Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditA few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow appeared on Charlie Rose and announced that conservatives weren't the only ones disenchanted with Barack Obama. "The President has disappointed the left," she said. Rose asked her to be more specific – on what exactly? "I would say on the war, on healthcare, on economic [policy]… on civil liberties and on civil rights," Maddow said.
That's pretty deep disappointment. But if it's true, it begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes "the left." Certainly not most Democrats, 90 percent of whom approve of Obama's job performance (that's from the latest Quinnipiac survey; other polls have recorded even higher figures). Or most African-Americans, among whom Obama's approval rating is 94 percent. Or most Hispanics, 70 percent of whom think Obama is doing a fine job. Or most voters under thirty-five.
Maddow, presumably, was referring to a much smaller cohort of self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians, and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama.
I know a number of such people (they're not hard to find in New York City), and, since watching Maddow's appearance on Charlie Rose, I've shared Maddow's assessment of Obama with some of them and asked whether they agreed with it. Nearly all have said they did not, quite a number sharply and angrily. "That's absurd!" one exclaimed. "Ridiculous," said another. What explains this? I think there are three reasons:
(1) Progressives and left-leaning Democrats (if not self-identified radicals who want the system overthrown) are in an overwhelmingly pragmatic mood, notwithstanding the wide-eyed idealism that supposedly swept Obama into office. They see the auto industry collapsing, the financial system melting down, Pakistan imploding, Iran imploding, jobs disappearing. These are big, complicated problems that do not seem amenable to easy solutions or quick ideological fixes. The fact that Obama has been confronted with so many problems all at once naturally makes people sympathize with the sheer difficulty of the challenge facing him.
(2) The legacy of the Bush era. Eight years of colossal ineptitude and corruption is not easily forgotten. Whatever progressives may think of a specific Obama policy or initiative, they remember what it was like to have a President who consistently insulted their intelligence and seemed completely out of his depth on just about every issue imaginable. Those who don't remember this got a useful reminder recently from Sarah Palin.
(3) The likeability of Obama. Obama is not an ideological leftist, clearly, but nobody who has listened to his speech on race or his speech in Cairo can doubt his moral seriousness, his thoughtfulness, his uncanny ability to strike the right tone even when (precisely when) addressing freighted, divisive issues. Rachel Maddow told Charlie Rose she was a policy person, but many progressives understandably see their country's first African-American President as a unique, in many ways transformative figure, and I suspect the vast majority find themselves rooting for Obama - and appreciating him - even when they don't fully agree with what he's saying.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama. "
Oh, B_KOOL.....you're up!
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 2:49pm
i know he's popular at goldman sachs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 2:51pm
Now, FZ, just because you're NOT in a pragmatic mood, nor apparently in a majority....no reason to get snippy!
"(1) Progressives and left-leaning Democrats (if not self-identified radicals who want the system overthrown) are in an overwhelmingly pragmatic mood, notwithstanding the wide-eyed idealism that supposedly swept Obama into office. "
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:06pm
"Those who don't remember this got a useful reminder recently from Sarah Palin."
the babbling milf larouche of the right! yes indeed i was reminded of the mushmouthed trustfundwonder homer W. simpson as them gooses was a honkin' and ruttin' in that wasilla pond (winky-poo!)...
but i don't think "the left", admirably defined by EYAL, as rachel refers to it, is...
a. that big a force or...
b. more than miffed.
al franken should run a half serious, "friendly reminder" protest campaign for the dem nomination in 2012 - not to win nor deflate obama, but to give voice to those who feel obama is not going far enough...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/08/2009 @ 3:07pm
Eyal, I think you misspelled something. It is pwogwessive, not progressive.
Posted by lnp3 at 07/08/2009 @ 3:27pm
Eyal, I think you misspelled something. It is pwogwessive, not progressive.
Posted by lnp3 at 07/08/2009 @ 3:32pm
I think Ms. PRESS has been hitting the Kool-aid `Refresh' bottle HARD.....squeezing for all it's worth to keep pumping thrills into her veins.
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
If you spend time on DKos, which is the Rachel Maddow type left (and not all white), you will see an increasingly rising tide of disappointment and frustration, and even a sense of anger and betrayal, about Obama.
Posted by gren at 07/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by gren at 07/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
When I hear the Right talk about the "fracturing Left" and "rising dislike of Obama", I'm always reminded of Alec Guinness in "Hitler: The Last 10 Days" (No, not a "Godwin's Law" violation)...
A scene where an aide tells "Hitler" that "The Russians and the Americans met at the Elbe River, sir...there's reports of FIGHTING between them!" and "Hitler" gleefully predicts how the two allies will be at war and HE "will negotiate the peace."
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 3:51pm
The left that Maddow refers to should not be disappointed only with Obama but with the vast majority of our people as well. Nowadays there appears to be only two popular political trends in America; either you side with the vast right wing conspiracy or you join those who identify with the Obama democrats and have HOPE he can fix our problems. Even after the enormous failures of the Bush era, rightist politics still enjoy popular support. And if the Democrats' sophistry continues to ALSO enjoy popular support (as your stats reveal), then NONE of the ideas of the left will be realized during the Obama era. "Disappointment" will be the least of our feelings. Both the right and the Democrats now have a faith based rather than a cognitive, historical based politic. It appears that there is NO vast left wing conspiracy to counter the degrees of the madness stretching from Obama to Bush. So, in practical terms, without popular support, the left Maddow refers to might as well not exist. And, I am afraid, SOON, the America of liberty and justice for all may also not exist, in any practical terms.
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/08/2009 @ 3:57pm
Considering the mess he was handed (biggest recession since 1930s, 2 wars, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I am going to give more than 5 months, before I judge his presidency.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/08/2009 @ 4:02pm
I'm with Rachel, a bit flustered over our man's inability to get on with the progressive agenda, but I'm WAY outraged over his failure to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Must we still kill off our children in this pointless conflict? What for?
And what's with the Congress? Where'd they put their courage, in the deep freeze?
I mean really. We won. Let's act like the Right when they won. At least a little bit, fer cryin' out loud.
Posted by barnesgene at 07/08/2009 @ 4:02pm
I am absolutely with Rachel ... I voted to end wars of aggression and to get a health care plan in this country that works for ME. I didn't vote to bail out banks and crap on auto workers. I didn't vote for "bi-partisanship" with the weasels in the GOP but to set this country straight. I'll grant you the gutless reps in Congress don't have a spine for REAL change but I had hoped Obama would kick them into shape instead of trying to "reason" with them. Thus far I am not impressed with fly swatting and depression gardens.
Posted by mjlegel at 07/08/2009 @ 4:11pm
This redneck progressive's two-bit opinion: The president is a brilliant man, but he lacks one key element: testicular fortitude, or whatever you want to call it. If LBJ were in office and wanted to reform healthcare, he'd be on the phone or up in the face of everyone blocking the legislation. He'd threaten to expose them to their constituents. He would get it done.
But not our new President Hoover. He's either in the pocket of the insurance industry and lobby, or he's simply weak, or all he can figure out to do is wait and see. He needs to stop pretending he's Lincoln and get some Johnson-style arm-twisting going on.
Posted by Citizen54 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:27pm
Is the Left now so big that we can segment it into White Progressives and Black progressives? Why stop there? Let's take things to their logical conclusion, and then we'll be able to read poll results like,
"59% of Latino Trotskyists are dissatisfied with the President's Health Care plan, while over 44% of Nader supporters of Korean origin in Arizona and New Mexico feel the same way. 10% of Jewish Woodie Guthrie cover artists deem the stimulus plan "insufficient," as do a majority of Senegalese-American librarians and Italian-American anarcho-syndicalists living in the suburbs of Billings, Montana."
The left is already fragmented enough- please don't bring a non-issue like race into the mix!
Posted by Fako at 07/08/2009 @ 5:07pm
The vast majority of America will soon be ashamed of OBAMMA
Posted by prweigandt at 07/08/2009 @ 5:44pm
Maddow has it right. And the writer's "survey" is so limited as to prove absolutely nothing.
Except perhaps that it pays to have friends at GoldmanSachs.
Posted by sloper at 07/08/2009 @ 6:10pm
Maddow has it right. And the writer's "survey" is so limited as to prove absolutely nothing.
