Obama's 100-Day Hope Check

Are Barack Obama's  supporters wondering where the hope went? Does the campaign now seem only a golden dream? After all, Obama's been in the White House for over three months, and people are still losing jobs and houses, US troops are still overseas, single-payer health care is still not on the agenda.  Surely the President should have fixed all that by now with the power of his mighty hope machine.

In her current Nation column, Naomi Klein claims that disillusion is setting in. She has a  clever list of  words to describe the phenomenon: Hopefiends feel hopebreak which will (hopefully) lead to hopelash, "a 180-degree reversal of everything Obama-related." Enough of these cowardly compromises! Back to the streets! 

I have a lot of respect for Naomi Klein, but I think her own hopes for  a mass radical movement are getting in the way here. According to polls, after all, Obama is wildly popular.  A Harris Interactive poll released on April 7 found that 68% of Americans  have a good opinion of him. That doesn't necessarily mean they approve of everything he's doing, but it means that a heck of a lot of people who didn't vote for him like him now.    Is there any evidence that "a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard"? And by the way, did anyone over the age of  21 ever really believe this? That hope, an emotion, was going to "save the world," the way  children clapping their hands saves Tinkerbell? Are Americans really such idiots? Hmmm, better not answer that.  

Naomi and I must talk to different people. For example, I don't know anyone as stupid as the hopefiendish "Joe" who "actually believes Obama deliberately brought in Summers so that he would blow the bailout, and then Obama would have the excuse he needs to do what he really wants: nationalize the banks and turn them into credit unions." Think what you're saying, Joe! Had Obama intentionally put in someone he knew would fail, he would not only be a clairvoyant and a psychopath-- callously indifferent to the ruin of possibly millions of people--  he'd also be risking political suicide. Because had he first chosen a course he knew would fail he would not have the political capital to "what he really wants."  

I know a lot of people who supported Obama, and every time I see them I ask how they think he's doing. The only people I've found who've given up on him, who feel betrayed, misled, and foolish, are those leftists who didn't like him in the first place and voted for him in a weak moment as the lesser evil. They, predictably, went back to their cabins on Mt. Disdain before Obama  had even been inaugurated.   Obama will never satisfy the left because no president could. FDR didn't satisfy the left either.

I was a strong supporter of Obama but I always thought hopespeak fell somewhere between metaphor and twaddle. Obviously, Obama was not going to turn the US into Sweden. Obviously, he would make all sorts of compromises and deals.  And obviously I would hate that. That's politics.    Where am I on the hope-o-meter?  Like everyone, I'm worried about the bailout, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm appalled that he envisions no prosecution of those who set up the legal framework of torture  and those who carried it out. And what about Bagram? On the plus side:  he's been terrific on women's rights and reproductive rights here and abroad, made some excellent appointments (Hilda Solis at Labor), reached out to the Muslim world, opened communications with Cuba and Iran, said he'll close Guantanamo, declared an end to torture, and, with the stimulus, successfully challenged the notion that government spending (except on the military) is bad. He's made it less embarrassing to be an American.  I think he'll make good judicial appointments. If another Katrina happened tomorrow, I think he'd handle it well.

It's important to challenge Obama. No president deserves mindless loyalty. But color me modestly hopeful -- for now.           

Comments (54)

1. i thought larry blankfein was president.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/20/2009 @ 6:28pm

2. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/20/2009 @ 6:28pm

   Your cynicism is growing of late.

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/20/2009 @ 7:29pm

3. "Naomi and I must talk to different people."

   Ms Pollitt, do you remember what Pauline Kael said when Nixon won in 1972?

   She said "I don't understand. Nobody I KNOW voted for Nixon!"

   It's irony at its finest that the Right is whining that "Obama is making us a socialist state"...and the Hard Left is complaining that "Obama ISN'T making us a socialist state!"

   Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 8:07pm

4. Your cynicism is growing of late. Posted by Benchrest at 04/20/2009 @ 7:29pm

   i wonder why.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/20/2009 @ 8:14pm

5. I'm broadly in sympathy with the points you make here, though I'm not sure that this quite gets to the point of what Klein was saying. Note that hypothetical "Joe"'s reasoning is really not all that different from the "Obama is appointing establishment moderates to cabinet positions so that he can, under cover of establishment authority, really pursue an aggressively progressive agenda" line that was pushed by many liberal commentators when Obama was announcing his cabinet nominees. So I'm not sure that Klein is really all that off in terms of the characterization of Joe.

   More generally, of course no one really expected Obama to "save the world", but might one not have reasonably expected that the people he appointed to solve the economic crisis would not be the very same people that got us into this mess in the first place? And might one's hopes and expectations not be reasonably "dashed" given that this has exactly what has happened. I say this as, lets say a pragmatic leftist, who voted for Obama not at all as a "lesser evil" and fully recognizing that he would have to compromise, and who (of course) still has a "favorable opinion" of Obama.

