Does the NYT Hate Obama?

by: David Sirota

Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:02


The New York Times editorial board, which vigorously endorsed Barack Obama for president, has a fairly scathing editorial today about the President-elect's economic team:

Both men, however, have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today's financial crisis. Mr. Geithner, currently the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, also has helped shape the Bush administration's erratic and often inscrutable responses to the current financial meltdown, up to and including this past weekend's multibillion-dollar bailout of Citigroup.

Given that history, the question that most needs answering is not whether Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers are men of talent - obviously they are - but whether they have learned from their mistakes, and if so, what.

We are not asking for moral mea culpas. But unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess.

Sound criticism, if you ask me. But I wonder - will progressives now start claiming the New York Times "hates" Obama? Or can we actually consider the merits of this argument, and consider how to organize pressure around the reality it elucidates?
David Sirota :: Does the NYT Hate Obama?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Does the NYT Hate Obama? | 84 comments
And the New York Times (4.00 / 8)
is essentially neoliberal on economics; that's why they also have praise for these guys.

The Geithner appointment needs a lot more scrutiny for just the reason the Times points out, he...

helped shape the Bush administration's erratic and often inscrutable responses to the current financial meltdown, up to and including this past weekend's multibillion-dollar bailout of Citigroup.

Rewarding failure: haven't we had enough of that?


Yes, It Would Be Nice If They Learned From Their Mistakes (4.00 / 13)
Perhaps William Grieder could give them a test?

Seriously, it's not as if they got something triffling wrong.  It didn't take a PhD. in economics to see this coming.  I don't expect the NYT to ever get it better than they have already, here.  But the rest of us sure as shootin ought to do better than this.

If we want sound judgment, we should look to those who either knew it was wrong to begin with, or else wised up a loooong time before Wall Street instutions started failing earlier this year.

Joe Stiglitz, for example, comes to mind.

"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

Those who were right beforehand (4.00 / 10)
Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

It's not as if there's a shortage of world-class economists that Obama could seek for advice, who actually predicted the financial crisis before it occurred. Two of them even have Nobel prizes, for Christ's sake.

[ Parent ]
Sweden! The Horror! (4.00 / 2)
The Swedes are worse than the French!

"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
[ Parent ]
Krugman Likes the Geithner Pick (4.00 / 4)
So does Bob Reich.  
[ Parent ]
Makes sense to me. (4.00 / 1)
I assume all this financial shit is extremely complicated. I can appreciate the need for someone who has nuts and bolts experience and won't be overwhelmed trying to process all the details as they get down in the weeds. This crisis doesn't allow time for a learning curve. But I hope the Rubinites are balanced by some liberals who can look at the forest as well as the trees. It seems like we are spending incomprehensible amounts of money propping up a fake economy. Common sense says that a smaller amount of money spent on the real economy would have a bigger payoff.

miasmo.com
Sirota... (1.50 / 8)
...do you do everything in your life passive aggressively?
membengal... (4.00 / 3)
Do you own a mirror?

"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
[ Parent ]
Ah, of course Rosenberg chimes in, (0.00 / 1)
straight from the passive aggressive choir? Do you know irony?
[ Parent ]
Nothing Passive About Me, Dude! (4.00 / 3)
Or dudette, as the case may be.

"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
[ Parent ]
He does! (4.00 / 1)
I tell ya, the Uprising was a tough read, what with every single sentence being written in a sarcastic tone.  Also I hear he totally leaves notes on the fridge for his roommates regarding taking out the trash.
[ Parent ]
"To Whichever One of You (4.00 / 2)
Center-Rightists masquerading as a progressive left the lid off the butter I just have this to say ... you must think that the butter automatically gets recapped by some invisible hand. It isn't as if this whole lid-off-the-butter-dish issue wasn't predicted. No, it was predicted and ignored as just another 'leftist scheme' it seems. And now that we have been proven right -- just look at that butter! -- what do we get? Thanks? No, just more lidless containers of butter.

Signed,
Disappointed in both you, your ability to appreciate me, and the condition of the butter."