Except perhaps that it pays to have friends at GoldmanSachs.
Posted by sloper at 07/08/2009 @ 6:11pm
Posted by gren at 07/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
Which is stupid, because Obama is delivering exactly what he promised.
Posted by Citizen54 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:27pm
Testicular fortitude? Is that like elephantitits? Do we want leaders with that problem?
Posted by Fako at 07/08/2009 @ 5:07pm
How about we bring in homosexuality into the discussion, because that's what she's talking about. Obama doesn't want to be a strong supporter of gay rights because it is guaranteed to stir the hornet's nest when he's got bigger fish to fry. A lot of the people in the LGBT community don't like it, and unfortunately, they have to live with the reality that it isn't going to happen overnight. But, it makes more sense to do it state by state anyway, so I really don't understand why they fault Obama on this point.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 6:35pm
Extraneous is right. It's only 5 months. Obama is laying the groundwork for many initiatives, economic and otherwise, that will bear fruit over the next couple of years.
It seems some here are a bit impatient. Others, just nutty.
Posted by erazma at 07/08/2009 @ 6:43pm
Obama has been a disappointment on a variety of fronts. There is word today from the administration that Gitmo will NOT be closed by the date promised; torture continues there (detainees are strapped to chairs and force-fed in needlessly cruel fashion, some continue to report beatings, etc.); rendition of suspects to countries that torture has not been halted; the administration uses the bogus "states secrets" doctrine to prevent detainees from suing the government for the torture they endured; the DOJ is now saying that detainees who are actually acquitted in a court of law will remain in prison, if Obama sees fit; massive surveillance of Americans' communication continues full speed ahead. Obama has funneled hundreds of billions to Wall Street, let cramdown fail, so that millions more will be forced to default on their mortgages, refused to push EFCA, and allowed the stimulus to be cut, so that it was not nearly large enough to staunch continued job losses. He now has escalated the war in Afganistan, without being able to explain to the American people, just why this is needed. His poll numbers in Ohio have dropped from 62% to 49% in the past two months. His failure to take strong stands and fight for truly progressive policies is taking its toll. And the Republicans, not the Democrats will stand to benefit eventually, if he doesn't realize the urgency of the problems this country faces, and begin to take strong action.
Posted by CarolynC967 at 07/08/2009 @ 7:34pm
What is most laughable is the insane imagined support for Obamanation and the Demoncrats now that they own the economic crisis and NOTHING they have done is of consequence to the American citizen and voter except their promise of exponentially higher national debt, budgets, and taxes, taxes, taxes, and more taxes; assure us that they will further kill the economy and drive even more American companies and corporations to seek workers overseas-offshore and eventually assurance that there will be untaxable profits and growth!!!
They could not have designed a better plan to destroy America even if they had simply bombed industry, business, and the corresponding jobs out of existence!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/08/2009 @ 8:28pm
If LBJ were in office and wanted to reform healthcare, he'd be on the phone or up in the face of everyone blocking the legislation. He'd threaten to expose them to their constituents. He would get it done.
Posted by Citizen54 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes.
WHATEVER ELSE MAY BE SAID OF THE MAN, LBJ was relentless at pushing for what he wanted.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/08/2009 @ 8:43pm
There are always going to be a minority of people who hate the President. Happy, is sitting here trumpeting the point that people dislike Obama, but he still has over 60% approvale ratings. He was making excuses for people disliking Bush when Bush had 30% approval ratings. There are always going to be the people on the outside who think he is either doing not enough (far left) or too much (far right), just by doing anything.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/08/2009 @ 8:55pm
For the left to keep blaming Bush for all the economic problems makes them look more and more silly with each passing day. One thing I notice is you guys never bring up Truman's motto "the buck stops here". Obama is no Truman.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/08/2009 @ 9:09pm
Considering the mess he was handed (biggest recession since 1930s, 2 wars, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I am going to give more than 5 months, before I judge his presidency. Posted by Extraneous at 07/08/2009 @ 4:02pm
Just for jollies...during the depression unemployment was about 25% - under Bush the high was 7% at the end, mainly due to a democratic congress. Iraq was mostly at peace. Afghanistan has Recently got hot again. Iran and NKO have always been idiotic and nothing has changed there except now they are not afraid of us because of the weaklings in the White House and congress. Hows that 'hope and change' working for you?
Posted by pyeatte at 07/08/2009 @ 9:28pm
Posted by gren at 07/08/2009 @ 3:34pm
Which is stupid, because Obama is delivering exactly what he promised.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 6:35pm
Lord help us.......even srj is taking on Kool-aid!
"exactly" is a pretty EXACTING word.....and being the researcher you are, want to give it a whirl?
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:41pm
Considering the mess he was handed (biggest recession since 1930s, 2 wars, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I am going to give more than 5 months, before I judge his presidency.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/08/2009 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh, I see this is NOT like 9-11 happening 8 months after he became President after inheriting 8 yrs. of Clinton totally ignoring the many Islamic Terrorist attacks against U.S.A. embassies, citizens, servicemen and our navy! How could we have missed that?
Posted by BigPasture at 07/08/2009 @ 9:42pm
For the left to keep blaming Bush for all the economic problems makes them look more and more silly with each passing day. One thing I notice is you guys never bring up Truman's motto "the buck stops here". Obama is no Truman.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/08/2009 @ 9:09pm
And us Cons do NOT want them to stop passing the buck BACKWARD.......I want them to keep on passing the buck backward as long as possible, so they can think they are squeezing all they can out of this `crisis'.........lest it goes to waste, for us!
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:46pm
Obama is laying the groundwork for many initiatives, economic and otherwise, that will bear fruit over the next couple of years.
Posted by erazma at 07/08/2009 @ 6:43pm
So far, the only folks whose predictions have panned out are the Repubs as we saw the passage of several "initiatives" that led to further economic decay. Magic and you of course, prefer to say you didn't have "complete information...and would do nothing differently".
Let me go on record and further predict, if more wonderful and Magical initiatives pass, say just CapandDie and a BIG health care bill, you can kiss 2010 goodbye...as well as 2011 when Bush's tax cuts disappear. By then, HusseinO will have morphed into Carter squared and the Dems will be slaughtered in 2012.
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:53pm
His poll numbers in Ohio have dropped from 62% to 49% in the past two months. His failure to take strong stands and fight for truly progressive policies is taking its toll....
Posted by CarolynC967 at 07/08/2009 @ 7:34pm
Hate to break it to you, honey........had Magic pursued "truly progressive policies", he would down in the teens and twenties. Your tribe of `true' progressives is pretty tiny....but you bark "above your pay grade"....:)
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:58pm
Obama is laying the groundwork for many initiatives, economic and otherwise, that will bear fruit over the next couple of years.
Posted by erazma at 07/08/2009 @ 6:43pm
Don't look now but the batteries in his Prius are DEAD and he thinks buying new ones with a new "Porkulus" will make it suck less!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/08/2009 @ 10:02pm
It kind of sounds like Press is railing against a minority of liberal elitists. Who does that sound like?
Posted by ashb at 07/08/2009 @ 10:49pm
"How about we bring in homosexuality into the discussion, because that's what she's talking about. Obama doesn't want to be a strong supporter of gay rights because it is guaranteed to stir the hornet's nest when he's got bigger fish to fry. A lot of the people in the LGBT community don't like it, and unfortunately, they have to live with the reality that it isn't going to happen overnight. But, it makes more sense to do it state by state anyway, so I really don't understand why they fault Obama on this point.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/08/2009 @ 6:35pm "
srjenkins, I am sick of idiots like you. How is a human rights issue (and a national security issue) not a big enough issue to deal with at the current time? How many more competent, able bodied people are we going to willingly kick out? How many more patriotic servicemen are going to be fired for something that is completely irrelevant to the job they are doing? And are you happy knowing that your security and your well being is at great risk now that we are kicking out competent gays but recruiting petty criminals in their place?
Posted by badsushichef at 07/08/2009 @ 11:06pm
How could we have missed that?
Posted by BigPasture at 07/08/2009 @ 9:42pm
By not reading the august 2003 PDB and being more interested in taking the longest vacation in presidential history.
