President Obama is at it again, this time scolding Democratic voters in the pages of Rolling Stone:
[I]f people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place...The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.
When people scratch their heads and wonder how a campaign based on hectoring your supporters expects to turn out voters, the answer is, it doesn't. And you don't see anyone who's actually running for office this November engaging in it. They well know that your job is to inspire and energize voters in advance of the election. Obama did too -- when he was running for office himself.
No, this isn't about getting voters to the polls in November. It's about setting up a narrative for who will take the blame for a disastrous election. And once again, the White House doesn't care if they make matters worse in order to deflect responsibility from Obama.
Consider:
October 23, 2009, Creigh Deeds -- Ten days before the general election, from the Washington Post:
Top Democrats seek to shield Obama in case of election loss
Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.
Sources: Obama advisers believe Coakley will lose
Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday's special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.
The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama's visit to Massachusetts on Sunday - coupled with a late push by Democratic activists - could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.
However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley's chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.
White House distances Obama from Specter
The White House is seeking to distance President Barack Obama from longtime Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter as the Democrat faces shaky election prospects in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.
On the eve of the election, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that while the president was following the Pennsylvania race - as well as primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky - he wasn't watching that closely.
That's a far cry from a year ago, when Obama said Specter would have his "full support" after the Republican lawmaker switched to the Democratic party. The president appeared with Specter at a rally in Pennsylvania in September, telling the crowd that Specter came to Washington "to fight for the working men and women of Pennsylvania."
[]
On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary a poll shows the race too close to call, with Sestak claiming 42 percent of support among Democrats likely to vote and Specter with 41 percent, according to the Quinnipiac University survey released Monday.
Obama Disengages From Race As Blanche Lincoln Slips In Polls
The White House is still formally supporting Sen. Blanche Lincoln's re-election bid as the Arkansas Democratic primary approaches its runoff vote on Tuesday. But over the past few weeks, as the incumbent senator's prospects for holding onto the seat have became more unsettled, the president and his team have been noticeably silent about the race.
[]
Aides won't go there on record, or even on background. But they don't correct the assertion that they've stepped back from the race. The evidence is obvious. Save a perfunctory, donate-to-Blanche-email signed on June 2 by Vice President Joseph Biden, the type of formal campaigning that team Obama rolled out prior to the first vote (with radio ads and robocalls) has been completely non-existent.
It could easily shave 5 points off your total and mean the margin of defeat. It threatens to instantly suppress all those difficult-to-motivate 2008 "surge" voters the Democrats have been chasing, and which Obama's support was supposed to deliver.
In the case of Specter and Lincoln, that support was promised in exchange for their votes on measures Obama is now crowing about. He tells Rolling Stone he has achieved "70%" of his campaign promises. That's a bit far-fetched, but be that as it may, Lincoln's vote for his health care bill cost her dearly, and without Specter's vote for the stimulus, it never would have happened.
Now I don't feel the least bit sorry for either of them, but it doesn't say anything good about Obama that he would abandon them in the clinch like that either.
But this is a clear pattern with the Obama White House. Insulating the President from blame for electoral losses is paramount, even at the risk of triggering the loss. Setting up the narrative, pre-election, that the campaign was doomed anyway and there was nothing Obama could do to save it was considered more important.
And right now, Obama is turning the Democratic base into Martha Coakley and setting them up for the blame for any electoral failure in fall. The people who showed up to vote for him in 2008 "just weren't serious" if they "now want to take their ball and go home."
There is no internal consistency to the narrative that the "professional left" is suppressing turnout by criticizing Obama, but Obama is not suppressing turnout when he scolds the voters who aren't clapping loudly enough for his achievements. But few in the professional punditocracy find their way to that obvious conclusion.
This isn't about motivating Democratic voters. It's about setting up a fall guy for November. The headline should really read:
Obama Distances Himself From Democratic Voters
Democratic voters are all Martha Coakley now. And if shielding Obama from blame makes matters worse for those who are actually running in November? Well, that's the price of protecting the President.
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
Jim Wallis: It Takes a Movement: Why Politics is Frozen Solid -- Part 2
Jules Witcover: Obama's Sidekick Joe Biden: Understanding The Vice President
Hoping, believing, and wishing will not change that. It hurts to discover that what was the core of your dreams has been callously betraying and using you.
nor pass a HCR bill that gave BILLIONS to Big Pharma and no actual public option and hillary would NEVER have tried to ovterturn 3 decades of dem policy and open both of our Coasts to offshore drilling as Obama tried to before this idea finally died two months into the gulf Spill disaster...
i could go on...but you wont listen anyhow so whats the point?...
The alternative is not to cede the nation to the Tea Party but to strongly support those Democrats who have the guts to do the right thing.
"My president, right or wrong" might have worked to keep Republicans in line but it won't fly with people who think for themselves and are tired of supporting the lesser evil.
The locality I'm dealing with is Pennsylvania, where Democrats made great strides in recent years but are now in danger of losing the senate race to Pat Toomey, a candidate who makes our former senator Rick Santorum seem almost reasonable in comparison. And President Obama is partly to blame for the games he played, throwing his backing to Arlen Spector in order to get his vote but then doing nothing to help him in the primary.
Now his backing would be more hurtful than helpful here.
Very disappointing but not surprising in light of his fits and starts campaign style.