[ Parent ]
the spell is broken (4.00 / 2)
this is a good sign. the holy aura around Obama is finally breaking, and people are starting to look closer and closer at the actual policy and staffing decisions he is making. Democrats like Republicans are generally lazy. Its not a surprise that Dems found it so easy to boil the complexity of federal government policy down to Bush = Bad, Obama = Good; similar thinking to US = Good, Sadam = Bad. Dems would say they can judge things this way because Obama is generally better than Bush. But then they turn a blind eye to the fact that Obama thus far is generally going along with Bush's financial policies. the sooner we bust through these sorts of oversimplifications in terms of both parties, and learn to always judge by the details and ignore the labels (which is why ive not been in favor of the 'a D is better than a R' election strategy), the sooner we can get to a point where we're not being ripped off by our electeds.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~
Why advisors matter (4.00 / 9)
For all those who think that it means nothing that Obama's advisors are all centrists because Obama the progressive will overrule them, here is a line from the press conference on Monday:

"Whether that's done through repeal or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on," Mr. Obama said.

The tax cuts are (4.00 / 1)
Are here to stay - at least until they expire in 2010.  Just three weeks after he won the election, suddenly Obama's tax policy = McCain's tax policy -- and no one is saying anything about it!

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

[ Parent ]
Geithner Seems Okay, Summers Not So Much (4.00 / 2)
My read on this is that Geithner seems like a good choice.  Both Bob Reich and Paul Krugman have praised the choice and not being an expert on economics that is a pretty good endorsement to me.  Plus, anyone who has worked in govt knows it is very difficult for a career civil servant to work their way up to a sub-cabinet position like Geithner did.  The guy is clearly very bright and capable.

I think a lot of smart people misread the impact of Lehman Brothers going belly up.  I thought it was the right thing to do and I didn't notice anyone but Wall Street calling for their bailout.  Hindsight has proven to be 20/20 in this case.

I don't like the Summers choice.  He seems like an arrogant blowhard to me and the Harvard stuff was offensive.

Cramer vs. Geithner (4.00 / 2)
I think Geithner might float to the top (or the middle) only as the best of several bad choices.  I'm going to resist liking the guy just because Jim Cramer wants a Senate investigation into why Geithner let Lehman die.  Now that's some seriously mad money.  
[ Parent ]
Cramer Is Kind of Nuts (4.00 / 1)
although amusing to watch due to his frenetic style.

However, I think to hang Geithner alone with the decision to let Lehman die is unfair as obivously Bernanke and Paulson also signed off.  Other than Wall Streeters like Kramer, who else was advocating for saving Lehman in Sept?  If I knew then what I know now, I would have a different opinion but I think the vast majority of people got that wrong.

[ Parent ]
Corporate Welfare (0.00 / 0)
This seems like a clear case to me of corporate welfare, and I think it was the right decision to let Lehman go.  I just think AIG and Citi should go too.  When Obama administration officials (though they weren't at the time) claim that not bailing out these companies will usher in the collapse of our economy, they are employing Rovian tactics but with Wall Street instead of Iraq.  It's socialism for them, capitalism for the rest of us, plain and simple.  In both cases (Iraq and the economy), technocrats have played the middle role of claiming that the public doesn't have enough information to understand what is going on, when in fact it's not really a complicated situation.  Summers et al. allowed derivatives to take on too large a share of the economy and several companies who bought into it too much collapsed.  Geithner is bad once for picking sides in the collapse, and bad twice for helping it to come to pass at all.
[ Parent ]
My concern with Summers is his free trade ideology (4.00 / 1)
From what I understand of Summers, he is a staunch free trader.  He pushed very hard for Clinton to pass NAFTA. I already hear Rangel say that it will be easy to get the Columbia Free Trade agreement passed yet what has changed in Columbia's treatment of trade unions?  From what I understand, they are still assassinating union leaders over there.
[ Parent ]
Why do we put so much into a paper that enabled treason? (0.00 / 0)
I could never understand why my fellow Democrats put so much cred into the NYT. I'm reminded of that scene in the movie "Recount" where, in one moment, James Baker orders it thrown into the garbage fellowed by Warren Christopher who holds it up and quotes a columnist who gives Gore 6 days to challenge the results.

The NYT, through Judith Miller, assisted the Bush Administration in the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame and allowed her to push the Weapons on Mass Destruction meme. Recently, they gave William Kristol free reign to write columns without any fact-checking.