Posted by Shingo at 07/08/2009 @ 11:10pm
If asked, I'd say that, overall, I approve of Obama's performance. However, the president has disappointed me on more than one issue since he was elected. The author points out that Obama is dealing with many complex problems, yet he (Press) then proceeds to make this into a black or while issue, which it isn't.
He says, "the vast majority find themselves rooting for Obama - and appreciating him - even when they don't fully agree with what he's saying."
So because I've been disappointed in some of the Obama administration's actions, I'm not supportive? If I express that disappointment and disagreement, I'm not supportive?
I'm really troubled by the trend of criticizing anyone who questions and disagrees with Obama. We are abdicating one of our fundamental rights as Americans if we offer unquestioning, blind allegiance to Obama or any other government leader.
Posted by ashb at 07/08/2009 @ 11:26pm
And that makes sense to you Shingo how?
Posted by BigPasture at 07/08/2009 @ 11:28pm
I generally agree with this assessment; granted, I am not one who definitely identifies with the left; but please consider something from this 35 year old voter [34 when I voted for Obama last November]. I have never been a registered Dem and still am a registered Republican, though I consider myself completely independent in spirit. But Obama, let's say, BROUGHT ME AROUND TO A LOT OF THE VALUE IN DEMOCRATS' IDEAS. Considering how many of us elephants cast our vote for Obama last fall, that says something! If Obama had swung hard left during the campaign, would many of us have voted for him? And the same is true as he governs. And I think this is what a Rachel Maddow may not get, a wise old saying that still holds true: you catch more flies with honey. I think Obama DOES get that! That's why he is now President. But now, as I've been tasting that honey, I see there is some real substance behind it. He has to make choices [pick battles]; and yes, giving right-wingers a 'rallying cry' may not be the wisest political choice. Ask yourselves, if you're left-wing purists, is it worth giving up any chance at health care reform this year to harp on some of the other issues? Obama is saying health care reform is TOP PRIORITY. And here is another thing I like about Obama, and that drew me to him. In his book, Audacity of Hope, he spoke of the need to 'change int'l relations' in a way that we in the U.S. don't just assume we're right, but we 'respect' those who don't agree with us. The left seems to like that about him. The thing is, I think he applies this across the board, that is, to REPUBLICANS also. It's who he is; when Obma talks mutual repect, that is OBAMA BEING OBAMA! And it's true in foreign policy AND in domestic political rhetoric. WHAT A BREATH OF FRESH AIR!
Posted by bretth at 07/08/2009 @ 11:50pm
"Just for jollies...during the depression unemployment was about 25% - under Bush the high was 7% at the end, mainly due to a democratic congress. Iraq was mostly at peace. Afghanistan has Recently got hot again. Iran and NKO have always been idiotic and nothing has changed there except now they are not afraid of us because of the weaklings in the White House and congress. Hows that 'hope and change' working for you? Posted by pyeatte at 07/08/2009 @ 9:28pm
----------------------
Not that I am happy with Obama's performance to date--although he is doing much of what I sadly thought he would--really, you need to keep up on the news. Afghanistan recently got hot again? Just because you might be too lazy to search beyond the corporate media for what was going on there the past few years, doesn't mean nothing was happening. Iraq was mostly at peace? One man's peace is another occupied citizen's hell.
As to a Democratic congress leading to the 7% unemployment, that is just stupid. It is the product of policies for the last 30 or so years, produced by Democrats and Republicans.
Hope you and Big Pasture get high school diplomas one day.
Posted by onthehelm at 07/09/2009 @ 12:40am
Well there's certainly plenty of nonsense flying around here
I can tell you with the uTmost certainty that Rachel maddow speaks for no one but the select tool bags that watch her show and take her seriously.
Obama was NEVER a left wing ideologue, as any thinking person has known since the beginning. He ran as a centrist, he IS a centrist, and the only people who think or say otherwise are the nuts on the left and the right.
I personally have never been a huge fan of the president, and chances are his agenda will never really ring true in my mind. That doesn't change the fact that he has been almost entirely transparent about said agenda from day one.
Maybe if his "leftist" supporters hadn't let themselves get drawn in by his speeches, there wouldn't be so many liberal-hippie-douches crying foul right now.
As far as his performance? Subpar, but then again it's not a surprise.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 01:24am
Also: give the man at least a year for god's sake. He is in the unfortunate position of being in charge of a huge mess left for him by his predecessors democrat and republican alike. But ESPECIALLY our most recent administration's mess.
I don't envy him one bit.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 01:33am
I believe Rachel Maddow DOES speak for the Left, and she does speak for me.
Perhaps it is wrong to assume that any white person, however smart, speaks "for" people of color -- basically because this assumption enables the white establishment to ignore people of color who are more than capable of speaking for themselves.
At the same time, I would not go so far as to characterize as "white" those progressives who (in the words of Eyal Press) "favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians, and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama." I would venture to guess that there are probably a few people of color in this cohort, and it would be wrong to ignore them, particularly at a time when the white establishment focuses a spotlight upon conservatives of color -- for obvious ideological reasons.
How tragic and ironic it would be if white progressives contributed to the invisibility of progressives of color by ignoring them!
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 06:54am
"BigPasture's" lament about 'Clinton totally ignoring the many Islamic Terrorist attacks against U.S.A. embassies, citizens, servicemen and our navy!'
is a complete falsehood.
Here is what "Wikipedia" says:
"In response to the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed a dozen Americans and hundreds of Africans, Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. He was subsequently criticized when it turned out that a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan (originally claimed to be a chemical warfare plant) had been destroyed."
Whether you agree with what President Clinton did in response to those al-Qaeda attacks or not, it is an absolute lie to say that he did nothing.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 07:01am
Good for Rachel. Obama needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I am not a radical democrat. But, I believe that if a candidate makes campaign promises, that candidate better follow through on those promises. If a dem controlled Congress along with a dem in the White House can't get any legislation passed, what the hell did we vote them into power for?
W managed to cram a ton of bills through during his tenure. So, either W knew how to use the office of the president better than Obama or Obama is dragging his feet straddling the fence. I believe Obama is more intelligent and competent man than W so I lean toward the latter.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 07:05am
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:41pm
I didn't say I liked what he was doing Happy. But, he did say he was going to escalate war in Afghanistan, try to rebuild our stature in the world, do something about the financial crisis, fix health care, support alternative energy, etc. I think he is doing what he said he would do.
Conservatives don't like the fact that the government is now heavily involved in the economy. But, conservatives, in part, created the environment that made this necessary. So, I don't find their whining very convincing.
People on the left side of the spectrum that complain that he isn't following through on domestic spying, Gitmo, use of the "states secrets" defense and so forth didn't pay attention to his policy positions - because it was always pretty clear that he would be pragmatic on these issues. He was concerned about them, but he would give any of them up the moment it became politically expedient to do so.
So, in other words: Obama isn't much of a change. It's also why I didn't vote for him.
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2009 @ 9:58pm
Just a note, you may want to avoid the use of the word "honey".
Posted by badsushichef at 07/08/2009 @ 11:06pm
And I am sick of idiots like you that can't recognize a friend when they see one. The bottom line is that "equal rights" isn't going to happen overnight and trying to pretend that our national security rests on gay people being in the military smells of complete bullshit - particularly by anyone who has spent any time in the military.
Ever consider the problems that get introduced when you introduce sex (whether it is females or homosexuals) into very close quarters during conflict? I bet you haven't.
I think you are correct but using this argument is only going to delay your cause.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/09/2009 @ 07:15am
Also: give the man at least a year for god's sake. He is in the unfortunate position of being in charge of a huge mess left for him by his predecessors democrat and republican alike. But ESPECIALLY our most recent administration's mess.
I don't envy him one bit.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 01:33am
Good point TF. I don't envy his position at all. But, in his position, he needs to take some serious changes in our heading. As it stands, we have states going broke yet we have bases plastered all over the world, are fighting one war in Afghanistan and are maintaining a high level of troops in Iraq on standby.
Any president should be smart enough to realize that if the nation is hurting for money, that it should stop spending trillions of dollars defending foreign business interests. Iraq has been huge drain on our economy. The defense industry has been a huge drag on our economy. Wall Street and the banks have been a huge drain on our economy.
We're losing jobs like they are going out of style and so far the answer we've been given is help is on the way and hang in there. That doesn't quite cut it in light of the fact that we tax payers just bailed out a bunch of corrupt thieves and also watched a corrupt administration walk away from their endeavors laced with money they made from defense contracts through graft.
