what are barack obama's flaws?

You quote MLK, but Johnson, the ultimate political operator, got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

You all sound like bill maher tonight, I don't want a democratic politician! I want a benevolent dictator! yeah, well, keep voting for nader or what the fuck ever. Obama bears half a resemblance to goddamn Nixon, and compared to four before him, that's fuckin high fives

johnson was also spent his whole career proving that democrats suck at foreign policy

btw (love the man, he put FOIA through, too - the job has many aspects)

You quote MLK, but Johnson, the ultimate political operator, got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

You think this just happened with LBJ getting up in the morning and thinking, "Shit! Gotta do somethin' about civil rights today!"? He acted after a decade of consistent pushing.

from Jake Tapper's blog:

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

corroborating MLK:

We want the world and we want it now
We're gonna take it anyhow

corroborating?

You think this just happened with LBJ getting up in the morning and thinking, "Shit! Gotta do somethin' about civil rights today!"? He acted after a decade of consistent pushing.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that effective public policy making involves making calculations and using political capital in the right way at the right time.

Yes, the Civil Rights Movement had been going on for 10 years, but it took the combination of LBJ's politic maneuvering and cajoling, plus the political capital gained in the aftermath of JFK's assassination to get the thing passed. If you look at the progress of the bill, there were several points when it nearly got killed. Would the bill have passed in 1960? With a newly elected, 43 year old president who won the election by less than 1% of the popular vote. I don't think so. Effective politicians make calculations and think about timing and prevailing winds.

Maybe some people didn't know what they were getting when they voted for Obama. He's a pragmatist and a political gamer. Personally, I'm totally fine with that, because that's how things get done in government. If Obama thinks that he has a short window of opportunity to make huge, sweeping, vitally important changes in our government, and he believes that same-sex marriage could hurt his chances of success, then staying on the sideline on this issue is shrewd and good politicking. By the same token, if he is calculating that weighing in too early on same-sex marriage will make his play less effective, then I'm glad he's making that calculation too. Considering that the executive branch has little direct say over this issue, and the president's role is basically symbolic, maybe he's right to sit back now. Poll numbers on this issue are shifting, more states are changing laws. If Obama has decided to let things develop and then make a stand at a crucial tipping point, then that's shrewd and probably will be more effective then getting out in front on this issue. If you want a politician who takes principled stands at the expense of actually getting things done, then you should have voted for Nader.

what if these purported calculations are wrong?

Super Cub, you're repeating every argument we've had here and the political threads for the last three years. All your points are noted. I didn't vote for Obama, in large part because I suspected where he'd come down on this; and yet, and yet, as Law Dork notes, the DOJ didn't need to use such strong language:

It’s offensive, it’s dismissive, it’s demeaning and — most importantly — it’s unnecessary. Even if one accepts that DOJ should have filed a brief opposing this case (and the facts do suggest some legitimate questions about standing), the gratuitous language used throughout the filing goes much further than was necessary to make its case.

Fair enough. I definitely believe that Obama needs to come out strongly on this issue, if not now, sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Super Cub, you're repeating every argument we've had here and the political threads for the last three years. All your points are noted. I didn't vote for Obama, in large part because I suspected where he'd come down on this;

― Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:51 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark

are u serious

YEAH, HE'S SEEN DEMOCRATS BEFORE

what if these purported calculations are wrong?

Well they very well might be, but Obama seems to have a pretty good feel for this stuff. He's played most everything right so far.

Okay so I got sortof out of hand at the local Starbucks. Yes I'm drunk, but I yelled at a woman going in "WE TORTURED PEOPLE AT GUANTANEMO!" and I saw the look in her eyes. She wanted to wince, she could see the truth in my eyes.

Obama can really suck it, man. I'm ashamed to be an American. You hear me? If there's one subject in this world I feel strongly about it's fucking torture and I am ASHAMED. Go to freaking hell if these goddamn mother fuckers aren't brought to justice. I won't stand for it. Not for a fucking minute.

INNOCENT PEOPLE TORTURED BY THE UNITED STATES IN MY LIFETIME

OBAMA CAN SUCK IT

AND THAT GODDAMN MOTHER FUCKER FROM IRAN TOO

goin in ^^^

are u serious

― autogucci cru (deej),

Fuck yeah.

Saw David Simon in some sort of Q&A. Said Obama wasn't the answer, but that he'd mean things got bad less quickly. Is that the case or not?

Well they very well might be, but Obama seems to have a pretty good feel for this stuff. He's played most everything right so far.

Oh for god's sake shut the fuck UP. No he hasn't!

is "go vote for nader" going to be thrown at every obama critic for the next four years? i voted for the guy (obama, not nader) and i think excusing every single political maneuver on the grounds of "pragmatism" or "that's just what you gotta do to get things done" or whatever brand of beltway bs is fashionable that week is a recipe for disaster. i mean, i don't think people like us were sitting around in 1964 saying "don't worry, lyndon will take care of those segregationists." i'm way more worried about liberals sitting back and "trusting" in obama to take care of everything than i am about liberals abandoning him in a principled huff.

Libs will never abandon Obama, not if he becomes Joe Lieberman (and it's not that long a trip). They have a dream. It was sold to them, but it's theirs. This is why the Dems take every voter to the left of Limbaugh for granted.

Look, the Democratic Party is a centrist party, because this is a center-right (maybe shifting center) nation. That's the reality. No politician can get elected and reelected by appealing to the 15% of the country that has political beliefs far to the right or left of the mainstream (ala the Republican Party right now).

Dismissing politics as "inside the beltway bs" misses the point. The necessity for compromise and quid pro quo and whatever, is fundamental to democracy. It's not some parlor game, it's the way our government functions.

I find Obama's stance on Guantanamo deplorable. I still support him, because he may actually achieve universal health coverage, and that's incredibly important. Pragmatism has its merits.

"Pragmatism" is always defined as far to the right -- pro-status quo, if you like -- as lobbyists and Wall Street can dictate. There comes a time when you HAVE TO REDEFINE what Rahmbo calls "the possible."

Maintaining the status quo in a number of key areas is about to pass the point of no return.

^yeah, I can appreciate that point of view.

i mean, this court case may have just been the wrong one, then its the wrong one. but as a rule the "take it easy, it'll happen" kinda thing is ... not true. the reason that things like civil rights 'happen' is bcuz ppl dont take it easy, they agitate for change (i.e. why i voted obama --> 'hes never going to be president' well yeah if everyone has that attitude ... u have to actually get out there & make that shit happen & that means agitating for change when you know it needs to happen)

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

this is a center-right (maybe shifting center) nation. That's the reality.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

I think discussions of what Americans "want" or think are always confusing because Americans will want anything depending on how they were asked the question.

"Are you for staying in Iraq?" v.s. "Should we pullout right now?"

The same American might say "No." to both and get used for two differing political agendas.

well, yeah, but that's not exactly exclusive to "americans." it has more to do with the nature of polling.

can we please retire this bs meme right now? most americans support national health care, pulling out of iraq, etc. etc.

Well this has been the consensus in political science and theory for the last few decades and guides the actions of politicians and political parties. It's going to take more than citing two particular issues (one of which I don't think you are right about) to refute it.

There's a wealth of evidence that more happened for blacks in the way of employment, income relative to whites, and desegregation from 1940-1960 than 1960-1980. The idea that "it all went down in the 1960s" is championed by authorities because it gives white people, the government, and the white boomers currently in political power, a greater role to play in the civil rights narrative. And doesn't that seem plausible as a theory, assuming the figures support the idea?

Agitation, marching etc comes when groups have counted heads and realized "Hey, wait, why are we being patient and debating? We have the numbers and muscle to overpower the opposition. Let's go." Homosexuals don't quite have that kind of support at this time. You need foot soldiers and a morally defeated opposition.

And Kennedy didn't push the Civil Rights legislative bill because it would've alienated the South before re-election. It actually took Johnson, the Republicans, and the non-Southern Democrats to get it done.

― Cunga, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:36 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

none of this really contradicts what i said.

look the really weird thing here is that Obama doesn't really have anything to gain by taking these kinds of anti-gay rights positions. Maybe he's aware of some political calculus I'm not, but demographically there's broad support for gay civil rights - where things get hung up is on rhetoric and how the issue is framed. Which is Obama's strong suit. So again, I am confused as to why he is doing this (being a raging homophobe seems unlikely, and again, not politically expedient)

Like, he should be fully aware that the majority of the country supports gays having the rights associated with marriage - visitation, inheritance, custody etc. - but that where they draw the line is on being forced to make some kind of explicit APPROVAL of homosexuality itself (which is stupid I know I know let's not go into it) So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly, present it as a not-a-big-deal thing that won't destroy society or hetero marriages or whatever, and list all the net benefits and pro-arguments. Its not really that difficult. This country is not in the same place it was in 1993 - attitudes have shifted massively, and the demographic shift in the younger generation favors pretty broad acceptance of gay rights.

"Pragmatism" is always defined as far to the right -- pro-status quo, if you like -- as lobbyists and Wall Street can dictate. There comes a time when you HAVE TO REDEFINE what Rahmbo calls "the possible."

Maintaining the status quo in a number of key areas is about to pass the point of no return.

― Dr Morbius, Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:15 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

the first reasonable and otm post morbs has ever posted in a poli thread in my 2 years on ilx

none of this really contradicts what i said.

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

I would also be prepared to argue that in '64, the situation in Vietnam and the parallel 'civil rights' of feminism were the other sticking points for the left, and today we've got at least 10 different things to sort out that meet a similar standard, because of 8 years of neglect or full-on law flouting. I've noticed that most lawyers I've seen commenting on the subject of the DOMA defense are finding it difficult to get across to non-lawyers the necessity of citing icky case law, no matter how repellant the comparisons might strike them personally. Case law isn't about personal feelings. LGBT people, unlike black people, have never been impeded at the ballot box or enslaved by people who own everything, including them, so I find the civil rights comparisons too hastily drawn. This is a community that is VERY well-educated and entitled whatever the income level; far beyond me to say there's a blind spot within it but a verrry long time ago I had a conversation with an activist friend at college who said the issue would never be sorted until people stopped going on about lifestyles and started going on about lives. I am not sure some of the fiercest advocates for repeal of DOMA and DADT have figured this out.

I thought you were implying that unless people are engaging in 1964-style sit-ins its an indication that nothing is happening with gay issues.

― Cunga, Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:04 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not at all. 'agitating for change' can mean any number of things

re:shakey mo:
i think its pretty clear based on the article i linked yesterday why obama wouldnt want to expend political capital this way?? the DOJ almost never comes out against a law its supposed to be defending, 99% of the time. its totally legit to ask why hes not pushing for legislation (& even more legit to ask why congress isnt pushing for it, considering the political factors) but acting like hes supposed to make a single stand is like begging for a giant issue the right can twist into a fuckup that actually hurts his credibility.

So all he should have to do if he's worried about this damaging him politically is to frame the issue correctly

isnt 'framing it correctly' = 'it should go thru the legislative process'???

can we also retire the bs that political gaming is some sort of complicated chess-like manoeuvre that we're not smart enough to get? pragmatism and compromise are simple things to understand. but the thing is, coming out with genuinely fierce advocacy for gay rights and the action to go with it is not gonna be politically expedient in the foreseeable future. right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

it's just disappointing that obama's not prepared to take a genuine leadership stance on this issue, especially considering how eloquent and articulate he's been in so many other divisive areas. i mean, all of these individual things can be justified on their own, but as tipsy said upthread the context is important - the cumulative message of rick warren + not explicitly supporting gay marriage + the pietrangelo DADT case + this defence of DOMA = obama is not gonna be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights any time soon, and we should expect very little from this administration on this issue. which completely sucks.

and in the event that i'm wrong, if by the time obama's presidency ends there has been significant legislative progress made...it still sucks, using a minority group's civil rights as political capital in this way.

suzy, Shakey, and lex -- you guys are OTM.

I never said it was chess; it's probably draughts at best.

Something else has just occurred to me: I would prefer Obama to agitate for the ratification of ERA, because legally it would make it so. much. easier. to argue for all the rights LGBTs want if we are all completely equal regardless of gender, under the Constitution.

ERA would be wonderously good, but even for feminists it appears to be a dead issue right now. Obama would look silly reviving it on his own without any political groundwork laid for it.

right now the economy and pushing health coverage are priorities, fine, whatever, but you realise that there will always be something which takes precedence? give it a year or two and it'll be "hush now, we have an election to win".

This is clearly an exceptional period in government. Obama has easily done more in his first few months than any president since FDR. Make a list of the shit Obama has to deal with and the challenges this country faces right now. It's absolutely incredible. Obama is gearing up to take on the largest policy issue of this age - health care. There are millions of people in this rich country without adequate health care, and thousands of people right now are suffering and dying unnecessarily as a result. Most every measure of wellness and health in this country has plateaued, and relative to other developed countries, is declining. Obama is addressing this clusterfuck after no one has wanted to touch it for 16 years, and he needs to nail it. No distractions, no bringing up wedge issues that could hurt him. Discipline.

Obama may very well not care much about gay rights. That's a shame, and if true, I hope he changes his views. That doesn't change the reality that this is a truly exceptional period in our country and political landscape and a very important opportunity for sweeping change. Obama has a major mandate and a terrible economy to justify overhauling whole elements of society and government. Like I've said before, if he fears having his larger agenda derailed by this issue, and that's his calculation, I can support that.

Any period of history in which you're living is "exceptional," you White House apparatchik.

Okay.

he has a powerful majority in congress - and if history dictates he won't have that same majority after mid terms - so i really don't see how actively pushing for gay rights - let alone striking down the kind of tone taken in this brief - would derail his health care efforts

lex is right - it's always going to be something. next it's gonna be when we withdrawal from iraq, or we have to deal w n. korea or iran or whatever. if he wants to do it - and he should - he should just do it, and he doesn't have much an excuse, because it's one thing to push the issue aside and it's another to let this type of language permeate his administration

i want him to abolish student loan debt

and luckily for him the iran election allows for this to slip under the radar even on mainstream liberal blogs

We'll know him by his deeds. There's no use in trying to suss out how this is being "gamed".

im baffled for the same reasons shakey is