Let’s talk about this:
ROLLING STONE: You’ve passed more progressive legislation than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Yet your base does not seem nearly as fired up as the opposition, and you don’t seem to be getting the credit for those legislative victories. There was talk that you were going to mobilize your grass-roots volunteers and use them to pressure Congress, but you decided for whatever reason not to involve the public directly and not to force a filibuster on issues like health care. What do you say to those people who have developed a sense of frustration — your base — who feel that you need to fight harder?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s a bunch of different questions, so let me see if I can kind of knock them out one by one.
One of the healthy things about the Democratic Party is that it is diverse and opinionated. We have big arguments within the party because we got a big tent, and that tent grew during my election and in the midterm election previously. So making everybody happy within the Democratic Party is always going to be tough.
Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there’s a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It’s like, “Well, gosh, we’ve got this historic health care legislation that we’ve been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn’t have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let’s focus on what we didn’t get instead of what we got.” That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.
When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, “Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable.” I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don’t even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.
The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn’t seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.
You look at all this, and you say, “Folks, that’s what you elected me to do.” I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we’ve probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I’ve got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we’ve accomplished.
All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we’ve seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people’s wages and incomes have stagnated. So it’s not surprising that a lot of folks out there don’t feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won’t take effect right away, so ordinary folks won’t see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we’ve accomplished a huge amount.
When you look at what we’ve been able to do internationally — resetting our relations with Russia and potentially having a new START treaty by the end of the year, reinvigorating the Middle East peace talks, ending the combat mission in Iraq, promoting a G-20 structure that has drained away a lot of the sense of north versus south, east versus west, so that now the whole world looks to America for leadership, and changing world opinion in terms of how we operate on issues like human rights and torture around the world — all those things have had an impact as well.
What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.
I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn’t have a bill. You’ve got to make a set of decisions in terms of “What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you’re actually trying to govern?” I made a decision early on in my presidency that if I had an opportunity to do things that would make a difference for years to come, I’m going to go ahead and take it.
I just made the announcement about Elizabeth Warren setting up our Consumer Finance Protection Bureau out in the Rose Garden, right before you came in. Here’s an agency that has the potential to save consumers billions of dollars over the next 20 to 30 years — simple stuff like making sure that folks don’t jack up your credit cards without you knowing about it, making sure that mortgage companies don’t steer you to higher-rate mortgages because they’re getting a kickback, making sure that payday loans aren’t preying on poor people in ways that these folks don’t understand. And you know what? That’s what we say we stand for as progressives. If we can’t take pleasure and satisfaction in concretely helping middle-class families and working-class families save money, get a college education, get health care — if that’s not what we’re about, then we shouldn’t be in the business of politics. Then we’re no better than the other side, because all we’re thinking about is whether or not we’re in power.
What do you think?
I think he is exactly right. But I also think he needs to focus, right now, on making this case in a less “reasonable” way. Hard for him to do, as an eminently reasonable, pragmatic, serious man – but he needs to fire up the base with more fighting words. I think he needs to use a bulletpoint litany of progressive accomplishments:
– “Thanks to us, kids can’t be denied health insurance! Are you fired up yet?”
-“Thanks to us, we will never have to bail out big banks again when they threaten to collapse the economy! Fired up yet?”
– “Thanks to us etc.
This has been a hugely consequential 20 months, achieved in the face of a relentlessly obstructionist and deeply dishonest opposition and their media machine, and a few too many Dems who were/are willing to help that opposition.
He pretty much does do that kind of rhetoric in his speeches, etc, yet somehow the message doesn’t get across. As you kind of suggest, part of the problem seems to be that we got what we wanted: a reasonable, results-driven smart guy who focuses more on getting things done than on ideology and political battle. Maybe we can’t have both, or maybe the reasonableness and pragmatism is a political flaw. Maybe this society, founded on the Enlightenment’s faith in reason, is no longer capable of responding to anything more nuanced than the 2-year-old tantrums peddled by Beck, Palin, and the infantile teabaggers.
Again, though, the burden can’t be all on Obama. We have Dem candidates running away from him, undercutting the message, giving comfort to the enemy. We have a base that buys into a degree of self-pity that’s absolutely disgusting in a country still this rich. After all the yap about a clash of civilizations, I think we are in the midst of one right here in our country, in this election season. “Government for Grownups” might be a good campaign slogan.