A step in the right direction would be holding Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Wolfowitz, accountable at a minimum for their use of their office while obvious conflicts of interests were at hand. Then we have W who's daddy was making business deals with foreign interests behind the scenes while his son was president....once again, at a minimum a serious conflict of interest if not out right treason.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 07:24am
What a pathetic post.
"self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians"
Because there are no Black people with such positions? Or is that you don't need to discuss Blacks because any Black people with such positions obviously must love Obama unconditionally anyway, not for the reasons your white friends do, but just because he's Black too?
This little aside edges past mere race-baiting towards simply being racist.
Posted by Kal at 07/09/2009 @ 07:30am
Maddow speaks for real principled progressives like me. It is about what Obama does or does not do. It is not about his personal likeability. Just today I read at commondreams.org that Obama supports expanded nuclear plant construction. That is TERRIBLE! I am strongly opposed to that. As I am opposed to endless wars/occupations in Iraq/Afghanistan. And endless increases in the military budget. (I could go on.) These are real issues that cannot be papered over with feel-good false unity. Real progressives are very disappointed with Obama. Maddow DOES speak for us.
Posted by philbq at 07/09/2009 @ 07:33am
Isn't it interesting how the Righties say BOTH-
"Obama is a radical socialist trying to destroy America"
AND "He's not changing anything"???
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 07:51am
Awwww c'mon Rachel has her own show and that is a big step for transgender people everywhere.
Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2009 @ 10:25am
I believe she's a lesbian, not a transgender....
you know, like Mary Cheney?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:43am
Posted by philbq at 07/09/2009 @ 07:33am
Anyone seriously advocating alternative energy sources to oil has to look at nuclear options. I know a nuclear engineer that thinks nuclear plants and waste can be safely managed. But, I think of 3 mile island and some other accidents and I pause.
However, it is worth noting that France relies heavily on nuclear energy. So, there is a working model out there that suggests it might be a solution. Do you have good information that makes you think this is TERRIBLE? Or is this knee-jerk environmentalism?
Posted by abell12ct at 07/09/2009 @ 10:25am
Transgender means adopting a gender different that your sex. That's not what Rachel is doing.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/09/2009 @ 10:48am
Wolfgang,
like I said, I've never been a supporter of Obama or his relatively milquetoast platform.
I think america needs way more than he (or the half-assed uber-corrupt democrats) are going to be willing or able to give.
If he does a good job more power to him. I just don't see that really happening.
Hey at least it's better than four years of listening to the hypocrites on the "right" talk about family values while they fuck their mistresses and let their children have unprotected sex in the name of god.
The nutty "quitter" from alaskas nomination was about the only thing that made me vote for Barry.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 11:20am
Sorry for the lack of punctuation and general shitiness. I just bought an iPhone, and I'm still adjusting to the typing.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 11:34am
I quit listening to Maddow when I learned about her policy on war. I quit getting Huff Post when I received an email from Mortimer Zuckerman about how dangerous Iran was. I think she is right about the disappointment of the left. I just listened to a discussion of Obama's financial policy between James Galbraith and William K. Black on Pacifica's KPFK.
It can be heard at: http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/ 7 AM Eisha Mason the first 30 minutes
The summary by William K. Black There are no strong points of obama's plan. The market ran wild over the people and will probably do so again.
Posted by real_timexx at 07/09/2009 @ 11:37am
On the newer Eyal Press thread, we have now leared that Rachel Maddow is ...
part of the "Manufacturing Consent" Media!
Posted by smoliar at 07/09/2009 @ 11:49am
smo has raised a "Chomsky"...anybody going to call or fold?....LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 11:54am
Obama has established a firm pattern of making pretty speeches, then acting diamterically opposed to what he has promised. He's a fake and a fraud.He was groomed to continue the Bush dictatorship. It really doesn't matter who is president with our fake electoral system.
He could implement a universal single payer health care system if he really wanted to (like he promised) in one day by ending the 3 wars that are illegal, unnecessary and unwinnable, and also stop the billions paid to Israel to wage genocide on the Palestinians and continue building settlements.Instead we have descended into the gutter and all the restoration of global respect is a puff of smoke.
In his recent book, Rahm's MD brother plainly states that medicare and social security are to be phased out.Putin was not fooled by Obama-he sees that Obama has lied about everything from torture to health care. Putin has his number and does not trust him. That's why Obama will never investigate war crimes, because he's a war criminal himself.
Throughout history, dictatorships have never ever ever ended by democratic means.But we allowed Diebold, never protested, stupid stupid sheeple that we are.The world sees us as pathetic and dangerous.
Posted by mystic at 07/09/2009 @ 12:01pm
Just ignore abell12ct. He knows Rachel's gay not transgender, but wants to show off his homophobic ignorance. Bet he loves Ann Coulter (formerly known as Arthur Coltrane) though. Rachel does speak for true progressives, and in the interview (which I actually watched unlike those commenting without a clue) she said that Obama's policies are what she expected, she knew he was a centrist, however he did promise removing, DOMA, ending the Iraq war, etc... I agree with Rachel 100%
Posted by baystater at 07/09/2009 @ 12:17pm
"Putin was not fooled by Obama-he sees that Obama has lied about everything from torture to health care. Putin has his number and does not trust him. "-----Posted by mystic at 07/09/2009 @ 12:01pm
You're allying yourself with...
Vladimir Putin.....okaaaaay.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:19pm
#
Sorry for the lack of punctuation and general shitiness. I just bought an iPhone, and I'm still adjusting to the typing.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 11:34am
TF, Don't apologize, your post was pretty much on target with or without grammatical errors.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 1:23pm
I do analysis and not ideology! I voted for Kucinich and Nader. They might not be perfect, but you can trust them!
Posted by pjcasey at 07/09/2009 @ 4:03pm
And I am sick of idiots like you that can't recognize a friend when they see one. The bottom line is that "equal rights" isn't going to happen overnight and trying to pretend that our national security rests on gay people being in the military smells of complete bullshit - particularly by anyone who has spent any time in the military.
Ever consider the problems that get introduced when you introduce sex (whether it is females or homosexuals) into very close quarters during conflict? I bet you haven't.
I think you are correct but using this argument is only going to delay your cause.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/09/2009 @ 07:15am | ignore this person | warn this person >>>
You reek of homophobia. Putting "equal rights" in quotes is not going to convince me that you are on my side. I never ever once said that our national security rests solely on letting gay people serve openly in the military; but it does put our country at risk when we are firing competent people and preventing them from doing their job. I have considered the problems of sex within closed quarters but what does that have to do with DADT? Lt. Dan Choi was kicked out because he said he was gay, not because of any sexual conduct that happened between him and a peer. The other man who was interviewed on Rachel Maddow was kicked out because someone outed him (before he was even out to his parents) ando also had nothing to do with any sexual misconduct on his part. There is already a policy in place that says you cannot have sex within the military. And pleeeaaasse don't tell me that you think that DADT is somehow preventing people from having gay sex (or any sort of sex) within the military.
Please don't tell me that. Don't tell me you are that naive.
Posted by badsushichef at 07/09/2009 @ 4:18pm
Here's the Maddow interview link, folks:
www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10400
It's only 20 minutes or so of your time, and worth it I think.
I can't begin to spell out my own --fairly complex-- views in a brief post, but in the simplest terms it ought to be rather obvious to the alert and intelligent that we are living in a time of rapidly darkening prospects, overall.
The ease with which multiple hundreds of billions of dollars was liberated last year from U.S. taxpayers pockets to save the captains of our economic Titanic is perhaps the only symbolic moment one might need to understand the depths to which we are almost certainly headed.
The rest is just details --albeit demonic details that only add to the potential horror.
On a final note, no one should be under any illusions regarding the recent Cheney/Bush administration. It could accurately be understood as essentially the eyes of the crocodile. There's more to this beast than most of us truly know --and it aint over just 'cuz Obama's in charge.
But let's please keep our heads up, our eyes wide open, and our ears pricked up. We'll need every bit of sense to emerge intact.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:36pm
Oops.
The ease with which multiple hundreds of billions of dollars "were" (not "was") liberated --of course.
