I gotta go get The Boss’s new album. It sounds fantastic.
Indeed, it is as angry a cry from the belly of a wounded America as has been heard since the dustbowl and Woody Guthrie, a thundering blow of New Jersey pig iron down on the heads of Wall Street and all who have sold his country down the swanny. Springsteen has gone to the great American canon for ammunition, borrowing from folk, civil war anthems, Irish rebel songs and gospel. The result is a howl of pain and disbelief as visceral as anything he has ever produced, that segues into a search for redemption: “Hold tight to your anger/ And don’t fall to your fears … Bring on your wrecking ball.”
“I have spent my life judging the distance between American reality and the American dream,” Springsteen told the conference, where the album was aired for the first time. It was written, he claimed, not just out of fury but out of patriotism, a patriotism traduced.
“What was done to our country was wrong and unpatriotic and un-American and nobody has been held to account,” he later told the Guardian. “There is a real patriotism underneath the best of my music but it is a critical, questioning and often angry patriotism.”
Here’s his assessment of Obama:
Obama hasn’t done bad, Springsteen says. “He kept General Motors alive, he got through healthcare – though not the public system I would have wanted – he killed Osama Bin Laden, and he brought sanity to the top level of government. But big business still has too much say in government and there has not been as many middle- or working-class voices in the administration as I expected. I thought Guantanamo would have been closed but now, but he got us out of Iraq and I guess we will soon be out of Afghanistan.”
I’m reminded of my complaint during the transition that Obama was hiring almost exclusively Ivy Leaguers and people from Stanford and Berkeley. And, of course, his economic team did not put accountability anywhere near the top of their list when it came to fixing the economy. They’re getting around to it, but a lot of trust was lost and a lot of damage was done. So, I pretty much see eye-to-eye with Bruce on the Obama administration. I wanted a stronger health care plan; I wanted Gitmo closed, and I wanted a more populist tone. But I have to give them a high grade despite my disappointments. In fact, my biggest gripe is still civil liberties and how they’ve enshrined some of the dangerous practices of the Bush administration.
Your “disappointments”? With Obama?
You’ve sure done a great job keeping them a secret. 99.9% of your Obama comments are unadulterated hero worship and adulation. I believe you’ve called him one of our greatest presidents.
Please don’t try to associate yourself with Springsteen’s reasoned and balanced assessment.
He’s undoubtedly one of our greatest presidents.
Let me put it to you this way.
If you could pick any of our post-World War Two presidents and put them in the White House as a replacement for Obama, would you?
As I said – hero worship and adulation.
And yes – Truman, Kennedy or Johnson.
Two southern white supremacists and a third guy with active mob ties who pimped out women to his subordinates and family members.
Good, solid, upright choices there. Yep.
Barack Obama is the greatest President since Lincoln, and he has five years to accomplish yet even more. His administration achieves 90% of their goals routinely, and everything they fail at is stuff that everybody who preceded them fucked up as well.
And yeah, he’s fucking black. Deal with it.
I was marching for civil rights before your sorry ass was born.
Good for you, dood! Would you care to discuss the question at hand now?
have the same fifth grade teacher?
So your answer to my question is clearly No, you don’t wish to discuss the question at hand. You’d rather do this bullshit.
Okay, pal. Buh bye.
.
I agree. Calling Lyndon Johnson a white supremacist is just flawed. As Senate majority leader passing Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Truman and Johnson risked a lot politically with their civil rights policies. Truman proposed national health care and Johnson got it passed. Kennedy was also working on civil rights policies before his death. I don’t “diss” these 3 Democratic presidents and I’m sure President Obama wouldn’t either. No politician is perfect.
What diss? What did I say that was inaccurate?
To those who were born at a time to see these guys as their first notions of what a president “is” or “should be,” that’s your business. But they’ve all been dead for 40-50 years now. At some point, the rose tinted glasses gotta come off and allow them to be viewed as any other president in history, for good or ill.
They were lesser presidents than Obama. They were lesser men than Obama. They did good things in office. They did not so good things in office. So it goes.
Holy sheep shit! You would switch out the guy who ended the Iraq War for the Vietnam President?!?
Three million people – half the Holocaust – died in the Vietnam War.
I take it that foreign policy is not important to you at all, even in the slightest little bit.
But at least we know where you stand.
If so, please tell me how much Obama’s Afghanistan surge has cost us.
And then link to all your posts of “disappointment” with Obama.
About 1300 American lives and a couple hundred billion dollars.
Of course, he didn’t start the war either. Nor allow the Taliban and its affiliates to reemerge from 2003-08.
it’s a Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam reference, among other things.
Here’s a toy for you: I’m Giving Obama a ‘D’ on Civil Liberties.
Here’s another Obama Falling Short on Civil Liberties.
Shoddy Reporting.
Okay, sure, there’s that, but you’ve gotta admit: your commentary on his handling of Libya is just embarrassing in its sycophancy.
The way you keep saying he had the wrong policy and violated the War Powers Act reminds me of footage of teenage girls screaming at the Beatles.