   Posted by beingalam at 04/20/2009 @ 8:18pm

6. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/20/2009 @ 8:14pm

   I know Frosty.

   Just don't let the bastards get you down.

   Posted by Benchrest at 04/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

7. You can't spend almost 4 trillion dollars in your first hundred days....and not expect to have to RAISE taxes in order to pay for the idiot's ( your President ) reckless spending. The racist (white man's greed runs a world in need") himself is spending the Tea Party taxpayer's money in the EXACT same way our fellow Americans did, recently, when they bankrupted us, by spending outside their means, enabled by the likes on Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton, The Great Jimmy Carter and his highly insightful,well-thought-out "community re-investment act", and the Democrats livin' large at Fannie & Frediie ( on our dime )! You see, my little bitches, I just lay it out plain and simple! You can't dispute those facts, so just cut the crap, go to your liberal handbook, look up: "what do you call someone that just clowned your silly little nipple-to-gov't ass with solid facts the MSM refuses to report"................and call me a RACIST! I own you bitches.

   Posted by barry25 at 04/20/2009 @ 8:56pm

8. You know what else is funny? Can any of you "ultra-tolerant", "non-judgemental", "anti-stereotyping" liberals explain to me why, when American citizens protest tax-rates ( and we all know that they have to rise to pay for Obama's irresponsible spending, and Joe Biden himself called for higher taxes ), it's OK for the left, media, academia etc. to " show antipathy...towards those who are not like them"! Now, your savior, Osama, was caught on tape describing the type of people that may attend a Tea Party, as those who are prone " to show antipathy...towards those who are not like them " ( AKA white christian males who are now considered possible terrorists because they believe in state's rights among other things )! Is this, at least, BORDERING on hypocrisy? Ya, like any of you hypocrites are gonna touch this. It's like reality, you just run from it! Damn, I really just flat-out slice-and-dice you derelicts constantly and consistently! Kind like how Clinton betrayed his wife, child, and supporters (and yet you slobbering idiots will stand for hours to get the chance to shake his semen-drenched hand)! I just continue to impress myself...at your discomfort! LOL!

   Posted by barry25 at 04/20/2009 @ 9:14pm

9. That's what I thought, now get out your mom's basement and get a J-O-B! By the way....I'll give you a reason to call me a racist. My mother's neighbor, a hard-working, single-mother (Arfrican-american) who is retired, recently came over to my mother's home and told my mother this: " my daughter recently started dating a new man and was very excited. She asked me what I thought. I told her she needed a BMW. She lloked att me confused and asked what I meant. I replyed: Black Man Working!!!!! This woman is a Democrat and I can't understand why, after that statement! I can, however, understand WHY she would make such a statement. You see, she hass children and grandchildren that pull up to her house to sponge off of her in their lowered rides, all the while enjoying the fruits of lifetime, cradle-to-grave UNEMPLOYMENT sponging! This is fact, and I know you don't believe it, but i also know these FACTS piss you off! LOL!

   Posted by barry25 at 04/20/2009 @ 9:29pm

10. barry, any way we can get you as Chairman of the RNC?

    It'd be really helpful to the Cause.

    .

    ..

    .

    ..

    .

    (Well...not YOUR cause, naturally...LOL)

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 9:42pm

11. 51% of Americans view the Tea parties favorably (33% VERY favorably , yet only 13% of the "political elite" ( let's include the ENTIRE MSM, Hollywood, Academia, and cradle-to-grave gov't bureaucrats- minus Fox and that media Juggernaut: AM radio ) feel the same way. So, Mask, which group is "out of touch"? If you state that it's the 51% of Americans, whom your trusted friends in the MSM have recently "shown antipathy" for, who are out of touch with reality, then i will say to you.....never remove those glorified portraits of Stalin annd Mao from your living room walls!!!!!!!!! You morons make this stuff SOOOOOOO easy! Your savior's days are numbered, he will not win re-election, and you should come to blame the MSM and Obama's absoluetly embarrassing political views/stunts for the pain that the Dem. party and your ego are about to encounter. Fun stuff!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:31pm

12. Rasmussen poll, barry?

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 06:19am

13. 'For example, I don't know anyone as stupid as the hopefiendish "Joe" who "actually believes Obama deliberately brought in Summers so that he would blow the bailout, and then Obama would have the excuse he needs to do what he really wants: nationalize the banks and turn them into credit unions."'

    Actually, I was something of a hopefiend of this type for a while. I have long entertained the notion that Geithner and Summers might be "fall guys" whom Obama might fire - and replace with some real Democrats, if not liberals - if anything goes really wrong with the bailout. Well, a lot has gone wrong with the bailout, with no change in management. Apparently, Obama is leaving the task of re-regulating and restructuring the banks with Congress, which to my mind means that he doesn't care if it never gets done.

