CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Case For Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Case For Obama

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I know Jan Wenner's in the tank for his BO, but I think this is a fair enough summary of the past 2 years. Personally, I think it's important for everyone (both on the left and right) to take a step back from the heat and conflict of the campaign and really take stock in what's at stake. I know Obama's let some of us down (I include myself in that group to a certain extent) but to ignore everything else he's done is a foolish thing. And it isn't easy to stay high-level and take the whole picture into scope. Not only are the teabaggers offensive and idiotic, they're downright amusing as shit. And Democrats, while thoroughly compromised and part of the Washington problem, seem to be content in only doing the bare minimum to keep the coalition together. It's only too bad that we're not being helped by a complicit media who needs the drama for ratings and wants all that unregulated ad money to help their bottom line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolling Stone, Oct 28, 2010
For many progressives, the presidency of Barack Obama has been deeply disappointing. To hear some prominent lefties tell it, the New Jesus of the campaign trail has morphed into the New Judas of the Oval Office. "He loves to buckle," MSNBC host Cenk Uygur declared in a July segment called "Losing the Left." "Obama's not going to give us real change — he's going to give us pocket change and hang a 'Mission Accomplished' banner."

The catalog of perceived betrayals unfolds something like this: The liberal lion who stirred Hope, vowed Change and roared about "the fierce urgency of now" has failed to stand up to Republican obstructionists, coddled corporate interests and allowed top liberal priorities — a public option for health insurance, climate legislation, immigration reform and the union-expanding "card check" — to fizzle without a fight. The same politician who fired up the Democratic base by opposing a "dumb war" has surged 50,000 troops into Afghanistan — not to take the battle to Al Qaeda, but to prop up the corrupt and incompetent regime of Hamid Karzai. The prison at Guantánamo? Still open for business nearly a year after it was to have been shuttered. Uglier still: Obama has asserted the authority to assassinate American terror suspects abroad and has tried to block court challenges of that authority by invoking "state secrets."

On the economic front, Obama has surrounded himself with the same free marketeers who led Bill Clinton's calamitous deregulation of big banks, restoring Wall Street to obscene profits even as one American in seven has been engulfed by a rising tide of poverty. Eric Alterman of The Nation distilled the left's lament this summer, arguing that Obama may have "fooled gullible progressives into believing he was a left-liberal partisan, when in fact he is much closer to a conservative corporate shill." The cover of The Obama Syndrome, a new jeremiad by the political commentator Tariq Ali, even gives the progressive resentment a lurid illustration: Obama's face is shown flaking away like a cheap plaster mask to reveal the chuckling visage of George W. Bush.

But such selective indictments — legitimate and troubling in many of their particulars — grossly distort the sweep of the 44th presidency. It's one thing to call the president on his shit. It's quite another to paint his entire presidency as shit — even if Joe Biden and Robert Gibbs are losing their shit, accusing you of being a "whining" member of the "professional left."

From the outset, it was inevitable that Obama's transcendent campaign would give way to an earthbound presidency — one constrained by two wars, an economy in free fall and an opposition party bent on obstruction at any price. "Expectations were so sky-high for him that they were impossible to fulfill," says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. "Obama's partly to blame for this: People were expecting a progressive revolution. What the president has delivered instead is gritty, nuts-and-bolts, political legislative work — and it's been rough."

During his campaign, skeptics warned that Barack Obama was nothing but a "beautiful loser," a progressive purist whose uncompromising idealism would derail his program for change. But as president, Obama has proved to be just the opposite — an ugly winner. Over and over, he has shown himself willing to strike unpalatable political bargains to secure progress, even at the cost of alienating his core supporters. Single-payer health care? For Obama, it was a nonstarter. The public option? A praiseworthy bargaining chip in the push for reform.

This bloodless, if effective, approach to governance has created a perilous disconnect: By any rational measure, Obama is the most accomplished and progressive president in decades, yet the only Americans fired up by the changes he has delivered are Republicans and Tea Partiers hellbent on reversing them. Heading into the November elections, Obama's approval ratings are mired in the mid-40s, and polls reflect a stark enthusiasm gap: Half of all Republicans are "very" excited about voting this fall, compared to just a quarter of Democrats. "Republicans have succeeded in making even the president's victories look distasteful, messy — and seem like bad policy steps or defeats," says Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Many on the left have expressed nothing but anger, frustration and disappointment."

