One Year After Obama's Election: Still Smarter...Than The Alternative
The day before I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I wrote a column titled "Barack Obama Is Smarter Than Us." By "us," I meant the legions of us lefty bloggers out here, who second-guessed his campaign on a daily basis for nigh on two years. I included myself in that "us" as well -- because, I fully admit, I got incredibly frustrated during Obama's campaign when he didn't do what I really, really wanted him to. Or didn't do it fast enough to suit me.
But you know what? He won anyway.
Here's part of what I wrote back then:
...I have to say, once again, that Barack Obama was right not to always listen to me, and others of my ilk. He knew through it all that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that a purist lefty candidate would not win the White House. So I have to stand up and admit it.
Obama was right. We were wrong. And he has shown he knew what he was doing all along, which makes me even more comfortable casting my vote for him tomorrow.
I also wrote, at the time:
Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.
So, after reflecting on how I felt a year ago during the election itself and how I feel now, I do have to say that the old adage is true: governing is harder than campaigning.
The eternal question within the District of Columbia for an "outsider" running a successful campaign on "changing the system" (Note to our younger readers: Barack Obama is not the first to have come up with this theme) is, of course: "Will you change Washington... or will Washington change you?"
Barack Obama was always a bit of a blank canvas for everyone. The Righties were incensed by this, and tried to portray him as some sort of empty suit, building castles in the air upon his lofty campaign rhetoric. But the Lefties were almost as bad, attempting to paint their own picture upon this blank canvas with the funny name... and, by doing so, declare Obama one of them. You might say the Lefties took up residence in Obama's air castles, smug in their belief that he would (after he was elected) do what they wanted (and indeed expected) him to, rather than what he actually said he was going to do. Or not do.
Obama, though, was not the picture either side painted of him on this blank canvas. He was, and always has been, his own man.
The disillusionment and disappointment a lot of Lefties are feeling right now is a direct result of their own refusal to hear what Obama was actually saying during the campaign, versus what they really wanted him to say, or "heard" him say, somehow. That may be a fairly harsh assessment for some people to hear, but I believe it is true to some extent. The feeling of crashing back down to Earth is usually the end result of attempting to live in a castle in the air. Some of the Left's disappointment, to be sure, is over actual broken campaign promises; but most of it is over their perceptions of Obama that didn't quite prove to be true in the end.
I have to say that I pride myself (as someone who does a halfway-decent imitation of a "pundit" on the interwebs) for never having totally "drunk the Obama Kool-Aid." I apologize if it causes offense, but I've always seen him as a politician. A brilliant politician, to be sure, and one whose like we may not see for another generation in American politics (in other words, not "just a politician" as some sort of pejorative), but a politician nonetheless. For better or worse.
Take the issue of foreign policy, for example. Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq. He spoke of moving thousands of American troops out on a monthly basis, beginning almost immediately after he took office, until all combat forces had come home. Both the Left and the Right (using different language to describe it, of course) decided that Obama wanted to get out of Iraq as soon as could be safely arranged. But then, at the last minute, George W. Bush signed a Status Of Forces Agreement which pretty much laid down the "timetable for withdrawal" to follow. Obama, once sworn into office, has largely kept Bush's plan intact. The first stage was withdrawing from Iraqi cities this summer. The second stage will be the real troop drawdown, which should begin shortly after Iraq has a national election (currently slated for January). Neither the Left nor the Right's caricature of Obama as Commander-In-Chief turned out to be true. He took into account the "situation on the ground," and changed his strategy accordingly -- something neither side really expected him to do, it should be noted.
Or take the Afghanistan situation. Throughout the campaign, Obama spoke of Afghanistan as being the war we really should be fighting, rather than Iraq. The "good" war, if you will. He spoke of sending around 10,000 more American troops over there right away. Now, as Obama decides what the strategy will be for the coming year, the Right is trying to portray him as some sort of wimp who is going to lose the war by "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it); and the Left is portraying him as somehow betraying their idealistic anti-war image of Obama. The telling thing to me is that neither side either: (a) admits that Obama was always hawkish on the Afghanistan war; or (b) even noticed or has seen fit to mention that Obama has already fulfilled his campaign promise -- threefold -- when he sent 30,000 more troops over there, earlier this year.