Peace, out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:40pm
You're right, not all progressives think Obama's a jerk. Only those with 17 or more living brain cells over the age of seven who have read the Constitution and graduated from junior high and don't think their preacher is a genius and know what the Bill of Rights is and that Gitmo is an abbreviation for Guantanamo which is a metaphor for a torture camp and that Reagan funded the Taliban in the '80s and know that Africa is a continent think Obama is a jerk. That's not many, I know.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/09/2009 @ 6:36pm
They might not be perfect, but you can trust them!----Posted by pjcasey at 07/09/2009 @ 4:03pm
Great....what do they actually get done?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:53pm
I tend to agree with Rachel. Most of the people I'e talked to think that Obama is setting the record for alienating is backers. I hope he ets challenged from the left.
Posted by lnh at 07/09/2009 @ 7:31pm
Look at the polls at www.rasmussenreports.com Obama is tanking.
Posted by lnh at 07/09/2009 @ 7:40pm
Posted by badsushichef at 07/09/2009 @ 4:18pm
"You reek of homophobia."
You reek of asshat who calls people names because they don't agree with him. Let's see: trillions wasted in pointless wars, economy on life support and gay rights. Which one of these things doesn't belong?
And the funny thing is that I'm as big of an ally as your likely to find - continue to ostracize and name call people like and you can be sure that gay rights will spend a few more decades in the closet.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/09/2009 @ 8:21pm
The question is not,
Who does Rachel Maddow speak for?
rather
Who does Rachel Maddow speak to?
Or haven't you seen her Nielsen ratings of late?
Posted by bleedingheart at 07/09/2009 @ 8:51pm
"Look at the polls at www.rasmussenreports.com Obama is tanking."
That Rassmussen outfit is a bunch of rightwing propagandists!
(Now Gallup on the other hand ... well ... yep ... tanking)
Should have voted for Ralph.
Posted by bleedingheart at 07/09/2009 @ 8:55pm
Good article. As a feminist, I am glad that Obama is president but also disappointed in him. True, he is much better than McCain (or Bush), but I still don't think he has done enough on women's rights, the environment, health care, and so on. The Cairo speech had its powerful movements, but his comments on women's rights were superficial and condescending.
I think it will take stronger mass movements to really push Obama in a progressive direction, but I also wonder if the days of powerful mass movements are over. Have the powers-that-be become so adept at coopting social justice movements that activists can't achieve any breakthroughs?
Posted by ktrig at 07/09/2009 @ 9:31pm
Maddow is exactly correct ...
Obama has been a nightmare for true Progressives ...
His largess for the banksters is truly astounding ... 13.9 trillion dollars while he punts on Credit Card reform and cramdowns ...
The War, privacy, Gay rights , health care and the list goes on ...
Don't listen to what he says , the pretty speeches , watch what he does , the dirty little secrets ...
Posted by mmckinl at 07/09/2009 @ 10:41pm
Posted by badsushichef at 07/09/2009 @ 4:18pm
"You reek of homophobia."
You reek of asshat who calls people names because they don't agree with him. Let's see: trillions wasted in pointless wars, economy on life support and gay rights. Which one of these things doesn't belong?
And the funny thing is that I'm as big of an ally as your likely to find - continue to ostracize and name call people like and you can be sure that gay rights will spend a few more decades in the closet.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/09/2009 @ 8:21pm>>>
Awww. Did I hurt your feelings? :,( :( :( :)
I feel that as a president, he has to multi task. And I do not believe that ending DADT will be as tough as people make it out to be. Putting an executive order to stop the unjust firing of good soldiers who happen to be gay would be a good start.
And you sound completely charming yourself, ass napkin. Or is that too much? Sorry, I just had to. :D
Posted by badsushichef at 07/10/2009 @ 01:28am
Somebody to whom Obama will listen should tell him that his wars are going to ruin his prsidency. It is not just liberal fringe types who fear it. The American right is already sharpening its knives, thinking that Obama's momentum is faltering and that he will soon be in trouble. Their tactics are to slow things down, to delay, delay, delay Obama's legislation, until Obama is weakened and then to strike at him hard during the 2010 elections. As for the pretty speeches, they dont mean a thing unless they are followed up by action. Otherwise, it just the usual presidential bull.
Posted by mikhailovich at 07/10/2009 @ 05:55am
Posted by badsushichef at 07/10/2009 @ 01:28am
Yes, and doing so will led to breast beating and teeth nashing by a certain segment of society that will result in the President moving nothing forward as he "multitasks". Sounds like a brilliant strategy.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/10/2009 @ 07:17am
God people it was a joke. I didn't know she was gay and I don't care. At least she isn't checking out 16 year old Brazilians like the "one" did at the G8 summit.
Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2009 @ 07:30am
I didn't know she was gay and I don't care. ---Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2009 @ 07:30am
You're lying, abell and you know it.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 07:58am
No I'm not lying and you are just trying the old Democrat trick of demonizing someone you don't agree with. My Mother in law is gay; my uncle is gay; several of my friends are gay and I don't care.
Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2009 @ 08:00am
No, abell, you're lying.
A reference to "transgender" was simply your way of exaggerating the fact that Maddow is a lesbian and extending it out for "humorous effect" to her being transgender.
You KNEW that she was gay....a Hard Righty like you, no doubt a visitor to other blogs, would have AT THE LEAST seen a few insults or read a bio of Maddow.
You're just trying to backpedal now from your "joke" backfiring.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 09:01am
What crap. "White" progressives. This schmuck reaches his conclusions by anecdotal questions of how many white men(and women?). I am Hispanic, live in the southwest and have come to the painful conclusion that Obama and his Administration are frauds and nothing but a better spoken rerun of the last 9 years or so. They are not transparent, they do not support civil liberties, the are prosecuting the "WARS" no differently than Bush, they have perpetrated a terrible scam on the American people with their so called stimulus which was not large enough or directed at the right things or focused enough. They have caved on health care, they have proposed financial regs that are a joke, argued vehemently against gays and in large part I would be hard pressed to find a single thing they've so far done that comports with their campaign promises or anything remotely resembling a "progressive" Administration. Read Taibbi, Reich, Krugman, Stiglitz and other civil libertarian as well as the ACLU for analysis. What we have is Bush lite. If I'm supposed to support this shit regardless of an "real change I can believe in" then I would also be a fraud just like the writer of this article.
Posted by alan2a at 07/10/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by alan2a at 07/10/2009 @ 09:57am
No worries...in 2 years, 10 months, Ralph Nader will emerge from his "undisclosed location" and you can start in on that musical chairs game again.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:21am
The polls are not asking the right questions. I believe you are on to something with the 3 reasons you list to explain why "the left" is more disenchanted with Obama than "the Democrats". However, if the polling were done differently, if the questions had a finer level of granularity, the results might be different.
I don't believe you have to be a bomb-chukkin' anarchist to understand that Obama has not lived up to campaign promises he made regarding transparency, the Constitution, the wars, and others.
Yes, Obama is charming, but so was Bush until it became obvious to everyone that every time he cracked his piehole another lie spilled out.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 07/10/2009 @ 10:41am
Exactly what part of "campaign promises" do you not understand, people?
Anyone who isn't voting for the first time must know that promises made on the campaign trail are for immediate consumption only, and cannot be saved and brought out later for review.
These things you want - End the Iraq war, provide universal health care, fix global warming, fix the economy, provide freedom and justice for all (??) - they're just ideas, offered up so you know the kind of man you're dealing with.
You didn't actually expect him to do all that stuff, did you? He's only the President, fool, not God.
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 11:10am
Amazing how the leftist still support the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats after the amazing "boondoggle" that everyone said would not work, has not worked! Maybe its just all the Porkulus spending for extremist leftwing ideologies that keeps their heads spinning round and round? 9.5% unemployment, 9,000,000,000. jobless and NO spending to save existing jobs, businesses, or industries that employ those out of work. Jobs that will never return to these shores.
"Out of the $787 billion of the stimulus, roughly 60 percent goes to individuals in temporary tax rebates and increased entitlement spending. This will provide little boost to the economy. History says that people will only spend 20 percent to 40 percent of a temporary tax rebate, for the very good reason that they know it's temporary.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, disposable personal income increased at a healthy 1.2 percent in April and 1.6 percent in May. Is this money coursing through the economy? No, it appears most of it is being saved. In April, personal consumption declined 0.10 percent, and in May it ticked up a mere 0.20 percent. Americans refuse to spend their money as heedlessly as Obama's economic gurus hope."
