Obama: The Central Question of Our Time

To paraphrase Eminem, "Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? Please stand up?" That is the central question of our time -- who is the real Barack Obama?

If he's the guy who got us all excited that anyone could become president, that anything was possible, that real change was coming and the one that was going to stop the same old power players in Washington from controlling everything to the detriment of the people, then we're in great shape. That means he is one of us.

You can question his tactics, but as long as he has the right goals and the right agenda, we'll be fine. We're all hoping (with the audacity of hope, I suppose) that he's the master chess player who is carefully finding ways to play the system but in the end will do the right thing.

I don't even mind if he tries but fails. As long as he is pushing for us, working for us and wants to actually challenge the status quo (the central message of his campaign). Even if we fail in the short term, if we all fight together and we have the president on our side, we will ultimately prevail.

What I do mind is if he is not that guy. If he just played us to get elected and will give us just enough change to placate the masses but leave the system completely intact. That's the kind of guy who would push for a trigger for the public option and pretend he actually gave you the public option. It's not about the trigger, it's not about the public option it's not even about health care reform -- it's what it says about him. Is he playing the politicians and lobbyists in Washington or is he playing us?

The public option and the trigger are not the end of the world (though they are very important to the health care debate); what's more important is what they represent. The trigger is the usual cutesy games Washington plays where they kill reform while pretending to enact it. Where they push it off for another five years, and then another, and then another. They do just enough to appease the voters but not enough to change the system. If that's what Obama pushes for, then there's an excellent chance we're lost.

In my mind, the even bigger test is financial reform. That is the great test of the people versus power. So far, again, the Obama White House has been on the side of power. The proposed regulations are comically weak, and are getting watered down by the day. Obama has put the two worst offenders and defenders of the old system as his top economic advisers -- Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. With the exception of Robert Rubin, you literally could not have picked two worse Democrats to leave in charge of our economic policy.

What's his point? What's his plan? Where's he going with all of this? If he is really internally pushing for the trigger in health care reform and trusting Geithner and Summers to clean up the mess they created, then he is not the guy we voted for. Then, we have our answer. We know who the real Obama is. He is a master chess player, but it's us he's playing.

The financial reform that is needed is so crucial because if we leave this system in place, it will meltdown again. It's not a question of if, but when. The system has structural flaws. The executives do not represent their companies; they represent their own short-term interests. That will always lead to a crash. And after the next crash, we won't have enough money to rescue them - or us.

That is why this is the central question of our time -- who is Barack Obama? Because if he is on our side, he will figure out how to make sure this doesn't happen and that the powerful and corrupt won't game the system for their own benefit and lead to even more disastrous results for us. If he is on their side, then we have a massive, nearly unfixable problem. Then we can fight him, too, but that is an even longer and tougher fight.

The first year of his administration has not been full of good signs. Yes, he got some things done but he has clearly been leaning on the wrong side on the most important issues. But it's nowhere near too late. But the time to change and the time for change are right now. If we don't push him to go in the right direction and don't remind him who voted for him, he could wind up forgetting why he got elected and who he is supposed to be. If the second year is like the first year, it might be too late by then. On the other hand, if he gets health care reform passed with a strong public option and does real regulation of Wall Street, then he is the guy we voted for. It all hangs in the balance.

That's why we want to push him in the right direction. This week we will be doing protests in front of CNN offices in NY, LA and Atlanta to remind the mainstream media and the president that a clear majority of the American people wants the public option and this is the time to step up and fight. You can find out more about it here and talk to others going to the events here. If we want him to do the right thing, then we have to step up and be willing to get out there again and show him who put him in office and why.

Watch The Young Turks Here

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[lcats]

Just look at how Maine voted on the gay marriage referendum. I strongly doubt that ANY state, given a popular vote, would vote for this currently. The gay marriage situation is typical of the cultural sentiments of a majority of out citizens (unfortunately). Obama won't even enter this debate. The debates he has chosen are almost equally fraught. He cannot push through a public option, not the fiscal changes that progressives desire due to the make-up of the congress, and yes, the nature of the public supporting those congresspeople. These big issues have a strong cultural resonance and this country, while it is changing, is changing slowly. Even the things he could change by fiat, such a DADT, he can't do politically now since it would create a major diversion-- a fire storm of right wing backlash actually-- from the health care issue.

Please everybody, get real.

[Estreet1964]

"Even the things he could change by fiat, such a DADT, he can't do politically now since it would create a major diversion-- a fire storm of right wing backlash actually-- from the health care issue."

With regard to the above statement, I agree with something Bill Maher said. The smart thing to do would be to go forward on DADT and create a diversion. Get the rabid right all worked up about boys in uniform kissing other boys. That will take resources away from their scare campaign against health care.

While they're fretting over the coming Gay Apocalypse, we pass strong health care reform under the radar. Divide and conquer!

[standard]

"In my mind, the even bigger test is financial reform."

You're correct to worry if Senator Obama pulled a bait-and-switch when he became President Obama, but neither economic issue (health care nor financial reform) is quite as significant as the matter of civil liberties.