Perception -- as in "people's perception of Obama" -- seems to be more important to a lot of folks than the reality of Obama the politician, or Obama the president. On both sides.
The Right, after the election, wasted no time in trying to paint Obama as all sorts of things that he wasn't, and was never going to be. They haven't let up for a minute -- and they won't, for the next three years. The Left has been shocked by all of this unseemliness, since they conjured images up of everyone singing "Kumbaya" after Obama's inauguration -- conveniently forgetting that whole "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" thing that Bill Clinton had to put up with (also from Day One, in his presidency). Or the way Dubya started his term, for that matter. Just because an election's over does not mean that the losing side in the election is going to suddenly "see the light" of the winning side -- it never has in American politics, and it never will.
Expectations after Obama took office, from both the Left and Right (again, in different ways), were high. The Right -- some of them, at least -- think America is truly on the brink of becoming (take your pick) Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or even (conservatives shudder at the suggestion), France. The Left -- some of them, at least -- actually believed in their own dreams of a Progressive Utopia, even though what Obama actually said during the campaign bore little resemblance to it.
Now, all of this isn't to say that I don't have my own annoyances with Barack Obama, which I point out frequently here in public. He has either broken or severely backtracked on a number of his campaign promises, I fully admit. But he has also kept and delivered upon a downright astonishing number (for any politician) of campaign promises, as well. Governing is always harder than campaigning, and every politician is forced at times to realize that what sounded so glib while knocking his opponent during a rally of the faithful is really a lot tougher than it seemed at the time. This is natural, although some of Obama's supporters may be too young to have ever seen it before in a politician of their own party whom they admired greatly on the hustings, giving his stump speech. There's always a bit of letdown, and because Obama was being held to such a high standard (the absolute ramparts of the air castles, as it were), the letdown is even more keenly felt by some.
Millions of Americans did have sky-high expectations for Obama. But he has been more closely examined and criticized and covered by the media than just about anyone I can remember. The media, hilariously, calls Obama (in disparaging tones) a "media rock star" -- without realizing the irony that the only thing they're condemning by using such a term is themselves. You can't be a media star without a willing media. If proof is needed -- look at us. Here we are, critically examining Obama's "first year," when, in actual fact, he has served less than three hundred days in office. Because, you see, Barack Obama doesn't get a first year. He gets a first nine-and-a-half months. That's the way it goes if your name is Obama, I guess.
I was at a party recently, and a close friend and I were discussing the subject of Obama, his "first year," and this article (which I was then considering how to write). A quick rundown on this friend: she's a Union officer and organizer, she would rather be dipped in molten lava than vote Republican, and she keeps up on the political scene and the news about as much as any Huffington Post reader. She also, from Union negotiations with local government, understands both the slowness and obstacles to getting good things done, and also the fact that sometimes you have to compromise and you don't get everything you want.
But, after circling around for a while in describing her disappointment in some of what Obama has done (mostly "not done," if truth be told), she finally, in exasperation, said what she really felt, in response to something I said along the lines of: "If Obama had overturned 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' on his first day in office, but failed on healthcare reform -- would you be happier with the result than if it was the other way around?".
She summed up her frustration with Barack Obama not going further faster in a very visceral way: "I want it all," she said, perhaps unconsciously quoting the late Freddie Mercury. "I want it all, and I want it now!" Specifically, what she wants is: Democrats in Congress to act like Democrats, and act like they have a majority; Obama to forcefully get out there and fight for what he campaigned for -- "Change we can believe in!"; Obama to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights he promised he'd be; Obama to stop bailing out Wall Street and pay a lot more attention to Main Street; Obama to send George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to Guantanamo Bay where they would be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" until they came clean about the past eight years; the Democrats to pick up about 50 or 60 seats in the House in 2010 and about 20 more seats in the Senate; Harry Reid to be replaced as Senate Majority Leader, tout suite; Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers to be replaced, also immédiatement; Union strength to return to about where it was in... oh... 1958, say; Alan Grayson to appear on every political talk show for the next four years, on a daily basis; John Boehner and Mitch McConnell never to appear on her television screen, ever again, on any program; Sarah Palin to be a miserable failure at anything she attempts in the future; and President Obama to have a magic wand which he can wave and get Congress to do exactly what he wants them to do. Oh, and the memory of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of her state to be permanently excised from her memory, I should mention that one, too.
