Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Dream Gone South
In a piece about David Plouffe's The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory (Viking Adult), Arianna Huffington contemplates the gap between the '08 Obama campaign themes and the way things have devolved since he took office. Caution bordering on timidity, status quo half-measures, playing softball with the right, etc.
"How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that 'the core leadership had turned rotten' and that 'the people were getting hosed' become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?
"How did the candidate who told a stadium of supporters in Denver that 'the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result' become the president who has surrounded himself with the same old players trying the same old politics, expecting a different result?
"How could a president whose North Star as a candidate was that he would 'not forget the middle class' choose as his chief economic advisor a man who recently argued against extending unemployment benefits in the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?
"I'm referring, of course, to Larry Summers. According to a White House official I spoke with -- later confirmed by sources in the White House and on the Hill -- Summers was against the extension. And it took a lot of Congressional pushing back behind the scenes for the president to overrule him.
"And, according to another senior White House official, when foreclosures or job numbers come up at the regular White House morning meeting, Summers' response is that nothing can be done. Nothing can be done about skyrocketing foreclosures or lost jobs.
"Nothing can be done -- pretty much the opposite of 'Yes we can,' isn't it?"
And this from Bill Maher, also on the Huffington Post:
"Yeah, I'm disappointed, too. I thought we were sweeping into power; I thought change meant Change. I believed all that talk about another First 100 Days, a la Roosevelt. Well, that didn't happen. The question is, is this as good as it gets from President Obama, or is he pacing himself? He may have a four and eight-year plan and they included a first year of just gettin' to know you and not gonna rock the boat too much. Well, Mission Accomplished on that.
"It's still too early to lose hope in a guy as smart and talented as Barack Obama. But I would counsel him to remember: If you're going undercover to infiltrate how Washington works, so you become one of them for a while, to gain their confidence, well, it can be just like all those movies where a cop goes deep, deep, DEEP undercover with drug people and -- fuck, he's a drug addict, too!
"Logic tells me that really smart guys like Obama and Rahm Emanuel know better what they're doing than I do. They certainly know things I don't know. I think we have the same general goals and beliefs. And this is what they do for a living -- I wouldn't even try it. But I will never stop having this doubt: that maybe if they had really charged in there riding the forceful energy of the historic election, and acted like it was an emergency moment -- which it was -- they could have gotten some big victories right up front, and there really could have been an historic 'first hundred days' for this administration and the country.
"Instead of what happened, which is the Obamas got a dog.
"It could have worked -- the country had given its endorsement to '...and now for something completely different.' There might have been a way to knock the Republicans back on their heels right away, with the argument that 'The American people demanded we make these changes, and you are unpatriotic to stand in their way.'
"We'll never know. Because that moment passed, and now it could follow the pattern of World War I and devolve into boring, static trench warfare where nothing really gamechanging happens while both sides slowly bleed to death."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 3, 2009 at 7:55 AM
comment #1
THE MovieBob
says ...
I understand why the "I never voted for anyone before" Obama kids are mad at him now... but why ADULTS are joining them is baffling to me. Folks like yourself in particular, Jeff. You're a grown man, and you clearly possess the proper cynicism and suspicion that comes with wisdom and experience... did you really BELIEVE in all that hopey-changey "transformative" not-just-any-other-politician fluff during the campaign? Did this many people really think that Obama's "change" was any less an empty platitude than Reagan's "morning?"
Good lord, people... he's JUST a politician. They all say they're above the fray, they all say they're out for the greater good, they all say they're the one's we've been waiting for... and they're all full of shit. Smart people are supposed to KNOW this and accept it as a necessity in building a voting-majority out of people who ARE clueless enough to buy it. Obama IS doing the two most important things any Liberal president can do: Occupying space in the White House for 4 years so that a Republican president CAN'T and naming like-minded justices to the courts. Anything - nay, EVERYTHING - else is gravy. Perspective.
Posted by THE MovieBob
at November 3, 2009 9:16 AM
comment #2
Eloi Manning
says ...
