what are barack obama's flaws?

o really--do tell

As I seem to recall, LBJ did most of his legendary arm-twisting behind the scenes. I can only hope that Rahm, Obama, et al are pursuing a similar approach. But if it reaches the point where all he can do is go to the media to issue ultimatums to Congress, I think the game is probably lost.

look, hes not LBJ. but im not convinced that conservative democrats are all that interested in toeing the party line, considering most of them are in states that werent carried by obama

I'm pretty sure that Democrats in restive conservative states, especially those facing reelection next year, wouldn't mind at all being able to point to something they stood up to Obama on.

but they have their pressure points. everybody does. and while obv we don't know the details of behind-the-scenes strategy, there hasn't been much evidence of obama really trying to squeeze any of these people. it's been all courting and coaxing.

and anyway, what about lieberman? he's actually more conservative than his state. and i don't know if any interest groups are out there running "why is joe lieberman trying to kill health reform" ads in connecticut, but if they aren't, why not?

yeah everyone is mystified by why lieberman is doing this, the current meme seems to be that all he wants to do is fuck with liberals for beating him in the CT primary

ethan linked to this on fbook
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/how_liberal_is_obama.html

You could imagine a lot of presidents more dogmatically liberal than Obama, but I wonder whether there are a lot of plausible hypotheticals in which they amass more liberal achievements than Obama. At the executive level, it might be the case that being too liberal is a liability to, well, liberalism.

Apparently his own "CT for Joe Lieberman" party is running ads against him now -- or is that what you were referring to?

no, ha, i didnt even know that. what a dickwad.

For those who dream of some truly bold financial reforms, there's some good red meat from Volcker in these interviews:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/volcker-we-need-to-think-more-boldly/

We have a really exaggerated view of what passes for 'liberal' in this country. It's that puritanism dragging us down again.

what we

been thinkin baout this

i heard on NPR this morning there is another sit-down with the president and the big banks. the marketplace guys were chuckling, "heh heh more like a LECTURE" "FINGER WAGGING from the president." reminded me of one of the first meetings like this, back when the economy was in chaos instead of a flatlined grind, and obama said something like "we are the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks"

but that is exactly wrong. it's a cute threat but it is just logically untrue. and i'm sure everyone knew it. the substance of the threat is that beyond the obama administration's stern high school principal act, lies a vast sea of populist anger. that's true in a sense, but in electoral terms it's backwards. either in a loss of majorities in '10 or a loss of the white house in '12, the governance of gov't-bank relations can only get worse. in real terms we are not getting the government action we need but in practical terms we will not get any better. so yes, it does come down to the priorities and prerogatives of the president. and congress(ional leadership).

republicans will have to problem riding "bailout fatigue" and the beck-ist sense that big gov't and big finance have gotten in bed with each other to screw YOU. liberalism has failed, your job is gone, they don't care, let the market work, you can hear it all now. but! the financial reform package passed the house with 0 GOP votes. the stimulus got a handful, health care got 1. not even poor little joseph cao wanted a piece of "anti-bank" bill. will legislation like this get easier if populist anger gets worse? no, absolutely not. you can't vote out bank of america but you CAN vote out the democratic majority.

the only caveat to this complaint is that even IF the "harshest" (ie most prudent) set of regs were put in place on the financial sector, it wouldn't help the economy grow in the short term. it would only (if i get this right) prevent the next crisis. the gov't's soft touch with the banks and a weak job market are not the same problem.

look yglesias is still writing about this

If you want to complain about the Obama administration, you should complain about their conduct of issues they actually have control over. Foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan, for example. Or issues related to secrecy, surveillance, and executive power. There should be plenty of grist for anyone’s mill on those issues—Glenn Greenwald’s blog is still very much in business—but on legislative matters that require the concurrence of congress, it’s not clear what pushing Obama to the left would accomplish. Rather than “Obamamania” I think a lot of the left is infected with a kind of “Presidentmania” in which they assume that the White House could get anything done if only they really wanted it. But let me promise you, the White House wants to sign a health care bill. They really, really do. Having their top priority bogged down for months is not part of a secret plan.

why is m.y. promising me shit?

because you think that the white house doesnt want to sign a health care bill

yeah well, the idea i'm coming around to is that yglesias et al ARE being too easy on the president. the structural problems in gov't are immense but there is a snowball's chance in hell of the filibuster being done away with, let alone the senate itself. given the situation, what the administration and the congressional leadership wants to do is really all we have. it's the only independent variable in the whole equation.

the only solution, really, is for ppl like greenwald and taibbi to keep it up. that seems very paltry.