Look, it's one thing to have a beef with Obama, that's anyone's right. But I would recommend that we do it on our own two feet and not run to the NYT everyday in order to do it, worthless endorsements notwithstanding.

why? (4.00 / 3)
Because they agreed with Sirota.  Therefore, they're credible now.
[ Parent ]
Peanut Gallery (3.20 / 5)
At this point, the anti-Sirota reactionaries are like a predictable Greek Chorus.  Can David just put a nota bene at the end of each of his posts that addresses the fact that the Obamabots think he's being unfair, too harsh, petty, and prematurely judgmental?  It might prevent some serious carpal tunnel.
[ Parent ]
Not only (4.00 / 2)
Am I part of a peanut gallery, a reactionary and an Obamabot but I also stand accused of being some kind of Greek singer?! Have you no decency? What's next -- my mother was a hamster and my father smells of elderberries?! ;-)
[ Parent ]
sure. (0.00 / 0)
But there's an expression that Justice Scalia uses in criticism of other Justices' reliance on international law, and it's applicable here: "[A]ll the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends... To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."

Either the NYT is credible or it's not.  I'd rather discuss this on the merits rather than argue about whether Sirota's approach to the merits is correct.

[ Parent ]
Quoting Scalia To Back Up Your Point (4.00 / 1)
about not quoting the NYT to back up your point.

Delicious irony!

Nutritious?  Not so much.

"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

[ Parent ]
indeed. (0.00 / 0)
I was someone would notice that.  I'm scanning over the crowd of Justices and happened to notice Scalia.  Hey, Nino, thanks for the assist!  (Now shoo!)
[ Parent ]
The Times is correct on this, (0.00 / 0)
and as a neo-liberal paper, that should give you pause in your attacks.
[ Parent ]
Sophistry (0.00 / 0)
Technically means wisdom.  Plato was often accused of sophistry.  Is it not possible for the NYT (or International Law, for that matter) to be credible at times, and shitty at others?  Krugman is great, Kristol is an ass.  I think Scalia's manichean formulation is the problem here.
[ Parent ]
wow. obamabots. (2.00 / 4)
How helpful with discourse you are. Jesus.

This place needs a fuckin' disinfectant.

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
Because whining about your commenters always makes for excellent blogging.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Who's whining? (4.00 / 3)
Reasoned responses are completely ignored from posters in the response section, or, they are held up for ridicule by the posters on the main. Or they are reacted to like the posters on the main are two-year-olds throwing a tantrum.

So, what are the options?

1. Stop reading. I am headed there, I suppose, but keep hoping there might be some middle ground.

2. Read but don't comment.

3. Comment to express the occasional displeasure.

I have tried 2. I have tried 3, but tired of the mud-slinging the few times I have dipped my toe in. That leaves 1, which I am hoping to avoid.

But, hey, obamabots it is. And other unhelpful comments. Everyone could use a good growing up. Jesus indeed.

[ Parent ]
I share some but not all of your frustrations (0.00 / 0)
I don't mind the labeling and name calling so much. I've got thick skin and these are important issues and this is, after all, a site dedicated to progressive politics.

I share your frustration with the main posters. It's an old school form of progressivism that has disdain for A) dissent within the ranks B) pragmatism and C) outside-of-the-box thinking, ironically enough. It's all about sticking to the predetermined location on the left-right spectrum, which would have worked in 1968 or 1978 or 1988 or 1998.

This site would be more interesting and less frustrating if it offered up a main posting slot to dissenting viewpoints -- someone whose definition of 'progressive' wasn't formed from a cookie cutter.

[ Parent ]
Agreed: there is insufficient outlet for opposing views here (4.00 / 1)
I think the problem is that the personal diaries receive no attention, perhaps due to the physical location on the page.  


[ Parent ]
The problem with the diaries (4.00 / 1)
I think is they don't get promoted. Right now there's a viscious cycle -- nobody reads them because nobody writes them because nobody reads them. It's a classic collective action problem. It's not going to fix itself.

This can only be solved by the Big Cheeses letting us know they're going to promote diaries often and regularly and then doing it. Or they could set a metric -- any substantive diary with 10 or more comments gets promoted.

[ Parent ]
What's So Outside-The-Box???? (4.00 / 3)
I'd love some outside-the-box.  But I don't see anything even remotely close to the inside walls, much less outside of them.  What I see is more of the same, repackaged all shiny and new--which is, itself, just more of the same.

