McMahon is now trailing just 46 - 49 in CT. I want to get to another Senate update soon, lots of changes.

Meanwhile, just got done reading the latest from Peter Dauo, very spot on. I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to get some relief over the next few months, if the energy goes into Chicago-- beating Rahm is something that would probably unite the entire progressive netroots.

And an interview of Obama in RS that makes him sound like the Whiner In Chief, not a confident President. Its unbelievable that Obama thinks he's accomplished "70 percent" of his promises. What a crock. The guy has no personal sense of accountability at all, its rather embarrasing.

You can pretty much tell that the whole point of his doing this article was to point a finger of blame, and set up the WH story for the upcoming mid-term loss:

[Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office. A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger.]

One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines... The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible....  if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place. If you're serious, now's exactly the time that people have to step up.

All very coordinated. But what's interesting about it is how detached Obama himself is from the exercise. It certainly isn't motivating. Its not uniting. It tilts more to the lecturing side. He's apparently already standing up, has been so all along, and has nothing to do with the problem of there being a lack of principle.



Tags: (all tags)



It's hippie punching time.

Blaming the progressives is certainly not new . I just find the timing very disconcerting. Shouldn't they have  held their fire until after the election. I also find their condesension counter productive I tend to feel they treat us more like Rethuglicans then progressives. There is real anger in the hearts of this entire Administration  from Obama on down toward its base. The President was poorly served by Rahmbo who I believe convinced him to ignore his base and then attack and Blame them for their own present dilemma. As they say "The right fears it's base and the left hates theirs".

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-28 10:25AM | 0 recs
RE: It's hippie punching time.

My favorite part of your reply was the insightful and accurate use of the past tense - when applied to the tenure of one certain Mr. Rahm Emmanuel.

Basically all I know of him, is that he dissed Howard Dean. Anything else beyond that. Not important. The guy is toast. 18 months and he's out the door.

So long Rahm.

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
No ..not all Progressives

This latest article in the Politico speaks to it, as did Biden's words in the Maddow show.

What are now seeing is the small group of whining circling their wagon and saying look look look ... they are attacking all us.

They are not attacking everybody ... they are attacking the whiner.  Which I think is a small group.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 11:46AM | 0 recs
RE: No ..not all Progressives

If the Admin had a problem with only a "small" group of progressives why would the President , the Vice President and so many of his personal Spokesman make a major public issueof it.   These guys are seriously angry and afraid of loosing their base. Instead of appealing to them they chose to berate and insult them ALL. Now if what you say is true then it tells me this President is pretty lousy in communicating. If I say to a group "you guys are pretty stupid" but I only meant a a select few wouldn't you agree there is something wrong with my communication skills. My proof is my reaction to his speech I took his whining statement personal. And I find very little solace in your excuses to mitigate his words.

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-29 01:45PM | 0 recs
Well in that case

looks like I'll be supporting the other reasonably progressive Democratic President that we have right now.

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 10:49AM | 0 recs
It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines.

Absolutely right, or "spot on."  And for Jerome to title a post "Whiners" at this point is too much.  To see him apparently delight in the struggles of Dems in this election year raises more questions, political and psychological, than I can even attempt to address.  Instead I suggest MyDD readers move on.

by Thaddeus 2010-09-28 11:06AM | 1 recs
Move on where?

I think it's important to challenge the idea put forth by the White House  that Progressives are a bunch of "Whiners". Every progressive I know or read has never said or advocated "standing on the sidelines". What I have heard is a real effort at blaming the "Hippies" for not blindly supporting and turning a blind eye to everything this Administration  has or has not done.Pointing out that Gitomo is still open and DADT is still destroying lives and a miriad of other broken promises is not whining. You cant motivate people with Blame, demands and insults. This does not mean we are going to stand by and let the Thugs just take over. After all we are the party's base we ALWAYS VOTE the problem is the rest of the disenfranchised Dems and Independents out there.

