Obama in a bubble?

The healthcare reform is practically dead, so is the Arab-Israeli peace initiative, banking regulation is being diluted as we speak, a Republican senator has put a blanket hold on all appointees and while obstructionism is at an all-time, the country is still bitterly divided with registered Republicans questioning the legitimacy of this administration and 2010 looms ugly and large. What went wrong? How did this administration get everything so wrong?

 

 

Edward Luce of the Financial Times has an excellent article regarding things that went wrong with this White House. He quotes a bunch of unnamed sources because as he puts it "most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office". The conclusion is summed up in one sentence:

The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing

The blame of course lies with the inner group of advisers who have no experience in government, but adept at campaigning. Even now, in the face of Republican extremism, we have a President who says one thing about the health care bill in public

And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

In private he has taken a hands-off approach at least since the MA debacle:

President Obama, hammered for taking a hands-off approach on health care to begin with, has all but disappeared from the discussions as Congressional leaders attempt to figure out a way to finalize a health care plan now that they have just 59 Senate seats.

Yet I received this very oddly worded email from the OFA saying this:"President Obama and many allies in Congress are working hard to finish the job -- but we can't rest until it's done. Your note will help break through the Washington spin and show members of Congress and the media what local voters really believe."

I would opine that Obama was hands-off since the inception of this bill leaving it to the Baucus caucus to carve a bill with back-room deals with PhRMA and concessions at first to Republican Senators Grassley, Enzi and Snowe, and later Lieberman. What did that get us? A severely diluted bill that is more of a giveaway to the insurance industry, which even according to the President, more in line with Republican ideas:

Today's Senate bill – supported by Obama – resembles a plan drafted by a moderate Republican senator in the Clinton years.

The total lack of leadership has not only worried the Progressive caucus in the House on stalling on this bill due to an inherent distrust of a corrupt Senate:

Leading Democrats in the House still insist that "all options are on the table" to move ahead on health care. But for the first time since last Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, it's clear that they're coalescing around the most widely discussed option: moving ahead with the Senate bill once it's clear that it will be changed through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. Before they can move ahead, they need the Senate to make some real headway on their end of the bargain--and they're not getting the signs they need.

In the Senate itself, progressive members have grown increasingly irate at the lack of leadership from the White House with Sen. Franken having some tough talk with bubble-insider David Axelrod:

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

The private session was set up in a panel format, with Axelrod joined at the front of the room by Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

A Democratic source said that Franken directed his criticism solely at Axelrod.

“It was all about leadership and health care and what the plan was going to be,” the source said.

So back to our major headlines from yesterday, President Obama wants to have a bipartisan summit with Republicans about health care and listen to their ideas. The question is why? We had all the Republican input we needed and they killed the reform aspects of the bill. This bill was stalled endlessly for one Republican vote, first of his good friend Chuck Grassley who went on to say that reform will "kill grandma", then of President Olympia Snowe and then Joe Lieberman. When is enough, enough? When does this President stop his campaign gimmicks of bipatisanship and healing divides and actually start governing? These are the questions addressed in Edward Luce's story. On the topic of whether this President wants to change his advisors and come out of the campaign bubble, Luce ends his story with a telling quote from David Gergen:

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

 

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

107 Comments

The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing

Yep, in a nut shell.


When Obama declared, in his election victory speech, for 2012, it was point blank obvious that he and his team was already obsessed with winning re-election.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-02-08 08:25PM | 1 recs
Good diary

This has been the problem that many of us have had with Obama's administration so far.

Of course, we get called names for daring to voice those concerns (by fellow Democrats and by Rahm).

 

by jeopardy 2010-02-08 08:37PM | 2 recs
RE: Good diary

Most of the so called "concerns" however lack merit. But I am willing to debate them if you want. The above diary didn't have much to offer, the only gist I got from it was that we suppossedly want Obama to do Congresses job for it.

by vecky 2010-02-09 07:05PM | 1 recs
No No No!

We want Obama to magically makeover Congress to Our political liking, and then have him do its job!

There were 60 votes in the Senate for single payer? Golly gee, if I had known this, I never would dropped my support for Obama a long time ago.

(are there even 50? The answer is not even close. There were at best guesses about 35)

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 09:59PM | 1 recs
I will never forgive this President

for throwing away the last chance we had at ever passing healthcare reform.  Shame on him. 

by Kent 2010-02-08 09:03PM | 0 recs
This one goes in my Kent quote collection

Of course, he'll cowardly high tail it out of here when HCR passes.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 10:00PM | 1 recs
This one goes in my Kent quote collection

Of course, he'll cowardly high tail it out of here when HCR passes.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 10:00PM | 0 recs
I kind of toned things down

But Steve Clemmons wrote a blistering piece using Edward Luce's article as a template. He believes that Obama is about to lose credibility the way he is going right now!! The administration in its attempt towards wishywashy bipartisanship with dishonest partners is more interested in maintaining its image for re-election than actually getting anything done. Governance is not a strong suit. The conservative Dem senators do not give a hoot about this WH and openly defy its agenda. In the meantime Democrats are divided among themselves between people who are looking for governance and people who are high on the Obama image. From the lofty expectations of 2008, this is on the way to a train-wreck.

by tarheel74 2010-02-08 10:47PM | 0 recs
That's a great article

Why didn't Obama take Steven Chu to China?  His name is Chu, people!  China!  Do I have to spell it out?

