Candidate Obama Might Have Some Questions for President Obama

As Barack Obama stood in Grant Park a year ago tonight and gave his victory speech, it was a galvanizing moment, one I (and millions of others) will never forget. A year later, many of the president's supporters are expressing concern as to whether he has kept faithful to the vision he laid out in his campaign.

Today, Arianna argued that candidate Obama might not be so thrilled with the job President Obama is doing. She wrote: "Would he look at what the White House is doing and say, 'that's what I and my supporters worked so hard for?'"

I understand the dismay some, like Arianna, are expressing. It's hard to read headlines on HuffPost like "Obama Administration Helps House Gut Post-Enron Reforms" and not wonder where the "change" we were promised is hiding.

I find myself torn between two points of view I find compelling. On the one hand, it would have been virtually impossible for a president to come in and undo decades of corruption and inertia in Washington politics in one year. The mountain the president had to climb in this regard was immense. To me, though, the biggest problem has been that Obama lacks a necessary partner in this epic struggle: Congress. As I wrote in September in the context of the health care debate, it seems to me that the Democrats in Congress have forgotten that the president won 365 electoral votes last November, and that the American people strengthened the Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House. From the fight over the stimulus legislation, through the battle over the budget, and careening right into the war over health care reform, Congressional Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people bestowed a mandate on them to enact the president's agenda. For some inexplicable reason, they've been scared of the Republicans, who retain the ability to be obstructionist, but don't have any power to actually do anything. (Making the Republicans filibuster something is not a bad thing.)

If Obama has been timid, the Democrats in Congress have been straight-out terrified.

And despite the Democrats on Capitol Hill not pulling their share of the "change" weight, Obama did manage to get through stimulus legislation and important programs in the budget, and health care reform has gotten further along in the process than it ever has before. Not to mention the general competency and positive world view that Obama has brought to the White House, a huge change from his bumbling, toxic and disastrous predecessor.

At the same time, I would be lying if said I wasn't disappointed with Obama's leadership. I applauded his early efforts at bipartisanship, but once the Republicans revealed themselves to be completely uninterested in any kind of cooperation, only focused on blocking the president at every turn, his attempts to come up with bipartisan solutions morphed from being admirable to being naive and counterproductive. (I agree with Arianna that I couldn't care less what Olympia Snowe does or does not want in health care reform legislation.) I appreciated Obama's desire to learn from past mistakes and allow Congress to generate legislation, rather than imposing solutions on the legislators (after the Clinton administration's failed attempt at health care reform). But coming off the election, the president had enormous political capital (really a blank check to move forward with anything he campaigned for), and I can't help thinking that he didn't make enough use of it. Some more outspoken leadership was necessary (and missed).

And most of all, the president hasn't done enough to foster the idea that his is an administration of change, just like he promised. Arianna is unhappy that Larry Summers has an influential position in the Obama White House, and such an objection is understandable, given his close ties to the kind of deregulation, anything-goes attitude that contributed to creating the economic mess the administration now has to try and clean up. But to me, the problem isn't who the president does and doesn't hire. It all comes down to him. When he spoke to a joint session of Congress about health care, it re-ignited action on reform and turned the mood around. It was an important speech and an important show of leadership from the president. I'd like to see more moments like that one.

During the campaign, every time writers (and I was one of them, on occasion) groused that Obama wasn't hitting back hard enough when his opponents attacked, his strategy always seemed to pay off in the end, making the pundits look bad. So I can't help feeling like he must know what he is doing now, that there is a strategy behind his less-than-assertive public approach to his presidency. But as each day goes by, it becomes harder to have faith. As Arianna noted, the ability to make pitch-perfect course corrections during the campaign was a key to Obama's success. Hopefully, he will continue that trend in the second year of his presidency.

Just over 10 months ago Obama took the oath of office with unfair expectations hovering ominously over his head, so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But, as Arianna's article shows, that benefit is not extended by all, and it is not available indefinitely. One thing I think we can all agree on is that President Obama would benefit from a little infusion of Candidate Obama. The future of his presidency may depend on it.

Comments

[CKothman]

Well, I tried to help you out earlier - but you hung up on me. So I'll do it here.

" ... From the fight over the stimulus legislation, through the battle over the budget, and careening right into the war over health care reform, Congressional Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people bestowed a mandate on them to enact the president's agenda ..."

It's not the job of Congress to 'enact the president's agenda'. The President's 'agenda' doesn't matter, at all. Congress is a member of the LEGISLATIVE Branch, and the President is a member of the EXECUTIVE Branch. It's the President's job to enforce the LAWS as written by the LEGISLATIVE Branch, and interpreted by the JUDICIARY Branch.