She's not alone in any of that, either. That particular ethereal castle's booked solid, and has a waiting list as long as your arm to get into. I sympathize with most of what she felt, myself. It sounds like a pretty good place to live in, or even to visit; the way we all used to tune in each week to The West Wing, to see how life was like in the alternate universe where Martin Sheen was president. Or, perhaps, another universe in which Obama conducts himself much as President (or "King" as it were) George W. Bush conducted himself, in regards to Congress.
But it's not reality. It's not the reality we live in. This reality is a lot more ugly, and a lot more concrete. Obama is not King. Obama really believes reaching out to the other side is a good and important thing to do, and not just a campaign promise. Congress still has a role under our Constitution, as inconvenient as it is to admit this fact. Lobbyists still exist. Washington is still situated on a former swamp, having only exchanged alligators for alligator wingtips on K Street. Congresscritters (far too many of them) are still absolute whores for big corporate campaign contributions. 'Twas ever thus in the District. There's only so much one man (no matter how powerful, or what his name is) can do to drain this particular swamp.
And while I would have loved to see some cage-fighting Democrats beating down Republican opponents on the Hill in the past nine months, I have to admit that what I wrote a year ago is a double-edged knife -- it cuts both ways. While we who consider ourselves "down in the trenches" in these day-to-day battles would absolutely love it if we got stronger backing and stronger leadership from the White House at times, what we are really hoping for is merely a reversal of fortunes in Washington, not a true change. Again, what I wrote back then:
Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.
"Pure partisan rancor" can come from both sides -- we'd all do well to remember that.
Which returns us to our primary question: "Has Washington changed Obama, or has Obama changed Washington?"
I would answer this in two ways. The first is to state that Obama has changed Washington in a very critical way -- because Democrats are now on the offensive. Democrats are now driving the bus. This is not always entirely apparent (they are, after all, Democrats), but think about it dispassionately for a moment -- Democrats are the ones proposing legislation, and Democrats are the ones squabbling about what it will contain. Even after the 2006 sweep of Congress, the agenda in D.C. largely remained Republican, since no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid managed to pass, if it wasn't sufficiently acceptable to Bush and his Republican sycophants, it would not have become law. This has changed, in a big way. It can be argued that this is not due to Obama himself, but rather to the partisan power dynamic which exists now, as opposed to back then -- but that would be to ignore the reason for this change: Barack Obama being elected president.
And it's a bigger change than most people give him credit for, or indeed, even think about.
The second thing that Obama is trying to change is the 24-hour-news-cycle, short-sighted nature of Washington thinking (or what passes for "thinking" in the punditocracy). The jury is still largely out on this one, I have to admit. The most impressive thing about Obama, which I have noticed over and over again in the past nine months or so, is that he absolutely refuses to be drawn in to trivial subjects -- which, it must be pointed out, cause vapors, fainting, shrieking, and even (at times) heads exploding among the cable news channels. Put succinctly: Obama takes the long view. Always. Even when all around him are taking a very, very short view -- for the sake of puffing some stupid playground battle among politicians into some improved cable chat show ratings. Obama, to a very large extent, just doesn't play that game. He simply refuses to, over and over again. The only time he's really slipped up on this front was the whole "beer summit" nonsense, for which he can be forgiven (seeing as how a friend of his was involved).
To me, this -- if he manages to succeed in the end -- would be "change" I could indeed believe in. The shortening of the American attention span, and the concomitant idiocy-pretending-to-be-depth stoked by the 24-hour news cycle is one of the chief culprits in the crime of American politicians being seemingly incapable of having serious debates about serious subjects with long-range implications in the modern age. If Obama can manage to overcome this prattling nonsense, and hence rise above the rank stupidity of filling up the airwaves with non-stories on a daily basis -- then he will have achieved more than I ever thought any politician could, in today's media world.
Of course, he'll probably fail at that. P.T. Barnum's "there's one born every minute" maxim does come to mind. But I have to give Obama credit for at least trying.
That's what it all comes down to, really. Do you still give Obama the benefit of the doubt? I have to admit here, his supporters have used the line "it's only been X months..." as an excuse to deflect Obama criticism so many times now that it is indeed beginning to wear a bit thin. We're not talking about a true "first year" for Obama today, but that actual milestone isn't all that far away. And one year is precisely one-fourth of a president's term.