But if the passions of Obama's base have been deflated by the compromises he made to secure historic gains like the Recovery Act, health care reform and Wall Street regulation, that gloom cannot obscure the essential point: This president has delivered more sweeping, progressive change in 20 months than the previous two Democratic administrations did in 12 years. "When you look at what will last in history," historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells Rolling Stone, "Obama has more notches on the presidential belt."

In fact, when the history of this administration is written, Obama's opening act is likely to be judged as more impressive than any president's — Democrat or Republican — since the mid-1960s. "If you're looking at the first-two-year legislative record," says Ornstein, "you really don't have any rivals since Lyndon Johnson — and that includes Ronald Reagan."
Read the rest here.
post #2 of 25
I'm not going to be reactionary and project my frustrations with the general state of fucktitude onto the President - I think he's been pretty effective in most of the things the President can be effective at. If you want to see a President royally screw the economy, we only have to go back less than a decade to see an administrative push for Tax Cuts for the Rich! (which is probably one of the underlying pillars of our current economic suck). Is Obama a stooge for the banks? Maybe. He certainly hasn't done anything to allay people's rage at bailing them out as they turn around and kick people out of their homes. Then again, I don't really know what he could do to address that. A foreclosure moratorium could help. I understand the economic arguments against it. He should at least call the heads of these banks into his office and castigate the motherfuckers for the way they've acted, and maybe publicly shame them a bit.

So yes, it's a fucked all situation. He has largely borne the burden of the unrealistic expectations he tapped into.

But the way his administration handled the climate change bill REALLY pisses me off. It is highly disappointing, if this article is anything to go by (and the New Yorker generally gets its facts straight):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...1fa_fact_lizza
post #3 of 25
I know I should probably read the whole analysis, but I just cant get past this:

Quote:
He single-handedly prevented the collapse of the Big Three automakers — saving more than 1 million jobs —
Kind of ruins the credibility of the guy writing it.
post #4 of 25
Wow, 80 replies (to date) in the "How Obama will lose my vote" thread, 2 (no 3) replies to "the Case for Obama" thread.

Telling.

I'd urge Chewers to ask themselves if they want Obama to be able to continue to get at least some of his initiative in place (albeit not in the Platonic form) or 2 years minimum of gridlock.

Plus we can't let a witch get into the Senate next it will be vampires and werewolves amiright?
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
Wow, 80 replies (to date) in the "How Obama will lose my vote" thread, 2 (no 3) replies to "the Case for Obama" thread.

Telling.

I'd urge Chewers to ask themselves if they want Obama to be able to continue to get at least some of his initiative in place (albeit not in the Platonic form) or 2 years minimum of gridlock.

Plus we can't let a witch get into the Senate next it will be vampires and werewolves amiright?
I read that article in the print edition of this month's Rolling Stone. I enjoyed it for what it was... but Rolling Stone's love affair with Obama is no secret -- and it definitely shows in the article's diction.

...uummm... not much else to say on that topic... except maybe... The Closer's response was a bit too short to get an actual feel on what he/she meant by

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer
Kind of ruins the credibility of the guy writing it.
My equally as short response to that is... but the author... is... right?
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
Wow, 80 replies (to date) in the "How Obama will lose my vote" thread, 2 (no 3) replies to "the Case for Obama" thread.
Nine, actually.
post #7 of 25
I love my country and I do think Obama has done some good things and deserves more time. However, if Americans are stupid enough to put the Republicans into power again so quickly or too fucking impatient and disillusioned to vote then we kind of deserve what's coming.
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared Melton View Post



My equally as short response to that is... but the author... is... right?
Anyone with even the most very basic understanding of what bankruptcy is and how the process works knows that the author is as far off base as you can get. For some reason people have this image stuck in their head of hundreds of people being escorted out of the GM offices carrying boxes of their personal possessions in the event of a bankruptcy but - again - that couldnt be further from the truth. GM is not a financial organization and therefore wouldnt be subject to liquidation. For proof, you need to only look at.....the GM bankruptcy.

Im too lazy to type out more, so I'll just link to previous posts of mine on the subject. Bottom line is that the GM deal was, next to simply cutting every single UAW member a check, probably the most blatant purchasing of votes ever. Along with the health care reform bill that actually didnt really reform a whole lot (for the better), this act - not to mention the precedent it set - is the most pathetic and embarrassing of his administration.

ETA this article sums up the precedent aspect quite well.



