk to voters in fifty states. This book outlines a more intractable problem: How to actually talk to voters once we organize. Drew Westen is a must read and must hear for any Democrat who wants to win in Mississippi, Colorado, or rural Ohio. In 2008 we will win the presidency if our candidate reads and acts on this book.” --Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic Party

[mzmolly]

69. His book on political consulting is likely full of sound advice. Regardless, he's also a

corporate consultant. My question is, who is he working for of late? Do you know?

[Maven]

92. Then undoubtedly he knows Obama better than anyone.

They share the same profession.

[mzmolly]

115. A "community organizer" and State Senator

was Obama's profession. Contrary to the fact that he could have made much more money in a corporate career.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

164. You sound much like Rush

Limbaugh. Is there a reason for that?

[caseymoz]

121. That seems totally irrelevant to his point.

Did he slip any devious, pro-corporate propaganda into this argument? Please demonstrate where he did.

Or do you think he might have softened his tone from the truly radical article he would have written? I find that unlikely.

[mzmolly]

167. Really? Ever hear the term

consider the source? This man sounds no different than John Boehner. "The President is weak and stands for nothing," is pro-corporate banter.

[caseymoz]

185. He sounds that way because it's true and obvious.

He's criticizing the president precisely because Obama caved in to Boehner.

Now if he said the President were a socialist, I'd laugh in his face.

That's a pretty weak defense of the President, BTW. But then again, if any Democrats can stand up for the President now, they're taking too much Viagra.

[mzmolly]

194. I disagree.

Obama caved? Someone tell Boehner that he got 4T in cuts to entitlements without revenues. I don't think he's aware of that. Neither was Cantor, when he also walked out of meetings.

[caseymoz]

202. Boehner said he got 98 percent of what he wanted.

And the fact check says he did.

Just because the negotiation started at $4T doesn't mean that Boehner took that seriously. Meanwhile, the White House took the very opposite tact and offered them cuts in Social Security and Medicare right away. It would be like Boehner offering to raise taxes for Obama. I think the only reasons why the Repubs didn't take it is 1) they didn't want the direct political backlash that would come down on them for cutting social security, as many of their constituents are aged, and 2) After two years of continuous propaganda demonizing Obama they had painted themselves into a corner with their constituents, who wouldn't accept the first deal with the Socialist Moslem Fuhrer, especially when it reduced Social Security. Oh, and 3) the deal would have raised taxes on the wealthy.

Cantor's crap was complete theater. He had to walk out on the Socialist Moslem Fuhrer, otherwise talk shows would have been comparing the debt ceiling fight to the Munich Conference.

Now look at the deal we've got and how terrible it is. Obama agreed to definite cuts without raising taxes on the rich. He said he wanted a balanced approach, but the outcome is, he gave them everything and got nothing.

And if you think the "Super-Congress" is going to raise taxes, no, it's not. With repubs in a position to stonewall the committee, taxes won't go anywhere. It will all be cuts.

[mzmolly]

203. That's what he said, yes.

But he wanted the Ryan plan. He didn't get it. He didn't come close. As to what the White House offered, I remain skeptical that any offers were made and/or genuine. I think the W.H. wanted to expose blatant obstruction. No deal or offer is valid until it's done.

[caseymoz]

217. What Republicans got:

They got an agreement to immediately cut government expenditures of a trillion dollars.

They got a guarantee of trillions in across the board cuts, this time also in Social Security and Medicare, unless the Super Congress finds another way.

With that Super Congress, they've been handed a way to block taxes on the wealthy indefinitely.

What part of this wouldn't Boehner like? What part can a progressive Democrat find even palatable? With automatic cuts to be held to the Democrats heads and no possibility of tax increases, what did Obama secure for us.

Obama is bad news. I'm ready to announce his first term a disaster. What Cave Man does in the next two years will decided whether he's an unmitigated disaster. Do we have John Quincy Adams or George W. Bush in the White House?

[mzmolly]

220. Where are the immediate cuts? Social Security is not touched in the deadline deal.

And you are aware that the Bush tax cuts expire in the deal correct? That's the part I expect Boehner didn't care for. That's the part the W.H. tried to point out to S and P as well.

[caseymoz]

222. So, we're back to the tax level we had in 2000

And it wasn't at an adequate level then. So, for almost trillion dollars in cuts now, and $1.8 trillion in cuts guaranteed later, that's per year, we get maybe $400 billion in revenue per year, of cuts that were set to expire anyway. The Dems had the Senate. If not enough of them voted for the expiration, they could have filibustered it out. So, the Repubs gave us what we already had.

No, there's nothing good about this deal.

The White House can talk to S&P till it's blue in the face, but the point is, they also judge on willingness to pay debts. This whole chicken game the Repubs played with the debt ceiling showed for all to see that they're not 100 percent behind paying back the loans.

That has nothing to do with Obama or this deal. I'm a little surprised other credit agencies haven't downgraded us yet. Would you insure a car that somebody plays chicken in?

[mzmolly]

226. The level we had in 2000

worked fine in the Clinton years.

[caseymoz]

230. When we weren't fighting two wars.

Not that your point is relevant anyway. What's relevant is the Repubs gave us something we were bound to get anyway, if the Democratic Party lined up for it. Even if some didn't, the rest could filibuster the Senate until the tax cut expires.

Now were supposed to think of that as some kind of coup? Really, is that the only thing we got out of the deal?

[mzmolly]

233. Who thinks it's some kind of coup?

My position is that Obama said he was going to let the tax cuts expire. The deal in question, accomplishes that.

[DeSwiss]

143. They always attack the messenger when they don't like the messages he brings. n/t

[mzmolly]

165. Let's see. The message is essentially - Obama is sympathetic to corporate interests

and that message was put out by a corporate consultant. Pardon me for being a bit confused.

[bjobotts]

182. He's doing better than Clinton so far.How can U blind yourselves to record setting filibusters

[bjobotts]

183. Record setting holds and blocks on nominees.Knee capping presidents agenda

[bjobotts]

184. After hostage taking and nearly killing our economy you're out finding fault with the President???

[bjobotts]

186. Barely able to get any stimulus passed.Barely got auto bailout passed or DADT

[bjobotts]

187. Put 70 dem senators in office and watch the agenda change.Hating Obama is the goal of GOP

[bjobotts]

188. He's doing better than anyone else could have done after Bush.He's dealling with madmen.

[Bluebear]

206. Disgustingly accurate

[Frustratedlady]

5. It does skirt the truth in some areas, but I think everyone...Repugs and Dems

have held Obama to higher standards than other presidents, and that isn't fair.

Not only did he walk into a much worse cesspool than first thought, he was constantly hit with criticism, hypocrisy and bigotry. None of us could have endured that pressure.

I'm still standing behind him. I have to hope he is a quick learner and can pull some political street smarts out of the air to finish this term and win the next. We can't let the bastids win!

[coalition_unwilling]

17. When FDR took office in January of 1933, the national

unemployment rate was 25%. yup, you heard right. 1 out of every 4 working Americans was out of work. There was no unemployment compensation, there was no government assistance like food stamps or AFDC. So FDR encountered far worse conditions than Obama has ever had to confront. And FDR did not bitch, whine and moan about how mean his opponents were.

This op-ed piece nails it. Obama failed to respond to right wing bullies in the only type of language they understand: resolute firmness. You don't compromise with bullies. Because there's a line where compromise turns to appeasement. Obama has never quite learned where that line is. So he's not a 'Great Compromiser'. Instead, he's a 'Grand Appeaser' akin to Neville Chamberlain. Too bad the working class will have to pay for his appeasement of the right wing kooks and whack jobs.

[newfie11]

22. Well said and thanks n/t

[leeroysphitz]

40. OMG thank you.

So sick of hearing how HARD Obama has it. If he can't handle the job he should step aside and let somebody else figure the mess out. If this is the best ha can do we are screwn.