Obama is basically trying the same thing Clinton tried in 1993: attack the left, be nice to Republicans, and just solve problems.  Didn't work out so well.

So, please enlighten me.  What is this outside-the-box of which you speak?


"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

[ Parent ]
The fact that you equate Obama and his political methodology (0.00 / 0)
with Clintonism pretty much proves my point. The fact that the many, many dissenting comments have been boiled down by you and others here into a dismissable strawman nutshell, rather than debated on substance further proves my point. The fact that everyone of the main posters comes from the same side angle with the same basic arguments on this methodological/ideological dispute further proves my point.

You guys need to promote dissent to the front page. Instead you're ridiculing it. And it's not pretty.

[ Parent ]
Look, I ASKED You To Enlighten Me (4.00 / 1)
And you did NOTHING to do so.

Want to try again?

I'm serious Matt.  I'm more than happy to have a substantive debate.

But you appear to prefer whining about how all other folks do is whine.

I think you're smarter than that.  In fact, I know you're smarter than that.  So, let's have some substance, please.

"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

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
My outside of the box comment to be very explicit was in reference to the definition of 'progressive' and the possibility of new political methodologies that are progressive in new ways. As such, I addressed it that way.

What is progressivism? Is is the same thing today as 5 or 10 or 20 years ago or are there timeless truths? It is my impression that that is treated as settled dogma. I'd like to see those questions asked and addressed around here.

What might be some outside of the box proposals regarding progressive politics? Well, the possibility that Obama is on the verge of enacting several staples of progressive thought by expanding the Democratic coalition by, in some significant part, NOT appointing a bunch of progressives.
 

[ Parent ]
If Obama does it, it's okay. (4.00 / 1)
That's the rule.  It matters who Obama chooses.  That doesn't mean all is lost, but it matters.  But too many support Obama for personal reasons.  The dangers of charisma.  

If they treated Obama as Obama treats policy choices, empirical to soem degree, the conversation would be different.  The Times is right here: what did Summers learn from these mistakes?  

[ Parent ]
I must be missing something (4.00 / 2)
I get the claim that Obama's not yet hiring enough progressives for his Cabinet or key staff positions.  Where is he "attack[ing] the left"?
[ Parent ]
This Has Been A Recurrent Theme (0.00 / 0)
It's not as prominent as Clinton with Sister Souljah (a former GOP House staffer, btw, folks tend to forget that).  But there have been repeated incidents people have blogged about over time.  It's just not (contrary to the stereotype) something that we dwell on over and over and over again.

Ooops, gotta go!  I've got a 1970s-style anti-military love-in to attend!

"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

[ Parent ]
not seeing it. (4.00 / 1)
The only thing I can even think of that folks have mentioned in the past is believing that Obama was attacking a strawman when, in the Call to Renewal speech and other venues, he accused some in the left of being anti-religion.

But I'm not going to make your case for you.  

[ Parent ]
I Can't Hear You! (0.00 / 0)
It's waaaaaay to noisy at this here 1970s-style anti-military love-in!

But you migh also want to remember his scoffing dismissal of the ignorant "no blood for oil" crowd.  I could have lived with that, I suppose--if he had taken a strong stand against the Iraq Oil Law.

In other words, if pigs flew.

"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

[ Parent ]
What, exactly, is in the water? (4.00 / 3)
Every blog attracts some idiot commenters. On a good blog, they are just ignored, and the substantive comments generate discussion.

Here (at least lately), front-pagers seem to spend half their time bitching about the idiot commenters and attacking straw-men, accuse those who disagree with them of being brownshirts, and engage in hysterics instead of responding to substantive comments. Sometimes they'll go out of their way to jump down the throats of commenters that agree with them.

Apparently now it's rude or something for commenters to not share the opinions of the front-pagers.

Has David ever actually defined what he means by "movement progressive"? (It's possible that he has, and that I just missed it, but I haven't seen it yet.)