So, yeah...an author that isnt even familiar with how a bankruptcy actually works probably shouldnt be commenting on the subject.
post #9 of 25
The case for Obama:

He's not an insane bigot who believes the world is 6,000 years old.
post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
The case for Obama:

He's not an insane bigot who believes the world is 6,000 years old.
Exactly. So we didn't get our dream West Wing 2.0 presidency. We got a damn sight better than we would have gotten with McCain in office. And we'll get a damn sight better than we will with anyone the Republicans throw out there in 2012.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Exactly. So we didn't get our dream West Wing 2.0 presidency. We got a damn sight better than we would have gotten with McCain in office. And we'll get a damn sight better than we will with anyone the Republicans throw out there in 2012.
Obama's campaign painted him as the next great president. They set the bar too high. All they really needed to do was say "I'm not Bush." But now his greatest supporters in the last election are so disappointed, they'll be staying away in droves.

His greatest victory--Health Care--won't kick in with good things until halfway through a possible second term. On the other hand, 'unintended' negative consequences are already piling up for Americans. It's not a good thing for Obama's chances in 2012.

But like everyone is saying, unless the Reps can come up with a credible candidate, he'll win.
post #12 of 25
Obama will be fine for the very same reason he's currently not: the public has a short memory. As soon as his campaign kicks into gear, the dialogue will change. Watch.
post #13 of 25
I'm just astonished that rational people on this board need a "case" to be made for the guy, given the Lovecraftian horrors that are mewling and writhing around on the opposition's side of the aisle.
post #14 of 25
I had this thought when he was elected (or coronated, if you watched the media coverage or, yes, Rolling Stone's continued anointing of the man). And I still have it every day, especially when listening to the rants from the far left and the right.

He's JUST the President. He signs laws...he doesn't make them. He shapes, he communicates. He is not the king. His power is more limited than his influence.

That is it. Yes, he promised the sun and the moon and that all of your dreams would come true if you voted for him. But that worked. That is what a candidate does. And he did it.

Governing is a lot harder. The US government is built that way, specifically designed to limit the power any individual has. Including the President.

He is working hard and pushing his agenda. It was never going to be wine and roses for the far left, because the voting bloc that got him there was a coalition as well. He knows that, and like all previous presidents, he wants a second term. I give him a lot of credit for compromising some of the times he did, and for not compromising others.

He's JUST the President. He is beholden to the laws. He can't change the rules that govern Congress, and they make the laws.
post #15 of 25
He's been very deferential to Congress... moreso than other recent Presidents, and I think a lot on the left take umbrage with that. But I think the deference to Congress is by design. After the overstepping of the previous administration I think Obama was trying to bring the role of the presidency back to its proper place.
post #16 of 25
There is no proper or historically fixed place for the role of the Presidency. It ebbs and flows. Back and forth. Into new places and out of long held ones.

One reason he might be more deferential to Congress is because he served in Congress (unlike Presidents going back decades) and this is his first Executive position.

What could he do to not be deferential? Where would that get him? What power does he have, beyond his veto? Again, the media greatly overemphasizes how much power the President wields in the governing of the country.

To use another example from history, Abraham Lincoln is both praised and vilified for the Emancipation Proclamation. Praised because of what it did and vilified because of how it did it (and the limitations). The reason for the limited scope of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't a secret Lincolnian harboring of tolerance towards slavery. It was twofold, of course. He needed to keep several slaveowning states on the Union's side, but more critically, because he was LIMITED in his power to even do what he was doing. He felt he could do what he did because of the powers vested to the President in a civil crisis. He could not have enacted the EP in New York, for example. Or even Maryland. He recognized that Congress had the powers to do that, not him.

President Obama is a smart, well-read man. He has utilized the power he possesses through the laws, pushed where he could (as all Presidents do), and deferred where he had little choice. He could push harder on certain things, and maybe win a battle while losing the war. But that would be short-sighted. Like most people on the fringes of both parties typically demand their leaders be.
post #17 of 25
If there's one thing Obama has done poorly since his election, it would be messaging. He's not vocal about things that he's accomplished nor how he has accomplished them. Bush might be a laughing stock for his "Mission Accomplished" sign, but everyone knows about. Self-promotion is key. And the Republicans do a way better job at staying on message, even when the message is a bunch of hogwash.