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

Splitting hairs.  If you don't support the administration, then how do you plan to show it?  By withholding your millions of dollars in campaign donations?

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 11:40AM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

First of all I don't have millions I'm a disabled Vet who lives on a small Disability check. Second were did I say I wouldn't support this Administration. My issue is this Administration doesn't seem to want to support ME! I am a die hard Liberal and I worked my heart out for BO. I have been donating to the DCC and the DSC. I give to individual progressives. I actually give more than I can afford, ask my wife! But PLEASE don't equate blind obedience to the Admin as support. That you will never receive from me or any REAL Democratic Progressives in our base.

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-28 12:01PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

There are things that I wish the President did more forcefully.  Like ending warrantless wiretapping, closing Gitmo, pushing harder for immigration reform or a sensible energy policy.  The naive optimist inside me thinks that he's saving the more popular battles (like ending warrantless wiretapping) for when the GOP is in control of Congress.  It's a great wedge issue and they'd have a hard time opposing it.  Same with gays in the military.  He had to do the hardest things (financial reform, HCR, credit card reform) while he still had a Democratic Congress.  I realize they left a lot undone that the Republicans will never, never, ever touch.  But that's Congress, not Obama.

Beyond that, the administration can only do so much.  Obama used a lot of political capital getting HCR passed.  I agree that it should have been stronger, but the thing just barely squeaked by as it was.  There is a universe where Obama pounds his fist on the table and people like Nelson, Lieberman, Collins, Snowe, and Lincoln all fall in line and do exactly what he wants, but that's not the universe we live in.  Think about the middle class tax cut issue.  Only the Democrats in Congress could screw something up that badly.

Granted, the Obama Administration makes some really dumb comments about liberal bloggers, etc.  But, really, if you read enough liberal blogs, you can understand why.

Oh, and the millions in donations comment was snark.  Rhymes with shark.

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 12:35PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

Is that "my name is earl" in your profile pic? lol

by Trey Rentz 2010-09-28 01:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

nope.  that's just me sitting in the bath tub.

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 01:24PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

reminds me of Bill "The Butcher" in gangs of ny

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-28 02:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

ha!!  one of the best characters of all time.

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 02:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

Then why would Obama, Biden and the rest of the Admin act as though the Base is an angry child to be berated for lack of loyalty? We don't need lectures to "Get with the program" we need a President who like any good coach would do what all good Pols do... "Pander" to his base. Tell us how he will close Gitmo, end DADT, End the Bush survelliance state, Improve HCR and most of all promise to pay heed to our advice in the future. Either way,we will stick with the Party! It's just a matter of degree. Right now I'm not "ALL PUMPED UP" but I am ready to go.


 Read more >>   Options >>  
by Ed beckmann 2010-09-28 01:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Move on where?

We're probably not that far apart.  I tend to blame Congress more than the President, though. I think Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as one of the great Speakers of the House.  I'm reserving judgment on Harry Reid.  Mostly I think he's an intolerable pussy, but his job is considerable more difficult than Nancy Pelosi's.  There are a lot of Democratic congresscritters who I just for the life of me can't figure out what the hell they're thinking.  You can only feel like you've been punched in the gut so many times and still feel motivated to vote for the Democrats.  But I think a lot of that is the Congress.  Obama only has limited control over them.  Don't forget that repealing DADT was blocked by the Republicans including Susan Collins who said that she favored the repeal, but not the process.  How do you work with people like that?  Besides, I think repealing DADT isn't dead.  It's popular enough that if the Republicans don't bring it up, it could hurt them in 2012.  Same with repealing high-income tax cuts and a few other initiatives.  Like I said, I can be extremely naive sometimes.  Part of me thinks Obama did the hard stuff when he knew he had strong Democratic majorities and he'll use the easy stuff to split the Republicans.  But then again, I thought John Kerry was going to stop talking about his Vietnam service in July of 2004 because everyone already knew about it and he would appear more statesmanlike to be mute about it.


by the mollusk 2010-09-28 01:24PM | 0 recs
Is this Obama's version of the "malaise speech"?