This part of the interview is fine, and it’s largely what we both have argued since he’s taken office. In fact, for an interview, it’s very well articulated and in-depth.
Where he fucks it up is yelling at us about being apathetic. That’s not a winning strategy, no matter how true it is. This part also pissed me off:
LOL! How could it get much worse, Mr. President? You’ve out-Bushed Bush on the issue of civil liberties, something I didn’t think was possible. Part of me knew you’d keep most of the excesses Bush rolled up, as power is rarely given up easily once it’s given. I expected it to stay where it was, possibly get a little bit better. However, I didn’t expect it to get worse, and it has.
What we need is more Jim DeMints in the Senate.
Already saw it, and obviously I’m not in the mind of being apathetic myself. However, for the rest of the country, this strategy of complaining about us whining and crying is shit. Absolute shit. Do they forget what happened in 2000? It wasn’t that long ago where people decided there wasn’t much of a difference and got tired of the Democratic Party’s games. Obviously there was a stark difference, but it wasn’t communicated well enough for 3% of the voting liberals in this country.
I wish you’d quote the entire end bit rather than selectively excerpt it. I read that and thought Goddam right!
On the state secrets issue, it is much more complicated than Glenn greenwald would have you believe. The judge does in fact usually get to see the details of the state secret and can make a determination as to whether the invoking of the privilege is in line with the recent guidelines issued by doj, namely that it is not invoked due to protect illegality. I am a lawyer and can read judgments just as well as gg can and I find that he always reports them in most alarmist ways possible without ever really admitting to the nuances involved.
More complicated? Perhaps. I’m not interested in debating the complicatedness of the issue considering I yelled at Bush about it, and I will yell at Obama about it. There’s no complicatedness on what I consider a zero-sum issue.
I am not sure I understand: are you saying that there should be no state secrets whatsoever? Are you saying that national security is never an issue in these sorts of things?
I don’t really care whether you yelled at Bush about it and whether that makes you think that you should also yell at Obama – that’s not convincing to me. What I do care about is grounding criticism in actual facts and having a bit of understanding about what it is you are criticising.
Do you see state secrets authorized in the Constitution? Especially in cases in which they are essentially to a defendant’s court defense? I do believe that that is what habeas corpus is about. Knowing what you are charged with doing and why.
Don’t forget … history has proved that almost all “state secrets” are secret from only one group of people … the American people
Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall an instance where state secrets have been pleaded to ensure that a defendant can’t know what he is charged with. Mostly it’s used in cases where the government is the defendant.
I hate to say this, but you sound a bit like Michele Bachman versus Geithner hearing right now. The fact that something doesn’t appear in the Constitution is not an argument against it.
Adam Serwer: The Administration’s Response To ACLU/CCR On Targeted Killing
Radley Balko: Tyranny
Anyway, you said you’re a lawyer and you disagree with Glenn. Well, lawyer whom I’ve never ever seen criticize Obama on this board on anything, enlighten me.
To take your last point first. It’s not necessarily that I haven’t criticized Obama, although I accept it’s clear that I like him a lot. It’s that I want the criticism to come from a place grounded in facts and reality. Here’s my distinction. Do I like the fact that state secrets eve exist? No. Do I wish that Obama would dismantle the CIA? Yes. However, on the question of legality and executive overreach I differ from you and gg. I think it’s been clear for decades that Any American President will try to claim that that the executive has the greatest power it can argue for. I think the aumf is a piece of tissue paper that shouldn’t be the basis for anything, but the us courts disagree. In fact Obama is simply doing what every President has done since the start of the republic. I don’t agree with it and yes there is much I am disappointed about what he has done thus far in this regard but I just don’t necessarily see it as illegal. In fact the court in jeppesen agreed with the government’s position – even the dissenters agreed that the government could raise state secrets as a defense.
If I don’t criticize Obama enough does that mean I’ve got nothing constructive to say? Or does it mean that I grade him qua President of the us not as a second coming of the mahatma.
My complaints about bush were that he ddi things that were clearly illegal. Obama not so much.
I’ll comment more on the links you post tomorrow morning uk time.
it’s also incumbent, in my view, on you to to be able to explain why you say that Obama has out-Bushed Bush.