And Valerie Jarrett bailed on a John Zogby gala event that Steve Clemons was at?  The nerve!  Fucking haughty bitch.  Goddamn.  Impeach this fucker now!  And if anyone knows foreign policy, it's Arriana Huffington for sure. 

by JJE 2010-02-09 01:23AM | 1 recs
RE: That's a great article

Spoken like a true believer!!

by tarheel74 2010-02-09 08:53AM | 0 recs
RE: That's a great article

Indeed.....if Stephen Chu were to go to China, maybe he can try again there with his idea for people to paint their roofs white. Seems like it didn't really take hold here in America; we're such damned ignorant schlubs.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
I know right?

What a dumbass.  He needs to take a page from Saint Reagan and focus on real polluters, like trees.  Nothing is being done to combate the tree menace, BJ, nothing!

by JJE 2010-02-09 10:19AM | 1 recs
Huh?

I'm agreeing with you.  Not taking a guy with a Chinese surname to China is a deadly mistake.  And that uppity Valerie Jarrett best learn to kowtow to people like Steve Clemons or she needs to go.

by JJE 2010-02-09 10:18AM | 0 recs
wait...

let me get some popcorn, I am kinda enjoying your spittle-flecked rage and bait-and-switch!!

by tarheel74 2010-02-09 10:24AM | 1 recs
Why the friendly fire?

I'm agreeing with the Steve Clemons article you like.  Not taking a Chinese-American on a China trip and disrespecting poor John Zogby is unforgivable.  Who is going to start drafting the articles of impeachment?

by JJE 2010-02-09 12:17PM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

I don't frequent this blog often, but it should be pointed out that an argument of this form never convinces anybody of anything. 

Sarcasm!  The tool of Holden Caufield! 

by RickD 2010-02-10 01:09PM | 0 recs
RE: Huh?

Thanks for your concern, but the firebagger crowd is not persuadable.

by JJE 2010-02-10 01:32PM | 0 recs
In a bubble........much like Nixon

Sadly, the other President in history you think of when the term "bubble" is used is Richard Nixon. Obama often exhibits some of Nixon's worst qualities: thin-skinned, petulant, and obsessed/paranoid with media outlets that he regards as unfriendly.

When Obama dispatched the Gibbs/Emmanuel/Anita Dunn team last Fall to demonize FOX News, it brought back unpleasant memories of Nixon using Haldeman/Erlichman/Colson to go after the Washington Post. Somehow, I prefer the Reagan/Clinton model of rising above the fray, and staying focused on your priorities.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-09 12:32AM | 0 recs
Damn straight

Nobody on team Clinton would ever talk about some vast conspiracy or paranoid shit like that.  Focus on true national priorities, man, like Midnight Basketball and internet porn!  That's real leadership.

by JJE 2010-02-09 01:33AM | 1 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

Can you not tell the difference between Nixon trashing the Post when the Post was investigating Watergate and Obama pointing out that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican party?

Comparing Obama to Nixon is like comparing Bush to Truman.  Sure it can be done, but the comparison mostly discredits the person making it.

by RickD 2010-02-10 01:11PM | 0 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

While I might agree with you on FOX, Nixon would just as easily have argued that the Post was doing the bidding of the DNC. The point is, these are all subjective judgments, on which good people can all disagree.

Given that, the safest and time-honored practice for a democracy has been for government officials to keep hands off the media. Even the founding fathers realized that it is dangerous for government to attempt to interfere with a free and independent press. Team Obama is systematically attempting to erode our freedoms, and it's frightening.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-10 01:33PM | 0 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

"Team Obama is systematically attempting to erode our freedoms, and it's frightening."

How was your weekend in Opryland? 

by Strummerson 2010-02-10 03:12PM | 1 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

Opryland?  That or the Creation Museum.

by fogiv 2010-02-10 03:26PM | 0 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

Sorry if things aren't going your way these days; here's some reading that might make you feel better:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-10 10:11PM | 0 recs
RE: In a bubble........much like Nixon

Nationaljournal.... I can now see why you go around equatting Obama to Nixon and Faux to WaPo...

Reality is something that clearly left you by a long time ago.

by vecky 2010-02-10 10:57PM | 0 recs
Easy......your ignorance is showing.

You're confusing National Journal with National Review.....clearly you don't read a lot, but we already knew that. Most people who profess an interest in politics are aware that these are two different vehicles.

National Review was founded by Bill Buckley, and is still one of the most influential political journals for those on the right.

National Journal is a nonpartisan political publication, whose regular contributors include Ron Brownstein, Charlie Cook, and CNN's Bill Schneider, among others. The Journal collaborates with PBS to produce "Washington Week with Gwen Ifil", which you can watch Friday evenings at 8 if you'd like to educate yourself.

Got it now? Stop embarrassing yourself, and do some fact checking before you post these comments. (Try spell check as well; as in, "equatting" ???)

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 12:07AM | 0 recs
RE: Easy......your ignorance is showing.

National Journal is not a right-wing kook site like Review or WND, but it's not a whole lot better. The fact that you go around desperately posting political blogs rather than "news" sources is the case in point. Typically the last refuge of the guy with no argument is a poll. You could ofcourse compare the Marist poll to Gallup, but it's neither here nor there, or Obama's numbers to the GOP, but such stuff dosn't fit in with your reality.

Your attempt to compare Nixons war against the Post (which included legal action, threatened financial & IRS sanctions, planting 'moles' inside the oppo, and ofcourse the whole watergate scandal (remember that?)) with a simple calling out of Faux as an 'erosion of our freedoms' is still something you have chosen not to defend. I can only assume then it's arugement over, case closed, no merit found.

by vecky 2010-02-11 12:47AM | 0 recs
The other night

I'm pretty sure I saw a black helicopter over my house.  I'm scared for my freedoms, BJ.  Hold me!

by JJE 2010-02-11 12:03AM | 0 recs
RE: The other night

Read it and weep, JJ:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

Your boy is done, stick a fork in it. It's over. For what it's worth, the Post/ABC poll released today has some interesting numbers as well, but I don't want to pile on. Sounds like you're having a bad day already.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 12:19AM | 0 recs
RE: The other night

You willing to bet on 2012 now?!