It's not even as bad as people are making out. Healthcare is going in the right direction, the economy is showing signs of life - stuff is happening, it's just happening at a slow pace, which is to be expected given that we're still less than a year into his Presidency. People need to stop panicking.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 3, 2009 9:19 AM
comment #3
Noel Murray
says ...
Curious that my friends on the left think Obama hasn't done anything, while my friends on the right think this is the most radical remaking of America since FDR. All in how you look at it, I suppose. But I do wish people would grapple with the what's actually happened, versus what the pundits have either wished for or warned against. Here's (in my opinion), a fairer summary of Obama's first year:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-timeline-110309?src=rss
Posted by Noel Murray
at November 3, 2009 9:36 AM
comment #4
Eloi Manning
says ...
"Curious that my friends on the left think Obama hasn't done anything, while my friends on the right think this is the most radical remaking of America since FDR."
Exactly.
It's really just the extremes of the left and right battling it out to see who can be the douchiest overreactors in America.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 3, 2009 9:39 AM
comment #5
BurmaShave
says ...
The first 100 days Obama passed a second stimulus that may very well have begun to turn around our economy, saved the American auto industry, set in motion the closing of Guantanamo Bay... Got a dog, jesus. It's too bad you can't overdose on weed, this country doesn't need Bill Maher
Posted by BurmaShave
at November 3, 2009 9:55 AM
comment #6
TL
says ...
Jeff, I'm really curious -- what did you think that you were getting in Obama? And what do you think the powers of the presidency are that he could make those things happen?
We weren't electing a king, and, absent substantial structural changes in the way our government works (e.g., ending the filibuster or (better) abolishing the Senate), there's only so much a president can do, and most of that is nibbling around the margins.
And even giving that, Obama is about to pass a health care bill, that regardless of whether it contains a public option will still be a very good bill that will save hundred of thousands of lives and prevent many, many more people from losing everything as the result of a serious illness or accident.
The sky isn't falling. Far from it.
Posted by TL
at November 3, 2009 10:02 AM
comment #7
dangovich
says ...
What are all these zombies doing here? I thought Halloween was over.
TL, I'm glad you have such confidence in a bill that you haven't even seen. And I think Jeff figured he was getting a guy who would honor his campaign promises.
Posted by dangovich
at November 3, 2009 11:20 AM
comment #8
Floyd Thursby
says ...
Got a call last night from Barry asking me to vote for Jon Corzine for governor, as if I would ever consider voting for a republican.
Surprised that Wells hasn't weighed in on the New Jersey gubernatorial race. Not only is the republican candidate a slimy toad of a an insincere con man destined to end up behind bars within ten years, but he's fat, too. Hey, Wells, a fat fascist in Trenton! Stop him now!
It's so obvious that a Chris (Two Faces Have I) Christie administration would be an embarrassment that I'm tempted to vote for him just to see him get his Georgie-Minafer comeuppance.
Posted by Floyd Thursby
at November 3, 2009 11:26 AM
comment #9
rayciscon
says ...
All of the comments so far have been good, and it simply reinforces the sinking feeling I've been having lately...
The more time that passes since the 2008 election, the more closely Obama resembles George W. Bush.
He promised so much, yet he's wasting all of his political capital on an attempt at an ungodly expensive government heath care takeover. With the economy in this shape, I'm afraid it's never going to happen.
Obama should've fixed the economy, and then when the people are starting to get fat and sassy again, go for health care changes.
The path he's heading down is not a good one... examine these parallels between the US invasion of Iraq and the Obama experience:
1 - The US military invades Iraq in a mind blowing display of shock and awe. Completing the invasion turns out to be much easier than virtually anyone thought possible.
1 - Barack Obama, a less-than-one-term junior Senator from Illinois surprises everyone by destroying her opponents, including Hillary Clinton and media-darling John McCain, while conventional wisdom says he doesn't have a chance.
2 - With the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein overthrown, US military and government just don't grasp what's necessary to maintain peace and promote democracy. Peace eventually comes, but it takes years.
2 - With the 2008 Presidential election won, Barack Obama and his advisers continue to operate in campaign mode and fail to grasp how to actually lead the country. He may eventually figure out how to do it, but if it doesn't happen soon he's going to lose his party's current stranglehold on government, and may end up being a one-term President.