BTW I just read GG’s column about this latest non-issue to bother so-called progressives; surprisingly enough his excerpt from the end of that rolling stone piece is exactly the same as yours. Why should this be? We all read stuff on this blog (and on GG’s) and we can all go to rolling stone’s website to get the full quote. What is the purpose of GG simply excerpting a tiny bit of what he said at the end – including the bit about “admitted warts” and also the bit in the interview where he touches on state secrets etc. Could it possibly be because there is an agenda to push? Could it possibly be because selective quotations is one sure-fire way of being able to frame what someone is saying to your own liking and in a way to suit your own arguments?
Mr. Greenwald is a passionate man, an ideological man. The flip side is that I see him as a very poor listener. He rarely makes an effort to understand the point of view of others. He will pick only what reinforces his opinion. The latest is no exception.
The tea partiers are passionate and ideological too. Does that excuse their ignorance? or prejudices? No and it shouldn’t do so no matter what the ideology.
You’re right that ideology and passion doesn’t equal being right. Obviously.
In the case of Mr. Greenwald, his ideals are not wrong. His incapacity to take into accounts all facts, however…
What’s the full quote? The full quote had nothing to do with civil liberties. That part did.
I fail to see how this makes the issue of civil liberties any better. I know what you’re saying “If you take away the other stuff it makes the case for being complacent weaker!!!”
That’s not what I’m arguing, though. I’m arguing that Obama using civil liberties as a rationale at all is pisspoor.
I can think for myself, thanks. I disagree with Greenwald on plenty of things (especially political strategy, and during the health care debate). What agenda might that be? I call Obama on his shit when he says this:
It’s just bullshit. Going with the current track record that state secrets have had over the last couple decades, I’d side with “Obama’s DoJ is abusing the privilege to a greater degree than George Bush.”
Could I be wrong? Yep, just as I could be wrong about Obama and the PO (some people actually argue he didn’t want it in the first place, people like GG, and I think they’re not examining the evidence properly). However, as I said, the abuse of that privilege is well-known, and I have no reason to believe Obama is any different on that front.
Have you even read this?
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-ag-1013.html
Plus you completely ignore the civil rights reference. But no matter, your mind is made up.
Yes, I have read that. What’s your point? It’s still being invoked to dismiss entire lawsuits at the onset, especially when it comes to a torturous policy:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/appeals-court-decision-denies-extraordinary-rendition-victims-
their-day-court
I could give a shit about the civil rights reference. I’m talking about civil liberties.
Even the title of that link refers to the fact tat the appeals court agreed with the government’s position. You may not agree with the invokation but the court found it to be legal. It’s difficult for me to take claims of executive overreach seriously when e court agrees with it.
Well get South Carolinians to vote for Alvin Greene. He’s no worse that a combination of Bachmann, Foxx, Vitter, and Ensign all wrapped up into one package.
Scenario:
November: Greene beats DeMint in surprise upset
December: Greene pleads “no contest” to charges in exchange for removal of felony classification
January: Senate refuses to seat Greene; newly elected Democratic governor appoints Inez Tenenbaum to Senate seat. Or governor appoints James Clyburn to Senate seat.
That’s the scenario for beating DeMint. But it won’t happen because unlike the GOP and Christine O’Donnell, the Democrats are running away from Alvin Greene. If they were going to let his candidacy die on the vine, the state executive committee should have disqualified him when they had the chance.
Sometimes it makes sense to run away from a candidate. This is one of those times.
If so then the time was when the DEC met – DQ him and then and insert a realistic candidate.
In fairness, I understand why the DEC did what they did. If they had disqualified Greene, the story would have been that they didn’t want a black candidate and African Americans would have sat out and Rawls would have polled like Greene is polling.
If they had a black candidate who had lost the primary and was available, things might have been different.
I don’t believe that. People know what a fraud he is as a candidate. I still believe it was ratfucking.
I’ve followed this very carefully because I grew up in SC. The state investigation said that the bank transfers that they found corresponded to Greene’s story of where he got the money.
And the state Democratic Executive Committee of 92 delegate (2 per county) considered a challenge from Vic Rawl. The hearing went on for 2 hours. The Executive Committee then went into executive session. When they came out they stated the fact that they did not want a divisive issue in this election (I think the governor’s race was on their minds).
What people believe isn’t necessarily what’s true. The Senate race was low turnout almost but not quite to the point of randomness. The going theory is that ballot position plus the perception that Greene was black because of the spelling of his name biased a primary that had enough African American turnout towards Greene. And plain out randomness explains the residual of the vote.