Rather than “Obamamania” I think a lot of the left is infected with a kind of “Presidentmania” in which they assume that the White House could get anything done if only they really wanted it.

this is OK though because it's countered by partisan Democrats' insistence that the President can't do anything, ever, and is really only an impotent figurehead on whom exactly nothing can be blamed

oh hey are we beating up on straw men again

he's over there using superlatives - GET 'IM!

seriously J0hn did you not read the two sentences before the one you quoted or what

yeah I read 'em and I know very well what happens when you take that bait - there's a whole "in due time" move partyline ppl bring in on those issues - "he can't do it overnight," "he's not Jesus," etc - it's kind of like a shell game

unless he actually accomplishes passing health care, in which case its not a shell game

i mean j0hn can u at least admit that the truth is somewhere in the middle

i mean j0hn can u at least admit that the truth is somewhere in the middle

yeah but that middle is still miles away from anything more complimentary than "what an incredible disappointment this presidency is" no matter how low your expectations were. also, "a health care bill" is like the saddest thing, and it's already depressing that, no matter how ugh the bill that goes through ends up being, we're being prepped for "hey, give the guy credit: he got a health care bill through!" it's like if I promise you a car and I give you a Yugo, I think you're within your rights to say "this is a fucking Yugo"

ingrate

"Hey stfu it runs and gets you down the street" ok fair enough but I was hoping for at the very least a gremlin

the food here is terrible, and in such small portions

Stop it – I'm hungry.

yeah but that middle is still miles away from anything more complimentary than "what an incredible disappointment this presidency is" no matter how low your expectations were. also, "a health care bill" is like the saddest thing, and it's already depressing that, no matter how ugh the bill that goes through ends up being, we're being prepped for "hey, give the guy credit: he got a health care bill through!" it's like if I promise you a car and I give you a Yugo, I think you're within your rights to say "this is a fucking Yugo"

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 12:36 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

an 'incredible disappointment'? imo, huge overstatement considering the state the country was in when he got here, & the fact that he was only elected 12 months ago & wasnt even in office until less than a year ago, in the middle of a huge economic collapse. WHAT A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. i dont understand -- are you trying to, like, agitate from the left by being disingenuous now? does pushing him left require you pull a chicken little routine about his presidency, & act like a health care bill is somehow not a big deal?

i think being honest about whats going on doesnt mean you shouldnt be disappointed, but christ

well, to follow that analogy, who is to blame for the yugo being a yugo? (the president can be one of your answers.)

yeah until somebody gets prosecuted for using my fucking tax dollars to torture human beings, "incredible disappointment" is an understatement as far as I'm concerned. if anything's worth spending political capital on, it's torture. after that, the subverting of the Constitution for political ends. both things from which we're "moving forward."

"oh so it's YOUR money" fucking right it is. if you pay taxes, you paid for somebody to torture prisoners. we know that. the guilty should be brought to justice. they won't be. that's an incredible disappointment.

so when you grudgingly voted for barack obama you expected him to swiftly bring cheney to trial & prosecute him for war crimes

im not saying he shouldnt have btw -- just wondering if youre so incredibly disappointed because you thought at any time that was going to happen

deej i admire your stansmanship but on torture or surveillance or 'executive privilege' u cannot

I certainly didn't expect his Justice Department to file briefs with the Supreme Court urging it not to hear arguments in favor of releasing photos of torture.

goole stop asking for "perfection" - only Jesus Christ would make any effort to right such wrongs, everybody else needs to focus on what's important: a win in the Senate

I knew he supported the FISA compromises and would probably keep Bush's cool new executive branch powers, but Holder's move there was breathtaking in its capitulation to the unitary executive theory of government.

j0hn bro you are making it v difficult to agree w/ you

what the fuck dude stop misinterpreting me -- im talking about your stance here of calling this a 'failure' of a presidency -- what president's gold standard are you holding this up to -- presidents are assholes -- FDR interned japanese ppl -- every president is 'disappointing,' im talking about working w/in the world we actually live in

goole stop asking for "perfection" - only Jesus Christ would make any effort to right such wrongs, everybody else needs to focus on what's important: a win in the Senate

― a full circle lol (J0hn D.), Monday, December 14, 2009 12:44 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what does 'a win in the senate' mean -- do you mean health care? because i do think that is 'what's important'

But that doesn't stop one from saying, "Presidents are assholes -- FDR interned American citizens of Japanese descent – but here's how Obama in particular is an asshole."

and to be clear deej if he'd hang a scooter libby out to dry, something, anything, to indicate something other than total moral cowardice in the face of what 8 years of bush turned this country into - a nation of people for whom torture & indefinite detainment without charge is an unpleasant fact of daily life which they subsidize with their own money - I'd be placated. "moving forward" is bullshit. the man in the oval office has the names & notes of the people who tortured. either them or the people who commanded them need to be brought to justice. it's never going to happen. 100% permanent no-excuses crap imo.

i find myself searching for the reasons for doing that [xp to Alfred: re: the torture photos] -- necessity of legal continuity? need to keep the CIA happy while they are dying in SW Asia? foreign gov'ts have begged for no more riots in muslim cities? -- because the prospect of Holder thinking it's really the right thing to do, is really really gross.

j0hn i really don't know how to respond to what you are saying. is there really a response? i could repeat myself. i probably will.

(and in the face of that, yeah, whatever, a health care bill - deck chair on the damn titanic if we just go "yeah, some bad shit went down, you guys don't really need to know about it, let's just move along")

(goole I was being sarcastic, pretty sure you & I are on the same side here)

can someone fill me in on the STD apology for o's lack of movement on stuff like torture etc? is it still "it'd tear the country apart?" or is it that he'd blow capital and get stuffed on healthcare and other plans that Look Forward?

got ya -- so universal health care is simply a mea culpa for not prosecuting gwb for torture

Listen to Beltway hack Chuck Todd tell us what would happen if Obama pressed ahead on prosecuting lawyers who authorized torture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2LroD5_IbU