[INdemo]

161. No if this is the best he can do then he should act as LBJ did and

announce he will not seek nor accept the Democratic nomination.

[leeroysphitz]

216. +1000

[ewagner]

66. well said...n/t

[Vincardog]

68. Bingo

[Zen Democrat]

70. So he should have pulled a gun on Republican senators for their votes on Stimulus in 2009?

Because he was forced to trade for a couple of Republican votes to beat the filibuster. He had to trade infrastructure for tax cuts in order to get Collins and Specter. Spector had to leave the Republican party as a result. It's not all black and white when he had only 58 members of the Dem caucus when he took office. He had 60 for what, 5 months? And during that 5 months he got some stuff done. Then Scott Brown was elected in MA and back to no governing majority. If we want change, we have to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House -- for at least a couple of years, and hopefully forever.

[Exilednight]

80. That would be a good argument IF he had pushed through at least one

major piece of legislation that wasn't watered down to the point of being nearly useless. He drug his feet on major legislative issues, like HCR and FinReg, the first months of his presidency.

[coalition_unwilling]

111. Did you bother to read the NY Times op-ed piece? Harry Reid

needed to be instructed in forceful terms to either use the nuclear option with regard to the stupid filibuster rule (a throwback, ironically, to teh days of friggin' slavery and anti-democratic to boot) or to risk losing WH support for his position as Senate Majority Leader. That's what forceful, resolute leadership looks like, not tacking to the right to take into account the concerns of bullies, thugs, Neanderthals and Yahoos.

[smokey nj]

113. +1!

[bjobotts]

181. you really don't know FDR or how he had to be led then.Ran on balancing the budget and cutting spend

[hifiguy]

240. +1. When a bully piefaces or punches you

you kick him in the balls. You do not say "thank you, may I have another." Apparently Obama never learned this lesson.

[DesertFlower]

86. i agree, but that does not mean

i'm not disappointed. he's still getting my vote.

[AikidoSoul]

132. I'm with you Lady.

:hi:

[DeSwiss]

144. How about just.....

...http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DeSwiss/1365">not lying to us?

[shugah]

6. got to page 2

too painful to read.

[Javaman]

98. It is but the truth always hurts...

read the rest, you will be glad you did.

to paraphrase Obama, "eat your peas".

LOL

[bjobotts]

189. The truth doesn't have emotional attachment.The ego's need to be right does.

[Javaman]

213. while it's nice to think that the truth doesn't have an emotional attachment..

reality dictates otherwise.

the article is spot on.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. Brilliantly written, brilliantly said.

A very sad commentary on this Presidency and on the state of this country. How sad for all of us it has come to this.

[XemaSab]

9. That was a brutal smackdown.

I know Obama doesn't care what DU thinks, but for the NYTimes to print that... OUCH.

[KoKo]

42. ....!

[renate]

10. interesting--the headline is "What Happened to Obama?" but...

... in the tab for that page, it's "What Happened to Obama's Passion?"

I wonder which title was the original. They're both good questions--I'm still a strong supporter but no longer starry-eyed--but "What Happened to Obama?" seems much harsher than "... Obama's Passion?"

Anyway, as much as I realize that the President was dealt a shitty hand and has been having to play against people who will lie, cheat, and steal the country's future with the sole purpose of defeating him in 2012, damn the consequences to anyone else, I do think that the glaring difference between the pre-election Obama and President Obama is one reason he's gotten his reputation of rolling over so easily. I miss that passion... it could have been used to accomplish so much once he was in office and could have actually gotten stuff done. Most of the country was behind him then and he should have done a more outraged job of explaining how the administration they'd just managed to boot out were responsible for the economy, rather than making nice and trying to be a unifier (he should have figured out right away that Republicans were going to be steadfastly against him from Day One). He's a nice guy for sure but I wish his campaign speechwriters were still writing those kids of speeches for him.

[bhikkhu]

46. ...as far as the "he could have accomplished so much" thing

there has been plenty of reasonably objective analysis suggesting that he has accomplished more than any other recent president in the same time-frame, with or without massive obstruction from the other side.

http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishments/

is one write-up from awhile ago.

I don't mind the NYT piece so much, as there are certainly things to think about there, but saying he has accomplished so little is like saying we haven't had 18 months of decent economic numbers - it is reality re-calibrated specifically for this president.

[renate]

53. you're absolutely right

I guess I was thinking about how single-payer health care was never even on the table, and there was never any *outrage* from him about the ridiculously top-heavy distribution of wealth and how the very rich aren't paying their fair share. The Republicans and Tea Partiers have been allowed to set the tone, and I would never have guessed that pre-election Obama would have allowed that to happen.

But you are 100% absolutely right that *much* has been done that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, and I apologize, with embarrassment and with thanks to you for pointing that out.

:blush:

[Javaman]

99. It's about the jobs or lack there of...

he could walk on water but if there are no jobs, nothing else matters.

[bhikkhu]

110. No argument there, though we are at least in positive territory

He has 2 million jobs created or so, to his credit, but that follows 8 years of net zero job creation.

To make up for the lack of jobs and keep up with population, if he were expected to fix things up in his first term, he'd have to create 450,000 jobs a month, every month, for four years.

I think the easiest way to create jobs now would be to raise taxes a bit and fund the public sector; its been shedding jobs and starved for labor for lack of funds for over a year, and would respond immediately if funds were available. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be "on the table".

[bjobotts]

190. He inherited 800,000 jobs lost/mo till stimulus passed from Bush, before Obama's programs even start

[bjobotts]

191. Tea party republicans all ran on "Jobs,jobs,jobs" but have zero jobs bills.No solutions and no ideas

[bjobotts]

192. This site should focus on the real detriments to progress-republicans and the plutocracy

[Speck Tater]

11. Honest and to the point. a MUST READ article. The truth that cannot be ignored any more. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

12. That was outstanding.

Thank you.

[TomCADem]

13. Woot! Blame Democrats, Give Republicans A Free Pass!

Go corporate media narrative!

[Blue_In_AK]

14. There's enough blame to go around.

Just because the Republicans are assholes doesn't mean the president is off the hook. They all share responsibility for the mess we're in.

[eomer]

16. Except that's the exact opposite of what the author actually says.

Clearly in the article he is blaming Obama for not fighting back against those who caused this disaster. He's quite explicit in stating that this disaster was caused by "Republicans", "conservative extremists", and "Bush".

For example, in the story he wanted Obama to tell in his Inauguration speech (emphasis is mine):

“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.”

I suggest you reread the article more carefully and note whom the author names as the ultimate villains in the story. He faults Obama for not naming those villains and for not fighting back against them, but the author himself does not fail to name them. He does name them, right there in his article.

[Raine]

19. NOBODY is giving them a fucking pass

it should go without saying that they are assholes and guilty as sin but that is no reason that Obama should be absolved of all responsibilty either.

[JDPriestly]

179. So how many of those responsible has Obama investigated

much less put in prison?

A couple of minor figures. That's about it.

[misanthrope]

20. It places plenty of blame on Republicans...

...calls them bullies and questions not only their methods but their goals.

[Nay]

33. The essayist doesn't give the pubs a free pass--he calls them out for the

assholes they are, but the thrust of his essay is how odd it is that Obama DOESN'T seem to see the pubs as the assholes they are, and certainly doesn't explain to the public in any coherent way how they and their pub policies have wrecked the country.

Way to totally misrepresent the point of this essay! Back to English class with you!

[gulliver]

45. Attacking your own team is easier (and safer) than attacking your opponent.

That's the way cowards always do things. They send someone else out to do their fighting. Then they stand back in safety and hurl abuse. Real cool.