It's not the first time folk have written off Obama. I remember the collective ejaculation after the GOP convention and the anointing of St. Sarah. That was ofcourse before conservatives decided to bash the media rather than prepare for a few soft-ball interviews.Oh, where were you then? Clearly a better example of our freedoms were being eroded has not yet been found...

by vecky 2010-02-11 12:52AM | 0 recs
The Obama can't crowd

I remember during the primary, he can't close the deal.

I remember during the election the prognostications that he could never win OH, PA, MI, and FL, the latter too because they'd been disenfranchised LOL.

I remember during the general, after the GOP convention, when the polls tightened, that Obama should have chosen Hillary as a VP.

I even remember the closing polls, when Drudge had his siren on, citing a tied poll the weekend before, and everybody was in a tizzy over whether we should have nominated Hillary.

I know we've discussed it before, but what motivates the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd and the puma trash is bewildering. I think a lot of it is a secret hope that this man fails. He won't. But they can hope. Maybe they don't want to see a black man succeed? Maybe they desire internet credibility by being the stopped clock right twice a day? Maybe being an iconoclast is good for attention. I really don't know.

But when you take a step back and look, with HCR coming to an end, a slowly recovering economy, and Obama's continued willingness to put Republicans in a corner, I'm not terribly worried.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 03:36PM | 0 recs
RE: The other night

I refuse to continue until you produce your birth certificate.

by Strummerson 2010-02-11 08:51AM | 0 recs
RE: The other night

Well in that case, I'll obviously refuse to produce my birth certificate. 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 10:04AM | 0 recs
And a birther too

Who let you out of Alegre's Asylum or the Effluence?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 03:30PM | 0 recs
It's garbage plain and simple

National Journal is a con rag citing a (oooo!) Marist poll, that mind you disagrees with every other poll out there showing a healthy approval margin for Obama besides Ras.

Is this the best you've got on Obama? Please tell me you haven't staked all your hopes of a crumbling Obama Administration on a National Journal article? Poor, poor pathetic pumas. Will you ever learn? You can't beat this guy. You're going to lose every time you go up against him.

Reality is, Obama's approval has actually been increasing over the past two weeks, holding at or slightly above 50% in gallup. You know, Gallup, the reputable pollster.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 03:29PM | 0 recs
You obviously haven't read all the polls

I don't know why you don't consider Marist a "reputable poll", but whatever. The following statement you make is inaccurate:

"National Journal is a con rag citing a (oooo!) Marist poll, that mind you disagrees with every other poll out there showing a healthy approval margin for Obama besides Ras."

Quinnipiac has it 45% approve, 46% disapprove.

CBS/NY Times, 46% approve, 45% disapprove.

You can review the rest in RCP, but the average for all polls is 47.2 approve, 46.6 disapprove. Is that really what you consider a "healthy approval margin"?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 07:59PM | 0 recs
Yes

I have read all the polls.

And I consider that a healthy approval considering it's the winter before some key legislative action and unemployment is 9.7% but falling.

I'm actually surprised the approval number isn't lower.

The only poll that counts, though, is the one on election day in 2012.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 08:26PM | 0 recs
RE: Yes

Nice try.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 10:31PM | 0 recs
Indeed

Without quoting a Ras poll, you're going to have a real hard time convincing anybody this guy's unlikable.

But as you admitted, you never liked the guy. Red State is waiting for you.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-12 01:11AM | 0 recs
This is an odd argument

"The blame of course lies with the inner group of advisers who have no experience in government, but adept at campaigning."

Obama's Chief of Staff is Rahm Emmanuel and his chief economic adviser is Larry Summers.  I think they have some experience in government if memory serves....

by fladem 2010-02-09 11:10AM | 1 recs
RE: This is an odd argument

I guess Larry Summers would be the only person who was ever involved in drafting policy. The jury is out on Rahm though. He was brought in as the tough policy guy, although in the Clinton WH he served more as a political advisor rather than a policy advisor. Unfortunately, his abrasive style combined with the inability of getting anything done really questions his effectiveness. As for the rest, i.e. Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Gibbs, they are all hold-overs from the campaign with no exepreince in government or for that matter drafting policy. The main thrust of this article though is that in spite of having a stellar cabinet, all the members of that cabinet are largely invisible from policy making.

by tarheel74 2010-02-09 11:45AM | 0 recs
RE: This is an odd argument

Neither Gibbs, Jarrett or Axelrod have any sort of policy writing in their portfolio.

Valerie Jarrett - Senior Advisor, Head of Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs - which is a communication shop.

David Axelrod - Senior Political Advisor.Again, only deals with communication.

Robert Gibbs - White House Press Secretary, deals with the media.

So why do they need "exepreince in government or for that matter drafting policy" again?

by vecky 2010-02-09 07:16PM | 2 recs
That straw man

It's the cornerstone of the anti-Obama left.

What previous administrations had press secretaries with governing experience? I did some research, and came up with the number 0.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 09:56PM | 1 recs
RE: That straw man

The other criticism is that Gibbs is doing more than a typical press secretary does.

Did you read the original article?

by RickD 2010-02-10 01:14PM | 1 recs
RE: This is an odd argument

Summers is not considered to be in the inner circle of advisors.

The criticism is aimed at Axelrod, Gibbs, and Jarrett.

 

by RickD 2010-02-10 01:13PM | 1 recs
The blogosphere in a bubble?

How did this administration get everything so wrong?

I was wondering how this diary got everything so wrong?

