Some of Obama's most ardent supporters don't get who he is as a politician, so likely can't fathom the challenges his presidency now faces. Paul Krugman writes about "Obama's Trust Problem", which Glenn Greenwald takes even further, explaining where Pres. Obama now finds himself. The Washington Post-ABC poll reveals Obama's now suffering from a crisis of confidence from Independents, which Greg Sargent outlines also reveals he's starting to lose his base. Us. Nobody's happy about where summer's end is leading. Mike Madden reached back into the primaries to help people understand our President a bit better, but also some of the trouble he's having today. It begins with the reality that Barack Obama "never claimed he was a doctrinaire liberal."
The White House position, though, is vintage Obama: Lay out some broad principles, seek consensus, and try to float above the nitty-gritty details of the argument on the way there. Obama has never claimed he was a doctrinaire liberal; in fact, part of his message last year was that he'd get past the tired debates that paralyzed Washington in the name of finding common ground, even if that common ground -- as he described it -- mostly tended to involve Democratic policy ideas. His approach on health care has followed that model; he started the process off by enlisting the very industries the reform legislation will affect, in an attempt to get them into his consensus. - Obama's just not that into you
Madden's subheading, however cute, is also to the point: Liberals and the president struggle to find common ground on health care. But are they really meant for each other?
Maybe not, but we're certainly stuck with each other. And all of us want Pres. Obama to succeed.
George Stephanopoulos is the only interviewer to get at the root of Obama, a quote to which I refer whenever we're in situations like the current one on health care, with Pres. Obama in a war with the activists who believe manifesting Democratic policy changes is more important than anything else.
"I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions." - Barack Obama (on ABC's "This Week", May 2007)
Segue to Eugene Robinson, who reveals his political analysis is about as good as anyone blinded by Barack Obama's star power, gift of oratory, as well as his once in a lifetime candidacy, which never had anything to do with doctrinaire liberalism, something Robinson has never gotten. But at least in this recent column he awakens to Obama's problem of passion, his lack of "heat".
There's not enough passion on the Democratic side, not enough heat. There's some radiating from the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, too little emanating from the Democratic majority in the Senate, and not nearly enough coming from President Obama. Republicans, by contrast, have little going for them except passion -- but they're using it to impressive effect.
Barack Obama was never about heat, not ever. Maybe from his supporters to him, or from the sheer star power of his oratory and coolness, but on policy the man has always been soft on passion when it comes to pushing for the manifestation of liberal policy prescriptions.
Obama's cool pegs him over any other description, which has been a big part of his charm across the political divide. It's also why he's the ultimate Blue Dog, The Blue Dog in fact, which for me has never been just about conservatism, but more about cool; the coolness of any passion towards liberal ideas and the ideology we are supposed to manifest because it represents what's in the long-term best interests of the country, as well as the American people.
But Obama isn't an ideologue, by his own admission.
It's also why candidate Obama, even as he invoked Reagan, now has revealed he never got Ronnie. Reagan was sunny, optimistic, but he was also a hard core ideologue. Yes, he compromised when he had to, did what he must, had cocktails with Tip O'Neill after hours, but Reagan never forgot what he was there for, the purpose of his presidency, which was to enact conservative principles through policy, something we're paying for right now. Obama just saw the character actor, missing the passionate conservative message of the man, which was never in doubt.
That's just not Obama's style. And it never has been his purpose. Go back to the quote with Stephanopoulos. Obama's the President of Cool, the anti-ideologue, at a time when what we really need is a person with passion about the solutions this country needs and isn't shy about using the Democratic majority we've got to implement change, especially on health care, that will mean something to everyone and last. Not simply become a weapon Republicans will use to run against us in upcoming elections.
But now that the summer is gone and Obama and the Democrats in Congress haven't gotten anything concrete done on health care, with a push well into the fall seeming more certain by the day, it's not going to get easier. Because with the news of a $9 trillion deficit, the Republicans are already preparing their trumpet to blast this out until we're all deaf, which is sure to make the Blue Dogs worry they'll be the next thing on the endangered species list as they look toward 2012, making it more likely than ever that they'll be digging their heals in on health care even further.
- Taylor Marsh, with podcasts available on ITunes.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
As usual, Progressives claim that President Obama has won people’s mandate in the last election and hence can make changes with magic wave of hand. This is very false. President Obama won in 28 states, George H.W. Bush won 40 states; Reagan won 44; Nixon won 49, LBJ won 44; Eisenhower won 39.
Progressives over-exaggerate their power, influence and capacity. They tried to elect Ned Lamont in Connecticut where the condition was optimum for success due in part to Lieberman’s cheerleading role on Iraq war in Iraq. Within Democratic Party, the instinct for anti-war was at fever pitch and Lamont won at the primary. Lieberman opted to vie as Independent candidate in the general election and silenced the vociferous Progressives with defeat over Lamont.
Progressives personally gave quite a bit in the 2008 campaigns. It's the corporate influence behind the things you mention that should be questioned -- unless you are an active participant in them.
training and education, primary secondary and teriary care issues, reformulating medicare and medicaid.
