A Disgrace... (0.00 / 0)

What a massive disappointment Obama has been!! I know...I know...give the guy a chance after all he he has yet to be sworn in!! My apologies, but I just can't do that. From his capitulation on FISA, immunity for the telecoms, support for the Bush/Paulson Banking Bailout...etc!! This guy is Republican through and through...right down to his so called stimulus packages AKA "trickle down Regeanomics!" Remember that? This guy is basically a lying, FRAUD whom I unfortunately supported wholeheartedly! Never again will I support this pathetic Democratic Party!! NEVER!

---

by: mstar57 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:26:53 PM UTC

Oh noes! Somebody call the WAAAAAMBULANCE! n/t (2.67 / 3)

---

by: nautilus1700 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:30:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:54:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: recusancy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:59:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

It takes a Republican to know a Republican.  Please go away... you want to have an honest debate, then fine... stop the pathetic whining and do so... otherwise, just leave...  Your writing is actually making us dumber.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:28:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Never again will I support this pathetic Democratic Party!! NEVER!" (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:31:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's exactly how it went down...right? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:36:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Everyone can choose their favorite place to find a couple thousand votes, of course.  I choose those that claim to be on my side and should no better, not those I'm actively trying to defeat, who, not so surprisingly, are actively trying to defeat me.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:17:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know I'll regret further discussing this... (0.00 / 0)

But perhaps it could be argued that the Clinton administration's actions as "Democrats" muddied the waters as to who was on whose side.

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton capitulated to a STRONG (4.00 / 2)

Republican party. Obama capitulates to a drastically weakened one. I wouldn't celebrate just yet.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:36:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The whole concept of "sides" only makes sense in a two party tyranny (4.00 / 3)

Try to accept the defeat of your chosen candidate as a failure to win enough votes from all of those available, and stop trying to blame others for "spoiling" your presumed victory.

I know its hard to accept, but Gore lost in 2000 because of Al Gore and his campaign, not because of Ralph Nader.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:31:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sleep (0.00 / 0)

whatever rationalization helps you sleep at night.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:45:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Having voted for Mr. Gore in 2000 (4.00 / 2)

I seek no rationalization other than seeing the truth of the matter.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:21:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ye of little faith (4.00 / 4)

As has been previously reported, Jennifer O'Malley-Dillon will be executive director of the DNC.  O'Malley-Dillon is seen by the team as a manager with an organizational background that appeals to Obama.  She is large measure responsible for Sen. John Edwards's solid caucus performances in 2004 and 2008.  She was recruited by Steve Hilderband to join Obama's campaign as battleground states director and spent the general election overseeing state field budgets and figuring out where to send the principals.

The DNC will retain traditional responsibilities, like planning the convention and political research. But it will significantly expand its campaign organizing capacity and probably its staff; think of it as current DNC chairman Howard Dean's 50 state strategy on steroids.

ye of little faith, this seemed like a no-brainer.

there's more....

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...

---

by: aiko @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:34:27 PM UTC

ruh roh (0.00 / 0)

She was recruited by Steve Hilderband

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:43:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

huh? the guy writes one objectionable article, and he is now (0.00 / 0)

anathema?  it should be remembered that, when he did the recruiting in question, he was one of the leaders of obama's incredible field operation.    

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:54:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Hildebrand can write some pretty moronic things, but word has it that he can also organise a bit.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:41:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One of the best (4.00 / 3)

field strategists and suporters of the 50 state strategy in our party.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:55:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can she raises tens of millions of dollar? (0.00 / 0)

Organizers organize, not raise money.  The DNC needs money in order to function at this high level.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:01:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then you must have thought McAuliffe was a great chair. (0.00 / 0)

Organizers organize to raise money. Just not from fat cats.

---

by: recusancy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:06:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How much do you really know about the internal history of the DNC? (0.00 / 0)

We have had 2 great chairs this century....Dean and McAuliffe.  Dean and the 50 state strategy is self evident to everyone on this site.  McAuliffe not only got the DNC out of debt after decades of very large debt, he purchased for the DNC its own building and its own media capabilities.  He also took the DNC's national voter base which had about 50,000 names in it and turned it into a voter database with millions of up to date, correct names that was available to all Dem candidates.
Terry was a terrifc chair...despite what you think about him.  He left the party's infrastructure and apparatus much, much stronger than he found it.

And who are these millions who will give to the DNC...in the case of committees, not candidates, small dollar fundraising is not enough..  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:13:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

bad luck comes in threes: brace for one more (4.00 / 3)

1.  Who will raise money for the newly expanded staff for the DNC and who or what will constitute, in the Ambinder quote, the 50 state campaign on steroids?  

Volunteers some and go, not good enough to maintain power and strength...
and will the new staff be in DC or back out in the states?...
will they belong to the state parites or to the DNC  or to some institution form of barackobama.com?

2.

Or, maybe Obama considers bipartisanship good for its own sake, which would be sad.

 

Barack Obama has always thought bipartisanship was good for its own sake....it was always clear to those who preferred Edwards or Clinton over him because they were much more partisan, aggressively partisan, that Barack Obama.