    Obama is not FDR, and in a country that really needs an FDR, this is not good news. If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it is that we are now free to shift some of our attention to Congress, which has the greatest ideological and structural problems that we can actually do something about, through campaign finance reform (for a start). Check out the "Change Congress" website.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/21/2009 @ 06:51am

14. In the spirit of Katha Pollitt's article, I'd like to add some positive things about President Obama. He may still be better than Bill Clinton, who really set the minimum standard of behavior for a Democrat (that is, he could win elections and keep his popularity up, but that was about all).

    I gave Obama a 'D' for his handling of the banks, but remember that this is in comparison to an 'F' for Bush and Paulsen.

    Obama's first speech on racism, the one that he delivered before he distanced himself from the Reverend Wright, gets an 'A.' The anti-Wright speech gets a 'C-,' but really his average on speechmaking should really be a 'B' or higher, and he gets an 'A' for diplomatic conduct. Some readers may think that 'B' is too low a score for Obama's speechifying power, but I maintain that a truly great speech must have subject matter that is worthy of the speaker's rhetorical skill, and Obama is usually too moderate to tackle the really big issues (re-regulation of banks being number one) and the really hard truths (we are entering the post-petroleum age).

    Obama's vote against the Iraq War as a Senator also gets an 'A.'

    His appointment of Hilda Solis to replace Elaine Chao is a third 'A.'

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/21/2009 @ 07:07am

15. Naomi Klein very seldom knows what she's talking about, so Katha registering scepticism is one of the wisest thing she could do.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:18am

16. Why is this snide broad still here?Tenure? Those financially secure liberal elitists have the luxury of sneering and give the entire progressive movement a banal, insincere taint.

    Posted by Lil at 04/21/2009 @ 10:57am

17. 'Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. ' -- Naomi Klein -- 12 June, 2008

    'I must step down while there are one or two people who admire me.' -- Nelson Mandela, at the time of his retirement

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/21/2009 @ 10:58am

18. Mask,

    You say "....It's irony at its finest that the Right is whining that "Obama is making us a socialist state"...and the Hard Left is complaining that "Obama ISN'T making us a socialist state!"...."

    Actually, Mask, it is not irony nor is it fine.

    It is depressing and demoralizing......Obama is moving us leftward at warp speed... but it still is not leftward enough fast enough for some people!!!

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 12:03pm

19. Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 12:03pm

    Or you're on one small end of the spectrum and THEY're on one small end of the spectrum....and there's a big Middle.

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 12:23pm

20. Katha Pollitt

    I don't like your column. Seems as if you didn't bash Naomi, you'd have nothing to write about.

    Get a grip Katha, you will never be a Naomi.............

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 04/21/2009 @ 12:30pm

21. So Katha,

    Is it true............

    Feminist author Camille Paglia described Pollitt as a "whiny troll... an unscrupulous and unreliable critic and a cultural philistine... a good example of the phony prep-school/trust-fund leftism suffusing the incestuously interwined Ivy League cliques who run the corrupt East Coast literary and magazine establishment."

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 04/21/2009 @ 12:35pm

22. Lil posted '' Why is this snide broad still here?Tenure? Those financially secure liberal elitists have the luxury of sneering and give the entire progressive movement a banal, insincere taint.''

    I agree.

    So Nation why is Katha still here ?

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 04/21/2009 @ 12:49pm

23. I'm so glad we're having this debate instead of everyone saying, "I still can't believe that McCain won that election! We were so hopeful. What do we have to do differently in the future? Should the Democrats move back towards the center in 2012?" etc, etc, etc.

    Be happy we're arguing about "President Obama" here in 2009; the alternative would be absolutely horrific.

    Posted by snesich at 04/21/2009 @ 12:49pm

24. Posted by timenotonmyside at 04/21/2009 @ 12:30pm & 12:35pm & 12:49

    Hey Tim...my...,

    As the resident Troll here, I'd like to say that these personal attacks are really unwarrented.

    Try to distinguish yourself with a well-crafted argument.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/21/2009 @ 1:08pm

25. So Mask

    A while back you accused me of being an acolyte of Rush, Savage, and some third person. I told you I don't listen to them. (To which you claimed I said I "never" listen to them. I've heard Rush on a few occasions.)

    Anyhoo

    I mentioned I used to listen to Dennis Prager. He's got a column out and I think it's very interesting.

    Prager is Jewish. (I'm reminded of a religion professor in college who at the end of the course opened up regarding his own beliefs. I remember being struck by something he said about, "If there is a God, I'm not sure He's the benevolent/loving God of Christianty and may be a sometimes angry God like the Jewish faith.")