[Jakes Progress]

77. And making up stuff about what you haven't read is easier.

Try reading the OP first. You are replying to and agreeing with a post of horse shit.

Did you read the article? Do you think it is wise to reply on a thread when you don't know what it is about?

[Divernan]

107. Like Rahm attacking progressives?

[Exilednight]

139. Bad analogy. Rahm's not a progressive. n/t

[bvar22]

49. Actually, if you READ the article, on page 4, he states that NOT

correctly blaming Republicans, and NOT assigning to THEM the responsibility for their policies,
it one of the Primary weaknesses of Obama.

I cringe every time I hear our President praise Republicans for their good ideas.



"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

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



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

[russspeakeasy]

63. Did you read it ?

[Javaman]

100. more black and white reasoning...

you can do better than that.

[Doctor_J]

150. You didn't read the article did you

Every criticism of the president gets the same dismissal from you. You and the rest of the "centrists" have joined together with the Repukes to blame "the left" for every disaster perpetrated by the president and the teabaggers whom he can't seem to stand up to.

[Bluebear]

231. +

[Scurrilous]

211. ...

:thumbsup:

[Petrushka]

18. Excellent article! Thank you for the link, which I posted on my FB wall.

K & R

:kick:

[Axrendale]

21. I agree with many of the points made in the article.

I remain a strong supporter of the President, but the days when I believed that he would be remembered as a genuinely great POTUS are over. He will certainly be remembered as an extraordinarily effective Chief Executive, skillful lawmaker, and successful diplomat and Commander in Chief, but I am more and more convinced that he will not make it into the same distinguished tier as Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson (let alone Washington, Lincoln, and FDR). Doubtless he will continue to be effective as he serves out his term, and my money remains on his successfully winning reelection - perhaps I may be proven wrong in his second term - but that does not equate to the level of leadership that we require at this time.

Nevertheless, Obama, for all his shortcomings, remains our only option at this moment, and it would seem advisable to stick it out with him - if nothing else because I for one can see no real alternatives to him - something that is as true today as it was in 2008. Some might beg to differ, but I would still contend that with the benefit of hindsight Obama was the best pick out of the various candidates for the Democratic nomination. His only real rivals were Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and of those two, Edwards was a lightweight and walking time-bomb who did his greatest service to the party when he finally self-destructed. Clinton was and is sufficiently formidable an individual that she would have made a far more interesting prospect as POTUS, but she consistently demonstrated throughout that campaign worrying traits that echoed the flaws in her public performance when she was First Lady, and which make me continue to doubt how effective she might have been as Chief Executive. Probably the best place for her was where she ended up - as an excellent Secretary of State.

It's easy to feel nostalgic for the great leadership of the past when one compares it to the present, but the past also shows how it could have been a lot worse. Obama may not be an FDR, but at least he is not a Herbert Hoover.

[Ruby the Liberal]

89. If not Hoover, Chamberlin.

[COLGATE4]

173. No, he's not a Herbert Hoover (at least not yet). But he sure is

coming close to doing a great Jimmy Carter.

[democrank]

23. This article says it all.....

"capitulation cast as compromise"

"politics of appeasement"


As I`ve said before, President Obama isn`t a leader, he`s a get-alonger.

[joshcryer]

24. Nothing, he's done exactly what he campaigned on.

[OBlueDog]

25. O Campained on Capitulation?

Must have missed that as did millions of other voters.

Either that or O does not understand the difference between compromise and capitulation.

[joshcryer]

145. Yes, he campaigned on negotiation and bipartisenship.

[KoKo]

27. Don't know why you deleted and locked the other post & thread, though...

A K&R for this. Would help to have a paragraph or two so folks who don't want to go to the NYT's article have a flavor of the article.

I read it last night. Excellent read.

[defendandprotect]

210. Looks also like NYTimes is trying to warn us re the economy "weaker by the day" -- !!!

He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or

an economy that is getting weaker by the day.

[divvy]

28. Oh now you've done it ...... you were NOT supposed to notice

The 8-dimmensional chess theorists will come to beat you up.

[snagglepuss]

30. K & R. nt

[ProSense]

31. This

"Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue."

...is nonsense!

Really? Most Americans have no idea what the President and the Democratic Party stands for on "virtually any issue"?

That's utter nonsense, especially given the fact that the Boehner and the teabaggers have taken a big hit over the last several months.

NYT editorial: Race to the Right

The real problem: Here's a good example of how an MSM title obscures what the President says

[cui bono]

48. Beohner taking a hit has nothing to do with Obama being clear on what he stands for.

One exists independently of the other. They are not intertwined.

The decline in popularity of Rocky Road ice-cream does not mean people can't be unclear about what is in this month's Mystery Flavor.

[Exilednight]

51. If by "taking a hit" the above poster means getting a majority of what you wanted ................

then yeah, Bohener took a hit. I wouldn't mind Obama taking a hit if he managed to get 75% of what liberals, progressives and left leaning Democrats want.

[Javaman]

101. yup, boner boy said himself when he gloated that he got 98% of what he wanted. nt

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[COLGATE4]

174. If by what just happened you mean that "Boehner took a big hit"

I shudder to think of what it would be like when Boehner wins one.

[boston bean]

32. Great Op Ed!

every single sentence, word, rings true.

[NRaleighLiberal]

34. Spot on....absolutely essential reading. K&R....n/t

[Chimichurri]

35. "conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness

and just punch harder the next time"

Indeed.

[tomp]

36. isn't it obvious: shifting more wealth to the rich. duh!!!

how can you not know that?

[deutsey]

37. Amen, Amen, Fuckin' A, man!

:thumbsup:

[BeyondGeography]

39. The only truly genuine fire I've seen from Obama was directed at the left

when he announced his tax cut extension.

That was an unfortunate window into something that is very wrong with our President, who once had my unswerving support. Call it the day the music died, but this article rightly points out that the music never really started playing, starting with the conciliatory Inaugural. What was clear to me that day was his genuine contempt for a not-so-small portion of his base, that spent a lot of time, money and energy helping him get the nomination in the first place. Where did this primal reaction come from? Seen through this article, maybe he resents us for not understanding who he actually is, or, better yet, angry at himself for having oversold the goods.

[Chimichurri]

41. Why so sanctimonious?

:sarcasm:

[Desertrose]

54. +1!

[ProgressIn2008]

43. What bullshit. Only someone not paying attention would be surprised. nt

[Javaman]

102. some people still need it spelled out to them. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Nothing. He's still the same mediocre, centrist, Pol with a good sales pitch.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[Javaman]

103. As I said when he was first elected...

madison avenue did a good job. LOL

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Safetykitten]

50. Nothing. Just a huge group of people voted for a person...

who later was not that person, and there was this much smaller group that told them later that they knew all along he was someone else.

Simple.

[Desertrose]

52. Excellent article! Thx.

[emsimon33]

58. We need a real Democrat to run against Obama in 2012

[Enthusiast]

59. K&R..........nt

[bertman]

60. The article is excellent and outlines quite accurately WHAT President Obama HAS NOT done that

he should have done--or at a minimum, should have really pushed hard for. The part I find to be inaccurate is WHY this is being done.

Based on the President's constant capitulation to Republicans and the ongoing use of the GOP/right-wing narrative to explain his reasons for doing what he does, it has become quite clear that the President is simply doing what the DLC leadership has asked him to do--accomplish the goal of giving ALL the power and ALL the money to the wealthiest Americans.

For those of us who thought we had worked for and elected a President who would FIGHT for Change, it is beyond disappointing and depressing.

REC.

[shanti]

61. excellent article

thanks for posting.

[russspeakeasy]

62. Absolutely one of the best things I have read on DU.

[bjobotts]

193. Don't read much huh.

[russspeakeasy]

215. evidently over your head...go wring your hands and ignore the truth.