This is disgusting, and it sickens me. Americans don't like whining from their Presidents.

I read excerpts from this interview this morning, and was reminded of Jimmy Carter's malaise speech in 1978. Carter suggested that there was a "crisis of confidence", and that the problem was with the American people.

Two years later, Ronald Reagan re-defined the problem, and it wasn't the American people. He declared that there wasn't a crisis of confidence; there was a crisis of leadership. And that brings us to where we are today. Excuse my French, but Barack Obama couldn't lead a fart out of an asshole. He has no clue what leadership is all about.

I can recall Presidential candidates---Mike Dukakis in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996---who knew damned well that they were facing sure defeat. But in the interest of rallying the troops, they maintained a positive tone, kept their senses of humor, and campaigned non-stop right up until election day. That's what leaders do.

Goodbye, Barack Obama. I'm sure you'll make a very fine law professor somewhere.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-28 11:33AM | 0 recs
RE: Is this Obama's version of the "malaise speech"?

Comparing an interview to a national address, or Carter to Obama is just silly.

Flat out silly.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 11:34AM | 0 recs
Apparently, you're unable to think conceptually

From what you're saying, it's "silly" to compare the thoughts and ideas of two people if they're expressed in different formats or media. For example, analysts have often compared the ideas in Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" with those expressed in Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing". But in the Flatts world, such comparisons shouldn't be made.....one is a speech, one is a political essay in a book....so drawing parallels would just be silly!

Rolling Stone's interview with the incredible shrinking President has a remarkably similar tone to Carter's malaise speech, and it's simple to see: they both believe that "the people" are to blame for their own mistakes and woes. Obama whined about voters' "lethargy"; Carter complained of a "crisis of confidence". Both men are clearly unable to take personal responsibility for their own failures. And I don't give a rat's ass whether they convey it in a book, a campaign speech, or in conversations with Amy and Malia. Bottom line, their whining shows weakness; both Obama and Carter are weak men.

Americans don't like whining or weakness in their Presidents.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-29 12:21PM | 0 recs
RE: Is this Obama's version of the "malaise speech"?

Comparing a sitting President to a losing candidate doesn't make any sense either.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:37PM | 0 recs
RE: Is this Obama's version of the "malaise speech"?

I seriously wonder is someone who hearts Reagan AND makes your vulgar comment regarding Obama's leadership, all in the same paragraph shouldn't be posting at redstate or someplace similar instead.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:40PM | 0 recs
RE: Is this Obama's version of the "malaise speech"?

I went to the Bill Clinton school of politics, and he's a Democrat we can all be proud of. Remember President Clinton? He and his wife were derided as racists by the Obam-orons back in 2008.

The current White House occupant is nothing more than an urban agitator dressed up as a President. And the impersonation is starting to wear thin, witness his sagging poll numbers.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-29 01:15PM | 0 recs

"... nothing more than an urban agitator dressed up as President."

Ding Ding Ding ... we have a troll.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 03:45PM | 0 recs
Desperately seeking a real President

As a public service, I'm going to try to educate you today, moron. Have you ever heard of a political phenomenon (circa 1980) known as "the Reagan Democrats"?

These were good Democratic voters who put country ahead of party. When they saw a bumbling Democratic incumbent who was WEAK, incompetent, scorned by the world, ineffectual, and just generally a worthless piece of garbage, they decided to vote Republican.....for one of the greatest leaders of our time, Ronald Reagan.

Well, the Reagan Democrats are restless again, my friend. We are alarmed at this "President" who travels the world, bowing to foreign dignitaries as he apologizes for our great country. No, this is neither a President we can be proud of, nor one we can support in future elections.