COULD THE INTELLECTUAL OBAMA HAVE ORGANIZED AN OVERHAUL with respect to people's
sensitivities and the general poor economy and the COMPONENTS of health care,and phased in changes in sensible configurations.I like him but the approach is like the bailout or stimulus-hurry up now.... I don't think this will succeed even if some bill passes. Cool Obama needs to be smart Obama right now. Maybe get himself organized better on this one before the gates all opened up.
He will just DO it when need arises.
Liberals and Dems have very weak nerves, it’s a pity. THEY should grow a spine!
The Prez was capable to outwit all the other candidates - nobody ever thought he could do that. But he did, and decisively!
So this proves he is smart. Really, really, really smart. And he will get hc passed - that's what is really his concern.
Obamas coolness leads the opposition to play out all their cards, until they have no more... and from time to time he points out what r. u bb ish they had been talking.
The Prez was capable to outwit all the other candidates - nobody ever thought he could do that. But he did, and decisively!
So this proves he is smart. Really, really, really smart. And he will get hc passed - that's what is really his concern.
Why should he trumpet out now, in August if he wants to use reconciliation in September?
He will just DO it when need arises.
Liberals and Dems have very weak nerves, it’s a pity. THEY should grow a spine!
Obamas coolness leads the opposition to play out all their cards, until they have no more... and from time to time he points out what r. u bb ish they had been talking.
The Prez was capable to outwit all the other candidates - nobody ever thought he could do that.
So this proves he is smart. Really, really, really smart. And he will get hc passed - that's what is really his concern.
Why should he trumpet out now, in August if he wants to use reconciliation in September?
He will just DO it when need arises.
Liberals and Dems have very weak nerves, it’s a pity. THEY should grow a spine!
Why do the Progressives need Pres Obama to be the one to show fire first? Are they so mealy-minded and weak that they can't muster up the initiative to find their own fire without Pres Obama having done it first?
Why can't the Dems implement tactics to counter the lies the Repubs are pushing without the Pres first starting the push back? All this freakin' handwringing about lack of leadership from Pres Obama, and yet none of these freakin' whiners are doing much to step up to the plate on their own. Save maybe MoveOn and the Unions.
Methinks before the Dems start pointing a finger at Obama, maybe they should take a long look in the mirror first. As Michael jackson said "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to make that change..."
Taylor Marsh:
Your claim that liberals are stucked with Obama and want him to succeed is greatly exargerated. There are certain segments in progressive movement who are either intentionally or by default doing everything to diminish Obama’s presidency. Let me cite few of them.
Very early in President Obama’s presidency, there were deafening uproar from the progressive quarters that his economic team are the people who caused the economic meltdown and should be replaced. Any reasonable person knows that that will not happen. But the idea undergirding the noise was to dirty President Obama as beholden to Wall-Street and undercut his campaign mantra to bring change to Washington.
The Progressives are at it again on healthcare legislation. They want public option or nothing. Under the economic climate with $1.9 trillion deficit, President Obama wanted to work out deal with Pharma to contribute $8 billion per year out of $40 billion budget on Medicare Prescription Drug; Progressives cry foul that that was a sell-out.
The problem began with Pres. Obama when he committed to not making the same mistakes as the Clintons by being hands off. I was around during "Hillarycare," so I appreciate that, but in not at least partially defining what health care reform must have for him to sign a bill, abdicating his leadership role, as commenter "Liberal Angel" aptly describes, he allowed the right to hijack health care. That was *very* clear when Sarah Palin's "death panels" squeal went wide, with Obama having to respond to her. A post I did here on that subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-divider_b_260319.html
As the President, this was not good. Now Obama is stuck in catch up mode going into the fall, which is a loser for everyone.
This one is on Pres. Obama. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say so, but even as a Democratic partisan my first job is to analyze truthfully what's playing out. We *all* want Obama to succeed, but he's earned the uprising from progressives on the public option. That he's losing his own base proves it.
Pathological? Really?
Did that kernel of psychological insight originate from a confession in one of Obama's books?
Or perhaps an eminent psychologist or other shrinkologist gave their considered opinion based on their close and personal analysis?
Or perhaps you're just repeating a catchy phrase that's been bandied about in the blogs by armchair experts who are projecting their own interpretations of motivations onto PO.
"we need our leaders to have resolve and fortitude.' - yea right and how exactly did the last 8 years of that BS work out for you with Bush and Cheney - the Kings of resolve and fortitude. Obama didn't tell you he would FIGHT FOR CHANGE - he said he would BRING CHANGE. He promised to do things differently and to be a listener. The man hasn't even been president for 8 months and you talking about drinking cool aide.
I ask that you give up your T-SHIRT for you are too naive to even be caught wearing it.
Are you trying to make a statement or work on your Vegas mind-reading act?
It's only when he is actually pressed to deliver some scrap for progressives that people say oh, he was a cool right wing centrist guy didn't you know?
Save it for the people who have no memories.
"Memories" and expectations/projections can sometimes get confused in hindsight.
My memory of PO before the election is very congruent with how he's conducting himself now.