Seriously, BooMan, knock it off with the hero-worship!
and one from 2010? Out of how many posts, Booman?
If so, please tell me how much Obama’s Afghanistan surge has cost us.
Less than 1/50th as many American lives as Vietnam.
If you’d care to expand your horizon beyond “us,” which is probably a good idea, less than 1% of the dead furriners created by Vietnam.
Truman integrated the Army, succeeded with a completely dysfunctional Congress, wasn’t elected to the job with the support of the people, and largely got the job because he wasn’t a threat to take it.
He set a course for America’s leadership in a Post WWII world, including how to avoid WWIII. He wasn’t a terribly smart man IMO, but he was smart enough to listen to smart people.
I’m not much for Kennedy hero worship. He was only in the job three years and he and his family did a lot to cultivate hero worship so I am suspicious to call him among the truly greatest. He got a lot of things right, re-excited people to Democratic ideals, but he got a lot of things massively wrong too.
Johnson was a masterful politician and knew how to get things done — sometime very much the right things but sometimes massively wrong. See how the Vietnam war was persecuted.
IMO Obama is among the greatest American presidents period. What he inherited domestically and internationally was as worse than any president except FDR, Lincoln and Washington. Like them he is IMO defining what America will be and act for the next 100 years. He has masterfully strategically outmaneuvered the GOP with a long and patient approach that keeps his powder dry while moving them into a whole new starting point as a party. The GOP is going the way of the Whigs and the opposition party eventually will have to reinvent itself to be viable.
But I share the Boss’s disappointment even if I expect a lot of that to be correct in the second term or later.
I absolutely think Democrats are foolish to eat their young and vilify Obama for doing too little. I would not sacrifice any of his accomplishments for avoid any of those disappointments.
That’s my 2c. And I was marching in civil rights parades before Boo was born too.
Two presidents who would have been stronger than Obama would be JFK and Clinton (and no, Kennedy didn’t have mob ties — a ridiculous charge; on the contrary he and Bobby were trying to get J Edgar to move aggressively against organized crime).
Truman caved in to the dangerous reactionary anti-communist forces and to the MIC with various measures that built up our national security apparatus to scary proportions while earlier he caved to these same people by quickly okaying the two unnecessary atomic bombs that set a terrible moral precedent for waging war. Harry also lost the confidence of the vast majority of the populace in his final years after rushing too quickly into the Korea quagmire.
LBJ I’ve talked about many times before: basically a manipulating, lying warmonger and crook (stolen senate election, illicit campaign contributions as Maj Leader, and more). Did the worst thing a president can do — start a war that isn’t absolutely necessary. And a massively costly one at that. Also lost the confidence of most people but worse than Truman — LBJ in his final years was overtly hated not merely disliked.
Both do not rank highly in my book, though the latter day revisionists in more conservative times have elevated them just as they have another unworthy, Reagan, and another mediocrity, Eisenhower.
Kennedy and Clinton: the two smartest and most ethically governing presidents (apart from personal marital matters) in the post war era, and both effective in maintaining their popularity while sticking to their principles. Much quicker learning curves for both, while Obama has needed three years to figure out an effective way to govern
There are far too many things wrong with this evaluation to point them all out, so I’ll focus on the most important:
Obama, the black guy with the allegedly slow learning curve, passed far more extensive progressive agenda in the first two years of his presidency than Clinton managed in eight.
Clinton’s reputation, built on “the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history,” needs to be reevaluated in light of his contribution to the financial deregulation that brought about the Great Recession.
Describing the containment policy in toto as a cave to reactionary forces is beyond silly.
JFK was every bit the Cold Warrior that Truman was, if not moreso.
To look at North and South Korea in 2012 and proclaim it an error to have prevented the South from being put under Kim Il Sung’s boot is morally bankrupt.
Re Korea I spoke about Truman rushing in with a large US force, implying he hadn’t decided on a firm plan of how far US troops would go which turned out to be the case. And in deciding whether to go in at all, or try to resolve it by other means, Truman’s own national security team was divided, with the SecDef and CJCS both being against military involvement. After all Harry’s own SoS Acheson had earlier in 1950 publicly pronounced the Korean peninsula as outside of US strategic interests. So, hardly a slam dunk issue morally or otherwise then or now.
Re Clinton he was operating in an overall more conservative time and had arrived as only a 43% president. Obama had far more of a mandate with 53% of the vote to operate far more aggressively than did Bill. O also didn’t have a fiercely hostile and united MSM against him as Bill did from day one. I think the more experienced Bill would have used the political opening in 2009 far more effectively on domestic matters than the naive bipartisanship seeking rookie from Illinois who just seemed to want to accommodate Repubs and corporate interests. Hillary also would have been more aggressive and effective with a 53% mandate.
Re JFK his record in FP proves he wasnt a cold warrior — wars in Laos and VN avoided, world war over Cuba averted, detente begun with the Soviets by 1963, and a backchannel dialogue to improve relations with Castro undertaken in the final year. That and the decision to begin withdrawing all military advisers from Nam by 1965, formally ordered in Oct 1963. All decisions that went against cold war orthodoxy, often radically so.
Re Korea I spoke about Truman rushing in with a large US force
Time was rather an issue when the North Korean army rolled in.
And no, the existence of people in Truman’s cabinet who were willing to sacrifice the South Koreans does not change the moral calculus of doing so.
Re Clinton he was operating in an overall more conservative time and had arrived as only a 43% president.
Clinton didn’t get rolled into financial deregulation by the Republicans, and he didn’t work to mitigate their deregulatory agenda. He and his economic team were prime movers in making financial deregulation happen.
Obama had far more of a mandate with 53% of the vote to operate far more aggressively than did Bill.
And he did, passing a vastly larger, vastly more progressive legislative agenda.
the naive bipartisanship seeking rookie from Illinois who just seemed to want to accommodate Repubs and corporate interests
…and, I guess through luck, passed the largest progressive agenda of any president in history, on almost entirely partisan votes, including the largest Keyenesian stimulus bill in history, a SUCCESSFUL health care bill (tell me again how much better Bill and Hillary were at legislating), financial-industry reregulation, DADT repeal (man, Clinton was so progressive and legislatively brilliant!) and an overhaul of the entire food safety system.
Re JFK his record in FP proves he wasnt a cold warrior
Umwut? Are you referring to the blockade of Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, or beginning the Vietnam War? Because those are all pretty Cold War-ish.
…er, largest progressive legislatively agenda of any president in RECENT history.
And, of course, his economic team did not put accountability anywhere near the top of their list when it came to fixing the economy.
Accountability for the banksters and fixing the economy are both goods that need to be pursued, but I’m not sure they’re the same good, as this sentence implies. Throwing a bunch of Citi executives in the clink wouldn’t have prevented bank runs, or lowered unemployment, or made the recession shorter or shallower. The benefits of this accountability are benefits that accrue in the years and decades to follow, not goods that would have made the economy better in the short term.
I’m perfectly ok with pursuing those two goods one after the other, as opposed to together, and rescuing the economy was clearly the more time-sensitive action. If accountability is something the administration pursues in a second term, I’m fine with that. If it’s something they don’t pursue at all, then I’ll be disappointed.
As with the Iraq withdrawal, it’s more important that accountability for the economic meltdown be done well, completely, and responsibly, than that it be done quickly.
The decision to make Geithner Treasury Secretary for one term, and then drop him apparently against his wishes, suggests to me that the administration is thinking along the same lines as me.
People think the biggest mistake was Geithner, but I don’t. I think his biggest mistake economically and politically was Peter Orszag. That fuck is not only ungrateful, but he’s also not loyal at all. He’d sell everyone in the Obama administration out if it meant he got his precious deficit reduction. He was responsible for leaks in the papers that weren’t supposed to get out, or at least suspected of it. Not a team player at all, and he’d go off on his own talking points. Obama’s second biggest mistake was listening to him and David Plouffe that it would be not only good policy to go after deficit reduction, but good politics. But if he wasn’t brought in at all, at least things may have turned out differently.
I think his biggest mistake economically and politically was Peter Orszag.
And who does Orzag worship? Pete Peterson & Bob Rubin!! The same one who wants to kill Social Security & Medicare. The same one who bankrolled the Hamilton Project. And need I remind you who was the only Senator or Rep. who showed up to the opening of that? Orzag was there because the President wanted him there. And if the President let himself by pushed around by jack asses like Bob Rubin? .. Well …
I don’t think that’s fair, because Orszag also worked with Peter Diamond on Social Security, and Peter Diamond is a staunch advocate of the program.
Either way, Orszag had his own agenda, and it had nothing to do with the re-election of the president, or any loyalty. And a lot of people like to talk about how smart he is. I even saw comparisons with Summers, which made me laugh. Say what you will about Summers, but Summers is a once in a lifetime economic genius. People like Orszag are dime a dozen.
Either way, Orszag had his own agenda, and it had nothing to do with the re-election of the president, or any loyalty. And a lot of people like to talk about how smart he is.
You mean how Orzag is the king of the nerds? Yeah, that was weird. He’s just another elitist policy guy who has no idea how the other 99% live. And no, he isn’t great just because Ezra Klein has a mancrush on him.
Springsteen is spot-on. I find it really hard to fathom any notion that Obama, as opposed to big business (etc.) is the villain in our current mess. That he’s done as well as he has is fairly amazing.
Damn. 25 comments on Obama, and almost nothing on Springsteen. Where are everyone’s priorities?
right?
The Boss should criticize Congress about Gitmo. Not the President.
Wow! He’s just an average guy.
Three-plus years on property’s still not theft, no one’s head’s been put on a pike, and dope isn’t legal yet.
I don’t know about you, I’m staying home in November.
Three-plus years on property’s still not theft, no one’s head’s been put on a pike, and dope isn’t legal yet.
Harry Truman never would have had this much of a learning curve.
And Van Jones? Did I mention Van Jones?
Van Jones haunts the Obama presidency like Hamlet’s father; there’s really no need to mention him.