We were proud to return to the party under Bill Clinton, and will be proud to return again once this current impostor is gone.


by BJJ Fighter 2010-09-30 11:37AM | 0 recs
RE: Desperately seeking a real President


Another trait of the rightwing ... resorting to name calling.


Have a nice day


... Troll.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-30 11:41AM | 0 recs
Grayson in 2012!


I wonder if he'd do it.  Or Howard Dean.  Or Michael Moore.  It has to be someone who wouldn't be afraid of being tarred as a bad team player by the "liberal" media and the Democratic establishment.

Just once I want a Democrat in the White House who doesn't play defense all the f*ing time.

by Rooktoven 2010-09-28 12:25PM | 1 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

You're hitting on half the cylinders.

Jerome started out this blog as a Deaniac a long time ago, and he really wasn't a part of the DC infrastructure.

But now Jerome is a member of the "WebStrong" group, and he's being paid to get people elected.  His business revolves around Washington DC, and he is paid to have an opinion.

My Due Diligence became My Direct Democracy, and the web ads went up. The external editor and comment replies went into place so that all comments here can be more easily parsed and dealt with.   And Jerome happily blended in with the establishment.

So 2008 rolls around, and Jerome wants a DLC candidate to win.  The selfsame institution that invited lobbyists to its inception - the 'pro business' inside the beltway game. And Jerome came up loud and clear on the side of the pro-DLC candidate.

Meanwhile, Obama became the favorite of the progressives, and the insurgent campaign swept the DLC candidate off the map - but only after alot of whining, and back biting - including an almost butterfly ballot moment  in Florida. 


Obama then went on to win, in 2008, in the General election - and not just by a little bit. But by a huge landslide. Even in the face of an extremely popular and media-friendly blitz by the GOP starring Sarah Palin as "Vice President".

Some people read this post as a Whine session, and they respond to what Jerome wrote here as if Jerome really does write - all the time, whatever he thinks and feels. But this is not the case. Jerome writes strategically - placing his thought and word, in a very careful manner.  He was once a very good contributor to this blog, as were Chris Bowers, and Jonathan Singer.

But I read this post a bit more incisively. I am happy that I was able to hear the words of the president, and that he had a message for the progressives - to get off their collective butt and get something done.

And to be honest, if I were in the room with the President - and he came back at me like that, I would be afraid.

This is the most powerful man in America. And for better or worse, the progressive movement is identified with him.

A good friend of the family, Kevin Philips  - once wrote that most revolutions dismast themselves after sweeping that which they opposed out of power. The bourbons, he said, were a good example of this.

But what Rooktoven is touching on here is significant. Rahm is already out of the White House, and if someone throws a laurel leaf to Dean, or Grayson - we'd be in good shape. Michael Moore, with his panegyric against capitalism itself - is , to be honest, really too close the the entertainment line ...

And sadly, so is this post.



by Trey Rentz 2010-09-28 12:58PM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!


That Jerome can make a living doing what he wants to is irrelevant. Indeed it is important for progressives to maintain a long lasting (therefore funded) infrastructure.

That he could support both Dean and Clinton is not a contradiction. In both cases he chose the most partisan candidate. Which in my opinion was the correct reading of the opposition.

That now the progressive movement is more or less collectively  distancing itself from the administration is uncomfortable but necessary.

by Judeling 2010-09-28 01:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

But no laurel is coming.  Dean was treated like a pariah after setting up the infrastructure that enabled Obama to get elected.  Obama didn't do it by himself.

My beef with Obama is the half-assed measures he took that he portrays as major victories.  A case in point  is the public option-- maybe you get that if you don't A) throw out single payer as a bargaining chip at the very beginning and B) send out messages during the negotiations that the public option isn't necessary.  I seem to recall Obama letting the House and Senate do all the work and then taking a victory lap over the legislation that he undercut. 