Here's Krugman in part from his blog

What this says is that there's a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.

But the numbers being reported - 40 percent of the whole, two-year plan - sound high. And all the news reports say that the high tax-cut share is intended to assuage Republicans; what this presumably means is that this was the message the off-the-record Obamanauts were told to convey.

And that's bad news.

Look, Republicans are not going to come on board. Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they'll demand 100%. Then they'll start the thing about how you can't cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent. Then they'll demand cuts in corporate taxes. And Mitch McConnell is already saying that state and local governments should get loans, not aid - which would undermine that part of the plan, too.

OK, maybe this is just a head fake from the Obama people - they think they can win the PR battle by making bipartisan noises, then accusing the GOP of being obstructionist. But I'm really worried that they're sending off signals of weakness right from the beginning, and that they're just going to embolden the opposition.

Like Barney Frank, I'm feeling a bit of post-partisan depression.

Updates: A few more details are emerging: $140 billion for Obama's tax break for workers, which gives most workers $500. But it sounds as if the rest is mainly, perhaps almost entirely, tax cuts for business. Not very New Dealish.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, perhaps sensing weakness, is already moving the goalposts.

To me this smacks of Max Baucus's "negotiating" strategy over Bush's tax cuts....give them a lot and then give them more.....I had been feeling a lot better about Obama because of what he has been saying about federal stimulus spending....Now I am not feeling so great...like Barney Frank and Krugman....775 Billion isn't enough and 40% for Republican style tax cuts...This negotiating stance is obviously seen as both foolish and a sign thatthe Republicansthink this is a sign of weakness.

Hazlitt in the early 1800s on the interplay between liberals and conservtives.....it's just as true today.  Digby posted this years ago.

They do not celebrate the triumphs of their enemies as their own: it is with them a more feeling disputation. They never give an inch of ground that they can keep; they keep all that they can get; they make no concessions that can redound to their own discredit; they assume all that makes for them; if they pause it is to gain time; if they offer terms it is to break them: they keep no faith with enemies: if you relax in your exertions, they persevere the more: if you make new efforts, they redouble theirs.

******

Their object is to destroy you, your object is to spare them---to treat them according to your own fancied dignity. They have sense and spirit enough to take all advantages that will further their cause

One forgets to our peril what Hazlitt has described....As Barney Frank notes the president elect overestimates his own ability to get people to come together over him...and on his terms.  If this is really his terms then I worry for our financial well being.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 20:58:46 PM UTC

We will see... (0.00 / 0)

I do want to point out that the guy knows strategy... and I remind everyone, there is not much to do but make your voices heard and wait.    

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:32:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This and that (4.00 / 1)

I want to get Franken up and running as soon as possible.  We are going to need his Senate vote for a decent stimulus package.

The same applies to Burris.  He's OK.  It is Blago who is suspect.  It's legal and it is a Senate vote.

Change the rules back to the traditional set up and make the Republicans do the old fashioned fillibuster.  reading the phone book, talking about theor crap.  Wr have all the votes we need to do this without one of those stinking Republicans.  Then we can pass a Democratic plan.  As Garry Truman said, if you give the people a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they'll choose the real obe every time.

"We are still not at 18 progressive votes in the House."  I think you mean 218.  We are within hailing distance of 218 non-Blue Dog Democrats and need to peel off fewer than five if everybody else comes through.  We ought to get that from the California and NY Blue Dogs for a stimuluis packagewho are a mix of suburbans and Hispanics.

Reagan got a lot of things through Congress he shouldn't have.  The MO was pretty simple.  Dpn't compromise and stay rock solid until the very last minute.  Then do whatever you have to to pass the bill.  Compromise before there is even a bill is a sure way to get either nothing or a bad bill.  There's time to reverse this.

Rove said he'd give Obama six months in office before he's attack.  Well, Cornyn and McConnell didn't wait until he's in office.  McConnell could have been had this cycle.  Chambliss could have been had.  IMO Obama was too consumed about piling up a personal electoral vote total and not enough about piling up votes in the Senate and House during the last week to ten days.  The election was looking good enough to go after vulnerable GOPers in a big way.  McConnell, Mr. Obstruction, was the biggest scalp available by a huge margin.  Neing afraid to lose?  Presidents lose all the time.  The Club For Growth loses all the time.  It isn't the losses that count, it's the effort and it's the wins.

Cuomo is a much safer and shrewder pick for Patterson as he represents local forces that can take an unpopular governor down.  He's linked to his father, to the Clintons and to the city.  Send him to DC and a rival is out of his hair. What will the Kennedys and Obama do for him on the local scene.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:05:21 PM UTC

Agree (4.00 / 1)

McConnell could have been had this cycle. Chambliss could have been had.  IMO Obama was too consumed about piling up a personal electoral vote total and not enough about piling up votes in the Senate and House during the last week to ten days.  The election was looking good enough to go after vulnerable GOPers in a big way.  McConnell, Mr. Obstruction, was the biggest scalp available by a huge margin

I knew the day Sarah Palin was chosen that she would invigorate the Republican base in places like Kentucky and Georgia, and seats we could have gotten would no longer be avaiable.  Allowing an opening for a female VP meant Chambliss and McConnell kept their seats.  

And you have to campaign as a Democrat and not just as your own brand to help down ticket races gain voters becasue of your own popularity.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:18:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Special Elections (0.00 / 0)

We also need the money to pay for them.   They ain't cheap unfortunately....

But if we are adding amendments, throw one in giving citizens the ability to perform a recall in all local, state and federal elections.    We could have had a new Dem President and 2 less years of Bush.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:25:26 PM UTC

I Saw That NYT "Stimulus" Article Yesterday (4.00 / 8)

And, as I was putting together an article for Random Lengths News about the California budget crisis in a national context, I was casting a pretty wide net, so I saw this story in light of a lot of other things going on out there, and it just stood out like a sore thumb.

You have 103 NY state economists telling Paterson not to worry about taxes on the rich, keep services up and running for those that need them.  You have the National Conference of State Legislatures stressing the need for bigtime federal aid to the states, pronto!  You have Democratic governors calling for a substantially bigger stimulus.  You have Krugman, as noted here and elsewhere, acting like someone who actually knows WTF the 40 years from 1930-1970 was all about.  And then you've got Obama, acting like he's trying to get Karl Rove to ask him to the prom.

WTF?????

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:31:21 PM UTC

principles of negotiation (4.00 / 1)

I remember during the primary, when the main difference between the two candidates for some months appeared to be that Hillary wanted health insurance mandates and Obama did not, Hillary said something to the effect of, "Look, mandates aren't a huge deal one way or the other, but you've got to start off with a strong proposal before the republicans in congress get their claws into it." She didn't say that outright but, I mean, she implied it.

Is it possible that Obama doesn't understand this principle of negotiation?

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 21:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mandates, tax cuts, long term investments (0.00 / 0)

That particular arguement doesn't hold up, though, since it is the insurance companies that want mandates, so it was actually Obama who had the better negotiating position.  I'm not claiming that is why he did it that way, mind you, but it's a consequence.

This tax cutting stuff, though, bothers me.  Some of this is obviously very good -- I certainly don't mind middle and lower class tax credits, for example -- but this package seems to be moving too far towards another break for businesses.

Personally, I want to see 4 years of stimulus laid out at approximately a half billion or so a year.  The first year mostly gets allocated based on ability to enter the economy quickly, but with a large chunk left over to seed spending for future years.  For example, it takes a few years before a high speed rail line can begin construction, but the planning can begin right away.  Then in year three and four we are spending money on stuff that really invests in our long term future while also stimulating the economy.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:44:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lets forget about the fact (0.00 / 0)

That this is the middle class tax cuts and business job credit that obama promised! yea! but it pleases republicans so it mush be bad! purity logic on steroids here.

maybe Obama considers bipartisanship good for its own sake, which would be sad.

You voted for the wrong guy then, or had your ears plugged for the last two years. Incredible Ignorance here or intentional dishonestly, can't decide.

---

by: Burry @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:07:32 PM UTC

People see what they want things to be (0.00 / 0)

In my opinion the people who supported Obama because they saw him as a center, slightly left Democrat, had a clear vision of him....those who saw a progressive riding to the jousts on a white horse with javelins mounted ready to battle Republicans..saw him through rose (blue) colored glasses.  

Someone in my neighborhood sent out a letter saying our local political organizations should send a letter to him letting him know how disappointed his supporters are.  I can't sign onto such a letter....I am not Disappointed...he's being wht I expected him to be.  Though for a while during the transition,  he actually did seem to be saying more progressive things. I was hopeful.  This tax cut laden stimulus bill is one of the signs.  And whether it was a campaign promise or not...pursuing such large tax cuts is bad policy and only further validates a dangerous Republican talking point

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 22:28:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Glenn Greenwald on Panetta selection (4.00 / 2)

...
It does seem clear that the Obama team was serious about avoiding anyone who had any connection at all to the Bush torture, surveillance and detention programs.  Not only did they want to avoid anyone with any formal connection, but also anyone who advocated or supported those programs as The New York Times reported today:

Members of Mr. Obama's transition also raised concerns about other candidates, even some Democratic lawmakers with intelligence experience. Representative Jane Harman of California, formerly the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, had hoped to get the job,  but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.

Good.  Supporting Bush's illegal NSA program -- as Harman did, repeatedly and explicitly -- should be disqualifying for the position of CIA Director.  Panetta may have many flaws -- who doesn't after years and years in Washington? -- but Obama's apparent determination to avoid anyone "tainted" by the CIA's last eight years is commendable.  Like the Johnsen appointment, it doesn't, standing alone, prove anything -- only actions will do that -- but it's still a positive step.
...
Spencer Ackerman reports that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is upset with the selection of Panetta, petulantly complaining that she wasn't consulted in advance and that it would be best to have an "intelligence professional" in that position.  CQ's Tim Starks reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is making very similar noises about this selection.  Few things could reflect better on Panetta's selection than the fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller -- two of the most Bush-enabling Senators -- are unhappy with it.

 

---

by: Kane @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:18:57 AM UTC