It's called 'Checks and Balances', and it was put in place to prevent the usurpation of power by one or two branches. Unfortunately, the executive branch (Read: The President) has indeed usurped power from the other branches, and now abuses it without the public doing so much as batting an eye. As evident by this quote:

" ... Obama did manage to get through stimulus legislation and important programs in the budget, and health care reform has gotten further along in the process than it ever has before ... "

This is blatant unconstitutional use of powers delegated to congress, and congress ONLY. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

[CKothman]

Unfortunantly my response was too long for one comment, so I've had to wait until my first comment was approved to attach the second part:

" ... Not to mention the general competency and positive world view that Obama has brought to the White House, a huge change from his bumbling, toxic and disastrous predecessor ... "

Obama may be more articulate than Bush, but he has continued many of the same policies. Two illegal wars, illegal wiretapping, the same abuse of powers, wasting taxpayer money, continuing to allow 'money' to be printed out of thin air, etc.

". ..but once the Republicans revealed themselves to be completely uninterested in any kind of cooperation, only focused on blocking the president at every turn ..."

How dare those jerks stick to their beliefs!

" ... the kind of deregulation, anything-goes attitude that contributed to creating the economic mess the administration now has to try and clean up ... "

It's rather unfortunate that this kind of lie is allowed to propagate around the media. Although chances are that's precisely what the real culprit wishes.
The culprit I speak of would be the Federal Reserve.

See: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Free+Market+Capitalism+Killed+Our+American+Economy%3F+A+Ghost+Story-a01073971029
And just about any article on Mises.org

[WorldGriot]

Congress is not the weakest link in this governance partnership. The weak link lies in us the public who fail to understand the difference between masterful leadership and Marshmallow management. We haven't had real leadership in so long that we fail to understand it when we see it. But here is the bigger point, this man came into to office with the citizens ready to revolt against wall street. He has not solved the financial crisis that has taken a hundred years to metastasize, yet his leadership has calmed the country. THAT IS HUGE! Just as he has calmed a jittery world and began the discussions about how we survive the future. If President Obama had run through the congress with emergency legislation he might have pleased you EZpass citizens but tomorrow, we would still worry. The problems in our nation are infrastructural ones. To fix them requires reason and compassion and thinking people. it will require the right and the left working in concert. I don't like what the republicans are doing. I abhor it. But were I president, I would continue to insist that they play. At the very least, the feint towards bipartisanship takes that ground away from them and leaves the high road for the leaders. Obama is a master player in this game and the sooner we realize we are not in his league, the better off we're going to be. STOP SECONDING GUESSING HIM. WE ALL SAID HE COULDN'T WIN AND HE DID!

[Bobotheclown]

No. To fix the problems in America requires that you build a political consensus and hold it long enough to get re-elected so that you have the time to do something. We saw how easy that is to do when W shamelessly appealed to the most ignorant and intolerant in Texas and the south and got his 50% through nothing more or less than the will to lie. In Obama's case he has already destroyed his political consensus in the short period of 10 months, which will probably be held to be a record when the incompetence of Presidents is rated. His "strategy" has guaranteed him one thing: 100% opposition from the Republican party, the defection of centrist Democrats, and a one term administration. In the end there will be no meaningful healthcare reform or any kind of reform. He is already a lame duck President and Congress will find it easy to stall for the mere three years it will take to dislodge him. More than his own failure though is the effect that his bumbling will have on the Democratic base who will find it impossible to garner anywhere near the support for another candidate as they did for Obama. This disaffection guarantees a Reupiblican in office in three years. When one sees the extreme rightward swing of the remaining Republican contenders one shudders to think of the disaster that Obama has waiting for us all.

[BHO 007]

The expert political media is terribly misinterpreting yesterday's elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. The incumbent NJ Democratic Governor Jon Corzine lost to Republican Chris Christie, and VA Republican Bob McDonnell beat Democrat Creigh Deeds by nearly 20 points. And in the crazy NY-23 congressional district, who cares who won as long as the Palin-Limbaugh Party promises to continue making Michele Bachmann-like statements. I can use the humor.

The New Jersey contest was predictable but the Virgina race intrigued me. Barack Obama won Virgina last November 53% to 46%, yet Republican McDonnell beat Democrat Deeds 59% to 41%. So what happened in Virgina? That's the $64,000 question. Deeds wasn't the best candidate, and McDonnell carefully straddled the Republican crazy world with solid conservative campaigning. Also, McDonnell survived his anti-modern working woman thesis, and he didn't anger the left. The NBC exit polls provide the answer but few are interested in facts; it's not the Republican­-Democrat-­Independen­t shift but the demographic shift. Young and black Democrats didn't vote.

Bin Quick

http://binquick.blogspot.com/

[GreatNews27]

And LBJ 'must have known what her was doing' when he esclated in Viet Nam. To assume that Obama knows what he's doing is a very dangerous way of thinking.