You just can't reason with fools or expect intelligent economic choices of them.
Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 11:12am
"Does Rachel Maddow Speak for the Left? "
I think the question should be..
" Does Rachel Maddow speak for anyone or to anyone?"
She has no viewers and the rest couldn't care less.
Posted by YourJomamma at 07/10/2009 @ 11:13am
From a progressive standpoint, we all knew Obama wasn't going for the boldest reforms- one of the reasons I voted for Nader. That being said, his campaign was based on the assumption that significant, though limited reforms had become pragmatic. That is, that the center had shifted leftward. In fact, on a few issues, the proposed solution went past being a mere palliative. Despite my cynicism about his campaign, and the knowledge that his agenda would be inevitably wittled away in the legislature, I still hoped, even expected, that Obama would draw a redline around a few crucial issues.
There's no way to put a pretty face on his presidency. The people on this board defending Obama aren't even willing to measure his record thus far with his campaign promises. A quick review is in order:
Trade- goes back on promise to renegotiate NAFTA
Labor- supported EFCA during the campaign, now supports "compromise legislation"
Credit card reform- refuses to cap interest rates.
Healthcare- supports a public option but refuses to make it non-negotiable.
Climate Change Bill- 85% ofcarbon credits are to be given away
That's just a small sampling. On foreign policy he hasn't been any better. On Iraq, even the Democratic leadership considers his residual force to be too large. In Afghanistan and Pakistan he's escalated both conflicts. And still, supporters fall for his pretty speeches and reassurances. Yet, the question of why he's surrounded himself with Rahm Emanuels or Joe Bidens never seem to get raised.
The clear purpose of this administration is to act as a gatekeeper, shown by threats to cut off campaign funds to freshman house members who voted no on the war spending bill. Obama has no desire to use his political capital for the common good.
Posted by nkurland at 07/10/2009 @ 11:14am
Anyone looking for a precedent should look no further than the 110th congress and their attempts to wind down the Iraq war. The pattern shown is pretty clear: give the Democratic party any resistance whatsoever and the immediate response will be to backtrack repeatedly until the legislation amounts to near total capitulation.
Posted by nkurland at 07/10/2009 @ 11:23am
Rachel is wrong and reckless in his criticism on this one! While Obama has to deal with the realities of governing, Rachel has no such responsibility. She wants Obama to to all he promised all at once--but it is not that easy. On the gay rights issues in the military, the president has to bring along his reluctant key adivers and top officials--like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the defence Secretary and others who are careful not to quickly upturn the existing military culture. Their opposition, or resignation, would be the worst case of public relations disaster for Democrats at a time they are trying to buttress their national security reputation. Would Rachel prefer a Republican administration--one that would most likely refuse to concede any grounds at all on gay issues? Rachel clearly went way overboard in dishing on Obama and questioning his political skills. I would contend that political leadership is Obama's forte and got him where he is now. That does not mean he is a miracle man. For one thing, the culture in Washington is still one in which members of Congress still consider their self-interest first before that of the nation. Secondly, there are three branches of government and sometimes, even a Party in power makes a show of not being on the same page as its President, especially when the self-interest of members seems to have priority over the national interest. On the gay issue, the president has pledged to tackle them. Time will tell. Hasty judgement is unhelpful in the current circumstances, especially as legislation is involved in righting past wrong. On that I say, calm down Rachel!
Posted by drsam8 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:26am
Citizen54: The comparison of Obama to Hoover is not only dead-on, it's been done in the July issue of Harper's Magazine.
Posted by DP in TC at 07/10/2009 @ 11:30am
I do have to confess, as a hard line Republican, I totally enjoy seeing you libs agonize over President Obama's failure to accomplish anything really meaningful.
After the election a lib friend of mine sent me an e-mail suggesting that I should "get behind Obama, and give him full support" since he had prevailed over my candidate.
I absolutely laughed in her niave little face!! Why would I do such a stupid thing??
I hate Obama, and long for his destruction, (which is coming). He should be driven from the White House with pitchforks and torches, kidnapped, and flown to Venezuela, and left standing on the tarmac in his PJ's.
He's the absolute worst President in my lifetime, if not all time. He's an empty suite! He's winging it, and failing badly, and I hope you libs all stay on for the ride, all the way into the dirt, because your all as stupid as he is craven.
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 11:43am
What a pathetic post.
"self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians"
Because there are no Black people with such positions? Or is that you don't need to discuss Blacks because any Black people with such positions obviously must love Obama unconditionally anyway, not for the reasons your white friends do, but just because he's Black too?
This little aside edges past mere race-baiting towards simply being racist.
Posted by Kal at 07/09/2009 @ 07:30am
Wow. You guys are so race and grievance obsessed that y'all inevitably start pointing fingers and hurling accusations at each other. Microcosm of the show trials, gulags, cultural revolution.
Guess that's why Americans would rather have ANYBODY in charge: banking cartels, alaskan soccer moms, petrol cowboys, posterboy liberals, anybody but a true leftist. Obama stops letting y'all down, it's over for him.
Hey, here in Jamaica, Queens there are just way too many SUVs, and I think now that gas prices are going up again it's high time to celebrate the anguish felt by these carbon terrorists with their tanks of eco-war, so I'm organizing a "Suck on it, Jamaica!" rally at the corner of Sutphin and Linden this Saturday at noon, and I hope all my true progressive friends, white or otherwise will come.
Posted by gangpapist at 07/10/2009 @ 11:44am
Because there are no Black people with such positions? Or is that you don't need to discuss Blacks because any Black people with such positions obviously must love Obama unconditionally anyway, not for the reasons your white friends do, but just because he's Black too?
This little aside edges past mere race-baiting towards simply being racist.
Posted by Kal at 07/09/2009 @ 07:30am
Kal, considering the enormously lop-sided support for Obama among Black people, I don't think it's racist to suggest that his support by Blacks is primarily race based.
Of course that's the opinion of a white guy (that automatically makes me racist, I guess).
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 11:55am
As the daughter-in-law of a former CIA undercover operative who spent time at Langley and all over the world, the little my pop was able to share with me (and it was very little) was enough to keep me frightened for a long time. He died with most of his secrets and maybe that's what killed him at 64.
So we live in a dangerous world - Obama isn't perfect - and its our job to question his decisions, however, I can't imagine a better person at this particular point in history to be in charge. He will disappoint some (me included) he seems to be a pragmatist with a moral compass.
He's been in office 5 months. He was handed the keys to the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. I think we all need to take a breath, continue being constructively critical and give all of this recovery some time. He can't heal the world, fix a really broken economy, withdraw from Iraq, repair our image, look out for North Korea and Iran, get the bad guys out of Afghanistan and close Gitmo all in 5 months. It took us more than 8 years to get here.
Posted by epohl57 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:59am
It was this magazine that ran an analysis of Obama's primary advisers during the campaign -- the list was not a hopeful one for progressives.
It seems as though Obama's M.O. is to propose policy that sounds wonderful, then back off when (or even before) there is the slightest conservative resistance.
So far, he's thrown out higher taxes on big agribusiness, barely discernible tax increases on the richest of the rich (actually, just removing some of their write-offs), and looks for all the world like he isn't going to risk going to war for a public health-care option, at least not a serious one.
To date, what has he been willing to absolutely fight for? Bank bailouts (just like the S & L bailouts of yore.)
Some of us wonder if this even isn't just a disappointment for progressives -- but the same betrayal of working-class hopes that resulted in Reagan/Bush I and Bush II following Carter and Clinton. Each time, the Democrats delivered little, and, each time, were succeeded by ideological right-wingers who violently changed the American political landscape.
There may not be a "next time" to hope for, if disillusionment with Obama results in an administration even more regressive than the last two go-rounds.
Many progressives defended Carter and Clinton to the bitter end. What did that accomplish?
Posted by twinsbrewer at 07/10/2009 @ 12:03pm
It took us more than 8 years to get here.
Posted by epohl57 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
So happy to see you acknowledge that the difficulties were MORE than eight years in the making.