    You can see some of that in the column:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/ 04/21/the_more_given_the_less_earned_96085.html

    The More Given, the Less Earned Dennis Prager

    One of the reasons for the ascendance of the English-speaking world has been that the English language is almost alone among major languages in having the word "earn."

    Those of us whose native language is English assume that the phrase "to earn a living" is universal. It isn't. It is almost unique to English. Few languages have the ability to say this...

    We expect God to show unconditional love to all people, again no matter how they act. According to the doctrine of divine unconditional love, God loves sadists as much as He loves the kindest individuals. No one earns God's love; we receive it, like sports trophies, for breathing. Many fine people believe this about God, but I think it is religio-cultural-specific, and non-biblical. In 15 years of study in a yeshiva I had never heard the phrase, and it would have struck me, as it still does, as quite odd.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/21/2009 @ 1:40pm

26. Mask,

    You say ".....Or you're on one small end of the spectrum and THEY're on one small end of the spectrum....and there's a big Middle....."

    Mask, the big Middle, which you count in the Obama camp, may not always stay there.

    People like you and me and the other bloggers on this site are really INTO political issues, regardless of what our ideologies are.

    But there are a lot of people who do not camp out on political websites or get too deep into politics until election day.

    But they do have opinions and I have run across some people recently who are no more thrilled about the Obama agenda than I am.

    They are not people who you would label "dittoheads" either, not that there is anything wrong with being a dittohead, of course.....just putting the description of them in terms you (who are obsessed with Rush) can understand.

    In other words, I don't think you can count on this "Middle" of yours always being Soldiers for Obama. There are many in the middle who are not now.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 1:58pm

27. Hey, it's funny you should write, "Obama will never satisfy the left because no president could. FDR didn't satisfy the left either."

    That was certainly true of former Soviet Spy, I. F. Stone:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ viewarticle.cfm/special-preview-- i-f--stone--soviet-agent-case-closed-15120

    When new information about Americans who had cooperated with the Soviet KGB began to emerge in the 1990s, no individual case generated as much controversy as that of the journalist I.F. Stone, who had long been installed in the pantheon of left-wing heroes as a symbol of rectitude and a teller of truth to power before his death in 1989. Charges about Stone's connections with the KGB have been swirling about for more than a decade, prompting cries of outrage among his passionate followers. Until now, the evidence was equivocal and subject to different interpretations. No longer...

    Stone was, however, more than just a New Deal liberal. His sympathy for Soviet communism was obvious. In June 1933, he declared that a "Soviet America" was "the one way out that could make a real difference to the working classes" and insisted that FDR's New Deal was not reforming America but leading it to fascism, a view that then reflected the position of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/21/2009 @ 2:01pm

28. Single-payer universal healthcare makes the most economic and practical sense ... but President Obama is enabling the health insurance industry and its allies to 'pay-to-play' at White House 'Stakeholders' Meetings.

    Banks have received hundreds of billions from the taxpayers ... but have loaned too little too late to them ... and as a bonus, raised their credit card interest rates and service fees.

    Summers-Geithner cannot be right if Krugman-Stiglitz are right. So, either the President's economic team doesn't know what it is doing ... or a Nobel Prize winning economist and brilliant colleague are wrong.

    The President condemns torture ... but in effect, forgives the torturers ... they were only following orders? ... that particular argument was settled at Nuremberg after WW II.

    Mexicans are being slaughtered by drug cartels with weapons flowing south from the U.S. ... and kids are being killed in our streets by other kids ... but the President will not take a strong position on gun control.

    The President said he would change Washington ... told us he would be intolerant of conflicts-of-interest ... but has appointed many to this year's government, who were last year's lobbyists, paid speakers, employees, etc. of the industries they have been directed to regulate. Bush did the same thing and worse ... but he never touted 'Change We Could Believe In'.

    Most Americans suffering the effects of greed, fraud and stupidity don't care if the banks make money this quarter or next ... they are drowning in the burdens of job, home, and savings losses.

    So ... when will President Obama take a strong, bold courageous stand on anything we care about ... and where is the Change We Can Believe In?

    Posted by ChangeWeCanReallyBelieveIn at 04/21/2009 @ 2:37pm

29. In brief:

    There is real and serious anger about several of the decisions/actions along with indecision/lack of action of Mr. Obama's administration out here in the hustings.

    For example:

    • The absolutely indefensible propping up of the INSOLVENT and dead behemoth banks that are "too big to fail" - namely Bank of America and CitiBank - with more and more billions of borrowed dollars. These dead and insolvent institutions are too big to exist! Let 'em go.

    • The announced intentions of the Obama administration to "look forward" in regard to the war crimes at Guantanamo and elsewhere committed by CIA operatives and those who provided 'cover' with BS legal opinions from the OLC of Bush/Cheney. Every single one of those involved must be investigated and where appropriate prosecuted with very serious penalties for the guilty. The whole world is watching as Pres. Obama makes nice with the CIA. It's time that America re-establishes an image of morality and the rule of law.