[geckosfeet]

64. Uncomfortable truths indeed. Uncomfortable and ditsturbing.

What Happened to Obama?

when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn't bend that far.

God it's hard to read this. I know it's true. But I don't want to believe it.
What Happened to Obama?

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counter-factual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

I appreciate, and I am sure that many other people appreciate that something was done, and that there was some recognition that something had to be done. But the lack of decisiveness and strong long reaching action is disheartening and demoralizing.
What Happened to Obama?

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, "stick." Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would "bend the cost curve"), or why "credit card reform" had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn't seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they're still unemployed, they're still worried about how they're going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can't get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

Who will, who even can stop them at this point?
What Happened to Obama?

[swilton]

65. The Democratic Party has no message

as long as they stay with Obama.

[merbex]

84. Simple sentence that nails it in a nutshell ~ thank you n/t

[socialindependocrat]

67. I can't believe this crap you people are putting out??

Drew Westens whole article is based on the fact that he can't figure out where the president is coming from!!!! If I were a shrink, that's the last thing I would admit!! President Obama has been blocked and lambasted for EVERYTHING he has tried to accomplish - both large and small. When the United Nations and the Arab League asked the U.S. to assist in establishing a no-fly zone in Lybia, McCain and "Mr. Tiffany" both went on TV and said that we should have gone in sooner. Then, the republicans got their scan aligned and they all started saying that he shouldn't have gone in without the permission of Congress.
Then Palin's doppleganger (Bachman) started saying (on TV no less) that she was going to work to make Barack Obama a one term president. This, to me, says that she will block everything Obama tries to do - and in doing so will sacrifice the productivity of the U.S. over the next two years. They want to stop any success that the President may try to initiate in order to get him out of office. I think this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, I think it is treasonous as far as I'm concerned. If you want to get a president out of office you show the public what your team can do so that the people vote for your side - you don't stop all progress for the American people and then expect us to vote for you! How stupid would that be - to vote for a group of people who will spend the next two years sitting on their asses and playing games at the expense of the welfare of the American people.
Yes, I can see that the president has tried to work so that the desires of both sides are considered in each situation. Now, I think he has been kicked in the teeth every time he has tried. this last budget fiasco he presented them with a $4.5T package and they said NO. Then we find out that the S&P is lowering our rating because the package wasn't large enough. Ring any bells people? If they had passed the $4.5T budget then S&P would have lowered our rating for some other reason. they are all the same group - don't you see that?
Then, as an extra kicker, "the people" decided to vote in the Tea Party. Now, you've unleashed a virus that we have no control over! Give us Barabbas!!!

I used to watch in amazement when the president would give an address and know that he had just flown to the middle east and around the world and then hear people complain that he wasn't doing more! I've gotta say, he has more energy than I have but he's starting to show the grey!!

I can not understand why anyone in the middle class would vote for the Republican party when they do absolutely nothing for the common people.

DO YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING GET DONE?????

Then vote out as many republicans as you can in 2012. Give President Obama a Democratic congress and above all - Flood his office with letters
saying that your tired of the Republicans not benefiting the American people and you give him your permission to go out and kick ass! Tell
him you authorize him to push, shove, manhandle and effect the positive changes he talked about when he was elected.

ABOVE ALL: stop this poor me talk about how we're so disappointed with how things are turning out! You know the causes. You know the reasons!
Back the man and give him permission to go out and lead this country! I will say that he gained more by negotiating with terrorists than he has
in dealing with his own congress. Get tough people - we are going downhill very very quickly. Tough times require tough measures!!!

[Exilednight]

71. "Back the man and give him permission to go out and lead this country!"

We did in 2008 - it's called an election and we helped elect him. He dragged his feet on health care reform and allowed it to be watered down, capitulated on tax breaks for the rich, failed at any useful legislation that would regulate Wall Street and failed to seize the message on debt talks.

When you start in the the political middle, like Obama almost always seems to do, the only direction to move is towards the opposite side of the fulcrum.

[socialindependocrat]

72. Do you think he's learned his lesson? n/t

[Exilednight]

74. No. Obama will continue to start negotiating from the middle and we will continue to get

legislation that is right of center.

=

[txlibdem]

214. You are, unfortunately, exactly right!

We voted for a candidate who made dozens of speeches, built up a fiction of his beliefs and values, made us believe we were electing a Democrat (in the true meaning of the word). Like so many thousands or millions of Democrats, I sent the new President letter after letter demanding that he investigate, hold hearings and JAIL those responsible for the fraud and theft that went on before he took the oath of office.

Exiled, I only have a slight disagreement with your post. Obama does not start in the political middle... he starts well to the right of center, thus we are truly f*ked before any negotiations begin.

Obama = Neville Chamberlain + Herbert Hoover (only the worst traits of each).

[handmade34]

73. +1

[humbled_opinion]

76. Hold up just a second there !

You said "President Obama has been blocked and lambasted for EVERYTHING he has tried to accomplish..."

Have you been asleep for the last 10 years? or are you admitting that Bush was a better leader than Obama?

OBAMA's number one failure is a failure of LEADERSHIP... You cannot outsource the Presidency to the Congress and that is what he has done.

Bush got mostly everything he wanted throughout his presidency, he had less of majority of Republicans in Congress then Obama did in his first Year. Bush even got what he wanted when there was a Majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate and Democrats had massive public opinion on their side and a very vocal anti-war movement, did you forget about the Surge in Iraq? after our leadership told us it would never happen....

You can't have it both ways, Obama is his own worst enemy, he is dragging the Democratic party down with him.

[socialindependocrat]

83. I did say PRESIDENT OBAMA

my post doesn't pertain to the years before his election.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My post was trying to show that Obama was trying to work with both parties, which didn't work.

My suggestion is to tell him that he doesn't have to try anymore - unleash the guy and see what he can do.
He still has a year and a half to turn around. He's there whether you support him or you just sit and complain.

[leftstreet]

163. Obama didn't need to 'work with' the GOP. The party was dead

Voters kicked them to the curb in 2006 & 2008.

The only thing Obama and the Dems have done is revive a dead political party

[davidwparker]

160. +1

[truth2power]

79. Cogent analysis. Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. n/t

[Prana69]

148. I don't understand why you are so surprised and outraged that the Republicans want Obama to be a one

term President. That's their job - to unseat him. It's why they are called the "Opposition". They're out to win you know. Obama knows that. The Democrats know that.

All Presidents have to contend with an Opposition that wants to defeat them.

???

P69

[socialindependocrat]

223. They should persue a Republican agenda but not stall any progress

If the opposition did this all the time then nothing would get done. the idea is to move forward with one's agenda and because we have two parties there needs to be compromise. You've got some great tunnel vision going there for you pal!

[Prana69]

229. Realpolitik "pal. In essence, what your are asking is for the Repukes to push their agenda really

hard, but when it comes to the crunch, back down and let the Dems win.

Flip it and tell me honestly that you were happy when the Dems did exactly that and gave Bush everything he wanted for 8 years?

P69

[MouseFitzgerald]

176. You didn't even read the article

Nothing you say has anything to do with the main point the author is trying to make. Its just a bunch of random points thrown together.

[socialindependocrat]

224. I read all 4 pages and the comments at the end

In fact, the comments at the end of the original article are less supportive of this post. Common - you guys are Republicans aren't you!!

I realize it's difficult to keep yout train of thought when you are ADD but everything I say is relevant to the subject.

WITHOUT A DOUBT - VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!

[kentuck]

75. Every DUer should read this article:

<snips>
“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn’t work out. And it didn’t work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can’t promise that we won’t make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again.” A story isn’t a policy. But that simple narrative — and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it — would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit — a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

...

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

...

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public — a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn’t bend that far.