I'm not saying there were not missteps. Every Presidential Administration has rough starts. But every single action since the New Year has demonstrated that the Obama Administration is listening and correcting it's misstakes. You'd have to be living in a bubble to miss that, and the positive turn in the polls as a response.

I should save some of these epic quotes for when healthcare passes. The Obama Derangement Syndrome left is quickly proving itself irrelevant.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 05:34PM | 0 recs
for when healthcare passes...

You have more faith in Congress than I do...

by vecky 2010-02-09 07:19PM | 1 recs
It's easy to lose faith.

I understand. And I've been very nervous.

But you know what? Governing from the left is full of heartache.

For example, there is no reason, should Martha Coakley have won, that Joe Liberman would have dropped support for a merged bill at the last minute, or worse, exacted more concessions. It could have just as easily have happened. Obama is behind this and is ready to crack skulls. There's no going back now. He's all in politically on this now.

What I cannot understand is the intellectual laziness of the anti-Obama left who is willing to declare failure before the effort has even really begun. Some of it is leftover bitterness, perhaps from the puma flotsem. Some of it is trying to be the stopped clock that can say they're right, albeit only twice a day. Some of it is just beyond comprehension.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-09 09:53PM | 0 recs
RE: It's easy to lose faith.

I'm not so optimistic. Pelosi is saying Easter which means August, the longer this drags on the worse it becomes. The only thing that is saving our skins at the moment is that there is no alternative proposal. Ezra Klien had an interview with a Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Ten) and he stated that even though he prefered the Wyden-Bennett bill (he is a co-sponsor) he would not vote for it!

The GOP will never compromise. They hate the idea of adding another 16 million to medicaid, absoluetly hate it. And the Dems aren't much better. Expanding a solid dependable program like medicaid is now held hostage to taxes on a tiny portion of high-cost union plans and a new public option plan. I fear they will ditch it all together.

by vecky 2010-02-10 12:01AM | 0 recs
I doubt August

The Senate ran out the clock once, and Obama let them. That was Obama's fault. But they can move when they have to. Obama and Congress know they have procrastinated too long, and it is now or never. They know full well they don't want to be doing this the summer before mid-terms.A failure then dooms us all.

The Republicans hate the idea of this bill for two major reasons:

1. It sets the notion that healthcare is a public service, not a privaledge. Which lays the foundation for future expansion.

2. It will be a major Obama victory, or more specifically, the only chance they ever have of ever getting any traction on this guy for his 8 years is to hand him a failure now. They meant it when they said they hoped it would be Waterloo.

Obama knows they will never compromise. We've seen it. But we've also started to see Rush Limbaugh break a sweat on this. Obama is boxing the GOP into a corner, and Rush knows it.

Will the GOP outmanuevre Obama? Will they win the televised debate? It's always a risk. But this is not a game for the faint of heart, which is why we see the pantywaist weak-kneed defeatocrats coming out of the woodwork.

Obama has to provide cover for going without the GOP (reconcilliation). And he has to make the GOP reveal their true motives live on TV.

Can he do it? Again, I don't know. But I'm also not one to bet againt him.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-10 01:07AM | 0 recs
RE: The blogosphere in a bubble?

There was at least a six month period there when Obama could have been using his TV presence to rally the public behind meaningful health care reform.  He never did so.  He let the Senate muck about for over six months while the conservative media did its best to trash the idea of health care reform.

It seems a bit late for Obama to show interest now.

by RickD 2010-02-10 01:17PM | 2 recs
Nobody denies this was a tactical mistake

We all felt the frustration during the summer as the GOP used townhalls to take advantage of Obama's complacency and shift public opinion.

First, if you want a Great President who does not make mistakes, then history is not on your side. All of the greatest presidencies (and the lesser ones too) have been riddled with mistakes in their early years. The judge of Great Presidents is whether they learn from their mistakes.

Second, Obama was never disinterested. To claim so is to decry all logic. Everyone knows that Obama's Presidency and the fate of Democrats in large part hinges upon success of failure of HCR. He was only disinterested in doing Congress's job for them. Big difference.

Third, don't you think it's a little early to raise the white flag? We are just past half way to the midterms, and Obama has completed just over a quarter of his Presidency.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-10 01:53PM | 0 recs
RE: The blogosphere in a bubble?

That has been my point since June. TPM had posted an excellent chronology of events, beginning with Obama drafting Max Baucus (one of the senator who received the most cash contrubution from insurance industry) and Chuck Grassley to write the bipartisan bill. It did not happen. Instead what we got was a steady erosion of the bill till it became chock-ful with Republican ideas and not much from the Democratic side. Many here are blaming the Congress for killing the bill, however until January, Jim Clyburn said that the bill would pass if the congress got concrete assurance from the Senate that the fixes needed are passed by reconciliation. Nothing is being said by the Senate and the WH is hands off.

Some here have argued that since this new year Obama is doing a great job of listening to people, which in its face is a bizarre argument, because he proposed the largest and most ambitious overhaul of the healthcare system early last year and then went MIA. What good will this bipartisan summit do now? More concessions? More dilution? Was the WH so inept that they did not realize that they will face this kind of "buzzsaw"? Did they really think that speeches alone will bring the Republicans to the table to deal in good faith, when they have made it patently clear from the very onset of this administartion that they will resist every policy proposed by the Democrats?

by tarheel74 2010-02-10 02:00PM | 0 recs
RE: The blogosphere in a bubble?

Ummm, Baucus already chaired the SFC... how was he 'drafted' in particular over Dodd, Waxman or any other committee chair?