    • The inexplicable attacks on American automakers while delivering money by the US govt. and the Federal Reserve to Wall Street and the other amoral financial entities that drug our economy into the chasm it lies in now by the tractor trailer truck loads is wrong in so many ways. The bankers still rule in DC.

    These and other issues are the reason that a person like myself (a retired, disabled, white Southern male) worked so very hard to elect the black man that ran for the Presidency in a state where Republicans have ruled for decades. I am not and have never been a racist nor am I a sexist. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am a voter who supports intelligent governance. So far, Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric has blown away like morning dew in the light of day.

    Things must change or else!

    Posted by mlrobbs at 04/21/2009 @ 2:51pm

30. Too bad for Katha Pollitt that for the past 10 years, young, progressive women like myself quit looking up what she had to say about whatever central political questions we were grappling with in favor of what Naomi Klein would have to say instead. The only rhetorical tricks Pollitt seems to have left is left-bashing. Booooring! While I don't agree with every last word she says, I'll take Klein's principled argumentation any day. And by the way, FDR remained quite popular throughout the entire 1930s--an illustrative decade characterized by social upheaval and the growth of radical political views among the nation's working class.

    Posted by michelejones at 04/21/2009 @ 2:56pm

31. Read Bob Herbert's column today in Huff Post. He addresses Progressives. He basically says we are responsible for making change, not one man in the White House, who is sympathetic to our cause but cannot get it all done by dictator's edict. I am not talking about torture. Hell , we torture prisoners in the US prisons, American citizens, subjected to rape, beatings, solitary, clothes taken away. I am talking about economic justice, creating a society that works for all of us. Full employment. National Healthcare for all. A worldclass education for even the poorest child. An end to racial profiling and unequal treatment of people of color by the justice system. The right to unionize. Fair wages. I think President Obama is doing fine. The banks are symbolic of the royal screwing over average people have been getting since Reagan. I think he will come around to nationalization, able to say, "I tried to use the system to fix it," "This is a last resort." Those greedy suckers need to be brought down. Of course, nobody knows the actual consequences of nationalization. What if the rich guys take all their capital to the Caymans? I mean, we don't know. But it seems to me the left needs to support our Democratic President, instead of setting up the circling firing squad. (Check out the Daily Kos.) He may decide that one term is all he can take. I don't think he would mind one bit walking away after four years. What a loss it would be. I feel enormous pride when I see him abroad, and at press conferences here. He said it would be hard work. Are you working? Writing letters, calling? Donating what you can? I am on the case with my Senator, Governor, Mayor, House Rep, and today, I actually got more than an e-mail back, I got a call from the Senator's aid.

    Posted by jonnirae at 04/21/2009 @ 4:07pm

32. Katha -

    I'm surprised that you, of all people, didn't recognize sarcasm. Surely you knew that "Joe" was a fictional character!

    Personally, I agree with Ms. Klein, but still believe that Obama is already the best U.S. president in my lifetime. Of course, he doesn't have much competition!

    The bottom line for me is that I'm not going to expect perfection from any one human being, nor for one person to right all of the wrongs in the world. The line Naomi Klein quoted of Studs Terkle, that "Hope springs from the bottom up," is exactly right. Putting all of your hope in Obama, or any one man, is akin to planting a redwood in a pot; it'll suffice for a short time, but it'll never reach it's full potential if left inside there. Or, as the Patti Smith song goes, "People Have the Power," not "Person Has the Power."

    Posted by dshandy at 04/21/2009 @ 5:03pm

33. I must apologize (partially) for stomping on Obama with my rhetoric in the last couple of days. I am impatient by nature, and I am working on that. As a Buddhist I should realize that the alternatives to patience in a spiritual sense are frustration, anger, resentment, despondency and disillusionment.

    But Obama related this day that he does not rule out the prosecution of those in charge that issued orders to violate the rule of law. I was pleasantly surprised and at the same time ashamed that I pre judged him harshly.

    Although I do not agree that "just following orders" is an excuse for violating the rule of law, the military code of justice and the Geneva conventions. It is refreshing to note that Obama is playing Chess while I am playing Checkers.

    Sorry, Mr.Obama..

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/21/2009 @ 5:08pm

34. "Feminist author Camille Paglia..."

    I read your posting this far, "timenotonmyside," and then decided that reading any farther would be a waste of my time.

    Camille Paglia is about as great a feminist as Madonna, whom she has praised to the skies, while strangely neglecting the many women who have, with more clarity and consistency, and with less ambiguity and irony, fought to advance the cause of women's equality in the age of the "material girl."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/21/2009 @ 6:42pm

35. "No one earns God's love; we receive it, like sports trophies, for breathing. Many fine people believe this about God, but I think it is religio-cultural-specific, and non-biblical. In 15 years of study in a yeshiva I had never heard the phrase, and it would have struck me, as it still does, as quite odd."