Then there is the less than adequate stimulus (no do-overs on that one), the abandoning of support for net neutrality, refusing to prosecute torture from the previous administration, INCREASING wire-tapping, and email interception, etc.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that a President can twist arms into getting what he wants more than Obama has been willing to do (i.e. not at all) or can use the bully pulpit to hammer on certain concepts so the American people know why they are important.   The stuff about extending the middle class tax cut was a day late and a dollar short.  As a result his (perilous) majority is running away from him.

A mediocre president with a brilliant political mind once said "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right".  Well, being detached and unwilling to fight certainly doesn't give the appearance of strength.  One wonders if Obama would prefer the Democrats to be in the minority just so he can be seen as the only bastion against complete Republican control 2012-- thereby getting himself re-elected when people realize what is happening.  It will probably play out that way, but it didn't have to.  This has been a blown opportunity of historic proportions, that has ended up severely damaging the Democratic brand.

Obama has a lot of gall pointing his finger at the base, who while maybe not providing him with the majority of his votes, certainly provided him with the enthusiasm and diligence he needed to get elected.  These people are the ones who WILL show up to vote, despite their disappointment.  It's just going to be harder for these people to go out and make the case to undecideds about why he and the democrats deserve continued support.

by Rooktoven 2010-09-28 02:19PM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

If Democrats lose Congress, Obama is going to be to blame and many of us wont be there for him in 2012.  I certainly will not be.

by Kent 2010-09-28 04:12PM | 1 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

Obama only has one vote and I am sure he will cast it for a straight Democratic ticket. 

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

Is there an unrec button on this site?

I'd like to apply to everything this defeatist little prick has evrer posted here.


by spirowasright 2010-09-29 01:01PM | 1 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

This is delusionary, please grow up. Obama and Clinton were both DLC candidates, whatever that means.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-28 02:43PM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

Grayson just misses it.

The guy makes a great forceful arguement, hitting the facts and stomping on his opponents throat at the same time, then just about every time he adds that last sentence, that last little something that makes him look like a crackpot at the end.

His 'Taliban' commercial is a great example.  It is a great hard hitting hard, but now everyone is focused on Greyson and 'Taliban' and not that his opponent is a extremist and a kook.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 11:42AM | 0 recs
RE: Grayson in 2012!

Dunno.  If the shoe fits, throw it at the guy.

by Rooktoven 2010-09-29 12:46PM | 1 recs
Some more of the interview...

Thought maybe people would enjoy reading more than the single, short paragraph with which we are seeing all the outrage over...since it was a 7 page long interview.


ROLLING STONE: You've passed more progressive legislation than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Yet your base does not seem nearly as fired up as the opposition, and you don't seem to be getting the credit for those legislative victories. There was talk that you were going to mobilize your grass-roots volunteers and use them to pressure Congress, but you decided for whatever reason not to involve the public directly and not to force a filibuster on issues like health care. What do you say to those people who have developed a sense of frustration — your base — who feel that you need to fight harder?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's a bunch of different questions, so let me see if I can kind of knock them out one by one.

One of the healthy things about the Democratic Party is that it is diverse and opinionated. We have big arguments within the party because we got a big tent, and that tent grew during my election and in the midterm election previously. So making everybody happy within the Democratic Party is always going to be tough.

Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there's a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It's like, "Well, gosh, we've got this historic health care legislation that we've been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let's focus on what we didn't get instead of what we got." That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.

When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, "Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable." I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don't even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.

The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn't seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.

You look at all this, and you say, "Folks, that's what you elected me to do." I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I've got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we've accomplished.

All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we've seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people's wages and incomes have stagnated. So it's not surprising that a lot of folks out there don't feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won't take effect right away, so ordinary folks won't see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we've accomplished a huge amount.

When you look at what we've been able to do internationally — resetting our relations with Russia and potentially having a new START treaty by the end of the year, reinvigorating the Middle East peace talks, ending the combat mission in Iraq, promoting a G-20 structure that has drained away a lot of the sense of north versus south, east versus west, so that now the whole world looks to America for leadership, and changing world opinion in terms of how we operate on issues like human rights and torture around the world — all those things have had an impact as well.

What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.

I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill. You've got to make a set of decisions in terms of "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?" I made a decision early on in my presidency that if I had an opportunity to do things that would make a difference for years to come, I'm going to go ahead and take it.

I just made the announcement about Elizabeth Warren setting up our Consumer Finance Protection Bureau out in the Rose Garden, right before you came in. Here's an agency that has the potential to save consumers billions of dollars over the next 20 to 30 years — simple stuff like making sure that folks don't jack up your credit cards without you knowing about it, making sure that mortgage companies don't steer you to higher-rate mortgages because they're getting a kickback, making sure that payday loans aren't preying on poor people in ways that these folks don't understand. And you know what? That's what we say we stand for as progressives. If we can't take pleasure and satisfaction in concretely helping middle-class families and working-class families save money, get a college education, get health care — if that's not what we're about, then we shouldn't be in the business of politics. Then we're no better than the other side, because all we're thinking about is whether or not we're in power.

by The BBQ Chicken Madness 2010-09-28 01:06PM | 1 recs
RE: Some more of the interview...



Hey, by the way, I looked at it too (yes, MyDD is still a good place to hang out) - and it dawned on me slowly that this interview was done chronologically an hour after Elizabeth Warren was appointed.

Elizabeth Warren rocks.





by Trey Rentz 2010-09-28 01:11PM | 0 recs
RE: Some more of the interview...

God, he's just intolerable.  How dare he recount his accomplishments?  It's always me, me, me with him.

by the mollusk 2010-09-28 01:33PM | 0 recs
RE: Some more of the interview...

Obama sounds very rational, very reasoned.  

For those crying about lack of leadership, do tell, how do you accomplish all those things if you can't lead?   I just don't get it.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:47PM | 1 recs
Obama still doesn't get it...

Obama just seems so out of touch with the electorate these days. For someone who was so good at campaigning in 2008 and who had the pulse of the voters so well, he now seems clueless. He attacks his base while ignoring the repeated assaults by the Republicans against him and his administration. He suggests that had he campaigned hard for the public option, he would have gotten no legislation passed; clearly, he didn't understand the legislative process, failed to connect to the importance of supporting his base and his campaign promises, and repeatedly believed he would eventually get brownie points for trying over and over again to coddle up to Republicans with that bipartisan-thingie. In all of these cases, he misread the public, his opposition, and his responsibilities to his base and party. As things now stand, I would vote for any -- ANY -- Democrat who would run against him in 2012. I fear there won't be one, so we'll be stuck with him for the election, and if by some weird stroke of luck he gets re-elected, we'll be stuck with him another four years after that. So sad. Such promise! Promise now wasted with his denials of reality and his continuing drive to find a bipartisan means of governance, even in the face of near total opposition and obstruction by the Republican party. Why can't he see that? Everyone else groks it, yet he remains aloof and oblivious that his accomplishments are minimal and not what he promised us. Change we can believe in is not incremental, marginal change that more resembles the status quo than real change. But that is what we got, and now he wants us to shut up and get with the program while he continues to mollycoddle the Republicans for change no one recognizes. Just simply sad!

by mcarnes 2010-09-28 02:54PM | 2 recs
RE: Obama still doesn't get it...

I disagree.

I watched him speak in WI last night on CNN.  He seemed connected and he seems to get it.

A rather large audience seemed connected and getting it too.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 11:15AM | 1 recs
RE: Obama still doesn't get it...

Don't bring up the WI speech.

The only thing Jerome and the rest of the MyDD crowd is concerned with was how long Sen. feingold hung around.

by spirowasright 2010-09-29 12:58PM | 0 recs
RE: Whiners



The truth hurts sometimes, dowsn't it Jerome?

by spirowasright 2010-09-29 12:45AM | 0 recs
Look at the drop off in posts on this site

I think it might something.  

I still think it is a great site, I enjoy coming here and reading the posts, even the ones I disagree with, and I like the links to all the great articles etc., but I think the drop off in posts may tell us something.

I agree with Biden that it a small small ... very small part of the base.    I also agree that some of it is flat out whining (like not getting a public option when the votes were not there).   

I didn't see a lot of whining or sitting on hands in WI last night.   The President gave a great speech and the large crowd seem very connected and fired up.   They didn't look like they were very concerned with what someone like a Huffington or a poster on MyDD has to say. 

A microphone makes someones voice seem powerful even when it is not.   I think what you are seeing a handful of people with a microphone .. a blog .. making noise and having that noise amplified.

During the '06 and the '08 elections this site had a lot more diaries being written, and it had a heck of a lot more responses.   But since it seems that a majority of what is posted is critical of Obama ( and in my opinion often unfairly so), I wonder if a lot of people are just tuning out because they don't want to hear it.   I wonder if anyone of those 1000s of attendees in WI last night cheering the President used to come here and post and now don't want to because of the negativity.

As for any 3rd party talk I will say what I always say.   If that is what someone wants to do, after what we saw in 2000, they should go start making their Nader signs now but don't come back and don't ever bitch that the Democrats are not going enough to stop the Republicans that THEY helped elect.  

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 11:33AM | 1 recs
Jerome Armstrong and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee

This diary expresses, more eloquently - but with no substantive difference - the same viewpoint as Ed Rollins, the Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.



The biggest whiner I know in politics just called his political base (actually Obama's political base) a "bunch of whiners!" How many times over the years have we watched Joe Biden on television badmouthing someone or something? I've yelled at the television set, "Quit whining, you whiner!"




by Trey Rentz 2010-09-29 11:36AM | 0 recs
RE: Jerome Armstrong and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee

I was thinking above that some of the attacks from the left sounds almost exactly the same as many from the right and from Fox.

Someone above doesn't like something above did so he says he can't lead? 

Saying are sitting Democratic President can't lead .... especially after all he has accomplished ... sounds like a Sean insHannity line of attack.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:52PM | 0 recs
Media and the Whiners Don't Like It

Obama didn't ATTACK his base.

He called out a very small group of people on the far left.

The media doesn't get it and the Whiners don't like it. 

Now the whiners are using their platforms to try and suggest to the rest of us that we are all being attacked.   That is not true.

Let the whiners whine but don't lump me in with them, I want nothing to do with them.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-29 12:50PM | 1 recs
RE: Media and the Whiners Don't Like It

Alright tell us! Who exactly is in this "small" group of whiners the Pres is complaining about? Give us a count, name names. How can I be lumped in or out of your super secret whining society? As I read it anyone who called this President out on issues from GITMO, DADT to Unwarranted searchs can consider themselves whiners. In my Book that then includes most Progressives. I wouldn't call this group "Small". Would you?

by Ed beckmann 2010-09-29 01:54PM | 0 recs
Obama's problem

Obama's problem isn't that he is a weak whiney guy and people are waking up to it.

Obama's problem is that he has a weak whiney block of voters who all want different contradictory things.

That one group of democrats is actively planning to try and shoot down a candidate from their own party all the while not realizing that they are the party's problem is amazing.


Obama's progressives are Carter's liberals with an identity crisis.


The clinton faction wouldn't have been wimpy like this.  That is true old school blue collar while kicking your ass democratic party.


Pick your party.  Reality based Clinton wing with a pro business while maintaining an eye for social justice but not at the expense of the greater good management style or the Carter/Obama I know better than you super liberal can't get anything done everyone suffers especially the poor management?


I will stand with those who actually grew the economy lifting so many out of poverty and making us the envy of the world.  Not an incompetent neoliberal and the progressives that thrust him upon us.

by donkeykong 2010-10-05 03:26AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads