Maybe he'll learn in office

[we vs us]

Here's a belated response for you, Hometown. 

I don't think that we (Democrats) were wrong to see in Obama so much potential.  It was plainly there, and a lot of people recognized it.  Conan or Gassy will tell you all that "hopey-changey" stuff was all marketing.  I don't believe that; I think there was a demonstrable core of ideas to the Obama candidacy.  He's a thoughtful guy, he's articulate (per Biden).  He wasn't as experienced as, say, Bush I was, but neither was Bush II.  His campaign was exceptionally successful at raising money and motivating the hopey changey lobby.  It also neutralized some very experienced campaigners.  The surprise to me was how he did it.  He pulled off some amazing pivots, like the Jeremiah Wright speech that neutralized several controversies, and played an exceptional long game against McCain.   Essentially, he created and  one of the most successful national campaigns in modern American history.  To me, that says a lot about his executive abilities.

Unfortunately, I think he misjudged 1) his mandate and 2) the desire for bipartisanship in the country.  At the same time, the electorate has misjudged (and continues to misjudge) how dire our politics have become, and the blame tends to get shifted to Obama for that.  (Though it hasn't shifted entirely.  It's taken a good long time for the shine to wear off, and even now there's still a well of good-feeling for Obama out there, IMO.  If he were to start succeeding today, his approval numbers would skyrocket.)

As for the misjudged mandate:  I think he believes he was elected to heal the rift between D's and R's.  As he perceives it, that's one of his prime directives.  He's abdicated an amazing amount of power to the R's in the hope that they'll come along in the things he's proposing.  To date, he's gotten virtually nothing from them and yet he still courts them.  It can only be because he thinks bipartisanship is an end in itself, not a means to get things done.  To me, the Baltimore GOP Q and A of a few weeks ago was a glimmer of recognition (on his part) that maybe a new tack needs to be taken.

As for the bipartisanship:  there is no such thing in our politics right now.  There is absolutely no middle ground among the electorate.  It may be that Americans (ones who vote and ones who don't vote) are overwhelmingly centrist, but voters are completely partisan.  You'll be unsurprised to hear that I blame several decades of concerted conservative efforts to build a media and think-tank machine that responds like clockwork to new cultural memes (I also think you see the Tea Party right now fighting against some of the more insidious efforts of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, too . . . but that's another post).   

I think there's also a demonstrable difference between the GOP and the Dems right now.  GOP is exercising all the party discipline, and the Dems – for many reasons, legitimate and not – are completely splintered.   Obama also abdicated his healthcare agenda entirely to Congressional Dems, whose majority is weak and led by weak, unimaginative people.  I simply can't imagine, for instance, Bush II's people allowing members of his razor thin coalition to get away with pulling a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman, or for that matter an Anthony Weiner (look him up). 

So:  short version:  Obama's misplayed his hand, he made a major misjudgement about the electorate, and has been working with a group of either morons or people who actively wish him ill.   In normal times, that would be hard enough, but he's slogging through the Great Recession, two wars, and a perfect budget storm of runaway entitlements.  Also, global warming.  Oh, and the gays want to be able to serve in the military.  Really, with a list like that it's amazing so much has gotten done.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Step 1) Republicans/Democrats in House and Senate stop anything from happening
Step 2) Blame Obama for Congress not passing anything
Step 3) Repeat

[Conan71]

Here's a belated response for you, Hometown. 

I don't think that we (Democrats) were wrong to see in Obama so much potential.  It was plainly there, and a lot of people recognized it.  Conan or Gassy will tell you all that "hopey-changey" stuff was all marketing.  I don't believe that; I think there was a demonstrable core of ideas to the Obama candidacy.  He's a thoughtful guy, he's articulate (per Biden).  He wasn't as experienced as, say, Bush I was, but neither was Bush II.  His campaign was exceptionally successful at raising money and motivating the hopey changey lobby.  It also neutralized some very experienced campaigners.  The surprise to me was how he did it.  He pulled off some amazing pivots, like the Jeremiah Wright speech that neutralized several controversies, and played an exceptional long game against McCain.   Essentially, he created and  one of the most successful national campaigns in modern American history.  To me, that says a lot about his executive abilities.

Unfortunately, I think he misjudged 1) his mandate and 2) the desire for bipartisanship in the country.  At the same time, the electorate has misjudged (and continues to misjudge) how dire our politics have become, and the blame tends to get shifted to Obama for that.  (Though it hasn't shifted entirely.  It's taken a good long time for the shine to wear off, and even now there's still a well of good-feeling for Obama out there, IMO.  If he were to start succeeding today, his approval numbers would skyrocket.)

As for the misjudged mandate:  I think he believes he was elected to heal the rift between D's and R's.  As he perceives it, that's one of his prime directives.  He's abdicated an amazing amount of power to the R's in the hope that they'll come along in the things he's proposing.  To date, he's gotten virtually nothing from them and yet he still courts them.  It can only be because he thinks bipartisanship is an end in itself, not a means to get things done.  To me, the Baltimore GOP Q and A of a few weeks ago was a glimmer of recognition (on his part) that maybe a new tack needs to be taken.

As for the bipartisanship:  there is no such thing in our politics right now.  There is absolutely no middle ground among the electorate.  It may be that Americans (ones who vote and ones who don't vote) are overwhelmingly centrist, but voters are completely partisan.  You'll be unsurprised to hear that I blame several decades of concerted conservative efforts to build a media and think-tank machine that responds like clockwork to new cultural memes (I also think you see the Tea Party right now fighting against some of the more insidious efforts of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, too . . . but that's another post).   

I think there's also a demonstrable difference between the GOP and the Dems right now.  GOP is exercising all the party discipline, and the Dems – for many reasons, legitimate and not – are completely splintered.   Obama also abdicated his healthcare agenda entirely to Congressional Dems, whose majority is weak and led by weak, unimaginative people.  I simply can't imagine, for instance, Bush II's people allowing members of his razor thin coalition to get away with pulling a Ben Nelson or a Joe Lieberman, or for that matter an Anthony Weiner (look him up). 

So:  short version:  Obama's misplayed his hand, he made a major misjudgement about the electorate, and has been working with a group of either morons or people who actively wish him ill.   In normal times, that would be hard enough, but he's slogging through the Great Recession, two wars, and a perfect budget storm of runaway entitlements.  Also, global warming.  Oh, and the gays want to be able to serve in the military.  Really, with a list like that it's amazing so much has gotten done.

Wev,

Did he have a mandate or simply win a land-slide election from people who got caught up in his personality and the issues of the day? 

By the popular vote and electoral college vote, statistically he had what some could call a mandate.  A lot of people got energized to go to the polls who really don't understand nor care much about the American political system.  They had an opportunity to elect a young, energetic black man and help make history.  They had an opportunity to vote against an unpopular war, rising unemployment, and imploding financial markets which wrecked everything from the real estate market to people's retirement accounts.  A perfect storm for a political challenger from the opposing party in a two-party system.

He had brilliant handlers, a brilliant young speech writer, and people who understood how to make the most of the internet to reach out and raise funds.  His voice is striking and many people think he's one of the best political orators ever.  I personally don't hold his public speaking skills in that high of esteem and contrary to what you might think as far as any political prejudice I might have, his message doesn't color my opinion as to why I don't think he's that great a speaker.

A mandate would imply that he's been given Carte Blanche to make a whole slew of social, fiscal, and political changes.  He was never given that.  Winning election as President of a representative republic cannot be a mandate.  A mandate is an express authorization or command.

So, did he really have a mandate, or did he simply have a lot of people vote for him due to that hopey changey thing?

As far as if he's staked his success on morons, then he's proven he doesn't have great leadership skills.  Great leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.

[Gaspar]

Great leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.

That's a very important quality of a great leader.  I have seen only the contrary from President Obama.

Over a year later and I guess I'm still shocked by the Biden thing.

Really? 

[Hoss]

That's a very important quality of a great leader.  I have seen only the contrary from President Obama.

Over a year later and I guess I'm still shocked by the Biden thing.

Really? 

You can actually say that after the alternatives choice for Veep?

Really??

[Gaspar]

Hey, just because one side makes a poor choice shouldn't give license to the other side to do something stupid!  You're right Palen made Biden look good, but wow!  Now you gotta deal with it.

I just turned away from the forum for a moment to find out that now Biden is having it off with the city of New York.


"The mayor came along and said the cost for providing security to hold this trial is x-hundreds of millions of dollars which I think is much more than would be needed," Biden said.

"I will leave the security of New York City up to the mayor and police commissioner. I think Joe Biden should have talked to City officials. No city should have to put up with the burden and risk of the trial so the administration can have a terroristic pony show," said City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens).

[Hoss]

Hey, just because one side makes a poor choice shouldn't give license to the other side to do something stupid!  You're right Palen made Biden look good, but wow!  Now you gotta deal with it.

I just turned away from the forum for a moment to find out that now Biden is having it off with the city of New York.


"The mayor came along and said the cost for providing security to hold this trial is x-hundreds of millions of dollars which I think is much more than would be needed," Biden said.

"I will leave the security of New York City up to the mayor and police commissioner. I think Joe Biden should have talked to City officials. No city should have to put up with the burden and risk of the trial so the administration can have a terroristic pony show," said City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens).

Sure, the dude makes gaffes.  Maybe part of his charm.  I don't know.

BUT....he is well versed in international politics, and most will concede that fact.

Sarah?  Hey, she can see Russia from her front porch!  You betcha!!  Plus, doesn't 'everybody hate a quitter'?

[Conan71]

Now quit it, Gaspar.  Remember Vice President Biden is President Obama's special little guy. 


Hmmm, he does have sort of an elongated forehead, doesn't he?

[Hoss]

Now quit it, Gaspar.  Remember Vice President Biden is President Obama's special little guy. 


Hmmm, he does have sort of an elongated forehead, doesn't he?

Kinda reminds me of this guy in some ways:

[Conan71]

Sure, the dude makes gaffes.  Maybe part of his charm.  I don't know.

BUT....he is well versed in international politics, and most will concede that fact.

Sarah?  Hey, she can see Russia from her front porch!  You betcha!!  Plus, doesn't 'everybody hate a quitter'?

Yeah, he's advising the President on such difficult places as Germany, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic. **Yawn**

[we vs us]

Wev,

Did he have a mandate or simply win a land-slide election from people who got caught up in his personality and the issues of the day? 

By the popular vote and electoral college vote, statistically he had what some could call a mandate.  A lot of people got energized to go to the polls who really don't understand nor care much about the American political system.  They had an opportunity to elect a young, energetic black man and help make history.  They had an opportunity to vote against an unpopular war, rising unemployment, and imploding financial markets which wrecked everything from the real estate market to people's retirement accounts.  A perfect storm for a political challenger from the opposing party in a two-party system.

He had brilliant handlers, a brilliant young speech writer, and people who understood how to make the most of the internet to reach out and raise funds.  His voice is striking and many people think he's one of the best political orators ever.  I personally don't hold his public speaking skills in that high of esteem and contrary to what you might think as far as any political prejudice I might have, his message doesn't color my opinion as to why I don't think he's that great a speaker.

A mandate would imply that he's been given Carte Blanche to make a whole slew of social, fiscal, and political changes.  He was never given that.  Winning election as President of a representative republic cannot be a mandate.  A mandate is an express authorization or command.

So, did he really have a mandate, or did he simply have a lot of people vote for him due to that hopey changey thing?

As far as if he's staked his success on morons, then he's proven he doesn't have great leadership skills.  Great leaders surround themselves with brilliant minds and people who know how to get things done.

I think we differ on how much agency Obama had during his candidacy.  You seem to think (and I remember, thought at the time) that Obama was being guided, had handlers, was channeled and directed to a certain message.  There's a sense he was a puppet of greater forces, and I don't know what led you to think that.  He seemed to me to have a pretty steady amount of control over his own candidacy and seemed to be guiding it all along.  Why do you think he was so passive?

As for morons, I meant the morons in congress, not his cabinet or appointees.  The mandate we was given (IMO) was as good as you get in a representative democracy:  command of the executive and a filibuster proof majority in both houses.  Sadly, his congressional majority looks good on paper but has proven to be considerably less useful than originally advertised.

[USRufnex]

He is not "King Obama" he is the leader of a representative republic and as such needs to realize that his view isn't the only relevant view on the table.  

Umm.  Wow.
I think you must live in an alternative universe.... only explanation for that statement I can think of....

The character assassination on dems in this political forum is ridiculous.
I could share some reasonable insight into what I believe is happening.... but that would be casting pearls before Conan...

Sheesh.

[USRufnex]

Well to address some issues raised here by Democrats I would say that our leader should have been prepared for the push back he is getting from Republicans and Democrats.  He has not shown enough leadership on healthcare period.  And like Jimmy Carter, he's a remarkable statesman but he is lacking in the leadership department.

I do believe Clinton would have been less idealistic and more prepared for the real fight at hand.  But in total she may not have been any better.

And to the point that we are getting to clean up another Republican mess, I am in complete agreement.  We enable the Republicans by repeatedly cleaning up their messes.

I'm not really understanding the Carter reference.  I never considered Carter to be much of a statesman.
I thought he was a squeaky clean political foil to a GOP that was still reeling from Watergate.
It's hard for me to find Obama's grown up campaign speech about race to be the equivalent of Carter's "I have committed adultery in my heart" Playboy interview... or Carter's heartfelt "crisis of confidence" musings, aka "The Malaise Speech"?

In unrelated news, I got my "bill that is not a bill" that looks like a bill but will not be my bill which was mailed to me from St John's billing department for a CAT scan.... $3197.25

I think I will be giving up medical procedures for lent this year....

[Conan71]

He is not "King Obama" he is the leader of a representative republic and as such needs to realize that his view isn't the only relevant view on the table.  (my quote)

Umm.  Wow.
I think you must live in an alternative universe.... only explanation for that statement I can think of....

The character assassination on dems in this political forum is ridiculous.
I could share some reasonable insight into what I believe is happening.... but that would be casting pearls before Conan...

Sheesh.

So says the grand poobah of character assassination (Republican Hack, anyone?).  You have ZERO capability of holding a decent political conversation because you have this notion that your liberal viewpoint and your life experience is the only one that is relevant in a conversation.  You are sort of the Jamesrage from the left side of this board.  Rigid and unwilling to consider a viewpoint different than your own.  No one else seems to share your mock outrage at my comment(well wait, it probably is real for you).  I'm sorry I sullied your fond memories of President Obama from your days back in Chicago.  It's called my First Amendment rights.

So what is wrong with my statement that you cherry-picked? Do you think the POTUS has absolute powers like a king?  What about my statement is remotely false?  Do you think just because lefties kept trying to claim Pres. Bush II was trampling the Constitution that Pres. Obama should too? (Unwarranted wire-tapping anyone? How's closing Gitmo working out?)

How good a job has the Obama administration done at consensus-building?  And please don't resort to tired cliche's like the "party of no" not wanting to hear it.  Please show me some examples of him truly reaching out to Republicans or moderate Democrats.  Showing up at a GOP caucus and making thinly-veiled threats isn't my idea of bi-partisanship.  Expecting everyone to knuckle-under to your agenda isn't bi-partisanship.  He had his majority for the last year and no one seems to be able to point to one substantive issue that the average person cares about being passed. 

The middle is where it's at, and the Obama admin has done a piss-poor job developing a moderate agenda.  I think the 2008 Presidential election results showed we wanted change, but to read into that we wanted a change to a very left agenda was the wrong read.  He kicked arse in the electoral college but a spread of 8.5 mil votes (after taking out the fringer votes) hardly was a sign people were voting for a liberal agenda.  People were tired of Bush (and rightfully so) and figured old and boring Senator McCain was another four years of failed Bush policies. 

Is President Obama going to have to wait for a replay of 1994 to get it?  I really have tried to give him a chance, and still am.  Just because I've used harsh language to state he needs to get with it doesn't mean I want him to fail.  I simply cannot find any substantive issues he's taken charge of and actually given us any sort of return thus far, with one exception.  I do not wish for him to fail, I want him to succeed and become one of the more successful Presidents ever, I really do. 

Here's a few tips they might find useful:

-Start out small on healthcare, get healthcare benefits to those who truly do not have any access to HC now and really want it (that's a very, very small percentage).  Leave the insurance companies and "single-payer" alone for now.

-Quit dicking around with the jobs bill and trying to slip in pork for favored SIG's like big ag.  Figure out where they could seriously make a difference in putting Americans back to work instead of worrying about political paybacks and expedience.

-Quit making wild claims about how many jobs would be saved or created, that killed his credibility.  All he need to say was: "Be patient these things take awhile, I stand behind the American worker"

-I will give him credit for this: For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of what happened to Chrysler and GM and how the government stepped in and bailed them out, but we would be looking at probably closer to 20% UE if two of the major American automakers had been allowed to go bust.  I would think at some point down the road the government will make good on it's promise to make these companies wholly public again.  President Obama got it right on that one.

-Quit pulling stupid and costly stunts to try the Bush Administration by trying terrorists in civil court in Manhattan.  This is far worse than shades of Kenneth Starr.

-The American public is skeptical of major take-overs of anything.  There's a helpless class in America who wants government to come up with every solution to their problem and more entitlements but that's a minority.  There are very visible leaders in poverty-ridden communities who have a good public pulpit in speaking up for entitlements but mainly because it keeps them relevant, flush, and in power of their own world.  What's that done to improve the ghettos of NYC, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, Dallas, or LA?

-The broader majority will accept help where needed to make America stronger, create jobs, and help ensure prosperity.  The majority really don't see income redistribution by penalizing the most wealthy as the right way to go about this.  What kind of signal does that send to the middle class?  Try too hard, break out of the middle class and we will punish you for this?

Just some random thoughts on what I think Americans by-and-large are trying to tell all the politicians in DC.  I really don't see where paying attention to what the populace wants is such a bad idea.  It beats the hell out of revolt at every turn, don't you think?

[Red Arrow]

In unrelated news, I got my "bill that is not a bill" that looks like a bill but will not be my bill which was mailed to me from St John's billing department for a CAT scan.... $3197.25

Most of the bills that I get that are not a bill have a section for "You may still be billed for.... by ...".  I think they are usually from the insurance company though as an "explanation of benefits".

Good Luck.