Unlike the case of Jim Clyburn’s opponent and the candidate who won in SC-01, there was no connections proven between Greene and anyone outside his family. In the other two cases, the campaigns were run by a guy who had run campaigns for Joe “You Lie” Miller.
So Greene just made a decision to low $10,000 of his own money with no intentions of getting anything for it? When you go to a casino, you have the chance of winning something. In this case, he just pissed that money away? Could he really have expected to turn into a minor celebrity? And how much has he made off that, if anything? I mean, I know the SC Democratic Party is a complete mess, and SC has a history of funny business, but still.
Yep. Greene, being unemployed, wanted to deal with unemployment as an issue and apparently DeMint’s opposition to extension of unemployment motivated him. Reportedly, folks in Moncks Corner say that he was so painfully shy in high school that he was nicknamed “Turtle”. If true, that explains why he’s not the best at dealing with the press and speaking. But he is reported to have a degree from the University of South Carolina.
Yes, he’s blown the money that he received from the military and the money he saved while on duty. He faces a court date in December. He’s gotten his name known and will be in the history books. But he’s made nothing off of that that has been reported.
The South Carolina Democratic Party is a complete mess because it’s still run by the white old guard who elected Democratic governors up through Richard Riley, who served two terms and left office in 1987. They have been mildly successful in recruiting two good candidates — Jane Dyer and Rob Miller. If those folks win and Spratt and Clyburn are reelected then four of SC’s six Congressional seats will be in Democratic hands. But that’s the party’s upside. The downside is losing Spratt and having a Tea Party “momma grizzly” elected as governor.
The SC Democratic Party has not done a good job of recruiting younger folks and transplants from other states. And in the northwest part of the state, it faces candidates who are supported through a church network operated out of Bob Jones University.
So he thought unemployment was an issue. That’s noble and worthy, except there is no evidence that he campaigned before. And has he campaigned at all since winning the election? It sounds like he had/has no plan at all to address the issue which caused him to want to run.
He has made two campaign speeches. One before the Moncks Corner chapter of the NAACP and another one, the venue of which I don’t remember. He is indeed planless and clueless. What would happen if a Mr. Smith really tried to go to Washington.
Seabe, the courts are deciding the Bush measures. It looks bad when the government keeps the caes going. It is the only way to get clarity on what a president can and can’t do.
It will be years of getting this straightened out. Lawyer, back in 2008 were saying that what Bush was leaving behind was a legal nightmare.
I will wait and see how all of it pans out.
I remember Nixon and he was indeed sneaky.
I wonder how much the cable tv and talk radio have to do with the negative outlook on the Dems.
Any legislative victory by Obama has beem smeared almost immediately.
FDR gave speeches to encourage people when things were far more dire than now.
All the carping is not helping anything.
The economy is awful and people are scared about jobs, a roof over their head and other survival issues,
The constant drumbeat of negativity is defeatist.
It’s kind of hard for the courts to decide the Bush measures (now the Obama measures) when his DoJ argues that everything is a state secret and they can’t, you know, actually decide on the measures due to them being state secrets.
Unfortunately, not nearly enough people will read this interview. Instead, daily sound bites will hold sway over the narrative.
First, it’s always good to be reminded that we have a president who knows what he’s doing and how to explain it. I don’t agree with everything he’d done, and I don’t always agree with his explanations, but honestly, after eight years of Bush II, it’s a relief and a pleasure.
Second, if the unemployment rate was 8% instead of 10%, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Democrats would be looking at relatively minor losses in November’s elections, instead of possibly losing control of the House.
Third, once again The Onion was right about an incoming president. In January 2001 they wrote about Bush’s inauguration that “our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.”
In November 2008 The Onion “reported” the following: “African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation’s broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, “It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can’t catch a break.””
He seems not to understand which incumbent House and Senate seats are in play, and which challengers need his support.
It is the Blue Dogs who are going down big, especially the ones who spent two years trying to distance themselves from Obama. Only progressives in strongly Republican districts, like Tom Perriello, are in trouble.
The fact is that the enthusiasm of progressives really doesn’t matter except in a few races, mostly in already progressive geography.
The Obama youth vote is coming in at 77% returning and likely voters. I don’t if anyone has polled African Americans and Hispanics about their likelihood to vote for Democrats.