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
I tihnk the problem is maintaining relevance (4.00 / 2)
Agry bloggers attract the most attention. I'm not saying anger is wrong because God knows I have been angry for the past eight years. But, now that we've just won a smashing victory, some may feel that the only way to remain relevant is to find another source of outrage (sort of like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter in the days when Republicans controlled everything). But seems like since was also the site where someone launched a tirade against Senate candidate Mark Warner. Anyway, what is most breathtaking to me is the speed at which some find nuggets to infrormation to get into a lather about. Of course, this ignores the stimulus package that Obama is proposing. Let's forget about the fact that Obama has repeated his committment to health care reform. We'll forget about Susan Rice's likely appointment to be U.N. Ambassador.

It's not criticism that concerns me. It's the lack of substative reason to take shots at someoneone who has not even been sworn in. That tells me there many are now trying to stay relevant.

[ Parent ]
Why the attack here on (0.00 / 0)
Sirota?  Are you now cruising the net to atttack Sirota?

 

[ Parent ]
well they used to be good :) (0.00 / 0)
anna quindlen, frank rich, russell baker, etc.  they've swayed with the times, sadly, both in terms of ideology and quality.  On the other hand, I'm comparing them to when I was a kid, so maybe they s@#ked then too.
[ Parent ]
In all honesty........ (4.00 / 1)
I may prefer others to advise him, but I really think no matter who it is we are still doomed. One thing after another keeps feeding the cycle and I see no shortage of new "emergencies" on the horizon. Does anyone else see the problem with a government that already has a $10 Trillion debt being the spender of last resort. Won't China stop buying our Tbills eventually? I am no economics expert, but I just don't see any end in sight until it all falls down. Then we can build it back up in a better format - maybe.  
Here's the hope part (0.00 / 0)
I agree we're in dire straits. But I think there's hope.

Jobs. If we recover from this, it will in large part be due to Obama's job/stimulus plan working more or less as intended. This is a big If, of course.

Creating lots of infrastructure jobs has the potential to be a positive feedback mechanism, or virtuous circle, by lowering employment; increasing consumption, if not savings; heads off some of the foreclosures, thereby allowing for a somewhat softer recovery from the housing bubble collapse; and putting America in the driver's seat of one of the next product cycles -- alternative energy and alternative energy vehicles. This increases the value of American exports and, everything else equal, increases revenue.

[ Parent ]
See My New Diary (0.00 / 0)
for what's being left out of this equation--public infrastrcuture generates more private wealth in the hands of a few than the total public debt incurred.  So it we had sensible tax policy, then it really could pay for itself outright, and all the other stuff--you know, the jobs, and everything flowing from multiplier effects--would be just pure gravy.

"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
[ Parent ]
That's Just The Problem (0.00 / 0)
What you're talking about is almost certainly the end-game here precisely because Obama is too cautious, and unwilling to listen to folks outside the box, who are the only ones oriented toward the long-term problems, of which China loosing its apetite for T-bills is but one, albeit the most relevant for this particular discussion.

Run-on sentence much?  Yeah. Sorry about that.

"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

[ Parent ]
childish (4.00 / 3)
I'm going to unsubscribe to this feed and find one from my daughter's kindergarten class...
The NYT editorial invites a tempered response (4.00 / 4)
The suggestion by this diary is that the NYT analysis is similar to posts that are often criticized here; but the comparison is inapt.

The NYT editorial is balanced and substantive, noting reasons for concern without being over the top.  The editorial does not condescend to its readers by suggesting that those who disagree are mindless drones who refuse to consider that Obama may be doing something wrong. And the editorial does not rely on vague terms like "progressive" or "liberal" to make its point.

As for the substance of the editorial, I agree wholeheartedly with it.  

Agreed (4.00 / 1)
The sheer competence by which this transition is being handled is a considerable change in itself. Obama treats us like adults. By the way, did you hear about Obama's stimulus package announced yesterday? That was SO center-right. ;)
[ Parent ]
yes they use specific terms (4.00 / 1)
like "a capacity for good judgment"
"good ideas"
"high marks"
"learned from their mistakes"
"sound judgment"
"desperate mess"
"tough"

Notably, none of these terms help you understand anything in terms of policy.  Do you prioritize recapitalization or homeowner relief?  Do you support a health care programme that leaves the middle men in place or one that cuts them out?  Do you support one that supports government negotiations on prices for care/medicines/etc. or one that does not seek to use that leverage"?  Do you think raising tarriff barriers or creating subsidies is more effective for raising wages for the working class or would you choose a different strategy?