Bush inherited a mess, as well. These economic problems we're having started long before he took office. If Obama was handed the keys to the Titanic after it hit the iceberg, then Bush had the keys to a ship whose course was being deternimed by the likes of Barney Frank.
You would have to be dumber that a fifth grader to think that Obama would step into office and say, "Okay, the war is over - everybody home from Iraq."
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 12:10pm
Two questions-
1. How are budget SURPLUSES "a mess"?
2. How did Barney Frank control the agenda in Congress from the minority?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:19pm
Left...right....dem...repub....centrist....far left....blah blah blah.
There is no difference between bush & obama unless you consider rhetoric a difference. There are no difference in the parties less a few on each side who are continually voted down. (as designed)
The sooner this is accepted...the sooner we can find other solutions. To depend on DC for any change of substance is futile and juvenile and dangerous to us all. Please stop participating in this daily kooladefest and look away for these paid hacks for solutions. Boycott the system and STOP participating until it's too late.
Posted by winston2 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:22pm
I couldn't agree with you more. There are several areas in which I find myself in disagreement but surely, that is to be expected. Some of the issues with which Ms Maddow is taking exception are critical but in this time, in this particuar era, simply have to take the back burner. That isn't to say they will be ignored, just deferred. And that does not equate to Obama reneging on campaign promises. It simply means that the world he inherited is a pretty complex and screwy one and will take some time to figure out. I think you are right in your assessment of Obama. He is a thoughtful, intelligent, poised and human leader. And I for one, am still cheering for him.
Posted by giffngylli at 07/10/2009 @ 12:25pm
2. How did Barney Frank control the agenda in Congress from the minority?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So you won't be whinning that nothing is getting done now that the GOP is the minority, right?
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by Citizen54 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:27pm
If Obama were LBJ he could go off on Whitey, Jews etc, throw profanity around like candy at Halloween and throw tantrums when he didn't get his way.
I'll take Obamas pragmatic civil approach any day.
I may not live it on this blog, but it's what I want out of a President.
Obama was NEVER the Great Black Liberal Hope. He has always been about what can be done given the circumstances of the time. He certainly needs more than 7 months to get going. It may take 4-8 years to undo Bush's mess, let alone bring us a health care policy that works.
He speaks English, he is open to ideas, he is pragmatic. ALL of which are substantial positive changes from the Previous Occupant.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 12:29pm
He's an empty suite!
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm sure Obama knows how to spell suit
Posted by emile duBois at 07/10/2009 @ 12:30pm
Rachell Madow
Does not speak for me. Actually I have never seen or listened to her.
According to our resident Nation Neo-Cons, I am a part of "the left".
'Nuff said.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 12:31pm
This is the strangest article I've ever seen in THE NATION. The author says people like Maddow are not hard to find in New York. How hard are they to find writing for THE NATION? Hasn't THE NATION had several articles saying Obama was not sufficiently to the left? What's this long song and dance about how most Democrats aren't disillusioned with Obama? Most Democrats think THE NATION is too leftist.
Posted by chessw at 07/10/2009 @ 12:38pm
Many progressives defended Carter and Clinton to the bitter end. What did that accomplish?
Posted by twinsbrewer at 07/10/2009 @ 12:03pm
Carter, true lefty, economic disaster, thrown after first term.
Clinton, "neo-liberal," presides over economic dynamo, two-termer, successful presidency, marred only by garden variety corruption and hanky pank.
Posted by gangpapist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:40pm
I would be deeply disappointed if any true progressive supported Obama's performance so far. But also would be surprised should any politically educated person who reads the facts find President Obama's handling of the issues satisfactory.
I agree with all the areas listed for concern and I judge future success according to the people he has chosen to advise him and make decisions. They are not the best and the brightest for dealing with the problems facing us and indicates his mindset by these choices.
Also, I believe as time goes on, it will become more and more apparent to many who now support his agenda, that there is a disconnect between rhetoric and action.
Posted by pvolkov at 07/10/2009 @ 12:48pm
So you won't be whinning that nothing is getting done now that the GOP is the minority, right?
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 12:27pm
I am jumping MASKS question, but...
I don't think it is a question of whining, unless MASK is going to blame Eric Cantor for the stimulus package, or Chuck Grassley for TARP.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 1:03pm
Carter, true lefty, economic disaster, thrown after first term.
Clinton, "neo-liberal," presides over economic dynamo, two-termer, successful presidency, marred only by garden variety corruption and hanky pank.
Posted by gangpapist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Really? Is this some sort of joke? Are you aware that the subprime lending took off during Clinton's term? Or that the economy was falling into recession when he was on the way out?
And Carter wasn't a lefty, either. Extensive deregulation took place under the Carter administration in addition to other actions designed to shrink the size of the federal government. More importantly, his administration was drawn almost entirely from the trilateral commission. He clearly was a neoliberal, like Clinton.
Posted by nkurland at 07/10/2009 @ 1:12pm
that there is a disconnect between rhetoric and action.
Posted by pvolkov at 07/10/2009 @ 12:48pm
In politics?
Say it ain't so Pa!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2009 @ 1:13pm
Funny how Rachel Maddow is such a lightening rod for righty criticism. Since she deals with facts instead of opinions, so that must mean that the right wing can't stand the truth. The Democrats are pretty good at ducking it, too, but the GOP wingnuts do it with panache.
She is a rising media star while the right wing talking heads are leveling off and starting the long trek into oblivion. The right wing hypocrisy is so stark that even the faithful can see it. The party of "no" is the party of no leadership, no solutions, no morals, and no clue as to what to do about any of that.
When Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck (three of the most cynical and insane people on the planet) are your spokesholes, it explains a lot. You wingnuts are ensuring another Obama term by creating a third party movement of "true" conservatism that will pull votes from the normally Republican pool.
BTW, I'm no fan of Obama. I worked for his campaign during the Iowa caucus and then watched in dismay as he took a sharp right turn. By June I dumped Obama and went to work to get Nader on the ballot. We would be better off by a long shot if Nader was running the show. He understands the corruption of business and government as well as any man on earth and would work tirelessly to fix it, as he has proven he can do. (Reference the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and about a dozen more Nader accomplishments that have improved this nation and benefited our citizens).
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 07/10/2009 @ 1:14pm
There is a major fallacy in the author's premise: That there is a contradiction between Maddow's statements and the poll numbers showing high approval for Obama in various constituencies.
Personally, for a variety of reasons, if asked by a pollster whether I was pleased with Obabma's performance to date I would say Yes (if it were a yes/no poll) or "mostly" or "generally" or "somewhat" in a more nuanced poll. At the same time I am very unhappy with the way he is handling all of the issues that Maddow referred to in the Rose interview. My guess is that if you asked Rachel herself, or most of the progressives she refers to they would be in the same boat as me. "Critical" supporters. I see the good in what has been done (measured as change away from the Brush era policies and positions) and see this as better than the alternatives. At the same time I see the lack of boldness and fear that this will lead to squandered opportunities rather than laying the foundation for meaningful incremental change.
If we do not build and mobilize strong progressive popular pressure on him for more progressive solutions to ending the war, reforming healthcare, or ending global warming, those things won't happen.
As with Roosevelt ("I agree with you, now make me do it") we need to create the space for change to happen.
Posted by gildell at 07/10/2009 @ 1:21pm
I agree with Rachel completely, and am probably even more annoyed than she. First with the way he handled the Banks and the Fed, then with transparency in general, then his pick for the Supremes who has no apparent view on abortion and is center right instead of left. He has reneged on soo many campaign promises from waging war to putting back the Constitutional force of individual liberty, magna carta, and privacy; he is Bush lite, and that's in spite of what he ran on. I'm going to register as an independent and find I don't trust O at all, and have a new appreciation for what Bush did in several situations. And what's up with the way he cow-tows to the right? Is his missing father psyche at risk to the paternalistic a__holes from Wagner to Gates, Summers to McCain? And don't even get me started about his proactive positions on gays in the military and single payer....
Posted by nemesis at 07/10/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by Elcobar at 07/10/2009 @ 12:27pm
No, because I don't have this ODD (and totally wrong) idea that "the minority in Congress can enact policy"....
YOU guys seem to believe that using "magical powers" Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were able to "stop" Bush and Hastert and Frist's "valiant efforts" to enact Freddie and Fannie reform.