All I can say is that those who don't vote, can't complain. And those who do vote are obligated to educate themselves on who they're voting for. Because clearly the choice this election boils down to whether or not you can live with the alternative.
But he has ignored his progressive base since Day One, and wasted the first two years of his Presidency trying to please people who would never vote for him even if you held a gun to their head. Now, the people like me who stuck their necks and their wallets on the line to get him elected, are wondering why we bothered since he seems to care far more about what conservatives think and want than the people who put him in the Oval Office in the first place.
Every time I have seen a political party uses the Lesser of Two Evils strategy, they have gone down in flames. The only thing that can save the Dems now is the ridiculous group of Teabagger clowns the Republicans have nominated. Every time I think the Dems have reached the acme of incompetence, the Republicans come up with something even worse.
What is new is the vitriol these slivers can now spew out on the internet--all the while pretended to represent a much larger group of voters. That's annoying and dangerous in these perilous times.
Now we're calling you out on this nonsense.....take the heat.
Obama is the best president we can have for this moment and time. He has inherited the hardest job of any president in our nation's history with our troubled economy, multiple wars, high unemployment, etc. If it wasn't for his actions I have no doubt the economy would be worse, many people would not have access to healthcare, and things all around would be so much worse. Those who are unsatisfied with him are upset about petty things. They expect for miracles to happen and for things to get better overnight. They forget that Obama has to go through Congress for most of his legislation. They forget about the stubborn, self-interested politics that go on behind the scenes.
E.B. WHITE was so right. People wanted to judge Kennedy too, but they failed to ask themselves what they would do when faced with the difficult decisions he had to make. The same goes for Obama. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE IN HIS SHOES? I doubt if his critics have asked themselves this. They get upset when he targets terrorists, when he compromises on healthcare, authorizes bail outs, etc. But what if he didn't do these things? What shape would we be in then?
Your last paragraph really is a whopper...so Obama "compromises" on health care? It was more like a sellout to DINOs...Get upset when he targets terrorists? Uh, HELLO...Afghanis and Pakistanis are sick of our drones or soldiers KILLING them...authorizing bailouts? Once again, WHO benefited from that bailout? YOU? Surely you jest, or are simply delusional.
Shielding yourself so you cannot be blamed for the Dems crashing and burning in November is really a foolish strategy, because 1) it plays right into Repub hands, 2) it alienates the base further, and 3) sets Obama up for trouble in 2012...obviously Obama feels trashing the base is more important than trashing those who deserve it: the teabaggers...what possible purpose is there in burning your bridges? It's almost as maniacal as Rick Sanchez did with CNN...buck up, indeed...that's YOUR job Obama, not ours...
We did NOT get everything initially promised on the health care bill, so yes it was a compromise.
Alwaki is the terrorist I'm talking about, and the whole Pakistan/drone situation has not been made clear enough for me to speak on.
And if the industries we bailed out weren't bailed out, WE ALL WOULD'VE SUFFERED. So I didn't directly benefit from it,but I didn't get harmed by it either.
Obama has not shielded himself. This is the most he's been exposed since his presidency.
And whatever part of the base that feels alienated have no reason to be. If they vote for the Repubs or stay at home THAT IS THEIR FAULT. No one is forcing them to.
When you were a kid your parents would chastise you for throwing tantrums or saying inappropriate things, and if you were wise you'd learn from their lesson despite your humiliation- not pout and sulk and hope they'd give you what you want.
Obama can't get things done without a compliant Congress. They check and ultimately steer what he can and cannot do, along with how much of a legislation he wants will get put into a bill.
It's called POLITICS, sir...
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
It's not the President's job to run for the Democratic party, but he is doing it anyway TO GET VOTERS OUT TO THE POLLS BECAUSE IT SEEMS THE PARTY REPRESENTATIVES ARE TOO SCARED TO. The president is right in chastising those who are complaining because those are the main people who are likely to sit out or vote against the party in the midterm elections. The president isn't up for election until 2012, this election ISN'T about him- it's about the American people and whether or not they want to continue to get the policies they care about passed.
I don't see any reason for the president to be blamed for any possible losses anyway. I don't see what the dems who are running are so ashamed of. Sure, they inherited a lot of problems from the previous administration, but they also did a lot to hamper those problems while passing reforms that would help the American people. They won't run on their accomplishments and they won't fight. They've abandoned themselves.
Your argument appears to be the old "a pox on both their houses" conundrum.
And that, bubba, is to encourage voters to stay home -- and let the Republicans win, because you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans will NOT be staying home.
The fact of the matter is that we need MORE Democrats in our Congress and FEWER Republicans. Many fewer Republicans.
Get out the vote.
Go out and vote.
If anyone is to blame for low voter turnout it is the voters themselves and the DINOs who have stayed silent and not fought and the DINOs who have adamantly ran against their party and party's accomplishments. In other words, those who have caused confusion for potential voters.
"I don't see any reason for the president to be blamed for any possible losses anyway"
jeeze.
"the "hope" is strong in this droid"....
I doubt you even know why you dislike him. And I doubt you could intelligently debate your position. Now that's what I call a droid.
Remove Obama from your thoughts. Then consider the available choices.
1. Vote for a Democrat (in some case Progressive - very good, in others Blue Dog - mederately good to slightly bad)
2. Vote repub/tea party (extreme and bad) [note that there are few regular repubs left]
3. Don't vote - essentially a vote for repubs/tea party
its our only chance...