What is clear is that Democrats need to pick up only 7 House seats above Nate Silver’s projections to keep the House. That is doable, but only through preserving Blue Dogs or unseating Republicans. And that there is currently only a 2% chance that Democrats will control 60 seats, although looking at specific seats the Democratic upside is 67. That means the current projection is close to the Republicans upside, which Nate Silver anticipates will bring CT and WV into play.
On the content of policy, Obama is correct. So why do ordinary voters–not progressives, ordinary voters–know what he has accomplished. Short answer. His communications staff has played an inside-the-Beltway game and not served him well. And they have brought him in too little and too late on domestic policy.
Democratic candidates are in duck-and-cover mode. The White House communications operation is beating up on progressives, who are a minor part of this election — but who could possibly support a failing primary challenge in 2012. The media is locked into the “Tea Party saved the GOP” narrative and “GOP poised to retake Congress”. And neither the president nor individual Democratic candidates are making the case to the public about what has been accomplished.
I can’t believe he doesn’t know who is in danger of losing.
No. What I think is that at this particular time, he’s simply trying to rally the progressive base and grow the ranks of volonteers for this election.
And change the media narrative of “the base not motivated”.
We’ll see how he plays the game in the coming weeks, how he will try to bring back some moderates and independants.
Progressives are pretty thin in some of the districts that are in danger.
What can I say? I remain a big fan of the guy and I basically think he’s right.
I think his answers were right on point. I also think Democrats will be too busy whining about their fee-fees to notice.
So you really think a “beatings will continue until morale improves” message is a way to get people fired up? Because no matter whether you think Obama is a corporate sell-out or whether he makes Bernie Sanders look like Jim DeMent, that’s not a way to get the base, and Democratic voters in general, fired up.
Spare me. Progressive bloggers have never been Obama’s base so stop spreading that lie.
So who is his base? “centrists”? unions?
Democrats
At some point, BooMan, do a diary that lists your estimates of which specific House seats that you expect Democrats to lose and which they stand to pick up. And explain how progressives can make a difference in those races.
Because the naysayers are saying that Obama’s comments are pre-spinning a huge election loss so it can be blamed on progressives.
That’s MY President! Speaking truth to “progressive” idiocy!
What idiocy? Pissed because unemployment isn’t improving and only going to get worse? Pissed because he didn’t have to reappoint Ben Bernanke?
Idiocy because the main effort is devoted to finding things to be pissed about instead of celebrating the accomplishments.
As you know(I hope), it really all boils down to the economy. That’s why people are pissed off. And there is no hope for it getting any better any time soon. And Obama has his share in the blame on that. Why? Summers, Geithner and Bernanke. Did you read the rest of the interview? He basically claims that appointing keeping Bernanke and Geithner was like Joe Kennedy running the SEC after the Great Crash. Probably was, I don’t think Kennedy helped cause that crash, unlike Geithner and Bernanke.
“And Obama has his share in the blame on that. “
Obama’s team kept us out of a great depression. Bushco gets the blame for this economic mess, not Obama.
And where is the recovery? The triumphed the “Recovery Summer” which only happened on Wall Street, not Main Street.
From your comments, you seem like the type of person who, if Obama pulled you from a burning car wreck, would be complaining that he didn’t cure your whiplash fast enough.
This was the biggest recession since ’29. It’ll take time for the economy to heal after the damage done by rethugs. I agree with Obama, these days many progressives seem like a bunch of whiny -ass titty babies, to coin a phrase.
It’s idiocy because there is barely ever any nuance. If you read my comments, some days you’ll find that I’m being an “Obot” (which is a ridiculous criticism designed to ignore what I’m saying), and other days you’ll find that I’m being quite Shrill.
Context is very important, and when you have John Avarosis complaining about Obama “never trying” without understanding the consequences of doing so, well, then you have idiotic progressive bloggers with hurt feelings.
Obama just spelled it out in plain English why he “didn’t try” (and I’d contest that he didn’t try in the first place).
There are some areas where him trying and failing is worth it (DADT, tax cuts). The public option? LOL! Forgetaboutit. Financial reform? Give me a break. Feingold “trying” only made the bill weaker.
So I’d appreciate context of the situation to be taken into the debate, and that’s something that is almost always missing from the progressive blogosphere, and is actually lambasted as “Insider Beltway Village Democrats”. It’s the progressives way of sneering at Very Serious People. Irony? You bet.