I would also like to point out that the dem Congress is dysfunctional at best. It was 4 weeks from the time the Senate bill was finalized to Scott Browns election, but Congress in that interim did nothing. Sat on their asses. And they continue to sit on their asses. Now we have to wait till the 25th to see if the useless congressional democrats can be saved once again by Obama on TV. I for one have my doubts.

by vecky 2010-02-10 04:59PM | 1 recs
RE: The blogosphere in a bubble?

WTF... when was Obama not on TV? In his July presser, he spoke in favor of a PO... in his Town halls meetings - he pimped the PO... in his joint speech before Congress - he put fwd a comprehensive vision of HCR, including the PO. At what point was he not on TV?

by vecky 2010-02-10 04:49PM | 1 recs
Remember when he was "overexposed" during the summer?

I think we just need to call this for what it is: Obama Derangement Syndrome. If people want to have baseless apopleptic fits on the blogosphere, then that's their right. No one's stopping them from opening threads. But let's not call them diaries or ptretend they contribute to the discussion in any way.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-10 05:37PM | 0 recs
yes, we know

if anybody thinks Obama botched HCR, then they have "Obama Derangement Syndrome", no matter how much they supported Obama in the past or their reasons for disagreeing with how HCR was handled.

Do you realize that you are literally copying Bush's 25%ers' arguments now, just inserting "Obama" for "Bush"?

 

by jeopardy 2010-02-10 08:55PM | 2 recs
Buh 25% ers? Nah. More like Obama 51% ers.

Suck on that satitstic for while.

When you're done, stop fabircating arguments: I a) said Obama made mistakes on HCR. You b) have Obama Derangement Syndrome. How do you mash those two statements (a+b) together into an assertion that everyone who disagrees with Obama on his handling of HCR has Obama Derangement Syndrome, my poor puma pal? For I too would then suffer from the very affliction I accuse you of. The LiarBlogFake logic is bewildering.

But go on, hate Obama. It's okay. No one's going to stop you. The rest of us are waiting for HCR to pass.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-10 09:31PM | 0 recs
RE: Buh 25% ers? Nah. More like Obama 51% ers.

because you've been going around accusing everybody who thinks Obama is screwing up of jsut hating the guy.

and I'm no puma - I did big-time campaigning for Obama in a neighboring swing state.

But I shouldn't have to try to qualify my "obama bonafides" to you just because I think he's screwing up. That shows the ground you have shifted the debate to.

 

by jeopardy 2010-02-10 09:36PM | 1 recs
Screwed up? Or screwing up?

The two are very different.

If you thought he made mistakes in the past, then you and I are in agreement. If you think he is making mistakes now, then you have some justification to do.

And I just love how we're ready to close the book on HCR in the middle of the fight. What a bunch of defeatocrats.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-10 10:47PM | 0 recs
RE: Buh 25% ers? Nah. More like Obama 51% ers.

Determing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" is pretty easy - is the criticism factual, or simply made up? I have seen much of the latter, but precious little of the former. Saying stuff like Obama is too interested in "bipartisanship" is fine, even though we can disagree on the strategy. But saying stuff, like for example, Obama "was not on TV" selling HCR when the media meme a a few months ago was that Obama was on TV too much ("over-exposed") just strikes me as completely out of touch with reality.

I hope you understand and can see the difference.

by vecky 2010-02-10 10:49PM | 1 recs
This is what's wrong with the debate

And has been wrong since June last year. The missteps were obvious and apparent and pointing them out was a direct assault on Obama, puma, blah blah blah...the usual nonsensical blather. Like I said above there are two groups, Democratic activists who wanted to see governance and people who were just high on the image being sold. It's obvious to a lot of people now that governance has not been a strong suit of this WH while they have been on top of their game when it comes to selling the "image", Unfortunately the nation's problems are too vast to be solved by neverending campaigns and image control.

by tarheel74 2010-02-11 01:20AM | 1 recs
RE: This is what's wrong with the debate

That's a little odd since the FT article your original dirary was built on stated that "governance" was their strong point, but keeping the public onboard - "the image" - is where they erred.

by vecky 2010-02-11 02:07AM | 1 recs
Facts?

Don't mention facts. They get in the way of irrational hatred.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 08:28PM | 0 recs
RE: Facts?

But still, it's a pretty hard point to miss. From the article:

"This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill."

by vecky 2010-02-11 11:10PM | 1 recs
My head's going to explode

And I thought the GOP in their breathless and hypocritical criticism were bad. Some supposedly on our side are worse. They don't even read the articles they tout as more "Obama is teh failure"

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-12 01:16AM | 0 recs
The false choice you present:

Any democrat who disagrees with you is simply high on an image. No, we disagree with you on fact.

Charges of being high on hopium and enamored with images were leveld during the primary wars. It's the basic premise of the puma trash argument that Obama is an empty suit. Of course, facts sort of get in the way of that argument.

Do you have any facts to back up your assertion? What is it you want to see from him?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 03:44PM | 0 recs
More nonsensical giiberish

"Krugman the Curmudgeon is a bitter @sshat with an axe to grind because he wasn't selected to be int he cabinet, despite trashing Obama and praising Hillary all through the primary."

 

"Charges of being high on hopium and enamored with images were leveld during the primary wars. It's the basic premise of the puma trash argument that Obama is an empty suit. Of course, facts sort of get in the way of that argument."

 

"I know we've discussed it before, but what motivates the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd and the puma trash is bewildering. I think a lot of it is a secret hope that this man fails. He won't. But they can hope. Maybe they don't want to see a black man succeed? Maybe they desire internet credibility by being the stopped clock right twice a day? Maybe being an iconoclast is good for attention. I really don't know."