That said, here are 8 false things about Obama that the public thinks is true. Its up to us to get the word out. Knowledge is power people! Spread this far and wide.
post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
Obama's campaign painted him as the next great president. They set the bar too high. All they really needed to do was say "I'm not Bush." But now his greatest supporters in the last election are so disappointed, they'll be staying away in droves.
Which candidate for ANY position in a democratic society doesn't position his/her self as the best possible option for their time? I don't think McCain was trying to make the case for being an 'okay' president.
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
Is Obama a stooge for the banks? Maybe. He certainly hasn't done anything to allay people's rage at bailing them out as they turn around and kick people out of their homes. Then again, I don't really know what he could do to address that. A foreclosure moratorium could help. I understand the economic arguments against it. He should at least call the heads of these banks into his office and castigate the motherfuckers for the way they've acted, and maybe publicly shame them a bit.

Basically, the way I saw it is the banks were holding the economy hostage by petulantly - and PUBLICLY - saying they weren't going to lend unless they got gov't money. And then they bitched when they got gov't money.

Personally, my move would have been to make a federal agency to lend to small businesses (who are the ones who needed the loans most) that would be phased out after the fucking Wall St banks went teats up and banks that were WILLING to lend to small business showed up on the scene. Of course, then you'd have cries of "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!" for the gov't performing a duty that the private sector was UNWILLING to do, but oh well.


I'm starting to just fucking hate the political climate in this country. Europe is looking better and better to me.
post #20 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post
I love my country and I do think Obama has done some good things and deserves more time. However, if Americans are stupid enough to put the Republicans into power again so quickly or too fucking impatient and disillusioned to vote then we kind of deserve what's coming.
What sucks about this is THEY deserve what they get. I sure as fuck don't deserve to live in some sort of pluto-theocratic, regressive state.
post #21 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
Obama's campaign painted him as the next great president. They set the bar too high. All they really needed to do was say "I'm not Bush." But now his greatest supporters in the last election are so disappointed, they'll be staying away in droves.

Right, because Kerry's "Anybody But Bush" campaign went oh so well.
post #22 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
What sucks about this is THEY deserve what they get. I sure as fuck don't deserve to live in some sort of pluto-theocratic, regressive state.
True. I've just been so pessimistic about the crazies in this country that sometimes I forget that a lot of us aren't xenophobic, ignorant, tools.
post #23 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
If there's one thing Obama has done poorly since his election, it would be messaging. He's not vocal about things that he's accomplished nor how he has accomplished them. Bush might be a laughing stock for his "Mission Accomplished" sign, but everyone knows about. Self-promotion is key. And the Republicans do a way better job at staying on message, even when the message is a bunch of hogwash.
This is bewildering to me. Where is the man who was always on point, willing to call bullshit on the bullshit statements of his opponents, and willing to tackle tough, complex issues in public?

I like Obama most when he's A) making a formal "Big Speech" like he did after the Rev Wright issue erupted or B) when he's conversational, like when he told Tim Russert in the campaign that they'd tried a gas tax holiday in Illinois and tax payers didn't see any benefits, so he knew Clinton and McCain's proposals were bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post

Personally, my move would have been to make a federal agency to lend to small businesses (who are the ones who needed the loans most) that would be phased out after the fucking Wall St banks went teats up and banks that were WILLING to lend to small business showed up on the scene. Of course, then you'd have cries of "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!" for the gov't performing a duty that the private sector was UNWILLING to do, but oh well.
Well there is the Small Business Administration, which does offer loans to entrepreneurs, plus regional Councils of Government that offer Economic Development grants etc.
post #24 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
I know I should probably read the whole analysis, but I just cant get past this:

Kind of ruins the credibility of the guy writing it.
All I'll say is that a lot of people in the automotive industry still have jobs because of the bailout of GM. Now, their future is still unwritten as is the balance of the taxpayer's investment in them, so we don't know how smartly things were fixed. But unlike the banks, they aren't a problem to us right now in that they're a much better run company after the restructuring and not causing instability in the economy.

As for Obama's responsibility, he took most of the political hits for this and so he gets the spoils of war. Even though a shit-ton of Michigan politicians probably backed him on this play.

Besides the DNC's utter lack of message discipline, Obama's problem is mostly not getting tougher earlier on health care and missing some crucial opportunities on financial reform, but I tend to spread the blame (and the hate) across Washington as a whole. It's unfair to just blame the man when everyone's got their own agenda. Still, Obama's legislative record, with this totally dysfunctional Congress, is a fairly damn impressive one.
post #25 of 25
This should be sent to everyone in the country: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Case For Obama