Posted by rayciscon
at November 3, 2009 11:36 AM
comment #10
DeeZee
says ...
FDR had unanimous support, while Obama has to deal with closet bigots who might end up using "big government" as the excuse for kicking out members of his party in 2010. JFK had the exact same problem on civil rights. Yeah, maybe we need someone who gets things done, like LBJ, but then LBJ didn't have to clean up Bush's mess.
Posted by DeeZee
at November 3, 2009 11:45 AM
comment #11
DeeZee
says ...
ray: "Completing the invasion turns out to be much easier than virtually anyone thought possible."
Um, last time I checked, we we only supposed to be in Iraq for "a few months".
"Peace eventually comes, but it takes years."
We were told it'd be a cakewalk.
Posted by DeeZee
at November 3, 2009 11:51 AM
comment #12
Colin
says ...
You're right ray Pres. Obama should have fixed the economy, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reformed health-care in 100 days.
Give the man a whole fucking year before you make judgements. He has to clean up Bush's entire 8 year term!
Posted by Colin
at November 3, 2009 11:53 AM
comment #13
rayciscon
says ...
@DeeZee, I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you, but did you read part 2 of my Iraq description?
@Colin, I'm not asking Obama to wave a magic wand and fix things, but when we're going through the worst economy in 80 years, I'm just asking for a bit of prioritization... Obama and co. have already spent over 1 Trillion dollars on a stimulus package that has done zero stimulating (unless your a Wall Street pal of Obama), and NOW he wants to spend another Trillion on a government takeover of heath care?
I'm tired of people complaining about cleaning up after Bush's 8 years... were you the same people who complained about the deficit under Bush? Obama's making Bush look like a financial genius!
Posted by rayciscon
at November 3, 2009 12:15 PM
comment #14
DeeZee
says ...
ray: "were you the same people who complained about the deficit under Bush?"
Um, yes we were, back when Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter."
Posted by DeeZee
at November 3, 2009 12:19 PM
comment #15
Gordon27
says ...
"Obama should've fixed the economy, and then when the people are starting to get fat and sassy again, go for health care changes."
This proposal makes no sense; are you suggesting that the problems with the economy are entirely unconnected to the problems with health care? Because there are millions of Americans, the ones bankrupted by their healthcare costs, who would completely disagree with that. There's no way to do serious work on the economy without addressing healthcare.
Basically, you're suggesting he should spend all of his time making sure one side of the Rubik's cube is all the right color.
Posted by Gordon27
at November 3, 2009 12:29 PM
comment #16
rayciscon
says ...
@Gordon27:
no.
What I'm trying to say is that as President, if you're trying to sell a socialized health care package that's going to cost more than a Trillion dollars, will raise taxes on almost everyone starting in 2010, and the program itself won't kick in until years later. Maybe... just maybe you need to WAIT until the economy is better than it currently is.
Right now he's trying to sell scuba gear to a person lost in the middle of the Sahara desert. Get the person to the coast, THEN sell him the scuba gear.
Posted by rayciscon
at November 3, 2009 12:49 PM
comment #17
Discman
says ...
Wait till you see the results tonight from Virginia, where the liberal bloggers have been posting throughout the day about a historic beatdown they're in the process of receiving.
It's gonna be the best post-election day I've had since 2004.
Posted by Discman
at November 3, 2009 1:28 PM
comment #18
TL
says ...
TL, I'm glad you have such confidence in a bill that you haven't even seen.
I've seen the bills that have come out of the 5 committees, the bill that's being brought to the House floor this week, and heard what's in the bill that Reid will bring to the Senate floor. We know what 90% of the final bill will look like, and it's a good bill regardless of the other 10%.
The substance isn't going to magically transform between now and the conference committee.
@ rayciscon: NOW he wants to spend another Trillion on a government takeover of heath care?
A trillion (give or take) over 10 years in a way that lowers the federal deficit. And in what way is this a "government takeover of health care"? Please, I honestly want to know what you think the government is going to take over.
Posted by TL
at November 3, 2009 1:31 PM
comment #19
Gordon27
says ...