 

I mean at some point it becomes obvious that who are the people who are stuck in a time capsule high on the image crap versus people who are serious about policy and governance. Right now you and your ilk have a very severe credibility problem. This HCR fiasco did not happen yesterday, it was happening since June last year when the insulated WH crowd was cutting back-room deals right and left, undercutting the very principles that they had campaigned on and replacing policy with politics. Chew on that, swallow that and maybe try to make some sane comments instead of spewing your spittle-flecked rage and nonsensical gibberish all over the place and basically making yourself the butt of ridicule.

by tarheel74 2010-02-11 04:13PM | 1 recs
Did I strike a nerve?

They say nothing hurts like the truth.

The missteps by Obama are obvious. I've even detailed them above. But you keep bringing this back to June.

My question to you pumas is (if you can even be reached): what do you want to see now? Factually what is absent from the Executive and Legislative branches today?

Also, don't recycle the same line (spittle flecked rage) in the same thread.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 04:42PM | 0 recs
Nah

I was ignoring you, but after sometime your idiocy just became unbearable. BTW just to remind you the primaries were over nearly 2 years ago, to bring it up now is an automatic fail.

by tarheel74 2010-02-11 04:46PM | 1 recs
So you can't argue the facts?

You want more governance from Obama, but fail to specify how.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 08:37PM | 0 recs
Pay BJJ no mind

He's a conservative troll.  Good for the occasional laugh but that's about it.

by JJE 2010-02-11 10:18AM | 0 recs
as usual JJ, you're behind the curve

Column in today's NYT which shows that even liberals have had enough of the Obama Clown Show:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

I'm sure you'll hang in there to the bitter end, though. Some people can never admit that they were wrong.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 12:37PM | 0 recs
There's a petition to revoke Krugman's Nobel Prize

If the economy continues to improve, I think it will gain traction. How's that 9.7% unemployment, Krugman?

Krugman the Curmudgeon is a bitter @sshat with an axe to grind because he wasn't selected to be int he cabinet, despite trashing Obama and praising Hillary all through the primary.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 03:40PM | 0 recs
So now you're whining

that Obama is too business-friendly?  Please try to keep your talking points straight from one day to the next.

by JJE 2010-02-11 04:03PM | 1 recs
The guy's not even an anti-corporatist.

I know we all wanted Kucinich to win, but Obama never, ever made himself out as an anti-corporatist.

It's like now attack Obama for not being something he never claimed he was.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 04:44PM | 0 recs
In BJJ's case

he's just flinging whatever he can get his hands on at the moment, without regard to whether it makes sense or is consistent with what he's previously complained about.  That's why you'll find him one day complaining that Obama a leftist who is killing business with too much regulation, and the next day approvingly citing a Paul Krugman column saying that Obama's a corporate sell-out.  Such is the way of the troll, and why everyone points and laughs at him.

by JJE 2010-02-11 06:18PM | 1 recs
RE: It's 'movie quote' night

Can't we be nice to each ither for a while?

"Here take this.
Your lucky SCRUNCHIE?
Yeah...it helped me pass Spanish!!
Thats because you gave Professer Montoya a lap dance after the final!
yeah...LUCKILY!"

 

Legally Blonde (2001)
by QTG 2010-02-11 06:49PM | 1 recs
The whole point is OBAMA's inconsistency

As usual, you missed the entire point, JJ. Two weeks ago, Obama was railing against "obscene" bonuses for bank executives, and wailing that "we want our money back!" Fast forward to yesterday, where he's singing the praises of Lloyd Blankfein (GS) and Jamie Dimon (JPM), gushing about what "savvy businessmen" they are!

This has become an ad hoc administration, where policy is made pillar-to-post, depending on who has the President's ear on any given day. As a result, he's lost both the centrists, as well as leftists like Krugman.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 07:29PM | 0 recs
Should he care?

If you and Krugman don't like him?So what? Why does he need Krugman's praise?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 08:32PM | 0 recs
RE: Should he care?

Jamie Dimon is a savy businessman, I don't have a problem with saying so. JPMC is solvent, didn't need a bailout but was forced to take one by Bush and paid it back on time. I guess I must be a "centrist".

by vecky 2010-02-11 09:06PM | 0 recs
You seem confused

Comments in an interview aren't policy.  Perhaps you should lay off the BJJ - you seem a little punch-addled.

by JJE 2010-02-12 12:08AM | 0 recs
It's Obama and his clowns that are confused

Comments in an interview or speech may not be policy, fool....but can't they at least be CONSISTENT with policy? It's called having good communications---like having everyone on the same page.

Kind of like when---after opposing FTA's in Congress with Colombia, S.Korea, and Panama last year---Barack stands up in the SOTU and asks for increased free trade with those same countries.  And THEN, to cap it all off, wonders aloud in the same speech why there's a "deficit of trust" in Washington.

Obama and his clowns are not just confused, they're incoherent. Keep defending them, JJ.....even Nixon had defenders after he was driven from office.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-12 01:05AM | 0 recs
RE: It's Obama and his clowns that are confused

Obama has been consistent, you've just not being paying attention. For example on Free Trade - Obama supports it, as long as it is both ways. That was his stance in Congress, during the campaign and now.Obama has succesffuly negotiated reductions in tariffs on american auto and food imports into Korea. No longer will America be dominated by Samsung, LG and Kia while American companies struggle to pentrate the SK market.

So it's clear where the "deficit of trust" is. You just need to look in the mirror.

And your back with the Nixon comparison... no facts, no arguementes, just baseless accusations with no grounding in reality.

by vecky 2010-02-12 01:54AM | 0 recs
Trying to change the subject?

I don't blame you for trying to change the subject.....but the facts are that Obama can't make up his mind on the pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Try listening to Gary Locke sometime, and you'll hear the frustration of a man whose boss waffles all over the place, making him look stupid.

As to your predictions about SK imports, you will be disappointed. Obama capitulates on everything in his desire to be liked; he will submit on this as well.