[Jakes Progress]

78. A must read for Democrats. Though some here don't mind

piping up about something they haven't read. Knee-jerk activism.

[Stinky The Clown]

81. A Must Read

[ProSense]

82. Krugman:

Krugman: Stuck in the Muddle

It's not Obama, it's spin

[truth2power]

88. Thanks for posting this insightful article, newsjock. I assume that

you self-deleted your other OP because actually copying parts of the article to DU was considered to be too critical of the President. I could be wrong, of course.

In any event, I've been conducting a little experiment for the past week or two. Whenever I read an article on the internet that, in the strongest terms, opposes Obama's governing style, or whether he really cares about anyone other than the top 1% etc. I put the name of the author on my list. And anyone I put on my list was way, WAY more critical of the president than the author of the op-ed above. So, here's my list, so far:

Chris Hedges
Paul Krugman
Jim Hightower
Rude Pundit
Mike Malloy
Will Pitt
Robt. Sheer
Chris Floyd
Glenn Greenwald
Cenk Uygur
Paul Jay (The Real News)
Thom Englehardt
Thom Hartman
James Howard Kunstler
Michael Hudson
Ray McGovern
Max Keiser
David Sirota

I think just about all these people have been seen as credible writers or commentators by DUers in the past. Yet there are still some deniers who would throw them overboard as soon as they disagree with the status quo. Are ALL the above individuals crazy or stupid?

I'm beginning to feel like I'm in some badly acted backward version of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where the king's subjects all realize he is buck-nekkid, but his courtiers refuse to believe it.

edit> misspelled Uygur

[djp2]

90. Blackmail

He is being blackmailed...It is the only way this could be happening. There is something he CAN'T let be known, or threats against himself or his family. It is the only way.

[DeSwiss]

147. Then he should resign. n/t

[COLGATE4]

175. No. He's just being the person he grew up to be. Avoids confrontation,

wants to be liked, wants to be seen as the 'grown up', likes 'compromise' at any cost.

[struggle4progress]

91. Is this the Drew Weston who decided, 8 months into this presidency, that he liked Bush better?

"... I'm starting to gain new respect for President Bush .... even when he was lying through his teeth .., you knew where he stood. He had beliefs ..."
Posted: September 30, 2009 09:24 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/all-the-presidents-values_b_304087.html

[Prana69]

152. Come on. Don't lower yourself to that standard. That's a silly thing to post and very easily called

out here. You have quoted completely out of context and are deliberately misrepresenting the author's position, whihc is exactly the opposite. The very next sentence is:

"Mind you, I didn't agree with any of those beliefs, principles, or values."

Westen was making the point that even though he disagreed with EVERYTHING Bush did, at least he stood for something and consistently pursued his agenda, which he is contrasting ith Obama's approach.

That kind of obvious misrepresentation just demeans you. If you want to contribute to the discussion, have your say and support it with evidence. Don't bring this kind of garbage.

P69

[Doctor_J]

153. How did you get ffrom that quote to "he liked Bush better"

It says nothing of the kind.

[kentuck]

93. Do you think the President read this article today??

What must he think?

[DeSwiss]

94. That's been my problem with Obama all along.

From the first, I've never known what he believed in. That is, other than becoming President. And now, being reelected President. Those things were always clear. But the things that he told us that he stood for in order to become President, have turned out to be..... http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DeSwiss/1365">not exactly the truth.

But in many ways I think Obama is the perfect reflection of our country. Especially if one acknowledges that we're a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me">country built upon lies.

We say we stand for truth, justice and the rule of law and then violate those tenets at every turn. Invading country after country -- killing innocent babies with our smart bombs and predator drones, in order to secure their energy and other resources for corporations to exploit for cash -- and all of these invasions based upon lies that are so obvious that even a child wouldn't believe them. And yet we do nothing to stop it.

We claim to support and honor the rule of the people, for the people and by the people, and then allow miscreants on our supposed "Supreme Court" to take away the people's will and allow rigged elections to go unchallenged.

We say that we desire a country where opportunity abounds and is available for everyone equally, and then we allow our own elected officials to sabotage every effort in providing a good education, decent healthcare and adequate nutrition for all to reach those lofty heights.

We say that "equality under the law" is paramount and central to our legal system and beliefs -- and then we see bankers perpetrate the greatest of frauds upon us and the entire world and then walk free, while those who demonstrate against repressive government actions, or demand answers for police brutality are hounded harassed and arrested.

We say that whistleblowers should be protected and rewarded because ultimately they act for the good of all, and then we arrest, litigate and/or torture them once exposed. And no one does a damned thing about it.

- Maybe the reason we are so disquieted about Obama, is because in him we see ourselves. Vacillating, weak and standing for nothing but ourselves.

K&R

[Hydra]

120. +1000

And deserves it's own OP.

Mind you, I've been pointing out the blatant hypocricy here for years, including the posts that were deleted by the mods for pointing out how we were destroying the validity of the Nuremberg Trials by ordering our soldiers to torture and then persecuting soldier that refused to obey under the "illegal orders" provision.

The gap between our rhetoric and reality is as great as the legendary USSR, and just as painful to watch.

[DeSwiss]

142. Thank you.

But I don't believe I'll put these comments up as an OP because from what I've seen, most people still aren't ready for this much truth. Because in excepting it, it also necessarily means putting the blame where we least want to place it -- upon ourselves.

As the author of the above article himself states:

"When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear."

So once we've identified these "villains" (if we are honest) we must then ask how did they gain power to carry out their mayhem? And the answer is almost always -- us. We did it. How? We allowed our short-sightedness and our prejudices to sway us into voting away our power.

Even now we castigate Teabaggers -- not that they aren't deserving of much of blame for the recent problems of political deadlock -- for being "the cause" of all our problems today, when in fact we know it goes much deeper and goes back much further than Teabaggers. And thus by naming a villain we are once again setting ourselves up for another fall. We know that to correct our current problems, everyone needs to put their shoulder to the wheel, but instead we stand back and argue with each other about who got us into the ditch to begin with. Which is an argument that never ends. And yet it is an inherent aspect of the design of our system that things will always end up this way. Why? Because there is no underlying irrevocable truth in that system as its foundation -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle">the inviolability and sovereignty of the individual.

So for me, I've pretty much given up on our current political system. I don't believe it's possible nor practical to even try and save it. For what? So that we can find ourselves right back in a similar position in a few more years? Even now, we're just reliving what many of our parent's and our grandparent's went through in the 1930s and 40s (and largely corrected) when as before, the rich and powerful tried to take over our government. We stood by and watched while one of our own un-did the laws that kept corporations somewhat contained. We allowed for all the pain and suffering they went through on our behalf to be in vain when we allowed the http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/president-clinton-i-was-wrong-listen">the brakes and controls to be dismantled by one of its greatest beneficiaries. Only this time I believe the takeover process is all but complete.

You would think that we would know this, when we realize that it takes millions upon millions of dollars just to run for high level public office. Because when it takes millions to obtain office then only those with millions will be heard. "The fault, is not in our stars but within ourselves," as Caesar told Brutus. And in this case those "stars" are represented by this defective system of governance that we've been trying to hold together for two centuries. And it has largely failed -- which is why we are now where we are. As http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPmHaTirnCc">Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement says:

Today we use paper proclamations to denote a person's so-called 'rights.' And just like laws, they are culturally biased, artificial concoctions which attempt to solve recurring problems by simply declaring something with words on paper. Rights, in fact, have been invented to protect ourselves from the negative byproducts of the social system itself. And once again instead of seeking a true solution to a problem, we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. This does not work. It has never worked. There is really no such thing as an inalienable right outside of the culture in which it is assumed. We are making this up. Therefore liberties need to be inherent in a social system by design not alluded to ambiguously on paper.