[dharmamom]

Ya think? No kidding? Hahahaha we were duped and it's hard to admit it so the more verbose faction of our progressive brethern are spinning apologetic questions,­,,pussyfoo­ting around the truth....we were duped, plain and simple. We are not republicans, we are progressives, and we are being compromised by a lier who ran on principles and claims that he would serve the greater interests of the constituents of this country...blah, blah and blather now as we squeak and squak about how we think he is not doing what he claimed...the banks and big pharma and insurance cos...they are happy though

[jmpurser]

The often heard "defense" that Obama can't fix all our problems in a year is a straw man argument. No reasonable person is expecting him for fix everything by now. There is quite a bit of concern that he could have moved much faster on addressing some issues but the biggest complaints against Obama is the DIRECTION he has already taken! I don't believe anyone voted for Obama in order to make banks bigger, cover up war crimes, ignore or harm civil rights, or to sabotage health care but he's done all those things.

We elected him to lead the nation towards the solutions that we need so badly. Instead Obama has run to support the problems that dug the hole we're in now. When you come up with an honest rebuttal to THAT argument let me know.

[JaneK13]

How's that hope and change workin' out for us?

We sure did make a mistake sending a youngster to do a man's job. He has no experience to rely on and his advisors are no better. Sadly, they actually think they're smart and know what's best for the people. Maybe they should all leave their universities, come out here, get a job and do an internship in the real world.

[wheresthetruth]

The campaign was highly effective at making a centrist Obama look like a real progressive.

Some say that appearances are decieving and that everything will fall into place if we are patient. It's going to be interesting to see how that works out considering what we've seen to date.

Obama promised financial reform and accountability yet appointed people who work to preserve the status quo.

He promised of a new era of government transparency yet the White House cuts secret deals and then issues denials.

The promise to take government from the special interests and give it back to the people? He sits on the sidelines while congress kowtows to corporate interests.

As to extricating us from Iraq and Afghanistan, the only thing we hearabout is how many more troops to send to Afghanistan.

And the promise to reverse abuse of executive privilege? Obama has perpetuated and defended many of them.

He has done many good things and I know in my heart McCain would have been horribly worse. But if you are waiting for the Obama of the campaign to suddenly reappear exclaiming "Had you fooled!", I think you will be disappointed.

It's a tough time for us who had such high hopes. But reality sets in and you find yourself going through the Stages Of Grief. I will now go back to my state of depressed resignation.

[zardinuk]

It puts things in perspective, you can see that the "anyone but Bush" mantra was just a form of mind control, and that any candidate can be demonized, for anything. It's much easier to win a campaign by demonizing your opponent. I wouldn't count spending bills as an accomplishment, if anything it's the reason why people are voting out the incumbents.

[BLBass]

The question of how much and for how long to extend Obama the benefit of the doubt is an important and difficult one. Strategic concerns play a (major) role in some people's answers, but I don't think that's appropriate as a primary factor. I would say that on any given issue Obama begins with the benefit of my doubt, and I give him a lot of credit for strategery...but that's not enough in the face of repeated failures to stand up for the change he told us we were voting for a year ago. If he wants progressives to trust in his strategy he doesn't have to give it away in advance -- trade secrets, right? -- but he should explain the thought process to trusted voices on the progressive side of the national debate (Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Arianna even if only for the megaphone of this site, even Kucinich just to name a few possible choices). If they buy the pitch, then they can disseminate that confidence; if not, then the naysayers were right to begin with.

[BLBass]

Another name to throw out there: certainly he's a flawed vessel, but if Obama could convince Alan Grayson that everything about the administration's strategy were sound and to go risk his own political capital on reassuring progressives of that, it would carry a whole lot of weight. Especially in the next 3-6 months, when Obama badly needs our support to get the meaningful financial reforms we should have received 6-7 months ago.

[dfranz]

I'll bet that at some point after the election The President asked himself, "What the he!l have I done". The problems are large. The solutions fraught with uncertainty and a Republican Party that can hardly be called the "honorable opposition". He has a hard row to hoe and everyone on each side of him is screaming their own mantras. Too slow from the left and Too fast from the right.

I give him a B+ for his first 10 months. He still has some learning to do. Thankfully he's intelligent, has good people around him and has honor, unlike what we've seen in the recent past.

Thank You President Obama.

[bk1990]

It's true that Obama won over 2/3 of the electorate vote, however that is hardly representational of the country. According to popular vote statistics Obama won over 52-53% of *voters* (which is barely a majority of Americans - only 54% of Americans voted in that election). Mandate? Hardly.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

In the last election, a Democrat should have won 60% of the vote. I actually feel that Obama underperformed for a Democrat, considering the historically bad performance of the previous administration. Whether that was due to racism or not, i don't know.

[Trusty72]

You're forgetting that no Democrat had won 50 percent of more of the popular vote since Carter in 1976, who won a bare majority at a time when the south was still solidly Democrat territory, and California was a conservative stronghold. Obama's win was the biggest for a Democrat since 1964.