And even though I say all of this^^^…I still agree with progressives that this message is a shit GOTV strategy.
You say its a shitty strategy because you’re wanting it to have an effect on a small segment of the party that’s too busy smelling its own piss to listen to the truth about themselves or what’s at stake in this election. I’ve noticed TPM has given Obama’s interview a lot of attention and people seem to be responding well to his remarks.
Most people I talk to in real life say the same thing, especially young people (as young people are the ones who I communicate with, as you know).
Telling people to “suck it up” is shit, dude, and you know it.
Basically, I’m with Armando on this:
Push back should be expected when those who are supposed to be on your side are in fact firing at you. If Rahm were in charge of White House messaging we wouldn’t have to worry about “whining” because the communication would come across something like, “F you and your magic ponies! F’ing useless hippies!” At least the president is trying to get his should-be allies to see what he is actually doing. He could just go straight Clinton and say F it…
O/T: In many states, today is the start of early voting. If you are in one of those states, go vote and get that vote banked. Then using your example, get your friends, neighbors, family and co-workers who want to see Democrats win to do the same thing. And then get them to get their friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers…out to the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
I honestly think there is a difference between “beating up progressives” (or the more colorful “punching hippies”) and speaking bluntly to us as if we are adults. When I hear him speaking off the cuff in an interview such as this one, what I always hear is a guy who’s fundamentally progressive whose primary interest is in advancing the ball, and in it I hear a guy who’s not speaking down to us but who is leveling with us. I also hear a guy who will forsake short-term moral victories for long-term results that stick. Perhaps that makes me an example of the Obama voter who hears what he wants to hear, but I don’t think so. From early on in the primary debates, there was a common sense practicality and interest in long-term fixes that I found appealing, and I don’t think he has changed much at all from that stance.
There are things that 20 months into his Presidency can be seen as disappointing so far–gay rights, state secrets, civil liberties, Afghanistan, etc.–but I honestly have no doubt that, whether it’s in a single term or as a two-term President, he will move us forward to a far better place. And I don’t think I’m being naive to think so. The country he inherited was big frickin’ mess on steroids. I think it doesn’t require blind faith to believe in him, it just requires perspective. The people and interests aligned against him are also aligned against each of us, and they will think nothing of destroying this country.
I think this is spot on. Far from ‘beating up progressives’ or some such this is a call for voters to hold themselves accountable in the same way as they want politicians to be held accountable. The last line of that RS interview is along the lines of those who give up and take the ball back home maybe are showing that they weren’t that serious about change in the first place – I can’t remember the exact quote and rollingstone.com is eating up my computer as we speak.
progressives need to buck up as he says – that is the simple truth.
So why doesn’t Obama call out DeMented? Lay the blame where it belongs. On the Senate. Or does he not want to ruffle the feathers of the craphole where he used to serve?
One of my favorite quotes comes from The Godfather: Part III where Don Lucchesi says to Vincent, “Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger.” President Obama knows when to pull the trigger – it’s not when your enemy first reveals himself…
Godfather III? I guess there was one other person besides me to watch that dreck. 😉 DeMint didn’t just reveal himself today. It’s a continuation of a big problem. I am curious what “pulling the trigger” consists of in this case. I don’t see any solutions coming from the Senate.
Well said, sir.
It’s sad that so many self-styled “progressives” are too obsessed with their amor propio, their pathologically tender little hides, to be addressed as if they were grownups. I don’t see Obama “beating up progressives”, but somebody’s got to do it. The self-pity has become intolerable.
10% official unemployment, closer to 15% or maybe even 20% unofficially. banks still not making loans. Sure, it’s functioning: for the wealthy.
“Around the city of Mosul, passed over by the surge of U.S. troops in 2007, the “last combat brigade” announcement met with scoffs and sarcasm by troops on the ground.”
I’ll defer to your own criticism of the health INSURANCE reforms: “The people most responsible for watering down the health care bill probably are in denial about this. Maybe they ought to have listened to the liberals for once.”
Credit where credit is due, this will save me substantially when i return to school in 2011.
does the president really want to go there? Does he really want to tell me how important it was to sacrifice the substance of various bills and proposals just to get one stinking republican on board? does he really want to talk about the mortgages, when atrios has accurately described his HAMP program as a predatory “extend and pretend”?