"Maybe... just maybe you need to WAIT until the economy is better than it currently is."
So, your method of argument is to just say "no" to things you don't like and then repeat yourself?
You're ignoring my point -- there is a massive overlap between "problems in the healthcare industry" and "problems in the economy". Denying this proves conclusively that you don't understand what "the economy" is.
If you want your metaphor to apply to the situation, it should be a drowning man being sold scuba equipment; you're arguing save him from drowning before selling him the scuba equipment, I'm saying that the state of drowning that he is in is directly tied to his lack of scuba equipment.
To put it another way, you're saying "fix it back to the status quo before you try to improve the status quo" and I'm saying that, while you're fixing it, fix the status quo too. Especially since the status quo being broken is part of what needs to be fixed.
Posted by Gordon27
at November 3, 2009 1:46 PM
comment #20
the400blows
says ...
Why should President Obama wait until the economy gets better before he attempts to reform healthcare? I have plenty of family members and friends who have lost jobs and are now without health insurance. And a lot of them can't get coverage because of health issues in their families or they can't afford the high premiums. (A friend's wife had breast cancer and although it has been in remission for the past year--no health insurance company will cover them.) What's the point reforming healthcare when the economy is doing well, and people are employed and receiving health insurance from their employers? Now is the time to reform healthcare.
Posted by the400blows
at November 3, 2009 1:54 PM
comment #21
rayciscon
says ...
Gordon and the400blows:
Hey, I've changed my mind... lets just print as much money as necessary and everything will be OK. I guess NOW I know how the economy works... oh boy...
Posted by rayciscon
at November 3, 2009 1:57 PM
comment #22
sumo-pop
says ...
Whiny ass bitches.
Posted by sumo-pop
at November 3, 2009 2:14 PM
comment #23
DeeZee
says ...
"lets just print as much money as necessary and everything will be OK."
Didn't seem to be a problem when we were bailing out those banks...
Posted by DeeZee
at November 3, 2009 3:17 PM
comment #24
Colin
says ...
As Gordon stated several times the economy and health care are directly linked and it's not gov't takeover you're adding inflammatory language.
"Hey, I've changed my mind... lets just print as much money as necessary and everything will be OK. I guess NOW I know how the economy works... oh boy..."
Well if you're going to be willfully obtuse about it: that system worked fine for Bush and Cheney didn't it?
Posted by Colin
at November 3, 2009 3:49 PM
comment #25
Gordon27
says ...
"I guess NOW I know how the economy works... oh boy..."
I'm waiting to hear you explain how the results of the current healthcare system -- that is, higher mortality rate, bankruptcies, companies having controlled monopolies through gaming the patent system (thus lowering competition) -- is good for the economy. Because you seem to be arguing (I say seem because you're actually just making sardonic cracks without putting forth any specific argument about anything) is that fixing healthcare will be bad for the economy simply because it will have some short-term costs. And that's pretty blatantly not understanding how the economy works, yes, so we agree about your lack of understanding, anyway.
Posted by Gordon27
at November 3, 2009 7:03 PM
comment #26
Chicago48
says ...
None of us is sitting in those status meetings. We don't know what he/ they see. That's why I wasn't so hard on Bush, because we didn't see those reports and hear from the generals and the economic advisors. A president is the main decision maker after listening to his advisos and cabinet. I think for anyone to think this "young" man can come in and make changes overnight -- in less than a year -- is assinine. The only reason Bush was able to get a lot of things done in his first two years was because of 9/11. Maybe this president needs a crisis to get Congress and the people behind him.
I'm working, so the economy doesn't effect me as much, except I have less money. But I adjust and pray I don't get fired. :)
For him to get sweeping changes is like asking the mountain to move (congress) and you guys know that. He can have all the great ideas and he's got a stubborn, slow, "old" congress to move....and the American people know that too.
Let's face it, we are no longer in a capitalism society. Maybe it's pseudo capitalism/socialism, call it what you want, but the general American public is opposed to "socialistic" moves -- although more and more people are on food stamps and government assistance....private corporations aren't holding up their end of the deal.
Posted by Chicago48
at November 4, 2009 12:47 PM
Post a comment