Nixon comparisons? Both men followed unpopular Texans, who had managed to polarize and divide the country. Nixon famously promised to "bring us together"......Obama promised to end polarization with a "post-partisan presidency". And both failed. Miserably.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-12 11:18AM | 0 recs
RE: Trying to change the subject?

I don't see where I have tried to change the subject, rather it was you who shift from one to another when losing the arguement. Typical I guess.

You seem genuielly uniformed of Obama's trade stance, or the details of the agreements on which you choose to criticize. Maybe you should look up the agreeded too terms of the KORUS FTA before sounding silly. Some snipets:

" Under the FTA, nearly 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products would become duty free within three years of the date the FTA enters into force, and most remaining tariffs would be eliminated within 10 years.

For agricultural products, the FTA would immediately eliminate or phase out tariffs and quotas on a broad range of products, with almost two-thirds (by value) of Korea's agriculture imports from the United States becoming duty free upon entry into force. "

" Under KORUS, Korea's eight percent auto tariff will be eliminated immediately.  The United States would eliminate its 2.5 percent tariff on small cars immediately and on large cars (3000cc and greater) over three years. "

" With respect to trucks, under KORUS FTA, Korea will eliminate its 10 percent tariff immediately. "

" In KORUS, the United States obtained an exemption that allows each U.S. automaker to sell up to 6,500 vehicles a year in Korea built to U.S. safety standards (and which do not need to be modified for Korea). "

" The KORUS FTA contains specific provisions to ensure that remanufactured goods - a key component of the U.S. manufacturing industry -qualify as originating goods."

The truth is the US needs to act. The US has already been overtaken by the EU as a trading partner with Korea. The EU and Korea are now considering a similar FTA, which if ratified will leave the US even further behind. America can choose to be a leader or a follower, we'll see what happens. I can't speak about Locke, the only thing I have heard from him recently ws a plan to double exports in the next few years, which is entirely consistent with Obama's position on KORUS, so I can only assume you are talking out of your hat again...

Back to Nixon - that's a pretty weak comparison - Both followed Texans? LOL, LBJ and Bush could not have been more different. One was a Senator and VP and another was Governor to start with. I guess in 2012 you'll be saying "Look - Nixon got re-elected too, they're the same!" LOLZ Come back and start again...

by vecky 2010-02-12 02:32PM | 0 recs
Now: here's the real answer.

Now that you've bored everyone with your usual reams of minutiae and gobblygook, here's the concise and real answer:

Obama is opposed to all new FTA's because the labor unions won't let him support them. They say jump, he says, "how high". They have him on a very short leash, witness the special tax give-away to unions in the now doomed Senate Health Bill.

Understand now?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-12 08:05PM | 0 recs
RE: Now: here's the real answer.

No not really. Obama clearly supports FTAs as long as they actually are mutual Free Trade and not a giveaway. You even mentioned it yourself that he's in favour of KORUS. Try and be a little coherent.

Now some Democrats in congress are wary of KORUS and other free trade deals. That is to be expected and is in fact consistent.

Btw there is no tax give-away in the Senate Bill. It's the that House wants to do away with the excise tax on high-cost plans or add negotiated plans to the exemption currently granted to high-risk professions. But that pressure is from the House, so try to learn a little bit rather that simply spouting whatever you happen to have read on your RW-talking point sites.

by vecky 2010-02-13 01:47AM | 0 recs
As usual, you missed the point

Yes, Obama announced support for FTA's in his SOTU; the reason that most informed people found it outrageous was that he spent the entire previous year opposing them. Surely, given his enormous influence, they would have been ratified by now if he really supported them, don't ya think?

This kind of hypocrisy is why he's slowly losing trust, and dropping like a stone in the polls; he takes two (sometimes three) sides to every issue. Kind of like his latest remark, that he's "agnostic" on deficit reduction remedies. He was elected to be a leader....not to be agnostic. That remark will come back to haunt him.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-13 12:40PM | 0 recs
RE: As usual, you missed the point

As I said only the uninformed would be surprised by Obama's position on KORUS. With the new concessions granted to US manufacturers and the labor and environmental protections in the deal there is no reason to oppose it from those fronts. Or maybe you count yourself among the "most uninformed people."

And wow... Obama's agnostic on raising further taxes. Wait... didn't he say taxes would only be raised on those making over 200K and the new rate would be back to Clintonian levels?  And shockingly both are in his budget. Sounds perfectly consistent to me.

Ooops, looks like you failed again.

by vecky 2010-02-13 03:15PM | 0 recs
The Nixon Comparison is alive and well

Look what a leading Democrat now says about Barack Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/jay-rockefeller-obama-beg_n_460520.html

OUCH! The rap on Nixon---aka, Tricky Dick---was that he was shifty and couldn't be trusted. Kind of like what Rockefeller says here about Obama: that he's not believable.

NOW do you get it?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-13 02:24PM | 0 recs
RE: The Nixon Comparison is alive and well

No, and nor does anyone else. Did Rockefeller compare Obama to Nixon? Nope.

Rockefeller is just a sneator looking after the interest of his coal lobby. "Clean Coal" is currently a pipe dream which has been neither developed nor proven. So how can something that's not even concrete find it's way into a Budget or EPA analysis? Now actually doing so could be Nixonian...

Soundly like your getting desperate.

by vecky 2010-02-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
PLEASE: Think before you write

Your inability to reason is getting famous around here. I made the comparison to Nixon, which is reinforced when a prominent Democratic Senator states that he can no longer believe Obama. Period. The fact that Rockefeller himself didn't make the comparison doesn't make his comments any less troubling. All the stuff you babble about relative to clean coal, EPA, etc., is irrelevant. Not being able to believe someone suggests that they're untrustworthy....you know, kind of like Nixon. Very difficult to understand, I know, but just stamp it out, trigger....you'll get it.