    They never taught from the Book of Job at this yeshiva, did they, Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll? Or did you miss a few sessions?

    Chapter 21, verses 7-9: "Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power? Their children are established in their presence, and their offspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, and no rod of God is upon them."

    Job's complaint continues for many verses more, but you get the point: God is too nice to bad guys.

    Of course, the real promulgator of the "unconditional love" hypothesis was that rascally community organizer, Jesus of Nazareth. Sure, he was never inaugurated into the Jewish Scripture, but he became quite a popular fellow, all the same.

    Book of Matthew, ch. 5, verses 44-45: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

    But probably the strongest evidence for the unconditional love theory is our mere earthly existence. What on earth - or off of it - did we do to deserve our own creation? Nothing. It was a free and unconditional gift.

    So instead of congratulating ourselves as if we had created ourselves, and instead of demanding remuneration for how well we have turned out and punishment for those who are less lucky, we ought to be humble, grateful, and generous.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/21/2009 @ 7:03pm

36. "I don't think you can count on this "Middle" of yours always being Soldiers for Obama. There are many in the middle who are not now."---Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 1:58pm

    And besides Right-mussen, what polling do you have to support htat?

    Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 8:32pm

37. Mask,

    MY POLL!

    It is amazing, Mask, how you selectively ignore things people post in.

    (actually it is not amazing, it is old hat and I expect it by now).

    I told you that people I have talked to recently, people who are not outwardly political and who I know do not spend their free time blogging on political web sites such as this.

    It is one thing for outwardly political people or routine bloggers to express their opinions, but the reality is that most people have opinions one way or another about the major political issues of the day, their opinion just may not get expressed except at the voting booth on election day.

    And what I have found is that although we hear on the mainstream media and we hear from you how popular Obama is now, there are people who are not pro-Obama, and these are not people who some leftist could label as "extremist" or "right-wingers" or "cons" or "neo-cons" or even Assclowns!

    As more and more of Socialist Utopia and government control over our lives and weakening of the military and wide open abortion, etc. become more and more the order of the day, you may find (I do have to use the word may so that if somehow Sarah Palin or another Conservative does not win in 2012 you won't post in with my quote) that Obama's popularity will erode.

    Unlike on this site, where many think the Obama apology tour was fantastic, among other people it left a different impression.

    In other words (and this is a figure of speech since I have never been in Peoria in my life) the Obama apology tour did not play as well in Peoria as you may think.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 9:19pm

38. Typo

    my paragraph up above

    "I told you that people I have talked to recently, people who are not outwardly political and who I know do not spend their free time blogging on political web sites such as this. "

    was incomplete - here is what it should have been

    "I told you that people I have talked to recently, people who are not outwardly political and who I know do not spend their free time blogging on political web sites such as this, are not happy about the Obama agenda"

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 9:21pm

39. Obama has fallen into a classic trap: by trying to please everyone, he is pleasing no one. His popularity will drop rapidly due to his lavish rewards to his Wall Street swindler campaign contributors, attempts to obstruct justice in war crimes cases, continued illegal spying and detention procedures, smoke-and-mirrors cap and trade scheme, hawkish escalation of the Afghan war, destabilization of Pakistan through drone attacks, long term Iraqi occupation, and a host of other right wing policies that will infuriate his progressive and moderate Democratic base, dooming him to primary defeat in 2012. And nothing he does will please the right anyway.

    It had appeared that Bush had laid the Republicans low, but Obama may just revive them.

    Posted by DrBrian at 04/22/2009 @ 01:43am

40. What a pity! President Obama is working his tail off, and in return receiving crticism from all sides. He has done more to fulfill his campaign promises in the first 100 days than any other President in my 60 years of life. It is worth remembering that Bush promised to address carbon emissions, and then did the exact opposite. He promised compassion and led the US to global distrust and hatred. What will we then say?

    Progressives (of which I am one) are tending toward the same mistakes which the Republicans made: obsessing on their single agenda while ignoring the myriad problems that complete Republican rule have bestowed upon us. Lighten up and support our President! Let us not find ourselves becoming Progressive Rush Limbaughs doing our best to contribute to the failure of our country and our President.

    Posted by grogers265 at 04/22/2009 @ 06:59am

41. MY POLL! ---Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 9:19pm

    Okay, you actually HAVE found polling data less accurate than Scott Rasmussen...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/22/2009 @ 07:58am

42. Posted by michelejones at 04/21/2009 @ 2:56pm

    Too bad for Katha Pollitt that for the past 10 years, young, progressive women like myself quit looking up what she had to say about whatever central political questions we were grappling with in favor of what Naomi Klein would have to say instead. The only rhetorical tricks Pollitt seems to have left is left-bashing. Booooring! While I don't agree with every last word she says, I'll take Klein's principled argumentation any day. And by the way, FDR remained quite popular throughout the entire 1930s--an illustrative decade characterized by social upheaval and the growth of radical political views among the nation's working class.