At least you had the good taste to cut off the comments before he got to his line on civil liberties.
despite all this shit, I’m voting for Sestak, who Obama didn’t support.
Yes, but then there is everything Obama said in his defense, and it adds up to a better record than you can find in any president since FDR. And, yes, I exclude LBJ because while his domestic programs were better and more historic in nature, he also escalated Vietnam and let Hoover run roughshod over the new left. Obama is already at least the third best president of the the last 100 years.
If a serious dent isn’t put in unemployment, that won’t matter come 2012. I wish Wenner would have asked Obama more about the economy and the failed Summers/Geithner/Bernanke policies(like HAMP for starters).
sorry bro, not buying it. i don’t care what Obama said in his defense, everybody says shit in their own defense. His record on civil liberties is nauseating, and makes me afraid of my government. HAMP? there’s no defense for that. 10% unemployment (officially) when they were saying that even without stimulus, we’d be below 7% unemployment by now? PLEASE.
with a record like that Joe Biden and Barack Obama shouldn’t be telling me to stop whining, they should be offering to blow me for putting a sestak sign in my yard, encouraging my readers to vote for the guy, and giving money to people like Alan Grayson.
for that matter, you should stop whining at me for being less than appreciative too: I have a right to my opinion, I’m perfectly capable of seeing what’s going on in the country, and oh yeah I’m voting for democrats even if they are a bunch of pussies with no leadership skills.
adding, this is what’s on my FB Page right now:
This is not my response, it’s the response of another Democratic voter.
“He actually has the nerve to lecture the democratic base, the people that voted him in, about being unenthusiastic?!?!?! Despite his constant capitulations and ceding the message to republicans, its our fault now? And having any sort of grudging respect for GOP tactics is beyond the pale. I’m done; Obama has lost my vote. Though I may vote democratic for Congress, he is not getting my vote for the presidency.”
you are not an idiot then, just that “democratic voter”.
It seems that the latest objection is that he said that while he abhors the republican strategy he can grudgingly admire it cos it’s been effective. I really don’t see how that is capitulation or anything else. And, really, has he capitulated? Stimulus bill with only 3 republican votes, healthcare with NO republican votes, wall street reform with minimal republican votes, countless other things as well which I’ve mentioned before and am not going to bother mentioning now.
That “voter” is the kind of idiot that’s taking the country down just as effectively as the teapartiers are. The ginned-up “anger” is as unsupported as the self-pity of Beck whineys. There is an argument to be made that Obama made a strategic error in sacrificing better policies for the sake of accomplishing smaller wins. It’s an argument I’ve often made.
But where is the “lecture” to the “base”? Tell your anonymous ranter to point out where exactly in that statement that happens. With self-obsessed Dems like these we dont’ need teabaggers.
Lecture? Did you read that whole Rolling Stone interview?
I did and I didn’t think it was lecturing but even if it was, the man is the f**king President of the United States – I say he’s earned the right and then some to say what he said. That’s what a leader does.
And I have the right to call him stupid if he thinks beating up on the base is a recipe for electoral success, whether warranted or not.
Uh, his entire response is the lecture. That seems obvious.
if you want to bring that voter home to the democrats, the last thing you do is tell him what a stupid whiny little bitch he is for not being grateful.
So, if I call you a whiny little bitch you’re going to take down your Sestak sign?
You aren’t a bitch, but you do focus almost exclusively on the negative.
As usual with you, you’re reacting to what nobody said except you.
In the interest of expedience I’ll respond to both Booman and DaveW in one comment.
Booman: let’s be real here. People are suffering in this country: the President’s policies have not put people to work, the Senate Democrats have proven to be less than reliable in getting strong legislation passed, and to the surprise of just about no one, the Republicans have hung together. Democrats are unenthused, for a variety of reasons. And independents and young first time voters, the very people you said OFA was going to bring out (all in with the OFA), aren’t too excited either.
I’m a committed democrat, and i’m going to vote regardless. A candidate’s gotta be a real cockface for me to vote against the democrat. But for independents and not-so-loyal voters? you think lecturing them about being whiners is going to bring them in? really?
daveW: actually, i was responding to the “lecture” comments that preceded this, and included the VP’s exhortation that people “stop whining”. And i repeat: telling unhappy supporters whose vote you want to “stop whining” is not going to make them more enthusiastic about voting, anymore than telling an unhappy diner to “stop whining” is going to increase the odds that they’ll drop by your restaurant again.