The other question it really all boils down to is one of trust. Do you still trust President Obama to do the right thing in most situations? I did back when I voted for him, and I have to admit that I still do. I have reservations, I'm a bit wary at times over specific actions Obama takes, and strategies he employs (or doesn't employ); but that core of trust in Obama -- as a politician, and with eyes wide open on my part -- still exists, I have to say. And while Obama's approval polls are down a bit from the stratospheric highs he entered office with, he still enjoys support from just about exactly the same percentage of Americans who voted for him on election day last year. And that is a measure, in a very real way, about how the public still trusts Obama to the same degree they did last year. Which, I have to admit, is a comforting thought.
Especially when you consider the alternative. Imagine where we'd be now with President John "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" McCain, and Vice President Sarah (shudder) Palin. Each and every time you get disappointed in President Obama, or disagree with something he says or does, ask yourself: "How would this discussion be different if McCain had won?"
That kind of puts Obama's "first year" in perspective for me, at least. Obama may not be smarter than all of us, but he sure is smarter by a long shot than McCain would have been. And that, for now, is enough for me.
[Technical Note: Earlier, I used what can only be described as metaphorical excess, since I don't believe alligators ever infested Georgetown or anything. I could be wrong about that, though, as I could have sworn I once saw Pogo Possum, Albert, and a few of their friends on the Metro....]
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Aaron Belkin: Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid
What can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is easy to paint Obama with what we want to see in him. He is the ideal to many of us so we project our aspirations on him. I think he was always a man of the middle and never a revolutionary, but someone who works within the system. Besides his inspirational oratory, he knows change is slow and he performs almost like a bureaucrat who works the levers of change behind the scenes while letting Congress work for the cameras. Well, hopefully he is operating behind the scenes. I think he should be more forceful, but I may be wrong. The best description of Obama comes from a former law school professor colleague of his at the University of Chicago that always said he never really learned where Obama stood on things. In class, he could argue both sides of an issue like any good lawyer. Outside of class he was not forceful with his views and often worked to reconcile the positions of others. I think Obama is a moderate who accepts compromise and always has his eyes on the long term. Hopefully, his neutrality will be effective in getting things done on Congress.
Of course it's true that progressives in particular used Obama's blank slate to reassure themselves that this time our agenda would see action. But that "overreach" drove a huge proportion of the votes that won the Presidency, and certainly of those that won the nomination. Obama failed to examine what about his campaign drew his voters, and continued as though it was his moderate platform rather than his revolutionary message. It's pretty clear that the message of "change we can believe in" and standing up against special interests was the driver for a decisive number of primary voters, and probably in the general as well. And at least as important is what Obama's voters thought "CWCBI" referred to: health care reform including a strong public plan was the number one issue that I saw when I was out knocking doors last fall, whether or not that was what Obama explicitly promised.
It was a mistake for progressives to think that throwing our support behind this candidate could drive his agenda -- which is sad, since that's the civics class version of politics -- but now he governs without even recognizing that disconnect. Even worse, we're now confronted with the Plouffe/Romer/Emmanuel camp constantly getting on camera to tell us we're being impatient, and showing no interest in adjusting their actions to shore up the base against this discontent. That's bad policy from a progressive perspective, but as we just saw especially with the Deeds campaign in VA it's objectively bad politics.
No, the President does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He's already shown us who he is.
You judge a politician by their actual actions, not their speeches.
You've already listed a litany of his broken campaign promises. I never expected ANYTHING to fixed by now, but I did expect him to fight for what he said he believed in. After he stabbed the gay community in the back over the legal brief to uphold DOMA, I knew he was a total fraud. Since we are a despised minority, no one cared, but it should have been a clarion call about how he would handle health care and other issues his supporters DO care about.
I think his whole campaign last year was one giant scam. People were so desperate for progressive change, the let the style of his lofty rhetoric and the opportunity to make "token" history get in the way of progressive substance.
What we've how now is a DLC Corporate shill who appointed other corporate shills to power and is pursuing a pro-corporate agenda.
