yep, although (4.00 / 1)

even in the latter article he is more critical of Democrats in general than Obama.  Which IMO is accurate as far as it goes, especially since aside from Guantanamo/torture, Obama is governing almost exactly as could have been predicted.  But Obama is the leader of the party and while I don't "blame" him for the blue dogs and the wishy washy legislators, he has really shown zero inclination to take on large corporate interests.  And they are behind most of the things where we are disappointed with Obama and Democrats.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

---

by: egtalbot @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 14:54:22 PM CDT

Hildebrand had a reality check... (4.00 / 3)

That's what took him so long. Obama needs to stop enabling the Blue Dogs & GOoPers. He needs to remember who put him in office. (Hint: Progressives did.)

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 15:25:30 PM CDT

It is the line in the sand. (4.00 / 5)

The Public Option: A Promise Kept or a Promise Broken


YES WE CAN doesn't necessarily mean he will ~ The Daily Show

---

by: dkmich @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 15:28:06 PM CDT

what is most frustrating... (4.00 / 3)

Is to see this white house and establishment democrats negotiating from a position of weakness.  From the first stimulus, to CAP and Trade, to the HealthCare issue, to the Van Jones issue.  when will democrats stop caring about what republican's think and do what they were elected to do.  Negotiating with Grassley is like negotiating with the criminal that is holding you hostage in your own home.  Instead of standing firm in your convictions, they begin to waver and figure out a way to placate people that want to destroy them.  WTF...

This past month, I have been saying to myself, if this was George Bush and he was president, he would ram health-care so far up the other party's ass they wouldn't know what hit them.  There would be no "negotiating" with the other side.(Can you imagine George Bush Negotiating with Ted Kennedy to bring the troops home from Iraq in 2004 - NEVER).  I didn't spend hours knocking on doors and making phone calls to get this type of wishy-washy change elected. It time for this president to STEP UP and get his party in line and get his agenda passed.  

---

by: georgeg1011 @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 15:28:17 PM CDT

except replace (0.00 / 0)

"health care" for "torture and wiretapping"

---

by: tremayne @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 15:54:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It pretty interchangeable (0.00 / 0)

What is it that when it comes to governing, the democratic party loses its spine, balls, fortitude...whatever...they shrivel up and when someone yells "boo" they run for cover...WTF...that's not what we elected them to do...

---

by: georgeg1011 @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 16:01:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except that that hijacker is threatening his victims with a banana! (0.00 / 0)

Only way to make that hostage example work. Because Grassley is no real threat, and the inactivity of the hostages, being unable to overwhelm that clown, despite their advantage in numbers and their superior arms, is totally unexplainable. Must be an extreme case of Stockholm syndrome...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 04:48:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For further insight, see Monty Python's "Self defense against fresh fruit" (0.00 / 0)

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recr...

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

---

by: Gray @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 04:50:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The first step is admitting you are powerless over Kool-aid. (4.00 / 1)

"Put not your faith in princes."

---

by: myiq2xu @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 17:02:18 PM CDT

I don't see much contradiction there, tbh. (0.00 / 0)

The problem isn't with the cabinet members, it's with Obama's own (lack of) actions, and even moreso 'moderates' in Congress.

Hell I thought all the handwringing about cabinet picks was pretty damn pointless even back then because it was pretty obvious the Senate would be all everyone would be raging at for the next N years.

---

by: illissius @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 19:14:15 PM CDT

People have been blaming cabinet members (0.00 / 0)

(especially Rahm) as a proxy for blaming Obama.

Some of us grokked right away that Obama appointed the people he did because that was who he was. Others resisted, and said we were looking at a "team of rivals". So when Obama started governing from the Right, they blamed the appointees, claiming that they were giving  Obama bad advice, because "really, in his heart he is a progressive."

I think maybe they are starting to get it, now.

If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 06:28:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would agree (0.00 / 0)

that "he's just getting bad advice" is bullshit* -- he did, after all, choose his advisers. I respect the concept of having advisers who actually challenge his own thinking a lot. But the idea that he was too clever for his own good and ended up being influenced by them despite sort of not wanting to or whatever is a bit outlandish.

Anyway, I agree that while blaming Obama's delegates instead of blaming Obama himself is dumb, I still don't agree that the problem itself is actually with the Obama Administration. Does anyone dispute that much more and much better legislation would be getting passed if the Senate (or at least the filibuster) were to cease to exist and there were only the House and the White House? And I actually think the White House is even more progressive than the House -- witness ACES. I bet the WH would've gone for something much better than that if they could have.

It's true that the White House does have influence on the legislative process, and that Obama's strategy doesn't appear to have been the greatest, but I don't think that influence is enough to really change the fundamental dynamic, more just affect things at the margins. The fundamental dynamic is still that legislation has to get through the House, the Senate, and the White House, and that what is able to be passed is determined by the institution where it's hardest to pass, that being in 99% of cases the Senate. There's just no way to really change that as far as I can see, not without the Senate itself wanting it to change. (And yeah, again, Obama pressuring conservative Dems instead of liberal ones, and not pursuing bipartisanship so much, would probably have a positive effect. But I think it would be a small one, not a sea change. And it's a question of means, not ends.)

* If not for the whole Bush + Cheney/Rumsfeld vs. Gates thing... but Bush was probably more of an empty suit than most, so I guess it counts as an exception. And Bush's own thinking probably evolved in between when he delegated everything to Cheney and appointed Rumsfeld, to when he started ignoring Cheney and appointed Gates.

---

by: illissius @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 15:47:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the first article predates the inauguration (0.00 / 0)

At that point, there were warning signs that Obama was skewing right, but there were also a number of progressives on track to join the administration.  It was completely fair, then, to say "give Obama a chance".

It's not a flip-flop to change one's opinion based on evidence.  The evidence is now in; we have a problem.

That doesn't mean all is lost, but it means we can't count on Obama to lead on anything.  The base is going to have to do that.

---

by: Joe Buck @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 22:50:00 PM CDT

There were warning signs before he won, (0.00 / 0)

with his Senate FISA vote during the campaign.  We should have known then, but we gave him a 2nd chance.

***NO MORE 2ND CHANCES***

---

by: kroses @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 09:56:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]