And in the meantime, why don't you do your posts in Word first so that you can do a spell check? It won't catch all of your errors, but if it gets half of them, people will take you more seriously:

"sneator" (senator), "soundly" (sounds), "your" (you're) and my favorite from your other post, "equatting". I have a 10-yr. old nephew who is more literate than you.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
RE: PLEASE: Think before you write

Umm, looks it's YOU should who should think before you write.  You're now claiming that Obama is like Nixon because Senator R has a policy difference with Obama on coal mining. Did I miss where Rockefeller claimed Obama was untrustworthy because he lied about breaking into the Republican campaign office and covering it up? Has Obama been accused of doing something illegal, having a dirty tricks office? Maybe R is threatening impeachment? No... so maybe now you realize this is just a stupid as you claiming Obama is like Nixon because Bush was from the same state as LBJ. You're just reaching and failing all the time. Try again when you have an actual coherent argument, or otherwise I'm going to suspect you think Eisenhower is a Nazi because some people who didn't like Hitler didn't like Big E either. Which seems to be the crux of your argument (I shudder to even call it that).

Seriously, I have 10 year old nephews who are more intelligent.

by vecky 2010-02-15 05:55PM | 0 recs
RE: PLEASE: Think before you write

Nice try, with your usual array of incoherent gobblygook. I'll repeat: Rockefeller said that Obama was not believable, which is a nice way of saying that you can't trust him. AND, Nixon was known throughout his career for being untrustworthy. Got it?

Both Nixon and Obama used surrogates to demonize media outlets that they regarded as unfriendly. And both men were (are) thin-skinned and petulant.

Why is it so hard for you to understand this comparison? We know you can't spell, apparently you can't reason or make comparisons either. Comparing two events and/or individuals doesn't mean they are identical; it simply means that there are common threads which are similar.

PS---I've never heard the name, "Vecky". Could it be that your name is actually "Vicky", and you're just misspelling it?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-15 07:47PM | 0 recs
RE: PLEASE: Think before you write

Wait a second... your accussing me of incoherent gobblygook when you're the one who is accussing Obama of being Nixon becasue a guy called Obama "un-believable" and when other guy several decades ago said something similar about Nixon on a totally unrelated topic?

LOLZ! Do you even read what you post back to yourself to see how ridiculous it is? What kind of argument are you going to pull for an encore? Reagan = Mussolini becasue Reagan ws called a fascist and quess what some other folk had also called El Duce the same? Comon...

My suggestion is - go up to any 10 year old and ask them if Obama equals Nixon. Case closed. Don't feel too embarrassed. You might want to ask them want constitutes an "comparison" too.

by vecky 2010-02-16 05:18AM | 0 recs
RE: In BJJ's case

That's a typical Republican/conservative way of doing things. And then we should act surprised that once in charge they run the country and economy into the shitter.

by vecky 2010-02-11 08:59PM | 0 recs
Kucinich 2012

I get the feeling that Kucinich is going to challenge Obama in '12, just a gut feeling for now.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-02-11 08:04PM | 0 recs
RE: Kucinich 2012

Becasue he won a poll over at FDL? I'm sure Kucinich is dying to play the Nader in '12. Maybe he'll get more than 3.3% of the vote, but i'm not holding by breath...

by vecky 2010-02-11 09:00PM | 0 recs
RE: Kucinich 2012

primary, not GE, Democrat, not Green. I'll take a bet that he gets more than 3.3% in the primary, if that's what you are offering.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-02-11 10:03PM | 0 recs
RE: Kucinich 2012

I'm willing to bet he gets less that 7% in the primaries. But if he's not going to go and pull a nader - what's the point? So he and his half a dozen delegates can enegage in hand-wringing and blood-letting at the covention?

by vecky 2010-02-11 10:34PM | 0 recs
RE: Kucinich 2012

I have no idea what would be the point, he certainly didn't feel the need to offer one the last two times it was such a longshot. But, that said, he also came back into the fold and supported the Democratic nominee both times too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-02-12 12:06AM | 0 recs
RE: Kucinich 2012

If he's back in the fold then he wouldn't be challenging the incumbent Democratic President, so I guess there is nothing to talk about. Unless he's channeling LaRouche now, which is what I think FDLers are hoping...

 

by vecky 2010-02-12 12:41AM | 0 recs
Let me explain this slowly to you

The point is simple: when a politician tries to be all things to all people, he ends up with no consituency at all.

Centrists like myself have never trusted Obama, and have never been comfortable with him. But at this point, he's rapidly losing his core constituency on the left. And THAT is what's noteworthy about Paul Krugman's column, which attacks Mr. Obama as "clueless".

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-02-11 07:36PM | 0 recs
Maybe you should try going slower still

So wait:

You're a "centrist" (yeah, right).

You never liked the man.

And now you're upset that Krugman, a far left economist, doesn't like Obama too?

You can't even keep your trolling straight. Just say you don't like him and move on. Don't make a fool of yourself. The man is consistently a middle of the road leftist.

If you really were a centrist, and not a red state troll, you'd be more pleased.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-02-11 08:35PM | 0 recs
RE: Maybe you should try going slower still

The "center" left him behind a long time ago. Looking around all he can see is a variety of tea-partiers and it understandably makes him uncomfortable.

by vecky 2010-02-11 09:03PM | 0 recs
Uh, Paul Krugman

was never Obama's core constituency.  He's never liked him.  As I said, you just latch on to the talking point du jour in your wingnut puma bitterness.

by JJE 2010-02-12 12:01AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads