Obama can recapture a lot of independents through mere competence and leadership. When he goes around alienating the base of the party but still comes across as a partisan guy in these polls, it just boggles the mind how incompetent his staff is at messaging. Our company healthcare premiums have shot up this year. It put people like me in a company dominated by right wingers in a bad position of having to defend Obama.
The financial bailout with Geithner failed to get enough financial reforms in return. Some of us were willing to live with the bailouts if we could get something tangible back. After all those bailouts, can someone tell me with a straight face that Obama succeeded in preventing a future problem like this?
The BP mess was indicative of the incompetence of Salazar. Obama has kowtowed to the blue dogs . Yet one of the main blue dogs failed to demonstrate government accountability with his utter failure at reforming MMS.
Obama has looked like a joke when it comes to scaling back the wars. So he has lost the liberals while not gaining the support of the neocons. He is in nowhere land.
If OBama can show some competence at something, he will easily win back the independents.
Did you support Bush when Paulson was proposing his bailouts? or the Iraq war? Were you a petty person then? Opposing this president has nothing to do with ideology but integrity. There are certain areas where compromise is inevitable. But there has to be some reciprocity. I will vote for Ron paul if I think he is capable of reforming our military industrial complex and financial system. (Not that i think he can, but I am open to his ideas, and see what works , and what won't).
Why don't you blind Democratic Party Obama loyalists ask yourselves why Obama doesn't feel the need to cater to both sides? Why demonize the left and say that catering to the right is acceptable? This is what feeds the mainstream narrative and leads to a circular pattern of the right always being catered to whether they are in power or not. How did Bush get some of his wishlist passed when he didn't even have a strong majority and he failed to cater to the left? Why is it so tough for Obama to do the same?
I am not even a typical liberal but I find the way establishment Democrats dismiss the liberals as unworthy of catering to as bringing about another Naderesque movement. But then you guys won';t blame yourselves. you will just blame the 3rd party voters. Howard Dean tried to work within the system by campaigning for people who vilified him and what did he get rewarded with? A big fat kick in the ass after his term was up. Yet, people said Nader should have done what Dean did and work within the party. Feingold is no nader and yet he is having a hard time being consulted on important issues despite his track record of being one of the very few Democratic Senators who are more often right than wrong.
The bank bailout was vilified by both right and left. So I do not know what obama is accomplishing by catering to the right this much. The right does not respect compromise. They respect only power. Obama needs to project that by finding their weak points and find ways to threaten them using populist rhetoric. He's got a big army of PR guys. They need to earn their money and learn how to get people riled up against opponents of his bills the same way the tea partiers and Palin get their support by framing issues in ways a lot can relate to.
The Democratic Party has not learned a single damn thing since the Nader debacle in 2000. NOT A DAMN THING. The next time people blame Nader, look at the party itself for creating such a situation. I did not vote for Nader in 2000, but I am definitely going to vote third party in 2012 if Obama keeps this crap up. Obama has been a failure at everything he touched. Yeah yeah, healthcare reform could be a start and its benefits are still sketchy. But it is easily outweighed by the failure of proper financial reform, bungling of the BP mess, and now the lack of clarity on the war.
Karzai's whining should have been nipped inthe bud from day1. To let Karzai get to this stage where he thinks he can play both sides is indicative of the failure of american foreign policy.
Obama has not done a thing to punish Blackwater and others for fleecing our tax money via fraud.
As someone who was one of the few MYDDers not to discredit the Enquirer story about Edwards, let me say that I am leaning against part of this story being bogus.
Wasn't this a 564 dollar massage? A standard therepeutic massage in a regular city is around 100. I would guess that rate is doubled in vegas to 200. Considering it is an expensive hotel, maybe 400 at most. Was Al Gore expecting some extras for that money? Maybe he did ask for what she said he did. But then did nothing when he got rebuffed? The truth could be somewhere in the middle?
The lady is 54 years old. No, I dont bring this up to discredit her looks. She must be experienced enough to be quick on her feet in getting away from a client, no matter how famous he is. So I doubt her story that she couldn't get away. Unfortunately, her final escape is redacted from the Smoking Gun account I read.
There seems to be a lot of political related opinions in that story. Some of that seem to jibe with right wing jokes about Gore having a stupid giggle. Gore singing Pink's Mr President was admittedly a hilarious story, fiction or not.
It is possible her story is true and she was trying to capitalize on her experience. Not necessarily contradictory. But I don't know. I doubt it.
I will put up a diary on Gore one of these days. Let's say that I am not thrilled with his role in politics in the last few years. As much as I wanted him to run for the 2008 election, I was disappointed by his echo chamber adventures. I personally thought An Inconvenient Truth was not a great documentary and focused too much on the cult of personality. I think Flock of Dodos does a much better job with evolution than what Gore's doc did with global warming. And I wish Gore concentrated more on surrogates spreading the word to complement his appearances.
If anyone wonders how the Obamas and other Democratic leaders can get away with their blunders, just witness the self destruction of the Republican party. Partisan Democrats should be thankful for such gifts from the Republican party.
Feingold is a fine senator. But I wish he can be more effective in mobilizing other Democratic Party senators to vote the right way on issues. It may be an unfair criticism as the senate seems to be a beast beyond control owing to the seniority importance. While many of us have been disappointed with Obama's first year in office, the bigger culprit has been the Democratic party controlled senate. Somehow isolated blue dogs have been able to hold policy hostage while people like Feingold seem to have no influence. Maybe they should start engaging in tit for tat holdouts to discourage others from doing it again.
I hope people like Feingold and Al Franken can continue to build their coalition to offset the blue dogs and the liberals who have hung on to power too long that they have become corrupt (Chris Dodd has done the party image great harm). Barney Frank has become a joke. He came around on some bill recently, but he has not stood up for the small guy as much as he should have. I just don't trust the guy.
If Bernie Sanders is smart, he would learn to use his vote as leverage even if it means occasionally sacrificing his vote in favor of the Republicans to call the Democratic leadership on their endless compromises.
At this point, I do not care about ideology. i am ready just to support an honest and courageous politician. Their competence will outweight some of the ideological differences because government has been broken so much.
I went over to Freerepublic thinking that maybe, just maybe this will be one thing that reeks of idiocy for even them. Surprise surprise. Except for one or two dissenters, every other commentator was supporting Barton wholeheartedly.
If every democrat doesn't play that Joe Barton soundbite regardless of the district, someone's got to fire a lot of campaign managers. I don't know if this will hurt Barton locally or not considering people in his district may be like the freepers, but Democrats need to use this to show the people what the Republican brand can bring them. Play that soundbite and show a few excerpts of support for that statement from Price and some bloggers.
He says that he will make BP pay. Does anyone really believe that? How come he did not use this to call out the senate for not increasing the liability cap?
Why do I not believe OBama? He said similar stuff about Wall Street. What did it end up being ? All talk. Nothing changed. So Obama should have been more explicit in why things will be different now. If he couldn't reform Wall Street despite dangling an immense bailout, what makes him think he will succeed now?
The Healthcare saga is a story in development. But one thing is sure - Obama sure didn't instill any fears in the hearts of insurance execs. They are blatantly raising premiums for several policyholders. So what makes one think Obama can scare BP?
While Obama has been a huge joke over the last month, this problem does not boil down to Obama - the President. It is the cancer the senate has become. Obama's actions reflect on what he learned as a Democratic senator. Look at how Barney Frank, so called respected senator, is getting schooled by a newcomer like Al Franken. Chris Dodd was supposedly one of our best senators and he has been exposed to be a mildly corrupt weakling. Ken Salazar came from the wing of the party where they supposedly are conservative and are all about "results matter" and "fuck the liberal wing". Well, he failed. These establishment guys are all talk. Obama is so used to the ways of the Senate, I wonder if he knows how to kick some ass as he claims to want to. What I wanted to see from his speech was why people in the MMS should be scared and what he plans on doing to change the culture in DC which causes EXISTING regulations to be overlooked. What is he going to do to twist the arms of enough senators to pass some stronger conflict of interest laws? Obama has a chance to strike back at libertarians who want smaller government by showing that he can reform government. So far, he has shown he lacks the will to do it. One firing in a month so far?? That's it?
Obama's problem is he had a good campaign staff that he mistook to be a good administrative staff. Gibbs is a smug spokesman who makes Obama look worse. He is good at attack ads, but he is terrible communicator for the White House. He is quite simply unqualified to be working in government because of his persona. I can't believe I trust Bush's first Treasury Secretary than the full blown joke that is occupying that position under Obama.
When you are the big fish in the pond, you win with class. Or shut up. Otherwise, they shouldnt be surprised if there is ever a repeat of Nader 2000 moment and ask themselves "What??? We thought they were trapped into voting for us instead of the crazy alternative. How did this happen?"
When the whole Lieberman thing happened, one constant refrain we kept hearing was one should put personal feelings aside to go for the practical. Well, it looks like the establishment does not follow their own advice. They delighted in spiting Howard Dean on more than one occasion despite the lack of political payoff in doing so. This is smart politics? it's one thing to try to court conservatives. It is another to spite your base.
For all the whining by establishment about how immature netroots and unions can be, why is it that the White HOuse insiders get away with mocking people? What is the political wisdom in rubbing their noses in it? They did it with Lieberman alienating an entire wing who will show up in less numbers to the polls because they are disaffected by repeated disappointments with incumbent power. (specter was an exception because he was not a long term Democrat).
An unnamed official told Politico, "Organized labour just flushed $10m of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise. If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November." Eddie Vale, an AFL-CIO spokesman, responded, "Labour isn't an arm of the Democratic Party."
Considering Blanche needed a lot of establishment support, does she really think she is vindicated by such a narrow win? BTW, she still hasnt wont the election. So if she loses to the Republican, can we gloat that they wasted time supporting Blanche? You know, if your side wins, win with class when you are the establishment because an incumbent losing an election in the US is not the norm. Americans are too generous to incumbents in primaries. No other democracy is this safe for incumbents. If Clinton and the White House shunned her, she would have been toast. if obama is really interested in change, he could have killed her candidacy behind the scenes by just abandoning her. It is puzzling why the White House feels the need to support someone who let down the President when he needed her. They did this with Lieberman too who has proceeded to keep dumping on the Democrats since then.