what are barack obama's flaws?

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/Don-Quixote-Windmill.gif

GODDAMN IT HI DERE

WHAT THE HELL

well why should ilxors formulate defenses for arguments ilxors are not making? that's more about politeness than politics, tho...

xps ok what is with the raccoons

I had another long post about how Obama's definitely NOT gonna be more liberal in his second term but it got eaten apparently... Obama's doing the calculus to get elected, no doubt. I'm sure he's aware that the majority of modern president's major legislative accomplishments are achieved within the first two years of their first term. By the second term the President is often severely compromised politically and also lacking in the political capital to get things done with congress.

But, even so, Obama is NOT promising to be more liberal if he gets re-elected. You have posted, repeatedly and apparently without any provocation, that this argument - that Obama will be more liberal if he gets re-elected - is being used to silence criticism. Even though, NO ONE IS SAYING IT. this is not that complicated to understand, frankly I'm kinda surprised at your harping on this...

x-posts

it's "he wouldn't get reelected and be able to do the things he really wants to do/the really important things" IIRC and to try to make it plain that I do get the argt,

you "get" an argument that you just made up, that is ahistorical and illogical, and that no one on ILX is making. good job.

I don't think the argument is really that Obama is going to be more liberal if he's re-elected. The argument is that he isn't being very liberal now so that he will get re-elected; what he does in the hypothetical second term is entirely up in the air.

My counter-argument is that all Obama really ever promised to do is be more liberal than McCain. He isn't as liberal I want for him to be, but I knew this would be the case going into things and therefore it is difficult for me to feel betrayed when 85% of his responses to issues have been in line with how he campaigned.

(btw 85% is a precise statistic that I just pulled out of my ass)

..except for torture. and the banks. but maybe we got the wrong impression from all the populist sunshine?

The torture thing is the most misleading thing he's done IMO and even there I am not 100% prepared to pass judgment because I haven't spent as much time as I want to spend digging into the issue and getting info from multiple sources in an attempt to get to what the real facts are.

(which is a weaselly way of saying "I stopped paying attention but IIRC the last thing I heard on it really, really sucked and I should stop playing WoW long enough to confirm it")

when did he say he was going to prosecute people on torture?

never

He said something during the campaign about putting a stop to it, which was undercut somewhat by the rendition decision, and that people who did it should be brought to justice, which was undercut by Holder's decision not to prosecute and his own statements that we should look forward; I am fully aware that I may be misremembering what he said during the campaign, though.

he did say we weren't gonna do it anymore. whether or not that promise has been carried out is a little difficult to determine, given the secrecy of rendition process. although on the public face of it, yeah he did outlaw it and order all branches of the military/intelligence community to follow no-torture guidelines, etc. which is a good thing imho.

x-post

I don't think he ever said he was going to go after Cheney or Gonzales. Holder's given conflicting statements since being appointed.

(the more accurate thing is likely that he said something which was interpreted to mean what I outlined above that really should have been taken at bald face value, but that doesn't keep me from being bummed that no one is trying to through Cheney in jail)

I'd actually put my happy-with-Obamaness at about 70/75%; that the rest of the world no longer thinks we're led by an idiot who can't find France on a map is important to me, and I believe that Obama's statesmanship will be good for us as a country & important for our economic health in the future, since the future of the world economy is going to involve one whole hell of a lot of cooperation imo. I am happy with his bipartisanship; he restores dignity to the country when he insists on listening to others, trying to hear what they have to say. Even his tendency to compromise what I'd call valuable principles - I see that as a net gain for public discourse, which, in the long run, is extremely important; it has a lot to do with how impressionable young people will grow up to be, and govern, etc.

Unfortunately, the remaining 25-30% has mainly to do with the torture of prisoners & the disposition of prisoners of war, issues on which while there are no answers without possible cost. I am arguing that it seems clear that the president believes the political costs to him & his party would be too great for him to pursue the right course of action, which is holding people accountable for betraying the country on an issue as vital as detention without cause & torture of prisoners. I don't think any other explanation of his stance on this issue holds up.

Cheney, bummed in jail.

so deej is your position seriously "nothing can be done" on torture? like, it happened, too bad so sad for dudes who got tortured, we promise not to do it again?

Thinking back over a long history government-sanction abuses of human rights, I'd say that is a best-case scenario.

:(

I can think of many considerations other than electoral ones that would make Obama hesitate to launch an investigation of the previous administration. At a time when its vital for the US to repair its image in the Muslim world, to be digging up a lot of dirt and airing it to the world may not be the most advisable course, however much we would like to reach some semblance of justice against those who perpetrated it. Also, such investigations are bound to be incredibly disruptive and divisive within the national security agencies and military, at a time when we need their full focus on threats to the country. Not saying these considerations should trump everything else, but they are there.

a developed democratic country that cant come correct on torture-- i dont know if that image can be repaired without disclosure imo.

I hear that o. nate but really - that information? it's going to come out eventually. we don't live in a world where you can keep secrets for long. if any president might be able to preside over its release and maybe minimize the damage it'll do, better Barack Obama than anybody else, in my opinion - as an international statesman, he's better equipped than anybody else I can see filling his shoes. the damage is done & it's going to surface at some point, all of it. I would expect Obama to realize that he might have the best shot at averting utter catastrophe but pursuing a policy of openness with it. which policy, incidentally, would be right in line with FOIA & as Hunt3r points out, our vision of ourselves as a decent bunch of people.

(but pursuing = by pursuing in the above, thx)

I think minimizing the damage might just involve letting things come out slowly in dribs and drabs. Maybe the trauma of a big media circus investigation might be therapeutic for the national soul, but Obama does not seem like the kind of person who would be drawn to such a divisive confrontation.

xpost
I'm confused. Are pictures depicting the torturing Muslims worse than killing Muslims? If we want to repair our image I think it makes the most sense to prosecute torturers and stop killing innocent people. It sounds naive in the context of these sort of discussions in which the "grown-ups" pretend "our hand" has been "forced" by "fate" or that "we" are making "significant strategical Foreign Policy decisions", but for actual adults, who understand that the basic fact of being a human being is understanding that actions have consequences and that the actor generally must take responsibility for those consequences, this whole foolish "debate" takes on the character, the ill-informed, all-knowing conviction, of a bunch of six year old boys playing "war" in a backyard somewhere. As long as nobody can "squander" "political capital" by doing the right fucking thing, nothing will change.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

xpost
it sucks that it would be divisive. All of that finger pointing, when, really, the question of complicity is only a matter of degree for all.

Interesting to consider the experience of South Africa with its Truth & Reconciliation Commission. In a sense, they had to choose between truth and justice. As a country, they could either entice people to testify in exchange for amnesty, or else they could try to seek retribution and face stonewalling and cover-ups. They opted for the less divisive and more forward-looking choice.

Ok. I will read up on that. I know what you are saying but generally "justice" and "retribution" is a dangerous conflation. Also, as far as I remember, the situation in South Africa was a domestic concern, with both the hurt and hurters part of the same legal system. That is not the case here. Whether us Americans decide to be "friends" again or not doesn't change the fact that the acts occur, the acts continue to occur, and that the people most affected by this have no voice in the matter.

im pretty sure the s.a. situation was a pretty shitty resolution in many many ways, even if it was the best/most realistic one (not sure that it was that, either)

A lot of people were unhappy about it. They would have preferred to have the justice first, then the reconciliation. However, as a whole it seems to have succeeded in its aims.

As a country, they could either entice people to testify in exchange for amnesty, or else they could try to seek retribution and face stonewalling and cover-ups.

Which of these are we doing right now?

("torturing of Muslims")

sorry to loop back to taibbi but

Unwavering ideological voting, of the sort Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich exhibit, is the exception in politics for good reason. It is impossible to separate wealthy or powerful groups from the centers of government. And trying to do so can make a country less stable. Opposition movement must enlist opposing powerful elements in order to achieve success, which means one group of powerful individuals is replaced with another. Look at the relationships between the wealthy, the military, and the government in any number of anti-democratic or marginally democratic states. That Goldman Sacs, to take Taibbi's favored boogeyman, is able to influence the political process through lobbyists is far preferable a government where the most powerful interests might need stage or threaten a military coup in order to influence the stewards of government.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/obama-and-taibbi-ii.html

is there an academic version of this critique?

Maybe you can read C Wright Mills' "The Power Elite" and say "awesome" instead of "damn" at the appropriate moments?

j/k or am I?

I'm sort of confused with the last sentences. Are we a democracy simply because our coups are nonviolent?

our coups are regularly scheduled, that's the whole point

not sure what you meant upthread-- i like taibbi's critique, and tend to view it at least as much "dc is an incestuous self interested circle jerk" than, say, "lefties want obama to be more lefty."

ive simply never seen anyone posit that k street adds needed stability to the republic.

xpost

I'm not sure if there's an academic version of it, though I've heard similar arguments put forward in support of for instance our current campaign finance system - ie., that if you don't let the moneyed interests funnel dollars to their preferred candidates openly, they'll do it under the table. There is probably some truth to this. If the powerful are not given peaceful and fairly transparent ways of influencing policy, they will find ways to circumvent it that could potentially be more harmful to the smooth functioning of a civil society. Too many unenforceable laws tend to undermine the rule of law.