In the Bill of Rights of the United States, there is an attempt to secure certain freedoms and protections by way of mere text on paper. Now while I understand the value of this document and the temporal brilliance of it in the context of the period of its creation, that does not excuse the fact that it is a product of social inefficiency and nothing more. In other words, declarations of laws and rights are actually an acknowledgment of the failures of the social design. There is no such thing as 'rights' - as the reference can be altered at will. The fourth amendment is an attempt to protect against state power abuse, that is clear. But it avoids the real issue, and that is: Why would the state have an interest to search and seize to begin with? How do you remove the mechanisms that generate such behavior? We need to focus on the real cause.

[txlibdem]

166. Another DeSwiss gem. Great post as usual!

:applause:

:patriot:

[DeSwiss]

208. TY

[mckara]

97. Who Should Be Our Nominee in 2012?

[Javaman]

104. Sanders. nt

[mckara]

134. I Love Bernie, But Average Americans Would Shun His Socialist Label

Americans don't understand how socialism and democracy can find a happy medium.

[SusanaMontana41]

171. Do labels count that much? Obama ran as a Democrat but has not governed as one. n/t

I know what Bernie says and how he votes. They're consistent. I'd back him.

[mckara]

180. You're Right!

I would support him, too. However, you and I are "thinkers". My concern would be the people who voted for Bush because they wanted to have a beer with him. Many people have been conditioned to respond negatively to the world "socialism" without any idea of its context in American history or government. God, help us because we're surrounded by idiots!

[seafan]

106. Elizabeth Warren. No one else approaches the level of her ability and demonstrated skill.

She is also not part of The Machine.


My opinion.

[mckara]

133. I Would Definitely Support Her!!!

[Buns_of_Fire]

105. Another slant on the article from their comments section:

(#136 from "CAG", if you're keeping score.)

...As a black woman who's lived in a primarily white world her entire life I will say I know about the childhood desire to fit in at all costs, to be liked "in spite of" your skin color and I would speculate this is part of Obama's psyche and that indeed, he would not have been elected if he hadn't projected a conciliatory, likeable, conflict-averse persona during the campaign. I seriously doubt an "angry black man" would have had a chance of being elected President of this country.

I also believe what's omitted in this piece is that a) his election has unleashed what had been an ugly undercurrent of racism among a certain sector of society and b) that sector will not rest until they crush him. For Obama, this must be an exhausting and uphill battle. But what he has to remember is he no longer has to fit in. He IS in. I pray the core of steel and passion his mother had is within him as well and that he will draw upon it before it's too late. America needs a strong, charismatic leader with vision and the courage to speak the truth even if it's not what we want to hear.

I've often thought that the President is between a rock and a hard place here. If he displays one iota of passion, he's not only going to be painted by the nutbaggers as another Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael, but painted as far worse (as if he isn't already). On the other hand, passion is the one thing that even his supporters know is sadly lacking in his negotiations and probably has a lot do do with the sometimes less-than-satisfactory results.

But like CAG said, he no longer has to fit in -- he IS in. The reins are his to take, if he so chooses.

And as another great American (Super Chicken) once said, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

[certainot]

108. obama cannot be evaluated honestly until there is some organized challenge to RW radio

that is the right's most effective weapon by far and like most analysts westen writes as if Obama can 'message' better-if they just tried.

it doesn't matter a whole lot what obama says- no he doesn't have the bully pulpit.

he doesn't as long as the left ignores RW radio. that unchallenged media monopoly allows the right to 'message' over everything the white house does. it's a sorry situation - it's as if the left allows a bunch of carnival barkers scream all day from every corner and stump in the country that their mothers are whores and their fathers are thieves. they walk by with their iPods in their ears- and then they blame obama.

[Bette Noir]

109. This op ed totally went viral. I was recommended to it

by at least 6 people on Twitter, and I only follow 40.

With this saturation, Obama himself may actually read it. I think it would do him good.

[JackDragna]

112. This is the most spot-on, damning indictment..

..of the Obama presidency I've read. Everything wrong with how he governs is contained therein.

[sandyj999]

116. What happened to Obama? Obviously not enough. n/t

[Number23]

117. It's interesting to note that the writer's main issue is that the president has done MUCH

good work but hasn't told the American people that in explicit detail.

"To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away."

So to the author, the president's primary failing is that he's not blowing his own horn loudly/often enough. From the first paragraph when the article laments the president for not "telling a story," it's apparent that the author believes that the president should in addition to actually doing great things, should also be tasked with making sure that everyone else knows that he's doing great things.

There may be some truth to that. It's apparent, that many Democrats are way too interested in tearing down every thing the man does instead of supporting him. So maybe it IS his job to not only do great things, but fill up people's tv screens and newspapers with intricate details of why what he's doing is so great.

On the other hand, I think this is a very simplistic explanation for what's going on. If Obama is overly conciliatory (and I certainly agree that there have been times when he has been), it may be because he knows he is dealing with pack wolves to the front of him, and the folks who are supposed to have his back have one foot out of the door. If anything, articles such as this make me more sympathetic to his plight.

[Exilednight]

118. That's not what the author is saying. It's to point out the

irony of his decisions.

Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be.

[Number23]

123. Thank you but I am fully capable of understanding what the author wrote.

[Exilednight]

124. Apparently not. You missed the whole point of the paragraph, and the paragraph that preceeded it.

[Number23]

125. I didn't miss a thing

From the first paragraph, the author states how "disappointed" he was that Obama "didn't tell a story" and goes on to make that point time and again. Because you saw something else doesn't mean my interpretation is incorrect.

Your moniker is all up in this thread. Why don't you find some other place to haunt?

[Exilednight]

127. Your interpreatation is incorrect. He's disappointed that Obama didn't tell a story and that the

lack of story is why Obama's legislation ends up watered down and has no real teeth to get anything done.

Your moniker is all up in this thread. Why don't you find some other place to haunt?

No one is holding a gun to your head and making you read my replies.

[Number23]

128. I will stand by my interpretation with the knowledge that it is bolstered by what I actually read

And not my projections of what I already believe. Are you finished telling me that I don't understand what I've read now?

This is probably the stupidest conversation I've had all week.

[Exilednight]

130. Don't get mad at me because of your lack of reading comprehension. n/t

[Number23]

131. I read just fine. If anything your interpretation

"He's disappointed that Obama didn't tell a story and that the

lack of story is why Obama's legislation ends up watered down and has no real teeth to get anything done."

makes no sense at all. If that's what you got out of this article, then you are most assuredly in no position to be trying to "instruct" others on what is the appropriate interpretation.

[Exilednight]

135. Go back and read the article. It;s exactly what he says.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

<snip>

But there was no story — and there has been none since.

<snip>

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it.

<snip>

This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling.

[Number23]

136. Your excerpts have nothing to do with what you said

And it's probably because what you said was so incoherent.

After all of this useless "discussing," I still stand by what I initially wrote. It's apparent to me that the author finds the president's failure at messaging to be one of his greatest flaws. If you took something else from the piece, that is just SIMPLY fantastic. I honestly don't care.

[Exilednight]

137. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that bailing out the banks while

middle-class and working-class Americans lost their homes was the right thing to do?

And if so, how do you justify it?

If you DO honestly believe that it was the right thing to do, then I see how you missed the irony in the paragraph you first quoted.

[Number23]

138. And I am beginning to see

a) why you have posted so damn many times in this thread and
b) why you are so intent on arguing whatever point you feel you are making.

As I already pointed out, I read the piece and DID NOT PROJECT what I already felt/believed. I just read it. I even posted excerpts that bolstered my point, which you have burned 14 calories desperately ignoring in your effort to "prove me wrong."

You came into this thread with preconceived notions and you are hell bent on forcing this article to comply with them. And if someone points out that the article may actually be pointing out something else, you simply MUST argue to death with that person, no matter how foolish you look in the process.