    Great post michelejones, I couldn't have said it better.

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 04/22/2009 @ 08:48am

43. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/21/2009 @ 7:03pm

    Jack, thanks for an interesting post. I think some slight clarification is in order. The paragraph yoy cited was written by Dennis Prager, a Conservative Jewish author and radio comentator.

    I cited him because Mask had accused me of being a disciple of Rush and Savage and I offered Prager as someone I was more likely to listen to.

    Then I posted a link to Prager's column related to the English Language and it being unique in having the word "earn". I thought this interesting because the Jewish god is less the loving benevolent God of the New testament.

    For the record, I'm Lutheran. We're probably the worst as far as having a pushover God. Martin Luther's whole "dust up" with the Catholic Church was over the sale of indulgences, that is, a thing that humans could do to, well maybe not "earn" salvation but at least buy it.

    So Martin Luther went to the polar opposite and said salvation was absolutely beyond the reach of humans. It is through grace alone that we are justified.

    For what it's worth.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/22/2009 @ 10:51am

44. Katha Pollitt, There are women and children being killed and injured by the drones/missiles the Obama Administration is sending on Pakistan villages.

    The day or two after, when the Guardian.co.uk reported on Obama OK-ing drones/missiles on Pakistan villages, fired on Jan. 23, 2009, I felt angry. I am still angry as the policy continues, as the war on Afghanistan is now Af-Pak.

    How deep is Obama's commitment to women via equal pay if he doesn't support the Union FreeChoice (not sure of the name) Act? I knew he was too centrist from the time he gave the 2004 keynote address at the Dem. National Convention. Yes, I voted for him, but I did expect some better than this.

    His fight on habeus corpus, Bagram (see ACLU) is continuation of bad policies and a surprise to me. (He taught constitutional law. On the other hand, who wants to give up power, even if it's Bush's overreach?) You mention that the Left disliked FDR: If Obama comes near what FDR accomplished, (keeping in mind Obama only gets 2 terms), I'll be surprised but I'll give him all the credit he'd deserve. Right now, he's getting a D from me in/on his first 100 days. (And I'm a senior citizen, woman.)

    Posted by NYCartist at 04/22/2009 @ 11:10am

45. As opposed to many posters here, I love Katha Pollitt. I don't always agree with everything she says, but I find her opinion pieces to be highly readable, reasonable, and - more often than not - enlightening. I also have a great deal of respect for Naomi Klein (as does Pollitt, which she notes in this article).

    One of the characteristics of progressives, liberals, and left-leaning Democrats is that we don't buy the party line in its entirety. We disagree, we argue, and we challenge. This is a wonderful thing, even if it sometimes leads to a lack of coherence or cohesiveness. However, there is no need for the kind of nastiness coming from michelejones and timenotonmyside. Their disagreement with Pollitt on the current issue or preference for Klein's point of view are not excuses for their venomous attacks.

    There's an anecdote about a man who is devastated when he finds a perfect woman because he discovers that she is looking for a perfect man - and he is not that man. An analogy can be made for a populace looking for a perfect leader; he may be looking for a perfect constituency. And Americans (even the most conscientious progressives) are not that constituency.

    We expect a great deal of our president, and he has not lived up to our expectations. Three months into his presidency, Obama has achieved far more than any other president in my lifetime. He has failed in some ways, and that is to be expected. I am disappointed in many of his decisions, but I am quite aware that I am no better at fullfilling my own ambitions and ideals. Yes, he is in a position of power, but he is not superhuman.

    Perhaps I just never truly expected him to work miracles in his first 100 days or to even be everything I want in a president.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 04/22/2009 @ 12:48pm

46. "And Another Thing" (to borrow a good phrase), (I like Katha Pollitt's work; one can disagree.) How good is Obama for women? Merit pay is not good for women.

    Merit pay for teachers is a nasty policy that Obama supports (by statement and his Arne Duncan Education appointment). It is a union buster and is not equal pay for equal work. It is new corporate wording for a way of paying teachers that "used to be", before there were unions. (I was once a teacher, decades ago, just as the union movement achieved equal pay, so to say.) Since there are many women who are teachers, women will suffer if there is "merit pay".

    And, signing the Lucy Ledbetter law was good, but it still requires a woman to sue to get her equal pay, and she is required to hire a lawyer, which can be very costly.

    Posted by NYCartist at 04/22/2009 @ 1:03pm

47. their comin' ta take away ma' guns! over my ded bodie! yee-haaa!