You’re all smart guys: has either of you ever heard of the terms “customer satisfaction” or “brand loyalty” before?
But here’s what you’re missing.
He’s not a waiter berating an unhappy customer. He’s more like a restaurant owner who tells people to stop reading crappy reviews and actually come taste the food.
And here’s what you’re missing: the crappy reviews on menu items like “employment” and “foreclosures” are demonstrably true.
So he’s more like the restaurant owner who says “the food’s not THAT bad”, and he’s doing it in an ineffective way.
customer satisfaction leads to brand loyalty: look at how long FDR’s brand loyalty has lasted.
It wouldn’t have lasted with you.
The House of Representatives seats in play.
These are the races that folks are saying will make the difference in the House and cause the Republicans to win the House.
Can someone tell me how the carping on progressive blogs is affecting these races? And which races have been most affected?
Grayson’s district drives me nuts. I’ve been trying to find polling on it for 6 months and nothing.
Pollsters have stopped polling for information and started polling to set narratives. House seats are notoriously underpolled.
For the Record:
Republican Pollster finds Grayson behind about 7 points
Grayson* 36%
Webster 43%
There are indie and Tea Bagger candidates also in the race getting about 6% between them. The survey has a ±4.14% MoE and is of their likely voter screen. Grayson has unfavorables of 51% But again this is a republican pollster so it’s probably better for them than this.
This is such a tough one for me. On the one hand, I hate Matt Stoller with the fury of a million sons, on the other, no one else dares to talk back to the GOP except Grayson.
So, because you dislike one of his staffers, you have to think twice about supporting him? That’s pretty stupid. It’s not like Stoller beats his girlfriend.
I can’t do anything anyway. Enormous student loans and poor job prospects do that do you. I am you’ll note, working for my local Dem Congressman.
I really don’t want to get distracted by hurt feelings on either side.
What I am interested in is how Rolling Stone has consitently produced some of the most biting, non msm, stories, interveiws & reports of our time. They got more out of Obama to feed his liberal base than anyone to date.
Add to that, I am interested in Jon Stewart’s chosen role now to fire up the base/sanity with his & Colbert’s march.
It’s just interesting to compare those pundits who filter the Obama admin & us through a failure lense and those pundits who get out the reminder of who we really are.
After a decade (or half a century) of bullshit and decline, we finally got a smart, rational, pragmatic president who isn’t perfect, listens too much to the “security” crowd, and may have blown some plays with overcautiousness. Overall we have a liberal in the WH who has been steadily moving the ball toward the goals most of us wanted. Compared with what we’ve been through, with what we inherited, the progress is little short of breathtaking, but it comes in small doses, apparently without enough drama-queen ambiance to get attention or respect in an American-Idol-addled nation.
Somehow we can’t seem to get beyond the gross politics and see all the unheralded initiatives with the potential to change history exponentially more than the latest CNN or Huffington or TPM headlines. They are small in themselves and technocrat/pragmatic bricks that can change the very fabric of the future, that address the truly profound crises that the world faces.
Here’s just one example that I happened to stumble across today:
It’s only a small thing, in a way, something nobody will notice unless they sift through political or tech media. Yet it’s part of a comprehensive vision for solving the most fundamental threats to the world economy and human survival. It’s also the kind of smart, effective planning that was unheard of during the Republican regimes (It being partisan season, I’ll refrain from commenting on Clinton’s watch). But of course it’s not nearly as important as how many pats on the head the self-styled leaders of “the base” get.
Thank you for the information. And I totally agree with your post.
I will add that if you take into account what the administration is doing “administratively”, that is without having to deal with Congress, it’s pretty obvious that the President is doing a lot of good, a lot of good under the radar.
When there is a lot of resistance, like for example with DoD contractors, the steps may be smaller than we would like, but there’s definitely a shift in the right direction. I listened to a DOD briefing on C-Span very recently and it’s clear that the cleaning has begun. They are seriously addressing the free-for-all spending with defense contractors, the ineffective bureaucracy, etc.. The new management seems serious and competent.
And to hear the republicans screaming that democrats are irresponsible with spending is the supreme irony. So frustrating that the general public doesn’t have ANY CLUE of what’s going on.
On the great civil rights issues of our time, Gay Rights, President Obama is a terrible disappointment.
He promised us:
So far 0 for 3. Lousy record.