I guess you think you have a chance at changing someone's mind and that is why you are so invested in this thread with your 1400 posts. You don't.

[Exilednight]

140. Your lack of an answer says it all. n/t

[DeSwiss]

151. Bingo! n/t

[Number23]

155. Actually

the fact that you think that question is in any way germane to this "conversation" says much, much more.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Logical]

178. LOL....not really!

[Prana69]

159. Nope, you DID miss the central point of the article. The President's job is to "lead" - to take the

country and the people to a destination which is his or her vision for their country. In order to convince the people of the need for and value of that vision, the leader must establish a narrative - a story - of how we ended up "here", "where" we need to get to, and "how" we plan to do it. This narrative is especially important when the "where we need to get to" is in response to a crisis and represents a significant departure from the current environment - which was definitely the case in 2008.

The "story" the author belives Obama should have told is about the future (what he plans to do), not the "past" (what he has achieved). Obama never told that story - never laid out the vision - and so the author contends that no one knows where Obama stands, where he is going and why.

I don't know how you could have missed that.

P69

[Number23]

170. It's obvious that you didn't even read the article

The "story" the author belives Obama should have told is about the future (what he plans to do), not the "past"

That is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what the author writes:

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end.

He is SPECIFICALLY referring to the past as well as the present. Possibly the future, but most definitely the past.

And when he makes this point along with 100 others:

"And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it. But there was no story — and there has been none since."

It is so very apparent that he is bemoaning the president's framing of the issues at hand. He is angry that the president is not explaining what the hell is going on in clear language that people can understand. He states point blank that he wants the president to pin the blame on various groups.

The problem with people on this web site is that everyone wants to argue, no wants wants to listen. I have a different take on this article. That is all. And yet, I got a half dozen people breaking their knuckles trying to tell me that I am "wrong." And as many people can attempt to pile on me as possible, it doesn't and will not negate my original point.

[Prana69]

197. Don't be silly. Of course I read the article. How else could I have quoted it?

Look, I understand that you have a different interpretation of the article, but quite frankly your interpretation of the central theme of the article is incorrect. I also know that trying to clarify it for you is near impossible as you seem completely intent on missing the point. But I'm going to try anyway.

I do understand the perspective that you are taking on the article, but your perspective is simply incorrect. The first quote you cite actually supports my interpretation 100%:

"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end."

Do you get that? "NEEDED" Past tense. That is what the President NEEDED to do in 2008. The author is saying Obama SHOULD HAVE told the story - where we have been, how we got here and where we are going - from the outset, and failing to do so has left people confused about his values and direction. He is not saying Obama needs to tell us all the great things he has done since 2008.

I agree with your point that the author is "bemoaning the President's framing of the issues at hand", but that is the first time you have indicated that you comprehend that theme in the article. Prior to this, you were saying the essence of the article was "Obama should be telling us how f'ing awesome he is", which is simply not what the article is about.

On the other hand, saying "He states point blank that he wants the president to pin the blame on various groups" is another misinterpretation, or at least taking the statement right out of the context. The author argues that if Obama was to take control of the narrative at the start of his presidency, he needed to identify WHAT caused the social / economic / political crisis in 2008 and if there is a WHO, who got us to the situation we were in and then address it to ensure it didn't happen again.

It's a statement about taking control and ownership of the political narrative and leading the people to where you want them to be. It's not about blaming someone for the sake of dishing it out.

It's basic political psychology. Obama never told the story from the start of his Presidency which would have provided the framework for 2008-12 and because there is no framework, people cannot understand why he is doing what he is doing.

I don't think the article is really advocating FOR any particular action from Obama, as you suggest. It is an assessment of his Presidency generally. It is quite clear from the conclusion that the author is pretty unhappy with the policy directions Obama has taken, but that is different from directly advocating for a particular action.

P69

[Number23]

205. I never said anything of the sort

Prior to this, you were saying the essence of the article was "Obama should be telling us how f'ing awesome he is", which is simply not what the article is about.

If you're going to make shit up, at least be interesting. The ENTIRE POINT of my initial post was that the author is saying the president has done good things but has been horrible at communicating them to the American people. That people are still hurting and that he has allowed the repubs to frame the issues. I've said that at LEAST three damned times.

That is what the President NEEDED to do in 2008. The author is saying Obama SHOULD HAVE told the story - where we have been, how we got here and where we are going - from the outset, and failing to do so has left people confused about his values and direction. He is not saying Obama needs to tell us all the great things he has done since 2008.

Even if it was SHOULD have, it was still about the damn past! How the hell could the president tell a story about something that hadn't happened yet? Your point was that the author was not saying the president needed to talk about the past. YOU WERE WRONG!

And I absolutely DO think the author is saying that the president needs to change this. So your point "He is not saying Obama needs to tell us all the great things he has done since 2008." is the COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of what this article is about. I believe that he is saying that the president absolutely DOES need to articulate to the American public what's going on. Who the criminals are, how we got where we are, and what the President has done to fix it if anything. Which is why practically EVERY DAMN PARAGRAPH has the author mentioning Obama's "lack of storytelling." Good Lord, the man even says:

"Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century."

In other words, he would have "told the story" of how Wall Street/bankers destroyed the economy. Jesus, is it REALLY that hard to understand?

I can sit here screaming that your interpretation is "wrong" but you can think whatever the hell you like. It's of no consequence to me. And you know what? I STILL STAND BY MY INITIAL POINT. You have not said ONE THING to change my mind. Why waste your time? You're not going to waste mine.

[Prana69]

207. Are you serious? This from your first post where you explained your interpretation of the article:

It's interesting to note that the writer's main issue is that the president has done MUCH good work but hasn't told the American people that in explicit detail

And this:

So to the author, the president's primary failing is that he's not blowing his own horn loudly/often enough. From the first paragraph when the article laments the president for not "telling a story," it's apparent that the author believes that the president should in addition to actually doing great things, should also be tasked with making sure that everyone else knows that he's doing great things.

Those are your words providing your analysis of the article. Sure I collated it to "Obama should be telling us how f'ing awesome he is", but the intent was clear.

I guess the only thing we can agree on is that it is about owning the message.

The article did not instil me with any confidence that the author thinks Obama can change the message now. Because he never set out what he stands for, people cannot reconcile his actions.

And to this: Even if it was SHOULD have, it was still about the damn past! How the hell could the president tell a story about something that hadn't happened yet?"

It's called "having a vision" of the future. You lay it out for people, and then take the people on the journey. It's what Leaders do. That's why they are called "leaders".

P69

[Number23]

209. lol What you call "collating" I call making shit up

It's called "having a vision" of the future.

Which of course has absolutely NOTHING to do with your initial point which was that the author is saying that the president shouldn't mention what had happened in the past. Which is literally the complete OPPOSITE of what the author is actually saying.

I guess the only thing we can agree on is that it is about owning the message.

At this point, the only thing I'd like for us to agree on is that this discussion is over.

[Prana69]

212. Your inability to comprehend someone else's writing is astonishing, to the point where I am unsure..

...whether it is just an inability to comprehend, or a deliberate misrepresentation of information by you.

I can't begin to imagine how confusing it must be to live in your world.

Agreed. Over.

P69

[Number23]

221. My interpretation has been shared by just about every analysis of this piece

"Let's look now at Westen's core allegation -- that Obama failed as a storyteller," http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2011/08/lover-of-fairy-tales-casts-obama-as.html

Krugman: "You won’t be surprised to hear that I am very much in sympathy with Drew Westen’s lament about Obama’s unwillingness or inability to change the narrative." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x738711

Every single analysis I've seen backs up my original point, which is that the author feels Obama's primary shortcoming is his inability to communicate what he's done as well as highlight to the people how we got in the predicament that we are in. That in addition to doing great works he should be tasked with TELLING THE PEOPLE WHAT THOSE GREAT WORKS ARE.