Sullivan is having the wrong effect on me. Suddenly I wish we had leaders principled enough to only change their minds in the face of tanks.

o. - in:re influence - that is a good principle in terms of the giving but not the taking.

Speaking of Sully, he's on vacation, and Patrick Appel posted this in part, responding to the Taibbi stuff:

Unwavering ideological voting, of the sort Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich exhibit, is the exception in politics for good reason. It is impossible to separate wealthy or powerful groups from the centers of government. And trying to do so can make a country less stable. Opposition movement must enlist opposing powerful elements in order to achieve success, which means one group of powerful individuals is replaced with another. Look at the relationships between the wealthy, the military, and the government in any number of anti-democratic or marginally democratic states. That Goldman Sacs, to take Taibbi's favored boogeyman, is able to influence the political process through lobbyists is far preferable a government where the most powerful interests might need stage or threaten a military coup in order to influence the stewards of government.

This is not to say that we should always capitulate to powerful interests, but that these interests will always have a say in government and that our system of lobbying is an alternative to much less desirable arrangements. Pretending that if Obama were more liberal that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is wishful thinking. These problems are systemic and not attributable to any individual

If you're just looking for a history of the outsized influence enjoyed by the wealthy and powerful even in a democracy such as ours, there's Kevin Phillips' engaging book Wealth and Democracy. In particular the part about how late-stage empires tend to see a flourishing of finance at the expense of more tangible industries is sobering (prior examples include Spain, Netherlands and Great Britain).

Shh- Not sure I understand the "giving" vs "taking" distinction you're making.

It is inevitable that powerful people will try to influence policymakers. It is not inevitable that they are influenced.

Especially that last paragraph makes it seem like politicians are just leaves subject to whoever has the most powerful blower. In which case I vote maple.

Pretending that if Obama were more <S>liberal</S> principled that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is <S>wishful</S> thinking. These problems are systemic and <S>not</S> attributable to any individual

ARGH!
Pretending that if Obama were more liberal principled that the government would suddenly have tools to oppose these interests is wishful thinking. These problems are systemic and not attributable to any individual

<S>not</S>

thread saved

I like "swishful" - a great replacement for the sometimes overlong "light in the loafers".

bad pun kills thread sorry.

Hey, guys, hot off the press:

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leaders said Monday that they were prepared to drop a proposed expansion of Medicare and make other changes in sweeping health legislation as they tried to rally their caucus in hopes of passing the bill before Christmas.
Skip to next paragraph
Prescriptions Blog

A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.

* More Health Care Overhaul News

conversations
Health Care Conversations

Share your thoughts about the health care debate.

Top Discussions: The Public Option | Medicare and the Elderly | A Single-Payer System
Living Story
Health Care Reform

Recent developments on the struggle over health care with background, analysis, timelines and earlier events from NYTimes.com and Google.

After a tense 90-minute meeting on Monday evening, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked if Democrats were likely to jettison the Medicare proposal.

“It’s looking like that’s the case,” Mr. Baucus said, indicating that the provision might be scrapped as a way of “getting support from 60 senators.”

Under the proposal, uninsured people ages 55 to 64 could purchase Medicare coverage. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, floated the idea about 10 days ago as a way to break an intraparty impasse over his earlier proposal to create a government-run health insurance plan.

The signal from the party leadership came after the closed-door session to gauge sentiment for moving ahead with a pared-back measure that would not contain elements that liberal lawmakers had sought, particularly a public health insurance option.

Lawmakers and top aides said that the overriding view at the session held just off the Senate floor was that they had come too far in the health care debate to give up and that they should forge ahead with some legislation even if it was not all that they wanted.

After the meeting, lawmakers said they believed that chances were increased for completing a health care bill and that a final product would be a substantial improvement over the current system.

“If you compared it to the alternative, it looks good,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, about the prospect of moving ahead with a measure that does not have a public health insurance option. “If you compare it to the possibilities, it looks pretty sad.”

I am too tired of arguing with people I respect about this stuff. I support this bill now no matter what it says. Something is better than nothing. That's politics. Idealism is for the stupid.