Obama's health care campaign platform was a robust public option and no mandate to buy health insurance. We're going to get the exact oppose. A "robust mandate" and an irrelevant "public option" in name only. When he signs bill, I am sure the President's sycophants will be here to tell us that this trillions of dollars in corporate welfare was all part of a masterful multi-dimensional chess move.
We send politicians to Washington, including the President, to do a job for us. How smart they are is incidental to getting the job done. Obama the candidate was very specific about what he would do in office . He said he would undo many of 200 questionable Bush/Cheney executive orders in the first 100 days. He still embraces most of them. He said lobbyists would find no home in his White House. He must have meant lobbyists other than those he gave top jobs to in the early days of his administration. Most recently that includes the former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto who is the new food czar at the FDA. He said he would take a long look at the constitionality of the Patriot Act. But apparently it was only a passing concern.
The disconnect between the campaigner and the president is huge. It's enough to ask if we really knew this man at all.
GREAT article , Chris.
What i want to say may sound airy and naive and simplistic, but it isn't. it is as gritty and real as it gets.
it is time for us to
yes, continue to advocate for our important issues
but be strong and confident . quit whining about how POTUS doesn't do this and doesn't do that. look at the work being done, help that work along.I think we have the hardest working POTUS we have had in a long time, I think that , as a people we will move things one way or another. government will NOT, will NEVER provide all the answers.
but what we need now is to summon up some courage, some grit, some patience and some gusto.
take responsibility as an individual in your neighborhood, your community, your county, State and districts.
get positive, robustly, positive
get to work..quit whining,conquer anxiety by doing something positive. everyday.
get off the TV and the web if it is making you nuts.
get resourceful. get some air. appreciate what is good and real out there .
grow some shoulders as well as some spine.
We have to be good travelers and companions on the road.
strength, confidence, trust , and meanwhile get busy...
don't sling mud...grab a mop
be focused, but measured..if you can.
what is the proverb?
"hop fast!" said the rabbit
"go slow"... said the tortoise
"Pace yourself" said the Cheetah
it's a long, long run
Awesome article, I only have a problem with his fellow Dem's and maybe a few advisors, he is trying to not really offend and be a one term President...he has to get tough or he will be.
Great article Chris.
I agree with you 99% (that one percent is because I have had faith in him the whole time)
Like you, I have my eyes wide open...but I trust him to do the job that I voted him into office to do.
He knows a LOT more about what's going on than I do....even if I were able to get all the information possible...I'm still not there with him day in and day out.
I think he's doing the best job he can with what he's got...and like you said - things on the ground change...you have to be willing to mold to that change - even if it's not exactly the direction you thought you wanted to go in..sometimes it can be BETTER than what was expected.
I'm giving this president 3 more years before I make my final judgement on him.
I think the reason people are comparing him to Bush is just because he is doing what Bush started, but he's doing it by way of the law.
The only thing I've learned from Obama, is that no matter what shape the country is in, it can always get worse.
Oh really... did not learn that in the previous eight years.
I hate to say it, but perception is reality.
To wit, in the past year:
Obama supporters have become Obama apologists, and
We've seen great campaigners make great governors not.
We had a blank slate, but now the writing is on the wall. And that serves us Right, for joining a cult of personality.
When they pull out the "lesser-of-two-evils" line, you know they have nothing to defend.
Problem with that is Obama could be continuing every bad Bush policy--with better rhetoric, but would you even recognize it? You could always claim that the other guy is worse. In purely partisan terms, it is the fallback excuse. Talk about lowering expectations.
All these apologies and excuses accelerate as time passes and the truth becomes more difficult to obscure. How is it possible for Progressives to pressure Obama when he marginalizes and dismisses them with hostility? How is it possible for Progressives to put on the pressure, when progressives keep giving him a pass????
Spot on.
I recall reading the blog you refer to from last year. I guess we've all been on similar rides since the election. I do think the air castles provided a healing antidote to the previous 8 years of trauma and despair. Kind of like a super-charged room vaporizer. For a while anyway.
But I also admit to having been shaken in my faith the summer before the election over Obama's broken promises to fight the FISA bill. I didn't even wear my campaign tshirt for 2 months until he won me over again at the convention. I was around for Camelot, so I remember what it's like to be enchanted by a political star. In this cycle, I had few illusions going in, and have been one of the "give him time" crew. My biggest worry stems from a story told during the campaign by someone on the Harvard Review who had grown weary of Obama listening to absolutely every person to the point of exhaustion -- and wondering if he' ever make up his mind.