But you just keep right on thinking that I'm "misinterpreting." LOL And btw, things are fucking Awesome (with a big ol' capital A) in my world, thank you so very much for asking. :)

[Prana69]

225. Your initial interpretation was incorrect. Since this was pointed out, your original interpretation

has morphed into a combination of altered and added position consisting of the alternative and correct interpretation provided by me and others who responded to your original post, and the "xpostfactoid" rebuttal (which also has major flaws). What you are saying is your argument now is very different from what you originally claimed.

Or are you going to claim again that you never said what you said you said - so I can quote it back to you again?

P69

[Number23]

227. You have grown boring. This thread is dead and this conversation is beyond tedious

I would take the word/thought/opinion of the two articles I posted over the 'disagreements' of the simple-minded people in this thread so desperate to 'disagree' that they don't give a damn exactly what it is that they are 'disagreeing' with.

You can post whatever the hell you want now. My point has been made, I stand by it, it was beautifully bolstered by the ACTUAL ARTICLE and others have corroborated. My work here is done. :)

I will however, leave you with this. This is the original comment in my original post:

"So to the author, the president's primary failing is that he's not blowing his own horn loudly/often enough. From the first paragraph when the article laments the president for not "telling a story," it's apparent that the author believes that the president should in addition to actually doing great things, should also be tasked with making sure that everyone else knows that he's doing great things."

Find the difference from this FIRST POST and what I just said to you in the post prior to this one:

"Every single analysis I've seen backs up my original point, which is that the author feels Obama's primary shortcoming is his inability to communicate what he's done as well as highlight to the people how we got in the predicament that we are in. That in addition to doing great works he should be tasked with TELLING THE PEOPLE WHAT THOSE GREAT WORKS ARE."

See the difference? No? Wanna know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. I am saying and have made the EXACT SAME POINT in every single post in this tired, tedious thread. You have spent the last 5-6 posts spinning your wheels like a fool and trying your hardest to act as though I've changed my perception of the piece when I have not. NOTHING has changed as far as my interpretation goes and it is backed by others (far smarter than you) who read and saw the EXACT SAME THING. I absolutely LOVE it when that happens.

You have a wonderful 2011!

[Prana69]

228. Three posts ago you said you wanted the discussion to be over. But you just can't let it go!

I'm not trying to change your perception. I'm trying to explain for you in the simplest way possible where your initial interpretation of Westen's article was dead wrong. Other's tried to do it too. We're not ganging up on you, just trying to help you understand.

No mind. Just carry on in opposite-land where blue is red and up is down and black is white and defend your position to the death, despite evidence to the contrary.

P69

[TheKentuckian]

119. Fantastic piece of work.

[DirtyDawg]

122. Wow!

Mr. Westen nailed it...and if Hillary and Bill Clinton sit down and study this piece and think about it, they can waltz into the Democratic nomination. None of us, or indeed any Democrat anywhere, will vote for another Republican ever again in our lifetimes - assuming that at some point, somewhere we may have made that mistake...I know I have when I voted, twice, for Johnny Isakson, who as Mr. Westen put it, succumbed to the 'dialing for dollars' thing in Washington a decade or so ago. But having said that, this election is more important than just re-electing a Democratic President. It's about saving the country from the evil that has overtaken us - the breaking of the arc of justice, as it were.

We can't afford another four years of this kind of capitulation to evil...I'm assuming that Hillary and Bill aren't completely given over to the dark side, but I damn sure know that every Republican is. I'm afraid that Mr. Westen's analysis doesn't offer us much in the way of hope that Obama is capable of changing at this late stage, so it's up to us. No other Democrat could pull it off. It will take someone with the reputation of the Clinton's, armed with the message of this man's insights, and I believe it should be done.

[Exilednight]

126. Hillary is no better than Obama. I picked Obama in the primaries due to his promises

to do the opposite of what Hillary would of done. If you supported Hillary in the primary, then you should have no problem with what Obama has done. He pushed her economic policy after the primaries, enacted most of her HCR and pushed her foreign policy stance.

[Doctor_J]

154. The poster to whom you respond voted twice for Johnny Isaakson

I'm thinking he probably voted for mcCain in the primaries.

[randr]

129. Echoes of the thoughts of millions

[orbitalman]

158. Powerful ! n/t

[Doctor_J]

162. I wrote an abbreviated version of this that SHOULD have been the president's

kick-off speech to this ceiling debacle.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Doctor_J

This piece is a terrific, comprehensive expose' of what those of us who are profoundly disappointed are thinking. The author has basically read my mind. This is such a wasted opportunity that it will be difficult to recover from, emotionally and politically. It has sort of finalized my decision to emigrate at all costs.

[ramapo]

168. Sad Truth

The worst part of it is that Obama was the best we could do.

Hillary was already beholden and would have been as much, if not more, a lightening rod for hate from the right as is Obama. Might she have had some guts? Would not have been hard to beat Obama on this one but we will never know. I had enough of presidential dynasties with the Bushes and did not think another family affair was such a good idea.

What if McCain won? Well the Democrats would be looking a lot better. Could he have done a worse job? Probably. And what if it had been too much for him and he keeled over? Can you imagine?

Bottom line is Obama has turned out to be a gutless empty suit. I don't know if there is some higher power that basically told him to forget all that stuff he said during the campaign or was it some kind of political equation?

Either way, we have squandered another chance to advance (maybe save is more appropriate at this point)our country. The future does not look pretty. Something radical needs to happen and we can only hope that it does not involve individuals who are completely crazy.

[Logical]

177. This is is amazing!

[sabo_tabby]

201. Well thank you. THANK YOU very much...

How quickly we throw the first African American President under the bus.

Jackie Robinson grounded out in his first at-bat. Guess they should have put HIM on the bench.

Look at what he struggled through - look at what the Pukes threw against him! Look at how far we've come!

Three years of nothing but Pukes in Congress thwarting him at every turn. No wonder he couldn't get his agenda - look at what the racist Pukes did with him. They rolled over like lapdogs for that pig Chimpy but let a black man come try to clean up the mess - why the NERVE of that uppity so-and-so!

And this is how WE'RE supposed to treat him too?

Shame.

I expect as much from a right-wing rag like the NYT, BUT NOT US. We're supposed to be better than that.

It's time we stop trying to kid ourselves. The gloves need to come off, the knives need to come out and we need to start playing for keeps.

And this means falling in behind the best man for the job and doing what's right.

Or do we have our own problems with people who look different, that we still have to grow past?

[sabo_tabby]

204. And one more thing...

I just read the first few paragraphs of this NYT bullshit. If you'd read it you'd see this lamebrained racist homophobe puke sonofabitch is trotting out the same lame-assed racist Puke crap they tried to tar him with in the elections.

Don't you get it?! They're trying to turn us against our own! Ferpiddysake, WAKE UP!

This piece is nothing more than the same old Bush-Cheney race-hating filth the Pukes have tried to use to scare people away from black candidates since Charley Rangle.

Don't you see?! This guy may as well be wearing a white hood, his hatred of a black president is so obvious. Look at all the "dog whistle words" he uses to signal the bitches and curs in the Puke party:
o "Voted Present"
o "Accomplished very little" (Puke talking point)
o "Publishing Nothing" (well duh! he's not a professor who had to write peer-reviewed articles - more Puke race-hatred)

I could go on but why bother? There's no point. You folks are falling for the same old Koolaid that kept Chimpy in office eight hate-filled years.

Whatever...

[Waiting For Everyman]

232. "When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait"

"for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public."

An excellent article - thank you!

[Obamanaut]

235. . nt