Frank and Dodd couldn't stop...the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts, etc., etc., etc....
but SOMEHOW they were able to stop reform that "Bush and the GOP knew" was vital to prevent a recession.
Seriously, do you guys EVER think for a moment about what Rush and Sean and Glenn are telling you???
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:40pm
I live in Berkeley and I can't find anyone who is not extremely dissatisfied with Barack Obama. I think the author of this snippet is too bound up in the confines of identity politics where people are judged according to their racial and ethnic characteristics. That's maybe a valid approach in the more insular East Coast but is does not sit well here where people are often engaged in thinking, discussing, and formulating policies centering around issues involving universal healthcare, and end to the wars, stemming wall street corruption, limiting corporate self dealing of bonus's and other such crude attempts to game the system, including environmental exploitation.
When you finally change from identity politics and focus on the issues Barry is at best a continuation of George and at worst an even more craven lackey for elites than GWB could even contemplate on his most lucid day.
Rachel is right !
Posted by apolloguide at 07/10/2009 @ 2:01pm
By June I dumped Obama and went to work to get Nader on the ballot.
sure, a guy who has never been elected to ANYTHING.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/10/2009 @ 2:17pm
and would work tirelessly to fix it, as he has proven he can do. (Reference the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and about a dozen more Nader accomplishments that have improved this nation and benefited our citizens).
all of these things were accomplished by elected politicians, which Nader is not and never has been
has been, that describes Mr. Nader to a T.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/10/2009 @ 2:20pm
I don't trust O at all, and have a new appreciation for what Bush did in several situations. And what's up with the way he cow-tows to the right?
mooo. the expression is kowtow, nothing bovine about it.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/10/2009 @ 2:24pm
remember kids,
politics is the art of the possible.
I'm sure y'all would have been so much happier with McCain.
a pathetic bunch of whiners.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/10/2009 @ 2:27pm
Nothing like the fresh smell of deep Democrat hatred for the progressives who try to keep them honest.
Ah, bracing.
How's that "change you can believe in" thingie working out for ya?
LOL!
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 07/10/2009 @ 2:27pm
Ok Happy, the Ohio poll has nothing to do with not pursuing his liberal agenda, it has to do with his failure on the economy and taking over every company he can get his hands on.
Posted by prweigandt at 07/10/2009 @ 2:28pm
http://www.gpnj.org/nosale.html http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html
Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
* Clean Air Act * Clean Water Act * Consumer credit disclosure law * Consumer Product Safety Act * Co-Op Bank Bill * Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act * Foreign Corrupt Practices Act * Freedom of Information Act * Funeral home cost disclosure law * Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency * Medical Devices safety * Mine Health and Safety Act * Mobile home safety * National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act * National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act * Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act * Nuclear power safety * Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) * Pension protection law * Safe Water Drinking Act * Tire safety & grading disclosure law * Whistleblower Protection Act * Wholesome Meat Act * Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Nader knows more about government, business, and politics than all 4 of the Dem/GOP Presidential and VP candidates put together.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 07/10/2009 @ 2:39pm
At this point, any person, who still believes that the Obama administration will turn 180 degrees and start pursuing a progressive agenda, is a fool. Your hopeful, but hapless, beliefs are what has prevented a true progressive agenda from developing in America. If the Bush/Cheney Republicans were the "lions" pursuing their prey (us), then the Obama/Pelosi are the "hyenas" picking at our bones. Wake up, fools! Guantanamo still exists. The CIA may not be doing rendition, but its allied secret services still are. We are still in Iraq and we are still pursuing a campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan that protects Ben Laden while destabilising the whole region. The West is still poking its stick at the hornets nest of North Korea and we may be at war there soon, also. Obama is still pursuing secret wars in Africa, the Philippines and Latin America and the Caucuses. Domestically, the Democrats have done nothing, repeat, nothing to regulate Wall St. and the foreign investment banks. Cowboy Capitalism still reigns. And the Democrats are protecting the Bush perpetrators from prosecution on many, many violations of the Constitution. The foreign controlled investment bank that came to dominate the Bush administration (Government Sacks) still dominates the Obama administration (evidently with a secret "black box" computer program than enables GS to manipulate the equities market). The Obama/Pelosi stimulus is a joke. The foreign controlled insurance companies, such as AIG, are paying bonuses again. And Obama's health care program is only a program that will save money by killing off the poor, infirm and elderly. Yet, many of you, incredibly, still have "hope" in Obama - simply because he is "unique". Hyenas can not become lambs, no matter how long you hope.
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/10/2009 @ 5:19pm
Most people are dying out there, no... I do not mean literally or in an economic sense, although some are, but I mean their sense of ‘hope'. And that effects the economy drastically, people pull in and tighten up. It feels ominous today. It has more and more since Bush started his wars. Most people realize there needs to be real change, but too few really know enough undistorted information to nail it down. We were supposed to see ‘change'. And granted there has been some in little ways, but we see no real changes, or sufficient shifts in direction to be hopeful. It is business as usual for the most part. Some people know that the same old is not going to get it, and It's not working very well now. It hasn't for many for a very long time. Many people know that there needs to be some big changes to make it work again, for the little guy. I've felt this most of my life. The reluctance to stray from the republicans path has brought us to this point.... twice, or three times if you were one of the unlucky ones after Vietnam. And some people know that there is a better way, an improved system that works better for everybody. There are easily things that we could change that would improve life for the large majority of people and turn morale around overnight if only the ruling elite were not so afraid to step a little left. The right is throwing everything it has to hold a line that will eventually push us to failure... and Rachel's gang are some very bright and informed people who know that the global full corporate capitalist mindset is crushing many people across this nation and around this world and more and more are starting to feel it. I think Obama knows this too, but he's a lawyer, not a fighter. The question is..... will he fight as hard as the extremist right?
Posted by Philos at 07/11/2009 @ 04:11am
I voted for Obama and I am dissapointed with Obama because Bush and Chaney etc... are not in JAIL.
Posted by packy at 07/11/2009 @ 4:26pm
I am really starting to get sick of the people who make the non-statement that Obama has only been in office a short time and we should not judge yet. We live in the present and we can judge what we see in the present. Anything that occurs in the future can be judged then. What, would these people have us just sit back and wait until his presidency is over and then judge after the fact? That's not very proactive.
Look, I voted for Obama and I am disappointed that he is not as progressive as I had hoped... and I am perfectly justified in saying so. I don't see anything wrong with criticizing the president when we disagree with him. It is a completely empty, nonthinking argument to just say well he's only been in office for bla bla bla... Criticism of the present does not equate to final judgment. That will come at the appropriate time. I don't see any benefit whatsoever to just remaining silent and waiting. How is being dormant going to help anything?
Posted by noxidereus at 07/13/2009 @ 09:12am
The answer to the title question is "yes".
Posted by lcgrissom at 07/13/2009 @ 10:31am
This is my last blog commentary on the subject because it is obvious that those who are stilled enthralled by "the One" will never see reality and will contiinue to "have hope" till they are buried in their graves. I worked for Obama's election because I thought he truly meant it when he said McCain would continue Bush/Cheney and that he, Obama, would not. I was wrong and so were everyone else who worked for Obama. The Obama administration is simply not progressive and his promise of no more Bush has become a lie. He has now come fully around to continuing the Bush doctrine in almost all spheres. Read bloodthirsty lunatic neocon Ralph Peters' glowing accolade of Obama in today's Murdock's New York Post: "O Channels W". I have been wondering lately when the right would start to embrace Obama. Also, look at what Obama has done at the recent G8 conferences where he has caved into pressure from the international banks to do away with the dollar. Even if you thought the economic collapse of last year was terrible, you will be truly shocked by what is coming if the American dollar (the backbone of our civilization) disappears. I am now afraid that the Obama administration may be worse than Bush/Cheney, not because Obama is evil like them but because he is ignorant, feckless and narcissistic. The foreign investment banks, i.e. Goldman Sachs, et al, are playing him like a fiddle. Woe is us.
Posted by perryfellwock at 07/14/2009 @ 08:14am
I am very liberal and I am very proud and happy with President Obama! I also watch Rachel Maddow every day however she is obssessed with closing Gitmo and bringing Bush and Cheney to trail for torture and repealing 'don't ask don't tell' that she is almost unable see those subjects clearly.
Posted by hdj8501 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:58pm