I've worried over Summers and Geitner. Jon Stewart had David Plouffe on last night and Stewart (bless him!) challenged Plouffe over Obama's campaign assertions that you can't fix what's wrong with the people who got us there. Plouffe said you have to have some of the old with the new. Arrrrrgh!
Thanks for your consistently thought-provoking articles. I've cut back a lot, but yours are columns that still solicit my click.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
paragrafH -
Thanks for the kind words. FISA was one indicator, and for me an even bigger one was both Obama and Hillary (and McCain, too, now that I think about it) absolutely refusing to lead any Senate fights during the campaign. I forget which vote (may have been another round of Iraq financing) but it was striking to me when Hillary and Obama kind of snuck in at the last minute, voted, and left the floor as soon as possible.
I kept waiting for either Hillary or Obama to give a rousing speech on the Senate floor about SOMEthing, ANYthing, just to show that they had a little fire and could lead on an issue. Neither ever did, at least not that I can remember. I thought it striking at the time, and that's why I classify both of them as "politicians." For the first time since JFK, we were about to elect someone straight from the Senate to the White House, and none of the three of them ever used the Senate during the campaign to actually get out front and lead on an issue. Unless you count McCain "suspending his campaign," which I have to say, I do not.
-CW
Now that you mention it..... I remember registering that, but letting it pass.
I've been thinking about 2012 -- and where we might be then, especially re jobs. He did warn us with his dead-serious inauguration speech that it wouldn't be fast or easy. On the other hand, it gives me a sinking feeling to hear Krugman assert that more robust (and more insistently fought for) stimulus bill would have been a better help with jobs. Huffpo's "It's the jobs, stupid" headline today really resonated. We'll have to see where we are in a year. Or 2. Or, hopefully, 7.
One of your very best, Chris!! I've grown frustrated with the crap thrown at our president from both directions. Both are so focused on what he hasn't done, they've failed to acknowledge what he has done. For me, personally, the Liddy Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was a milestone (our last president threatened to veto this same legislation). I still have great faith in President Obama and I'm a very patient person; I survived eight years of GWB - if that doesn't prove patience, I don't know what does.
Amen to THAT, Danigirl65!
As frustrated as I am with Obama's more moderate than progressive stance, I am always mindful of what couild have been. I shudder with horror just thinking about a McCain/Palin victory. I feel more frustrated with the senate and congress than I do with Obama. The President and the First Lady are positive role models in so many ways.
Well, it's certainly abundantly clear today that when Obama told us, before the election, that Bill Ayers of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had absolutely no influence on him, that he was telling the truth ---- because Obama has sure as hell not been dong anything to fight for a 'democratic society'!
Obama never mentioned anything, before we 'gave him' our votes, about the ruling-elite corporate/financial imperialist war-machine, and racist tyranny of economic oppression that SDS fought against in the late 1960's.
Obama was being truthful with us when he totally ignored the very existence of this ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, and he was being totally truthful when he said nothing about this Empire that he himself was about to become the best front-man for.
It's just that we were too stupid, before the election, to ask him, "Hey, what about this Empire that is killing our country and the world? Will you represent this deceitful and hidden corporate/financial Empire or or will you represent us?"
We never asked him about which side he was on in our battle with Empire --- so he wasn't lying when he said nothing, because we never asked the right question!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Chris, you have good points there, but personally I am not as frustrated with Obama as I am with Democrats in Congress; I would like to see more spine in the leadership especially in the Senate because Harry Reid is a joke.
When it comes to health care reform I am with Rep. Kucinich: Is this the best we can do? I understand the compromises, but one thing is compromise the other thing is giving away the store. Their health care strategy has been awful; instead of negotiating from single payer to arrive at a robust public option, what we did was to remove single payer, the robust public option is gone, what 's left then? the trigger? This is what is frustrating to many people. Even my 6 year old knows how to negotiate better.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
SilviaMaria -
Funny, that's what my Union negotiator friend says, too. You start from a position of strength, then reluctantly accept a compromise in the middle, if need be. The Dems, by ignoring single-payer, started from a middle compromise, and now are compromising even further. That's not the way to win negotiations....
-CW
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