    Posted by parrotuya at 04/22/2009 @ 1:05pm

48. Rereading yours, Ms. Pollitt, What's Obama done to make sure there's NOT another Katrina (as in getting levees that are real and the environmental wet lands process "fixed"), keeping/restoring public housing (HUD) that didn't have to be destroyed because it didn't get wet? What's he doing to support Maxine Waters and members of Congress in getting help for Katrina survivors and the "right of return"?

    What's Obama doing about the gov't ICE roundups and detention of whole families for immigrant violations, arresting Americans as illegal immigrants, the agency boarding buses and searching/intimidating, medical abuse in detention facilities (and why are they in detention?) for people with minor violations? Why is ICE attempting to deport a young man, arresting him the day after a jury acquitted him on some "terror" charge? (Sources: DemocracyNow and WBAI's "Global Movements, Urban Struggles" radio show. I may not be perfect in memory, but close.)

    Posted by NYCartist at 04/22/2009 @ 1:12pm

49. Although I have great admiration for Naomi Klein and her viewpoint, I think we all have to realize that Obama is both a realist and a pragmatist and wants to enact the agenda that we all hoped he would do. I feel that he is attempting to do the things he thinks are doable in the current political and economic climate that exists today. If we give him the solid majority he needs in the Senate in next year's election I think that the restraints will be off, and he will be able to accomplish the things we elected him to do.

    Posted by leporello at 04/22/2009 @ 3:37pm

50. 'Then I posted a link to Prager's column related to the English Language and it being unique in having the word "earn".'

    Thank you for the link, "Darin_tBFT." Language interests me a lot, and its fascination extends far beyond the realm of politics.

    I would argue, however, that the word "earn" is in one sense not unique, but in another sense unique - as unique as the language to which it belongs.

    The Germans speak of two aspects of meaning: "Bedeutungsinhalt" and Bedeutungsumfang," that is, "content of meaning" and "range or applicability of meaning," respectively.

    The former, the CONTENT of the meaning of the word "earn," is, I would argue, not unique to this English word. This content is basically that when you "earn" something, you receive something whose value is comparable to the value of something that you yourself have created. The meaning of the German word "verdienen" has the same content.

    However, the RANGE or applicability of the meaning of a word like "earn" or "verdienen" varies from one language to the next. (This is what makes translation so difficult.) In English, we say that we "earn" money when we do something positive in order to receive it, but we do NOT say that we "earn" punishment when we do something negative. This application lies outside the RANGE or applicability of the word "earn." When the value of what we create is negative, and we receive something negative in return, we have to use the word "deserve" to denote this transaction.

    The German word "verdienen," in contrast, is used for both positive and negative purposes. Its RANGE or applicability, therefore, is greater than that of the word "earn." Good deeds "verdienen" reward, and bad deeds "verdienen" punishment.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/22/2009 @ 10:29pm

51. "He's made it less embarrassing to be an American."

    Anyone that has EVER been embarrassed to be an American should find another country and move to it -- Please - I'll chip in for airfare.

    I was quite enjoying ready your column for the first time until I reached your "embarrassing" remark. Those of us who currently stand in the center of the left and the right are turned off by remarks such as many of us have never been embarrassed or ashamed of our country.

    So on my tally sheet - that's another hash mark against the left - too bad. Thanks Ms. Pollitt!

    Posted by Roxxyd at 04/23/2009 @ 7:21pm

52. Obama is a career opportunist. We've been had, people! It's time to wake up and smell the revolution. It is coming and this time, oddly enough, from the right. See David Korten's Agenda for a New Economy.

    Posted by diogenes2 at 04/24/2009 @ 1:55pm

53. That's Katha Pollitt for you: as long as a Democrat is halfway good on the abortion issue, there's simply no such thing as saying something he does isn't good enough. At least the views on Mt. Disdain are clear.

    Posted by DP in TC at 04/24/2009 @ 3:19pm

54. It's amazing that some progressives don't realize what a breathtaking gift Barack Obama is! After less than 100 days, he's already overturned many Bush policies and launched more new encouraging initiatives than any President in several generations! Just think about his big picture moves on health care, energy and the environment, income equality, parks and conservation, international cooperation, long-neglected domestic investment, etc, etc. And he's done this while increasing his support among the American people. If you've followed politics a tiny bit, you'll know what a fantastic start this is. Sure, there have been disappointments on the topics listed, especially on the banks, and there will be more. But if you're truly interested in improving the lives of people, rather than making debating points, how can you not honor what he's done in the main and will do? It's obviously fine to let folks know when you disagree with him, but if we don't rally around his broad program, we will potentially miss our best opportunity in years to help more people reach the American dream. Get real.

    Posted by tmginnova at 04/26/2009 @ 7:47pm