America has survived crippling wars and economic crises repeatedly, but no democracy can survive a loss of basic legal rights that makes dictatorship possible. In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to "restore habeas corpus". But, by repeatedly preserving the various mechanisms by which Bush/Cheney undermined our Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights (of which the totalitarian excesses of the Patriot Act are just examples), President Obama hasn't failed just those who worked so hard to elect him, but our entire nation.

His spineless abandonment of meaningful health care reform for end-in-itself "bipartisanship", and failure to agressively pursue meaningful financial reform (by working to reinstate Glass-Steagall, for starters) are bad. His abandonment of an unabridged right to counsel and a fair and speedy trial--in favor of indefinite detention without charges--is unconscionable.

If he doesn't get his act together--and fast--he can expect to face a primary challenge in 2012 that will render him an historical footnote, like James Buchanan. It's Obama's move. Like you, I'm waiting to see which Obama emerges to make it: the one we elected or the one we see.

[TrollDiddy]

Who is the real Barack Obama? No, that is not the real question. We know who the real Barack Obama is. Look at what he has done throughout his life, look at his policy votes in Chicago and the US Senate, look at the company he has kept.

The real question is this: is Barack Obama a LEADER? And the answer, more and more every day, appears to be no. Does this guy actually believe that any causes are worth fighting for, or is he so scared of disappointing anyone on either side of the aisle that he'll compromise to infinity?

[BLBass]

The key is the question of goals. Obama has almost completely lost my trust that (on domestic issues at least) he has the right goals in mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. So it doesn't matter what his strategy is, unless he can reassure the base that he still acts in the interest of fulfilling the goals that earned their votes to begin with.

[Citizen54]

We won't be asking these questions after 2012, except to wonder how the Obama administration went so wrong. Unemployment will be hitting 20%, millions more will not be able to afford a doctor or medicine... people on the right and the left are going to be upset.

Obama will go off and write his books, Rahm Emanuel will go to work for an insurance conglomerate, and someone worse will be occupying the White House.

[MThomasNC]

Cenk, I read most your articles and enjoy them. Most of us liberals and progressives put our stamp on Obama to be what we want him to be. Obama is a pragmatist. It would benefit all of us to become more familiar w that term. I listened to him on the campaign trail as well as the past nine months. He is doing what he said he would do w very few changes. He said he supports the public option and he will. He is right to let congress write the legislation and get it passed. That is the job of congress, not the executive branch which is to add or subtract when necessary. We need to support our president, after all it's only been nine months. He is birthing his baby now.
But I'm reminded of what I read or heard that Johnson or Kennedy said to Martin Luther King 'If you want me to pass civil rights legislation, then make me'. King made that happen thru marches, sit-ins, etc. The law got passed. I agree with you that we need to put fire under the democratic congress and the president to do right by the american people. Let's march on... when does the marching start?

[BLBass]

That was FDR, I believe on the subject of the NLRA, not JFK/LBJ. Yay acronyms!

But it's an important point nonetheless. The trouble is that most on the left don't know what else they should be doing to "force" Obama to do what he claims to want. If he somehow feels the need for additional popular pressure -- and I think that while it's completely wrong that is indeed his operating assumption -- then he needs to specify what would do it. Does he want 70 votes in the Senate? (And if so, why?) Then tell us, and we can work toward getting them. But don't tell us it's our fault for not pushing hard enough, while simultaneously telling us not to push back against apologists when they point out all the obvious good that Obama has done on minor issues as if that were enough to justify inaction on the critical ones!

[aaronwysocki]

Great piece as usual!

[lightningbolt]

"That's why we want to push him in the right direction. This week we will be doing protests"

How do we actually push Obama in the right direction? We all know peaceful protests don't work because they don't actually add any pressure. The largest protests in world history did nothing to stop the war in Iraq. What we need is something that will give Obama no choice but to do what the people want. The protesters might have to block roads. We might have to organize a national labor strike. Only real pressure will push him in the right direction.

[Estreet1964]

"We might have to organize a national labor strike."

But that means Americans would have to tear themselves away from Dancing with the Stars or whatever other inane garbage is topping the ratings these days. If only my countrymen were so bold.

We had 9-11. Then we had the Wall St. meltdown. I often wonder just what kind of horrific calamity has to occur before Americans actually do get off the sofa and take to the streets to take their country back from corporate America.

[jmpurser]

On all the critical issues that have come up during his presidency President Obama has been a bitter disappointment for me. Bank bailout, stimulus package, war crimes, civil rights, health care, you name it. He picked a nice dog and has given some nice speeches. And he's convinced me that if he is a chess master then I was his unwitting opponents. I got played.

I will not be voting for Obama again and I will not be voting for any Democrat until they prove they're a progressive.

[WALTA007]

Is there a chance that we are over reacting, just maybe? I was having a conversation with a co-worker and I was telling him how upset I was that Obama is not supporting the public option like we want him 2. I said it feels like we are in this fight on our own that our leader was MIA and he replied to me calmly asking when did you hear that Obama was not for the public option maybe him seating on the side is what got us to go crazy and push senator Reid and other senators. He said if Obama was out there fighting we would not have pushed and fought like we did , if you remember when the tea bag people and the town hall meeting people were going crazy we were sleeping on the wheel but when we heard Obama say that the public option is not make it or break it and on Sunday talk show health secretary said the same thing we really started fighting for public option , if you remember when he got elected he said that the fight starts now but we really did not start until he said what he said about the public option , at the end guys he is not doing what we want him to but what we need to focus on is what can we do to get this "blue dog" and senator Lieberman to not join a republican filibuster

[jmpurser]

The "public option" is a sell out position to begin with. We're only hoping for that because Obama killed single payer (aka Real Health Care Reform) before the debate even began. He did that in order to save the insurance industry which serves no health care related function BUT which writes massive campaign donations to politicians.

And his administration has repeated withdrawn their support for the "public option" but always through staffers so that later Obama could come back and deny that he had said it.

[WALTA007]

well i would have to agree with that i wanted single payer too , I do not believe that people should profit of me getting seek , and was disappointed when obama did not push for that , but my point still sticks we are the once that should push to get what we want , we have to put pressure on all of this clowns , and yes Obama can help but we are the once with the power to get real change , if we put our money together we can play them at there own game . just make sure you go to one of the location on Thursday to let this guys know what we want and what we will not tolerate i say public option or nothing we already gave away single payer .

[Citizen54]

What can WE do to stop the Blue Dogs and LIeberman?
Well, the people of their states could stop voting for them.

But the big question is: What is the President doing??? He has the phone numbers of all those jokers. He needs to get some LBJ in his system.

[faith]

Absolutely correct, Cenk ! Bloggers, I suggest you go to the White House site on a near daily basis and remind President Obama of these things that Cenk has so clearly stated. I do ! Even if each note is not read in its entirety, whomever reads them at the site most likely tallys the pros and nays of the constituents who take the time to express their views to the President.

Thanks Cenk !

[silk olive]

i don't remember anywhere during his campaign where, when talking about specific policy, obama ran as a progressive. he certainly road that wave and we all rallied behind his eloquent, powerful words of "change", "hope", etc..he "presented" in a way that catered to indignance to end the horrors and incompetence of the bush years. but his politics have always been centrist. he is a skilled diplomat, always looking for middle ground. and unfortunately, that's not what we need right now. half-a*sed moves will not save our economy or our planet... the only positive that i see here is that he is push-able, he can be influenced by the people. Unlike Bush who is still giving motivational speeches about how he knows he did the right thing by invading Iraq.

[Aldyth]

You're right. It is time to show us that he is the man he portrayed himself to be during the campaign. Talk is worth the air it is printed on. It's time to take a strong stand and take action.

Quit worrying about the Republicans. They're too busy self-destructing at the hands of the radical right. There's nothing to be done to please them anyway, short of complete and total capitulation on every issue.

[SeattleDeadhead]

This is good. Looks like the left is back to eternal navel-gazing over their "savior". Maybe you should have voted for something other than "hope". Was it not obvious that a guy with half a US senate term under his belt was uniquely UNqualified to be president? No, the left votes for those with a liberal philosophy, which is completely out of touch with the US mainstream. Now Obama is showing that he is a relatively empty suit and is as much a suck up to Wall St as any Republican.

Your only hope is that the GOP continues to fight amongst itself and that Congress does NOT pass a cap and tax bill. Actually Obama will get a lot better after the 2010 election where Dems lose 25 seats, just like Clinton did, and then the economy will recover.

[xenofile]

Yeah, I'll trust a "deadhead" for economic advice any day. And you presume to speak for the "mainstream"?

[markburn]

@ "No, the left votes for those with a liberal philosophy, which is completely out of touch with the US mainstream."
Typical inconsistent rightwing-nonsense!
So tell me: when it's so out of touch with the "US mainstream", how come, that this "US mainstream" elected Obama?

But you are right with one thing: the left voted for him -> more than 50% of the country...

[standard]

If a liberal philosophy were actually "completely out of touch with the US mainstream" then a substantial majority of mainstream America would not have elected Obama as our President. Yet, we did. So far, the only people who've characterized President Obama in narrow religious terms (as a "savior") have been his most-isolated detractors: Neo-Con Republicans, a/k/a the Minority. That "out-of- touch" premise? Just wishful thinking.

Half a Senate term representing Illinois--­plusdegree­s from Columbia and Harvard Law, a long career of public service, a strong command of the facts, and Democratic positions on the major issues--made Mr. Obama an ideal candidate. In fact, the winning candidate.

Ms. Palin had half a term as a small-state governor--plus a prolonged undergraduate career at marginal schools, second place as a beauty queen, and a limited command of facts--if a brilliant command of invented fables and attack politics. That made the GOP ticket unacceptable to the U.S. mainstream. By a certified popular vote of 69.4 million to 59.9 million.

If the Neo-Cons continue to live in a fanatasy world in which mainstream values are "socialism" and any "hockey mom" who can wink is qualified to lead the Free World, they're in for a disappointing future. It's not a bad one, however: the Federalists and the Whigs still feature in our high school history texts. They just aren't in power--or around any more.

[Highnotes]

I'll be at the protests! Atlanta representing!