That's why, now that we have people who will behave like adults, we should start having adult conversations with them.

[ Parent ]
The NYT (0.00 / 0)
Has loved Obama so much that one editorial does not signal hatred. They are probably trying to salvage what remains of their reputation for objective reporting.  Not much at all - but I guess they will give it a try. The WaPo had an article on this as well ( http://dissentingjustice.blogs... ), and it was probably even more in the tank than the Times.

This economic council doesn't look like change (4.00 / 1)
I started out thinking that people were being too harsh over Rahm Emmanuel being picked as COS.  But now I am downright worried about what I see.  I think the NYT has it right.  There isn't any sense in picking exactly the same people that created the mess in the first place.  Heck, why not pick Greenspan to create a new bubble? Obama really should put a couple of progressive economists on the council to balance these neoliberal economists out.
Indeed! (4.00 / 2)
Why not vote Republican, if we're going to get exactly the same crowd of jokers either way?

Oh, yeah!  Because each Republican is 10 times worse than the last.  The only way to stand still is to vote Democratic.

"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

[ Parent ]
quit whining, David (2.40 / 5)
We get it.  "The Times agrees with me, so nyah nyah!"  
Chris Bowers, (0.00 / 0)
that troll rating for this comment was shameful.
[ Parent ]
I can't remember the last time I have read editorial pages (0.00 / 0)
Maybe it's because I only seek information to reach my own conclusions, and because I do not want to seek only those opinions that reflect my own.
This should be crossposted to kos. (4.00 / 1)
I would be interested to see the reaction.
The tag (4.00 / 1)
team that shuts down any real progresive thought will attack, along with front pagers and counsel for Kos.
[ Parent ]
Psst...it's what's happening now that matters. (4.00 / 1)
Who cares whether these guys admit whether they were wrong in the past? What's important is that the existing monetary policy leads to potential disaster as long as we have no idea what these banks have as their assets. Banks approach insolvency then the Pump Team comes in on a weekend without any regulators reviewing what the bank has. We'll have transparency sooner or later, and I'm not optimistic about what results.

The Obama appointees seem not to be inclined to promote transparency. That's the problem.    

Make Believe (4.00 / 1)
But I wonder - will progressives now start claiming the New York Times "hates" Obama? Or can we actually consider the merits of this argument, and consider how to organize pressure around the reality it elucidates?

I'm guessing that most foward thinking progressives aren't losing any sleep over what the New York Times does or doesn't say in their editorials.

Surely the merits of the argument can be considered.  However, in light of the construction of this post - Does the NYT Hate Obama? - I find it rather  difficult to believe that considering the merits and substance of this argument and organizing pressure the primary objectives.

First Things First (4.00 / 3)
Look, right now there's a lot of people who are just as pleased as punch with whatever Obama does.  So there's a certain necessary logic to showing why that might not be such a good idea as a precursor to organizing effecitve pressure.

This is not to say that there's only one path, and that others aren't already doing what you suggest.  But there's not nearly enough political muscle behind such efforts, which is why what David's doing is important to do.

"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

[ Parent ]
At least he is looking (0.00 / 0)
at what happens instead of hiding in faith.  A voice in the wilderness of the so-called "progressive netroots."

Open Left is also.  Chris, Matt, and you.  Others.

I've been around Daily Kos too much.  The faux progressives get me down.  

[ Parent ]
But... (4.00 / 3)
David's spent a lot of time demonizing people here who disagree with him. It turns out that's not a very effective strategy for persuading people.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Yet his opponents (4.00 / 1)
use that same strategy, working in gangs to shut down any substative discussion.  
[ Parent ]
I see (0.00 / 0)
TINC.

Every blog had idiot commenters and trolls. The normal response is to ignore them, not promote them.

But what do I know, I'm not a "real" progressive.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Acting as a martyr does not (0.00 / 0)
become you.
[ Parent ]
I Can See How You Think This, But (4.00 / 2)
David is very much about policy, ideas and results.  He is not out to make friends.  He will criticize without fear or favor, which is what political commentators are supposed to do.  And he's done this with Obama from a long ways back, by the way, just as a point of references.  He's always been willing to both criticize Obama, and to give credit, when he felt it was earned.

Now, it's also true that political commentators are traditionally writing about elected political officials and other powerful political actors.  So when the blogosphere comes along, and he's interacting with a pseudonymous commentator the same way, it can seem a bit personal and unfair.

But, if you stop and think about it, you'll realize that he's actually treating folks with exceptional dignity, in a way.  He's not treating them as inherently inferior, as simply a faceless reader to be casually ignored.  He's treating those arguments as worthy of response.

The message here is not "get lost," "shut up" or "fall into line."  The message is "make better arguments."

"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

[ Parent ]
Dignity! (4.00 / 3)
Calling those who disagree with him "brownshirts."

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Silly fwiffo with your facts and stuff (0.00 / 0)
Brown shirts it is! Let the dignity flow!

And, at some point, I would think Sirota and Rosenberg et al might consider that continually screaming "wolf" might mean they get tuned out when the actual "wolf" really does come to the door...

[ Parent ]
I didn't read that editorial with the same drama or as a serious slam on Obama (4.00 / 1)
In fact "scathing" is the last thing I read in that editorial.  I read that Obama needs to hold his advisors to the fire, that his new treasury secretary needs to go through a thorough approval process, and that there is plenty of blame to go around; more examinationexplanation is needed.

BTW.. It was an editorial.  I trust the NYT as the paper of record for their reporting (albeit I have caveats such as the Iraq war), not because of their editorial staff and their opinion pieces.

To all those who don't like us commentors "ganging up" on Sirota.  Perhaps Sirota could construct one piece that doesn't draw a narrative of Obama as the anti-progressive.  Sirota's Obama=CenterRight pieces are as tiring and unoriginative as the wingnut talk radio drone that Obama is going to lead us to Socialism.
Steve

Paul,  You don't always have to have Sirota's left-flank, or do you?


Oh, c'mon (4.00 / 1)
Would be more fun to read this blog if I didn't have to put up with useless posts like this.
If it was so useless (4.00 / 1)
...why was there all the interesting dialog in the comments section?
[ Parent ]
a simple request (4.00 / 2)
can we have a moratorium on the word "hate" and variations of same - "hater", "hating", etc.? for, like, a month? OK, a week.

a move away from preemptive stereotyping and towards some actual content would be nice, too - to stop talking about whether or not you can "consider the merits of this argument", and just do so, for or against. maybe that can be our next project.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Krugman: The grownups are coming (0.00 / 0)
Krugman: The grownups are coming

That doesn't mean they'll succeed - this might be a good time to reread The Best and the Brightest. But what an improvement!

I figure most of you have seen this, but it sure connects to the editorial. Just because they're experts, just because people like their chances, doesn't mean they'll succeed. They need to realize what's worked, what hasn't, what role they've played in the world coming to this point, and act accordingly in their new roles of responsibility.

Geithner and Summers (and Volcker and others) are/were part of the Group of 30 with Krugman, so I imagine he knows what makes them tick, and that his advice to reread Halberstam's history of the men behind the Vietnam war is aimed square at them. I personally feel that this Group of 30 is going to have some degree of influence in the Obama administration.

Such musings do not mean Krugman and/or the NYT hates Obama, not at all. Now, if they pointed at Summers and Geithner and said "God help us all," I'd be apt to think they hated Obama. But they didn't.

Respect (0.00 / 0)
I had a great deal of respect for your ideals and your writing, up until you finally announced who you decided to vote for in the presidential election.  Seriously, you tarnished your brand with that post.  Millions and millions of everyday people knew John McCain would be terrible for our nation, and they knew it early on.  You were not among the early majority, according to your own words.  You still have a lot of good things to say, but admitting you were undecided until so late in the game was high melodrama.  Anything you say now must be taken with a grain of salt.

No offense meant.

SImple answers to simple questions (0.00 / 0)
Will progressives now start claiming the New York Times "hates" Obama?

Yes.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

simple (0.00 / 0)
Lambert, of Correntewire, thinks that Obama's campaign's actions have been, at times, Nazi-like, and has made the comparison on both his blog and over at talkleft. Apparently, some members of the blogosphere have no problem with such offensive comparisons.  
[ Parent ]
I'm thankful for stalkers and trolls (0.00 / 0)
Keep it up, guy. Pursuing a six-month old Godwin's Law violation? Pitiful.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Does the NYT Hate Obama? | 84 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox