Author: fflambeau

On May 30, 2010 at 10:06 a.m.the National Priorities Project /Cost of War counter – designed to count the total money spent for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – reached the $1 trillion mark.

Meanwhile, a report  recently released by the US-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACN),  finds that the United States remains the global leader in defense spending.
In a terrific article full of facts and figures by Yana Kunichoff called “Defense Spending the Top Priority, Critics Fear” of May 30th at Truthout, the author cites figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that shows in 2007 the U.S. spent 4.1% of its Gross National Product on defense. http://www.truthout.org/defense-spending-top-priority-critics-fear59967 That compares with under 2% for Germany and about 3% for Greece (largely bankrupt because of weapons spending). Here’s another mind blowing stat:  the USA spends 44% of the GLOBAL TOTAL for weapons spending according to the Stockholm people!  

What is especially troublesome about all of this is that defense/weapons spending during the Obama administration is up 8% over what is was under Bush.  Recall too that Obama has kept on the entire shrub management over at DOD and, indeed, has promoted many of W’s generals (like McCrystal).

From the Truthout article:

The Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2009 “Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country” report  says the U.S. has 1,417,747 troops in more than 138 countries around the world, including the U.S, with 285,773 of them abroad.
…

…the U.S. budget deficit is $1.27 trillion and accruing interest. According to a graph  in the Washington Post about President Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2011, $895 billion is expected to be allocated to defense spending and $730 billion to social security.

Recall that President Obama has set up a deficit reduction committee and packed it with people like Alice Rivlin and Anne Fudge who have called for cuts in social security (and for privatizing it).  At the same time, this supposedly Democratic administration is calling for cuts into the signature FDR program, it has cut zilch from DOD spending.  That’s up, as reported, 8% over Bush’s budgets!  

Maybe since Obama was a community organizer in Chicago it’s fitting to end this diary with a quotation from a Chicago school teacher that begins the Truthout article:

“On the front lines in public schools and places like Chicago where I teach, we are seeing devastating budget cuts,” said Jesse Sharkey, a ninth and twelfth grade social studies teacher at Senn High School in Chicago.

“It’s very apparent when you think about the spending priorities in our country that there seems to always be enough money for military adventures overseas but not enough for our classrooms at home.”

It is sad to see the Democratic Party shifting ever farther to the right, away really from the ideals that made it so successful for so many years.  We should be spending more, not less, on schools, teachers, the elderly, housing and health care. If budget hawks want a budgetary target, why not start with the costly and unnecessary military bases the USA still has in Germany and Japan, 65 years after those countries were vanquished?  

It looks like the kid’s glove approach that the press has allowed the Obama administration on the oil spill is about to end.  The Washington Post has an excellent article up asking five critical questions of Obama on his response to the BP oil disaster (it’s more than a spill folks!).
Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post poses the questions that are likely to come up for Obama in his first full presser given since July, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052603800.html

I rate her questions and tweak them a bit for improvement and then ask a few of my own:

1. In explaining and defending your decision in March to open up additional offshore areas to drilling, you argued that improvements in technology have made drilling significantly less risky. Just 18 days before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, you said: “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” What kind of assurances were you given that this was the case and by whom? What do you think of those assumptions now?

I’d give this question 8 out of 10.  No need to ask a politician about who gave him “assurances” because that just provides wiggle room and any politician will squeeze through that like an oiled pig.  She should also ask:  “Do you want to apologize to the nation for making that boneheaded statement”?

 

2.  BP is now in the position of making many of the key decisions on how to deal with it [the oil catastrophe] — a situation that is drawing growing criticism.  …In at least one instance in which the federal government has attempted to overrule BP, which was over its use of dispersant chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency says are too toxic, the company has not complied. What do you say to those who say too much control has been ceded to BP? And what kind of changes, if any, should be made in the process for dealing with future oil spills?

Rating: 5 out 10.  The problem with this question is it is a series of questions (and it is too long, even with my cuts).  Journalists need to study lawyer’s questions.  Lawyers know that you shouldn’t ask multiple questions because the defendant then gets to choose what he will answer.  This question should be broken into multiple questions but I like the one about the EPA saying the use of dispersant was too toxic.  

3. Salazar has pledged reform of the Minerals Management Service, the agency responsible for offshore drilling, which is now recognized as having been too compliant with the wishes of the oil industry. But his proposals — for instance, splitting the agency into separate leasing, revenue collection and oversight — have dealt largely with the organization of the MMS. If the problem is, as you have said, a cozy culture in the agency, is it enough simply to redraw the organization chart? How can you quickly change a culture that has taken decades to develop?

My rating:  7 out of 10.  Again, too long and multiple questions.  The first one is SUPERB.

4. On May 6, Salazar announced a moratorium on the issuance of final permits for “new offshore drilling activity.” Critics such as the Center for Biological Diversity note, however, that this policy has never been put into writing, and that its definition “has become steadily narrower as the Interior Department changes it to exclude whatever drilling permits MMS issues on any given day.” And the New York Times has reported that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, waivers have continued to be granted for drilling projects. What, exactly, does this moratorium cover?

My rating:  9 out 10.  Very good general idea.  Why not incorporate more specifics in the question?  The NYTimes gave numbers relating to the issuance of waivers after the “moratorium”.  Put that in the question.  And why not call Mr. Ken Salazar, “your choice for the Secretary of the Interior” to highlight that Obama chose a guy who had a very poor environmental record (and was criticized for the pick when it was made)?

5. Should anyone in the government be fired as the result of this disaster?

My rating:  6 out 10.

It’s good that this question is direct and blunt.  But why not be more specific:  “Mr. President, when you hired Ken Salazar his appointment was criticized by environmentalists.  He was accused of being in bed with special interests and for being an advocate of offshore drilling?  George Bush fired Brownie.  Shouldn’t you fire Salazar?

This should be followed with this question:  “With all of the reports of the cozy nature of the regulation in MMS (including potentially criminal acts like bribes and kickbacks), shouldn’t the head of that agency be fired, Mr. President?”

Here are some other questions I suggest to the press:

1.  For 27 years, Mr. President, Democratic and Republican presidents alike enforced an offshore oil drilling ban in bipartisan fashion.  On April 2, 2010, you reversed that long standing policy and we all know what happened 18 days later.  Didn’t you make a tremendous mistake, Sir, and would you like to apologize to the Nation and the world for it?
2.  Sir, You have been accused by three leading Democratic political advisers, namely, James Carville, Donna Brazille and Peter Daou of poor management of the oil disaster bordering on ineptness.   Carville said you are “naive” to rely on BP and that you haven’t spent enough time in the Gulf. Brazille said your haven’t taken the initiative and have let BP do everything and Daou has called your response “lame” and your leadership “nonexistent”. Aren’t your fellow Democrats making valid points, Mr. President?
3.  Your White House first held a major conference on the oil disaster two full days after it happened and you yourself did not visit the Gulf until 11 days after the rig blew up and oil began gushing into the ocean.  James Carville, a leading Democrat, says you need to get on down to the Gulf and get a grip on what’s going on.  Hasn’t your response, Mr. President, been completely inadequate?
4.  BP received a number of waivers of environmental impact statements, apparently even after you issued a so-called moratorium on these. MMS under your administration seemed to be looking the other way continuously.  BP was also a leading financial contributor to your 2008 campaign.  Has your administration been lax on regulating oil companies because it has in part also been such a huge recipient of campaign money from these very companies?  Will you return BP’s campaign contributions?
5.  You’ve placed a so-called moratorium on offshore drilling for 30 days so the “problem can be studied”.  Shouldn’t it be abundantly clear that offshore oil drilling especially at deep depths is inherently dangerous and that we do not have the technology to make it safe yet?  Why not reinstate a complete ban on offshore drilling now?
6.  What exactly is the need for a commission to look into this incident?  Any such commission will take time (at least 6-8 months to report) and will cost the taxpayers yet more money.  Don’t we pretty much know what went wrong here:  you lifted the offshore oil drilling ban when you shouldn’t have, your administration was lax in enforcing rules and regulations on all oil companies, and BP acted irresponsibly and perhaps criminally.  What else is a commission going to tell us that we don’t already know?
7.  Sen Carl Levin has been quoted recently as saying that your administration is a late convert (in the last few days) to really pushing a change in policy on DADT.  Was that late conversion due to the oil disaster and your need to change the conversation?
8.  Exactly why is the United States about the only country in the developed West that has problems with gays serving in the military?  In NATO, of which we are a member, 22 out of 26 countries that participate militarily allow this with no adverse effects.  So too do Canada and Israel. Consul David Saranga of the Israeli Consulate in New York City, has stated, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.” Exactly what is the problem, Mr. President, with gays in the U.S. military?
9.  Yesterday at a fundraiser in San Francisco, according to Sam Stein of the Huffingtonpost, you essentially heckled someone who was heckling you on DADT.  Was your response appropriate for the President of the United States?  Would you like to apologize to that young man, who was arrested incidentally, for asking you to speed up action on DADT?
10.  Yesterday, after the above incident, Mr. President, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that you went to the “lavish mansion” of an oil billionaire, the heir to the Getty oil fortune.  There some 80 wealthy individuals wrote out checks to you for a reported $32,500 each.  Doesn’t that just hammer home Mr. Carville’s point that you have been essentially missing in action in the Gulf on the oil spill?  Can you take all of that oil related money and still work for average Americans to provide a clean and safe environment?
11.  Mr. President, Hillary Clinton accused you in 2008 during the Democratic party presidential primaries of “not being a fighter for average Americans.”  Hasn’t your inadequate response to the environmental disaster in the Gulf, your trillion dollar bailouts to banks and Wall St., and your inadequate response to the unemployment/economic crisis, borne her criticism out?  

12.  Mr. President, BP was a leading financial contributor to your presidential campaign and as we have seen they seem to have gotten lenient regulatory treatment during your administration with all of those waivers for filing environmental impact statements.  Goldman Sachs also was a big contributor to your 2008 campaign, almost to the tune of $1 million, and they too seem to have benefited through numerous appointments of Goldman people to your administration (like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner) and through policies being implemented that in a sense benefited Goldman Sachs but not its competitors (like Lehman Brothers which was given no bailout).  Have you not brought pay to play politics from Chicago to Washington, D.C., Sir?  

NOTE: I’ve broken my own rule and clumped some questions together for presentation purposes.

The influential and nonpartisan website pollster.com shows that President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has dipped since the oil spill.
Pollster http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php now shows that 48.9% disapprove while 47.2% approve.  That’s pretty much a reversal of the situation one month or so ago.  Note that Pollster’s numbers are an aggregate of many top polls and that it is nonprofit, nonpartisan and run by professional political scientists, many affiliated with the highly regarded University of Wisconsin, Madison.

This follows other recent polls showing a majority of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill mess.  I don’t have the results of those polls at my fingertips but I seem to recall something like 52% disapproval and 46% approval.

Of course, each day this mess continues the presidential approval rating numbers will go down.  

The President must deal with this catastrophe more forcefully.  Here are some steps he could take immediately:

1.  revisit the scene and spend some time (not just a few hours there) talking with people about what happened and what can be done. This environmental disaster is more important than spending time with Republican legislators or flying to California to help Barbara Boxer get reelected; show some fight!;
2.  fire Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary and overseer of the cleanup process.  Put in someone who has a known, tough reputation for being an environmental steward. Note that while Obama promised no more waivers of environmental impact statements, the New York Times reported two days ago that this practice is still occurring under Salazar’s “leadership”. Like Bush did with Brownie, Obama must show Salazar the door.
3.  clean out just about all the staff at MMS.  The New York Times has a new report up showing that many of these hapless regulators actually let the oil companies fill out their regulatory forms in pencil, and then they just used pens to cover up the pencil remarks of the oil companies.  Prosecute those people within the government who broke the law (as in those who took bribes as reported by the Times).  This is NOT a time for “look forward not backwards.”
4.  get tough with BP and other oil companies.  Have the Justice Department investigate to see if any laws were broken, and if they were, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
5.  permanently REINSTATE the offshore drilling ban. President Barack Obama has as of now just put a 30 day moratorium on it.  There should be no more offshore drilling period.
6.  it is especially necessary to ban offshore drilling in the Arctic. Shell is sending drilling equipment up there right now.  This should be stopped with a complete ban on offshore drilling.
7.  Obama should return the money that BP gave him in 2008 and refuse to take any more.  Otherwise, all of those waivers look like “pay to play”.  
8.  Maybe we should take Andy Borowitz’s humorous suggestion up and plug the oil leak up with BP excecutives!

   From Borowitz writing at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/experts-propose-plugging_b_589709.html :

   “We’ve tried containment domes, rubber tires, and even golf balls,” said William Cathermeyer of the National Oil Leakage Institute, a leading consultancy in the field of oil leaks. “Now it’s time to shove some BP executives down there and hope for the best.”

   Submerging the oil company executives thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface could be a “win-win” situation, Mr. Cathermeyer said.

In the last few days, first James Carville spoke out against the “naive” Obama administration response to the BP oil disaster.Then Donna Brazille said virtually the same thing and accused the administration of relying too much on BP and not taking the initiative. Now a third close adviser to Hillary Clinton, Peter Daou, has come out with a condemnation of the “lame” White House response to the oil disaster over at Huffingtonpost. Writes Daou in this zinger, “leadership is virtually nonexistent.” And this: “President Obama can launch as many fact-finding commissions as he sees fit. But we shouldn’t be impressed that they are doing what we elected them [leaders] to do.”
After the blasts from James Carville and Donna Brazille, I wrote a diary here mentioning the fact that perhaps the Clinton team was getting ready for a primary challenge in 2012.  Now, Peter Daou, a political consultant and former Hillary adviser, has written “The Great Shame:  America’s Pathetic Response to the Gulf Catastrophe” and as its title indicates, Daou isn’t saying good things about Team Obama. “This isn’t Katrina II” jabs Daou, “it’s worse.” Or how about this line: “Democratic leaders have been blindsided by the spill, HAVING JUST COME OUT IN FAVOR OF OFFSHORE DRILLING TO APPEASE REPUBLICANS.” (emphasis added) Ouch! Note too the A-Word (Appease, about as strong a vilification in politics as one can use, it evokes an image of a timid and pusillanimous British prime minister). Double ouch!! Those are tough words directed at guess who? In another line, he calls the administration’s response “shameful”.

I think this makes it official.  High political advisers around Hillary sense that this president is both weak and vacillating and not only on the BP oil response.  Tellingly in her criticisms, Brazille used the phrase “one of the things” she objected to about the Obama administration was its handling of the disaster. That, of course, implies other problems like:  overall weakness in trying repeatedly to get Republicans on board for legislation(even when they have shown they want to scuttle the legislation); a pathetic federal response to the economic/unemployment crisis; a shrub-like attitude towards human rights abuses and the constitution(Obama has gone beyond W. with forced renditions and the notion he has the right to kill Americans abroad); and repeated flip-flops on major campaign promises.

How would Hillary fare in a primary challenge in 2012?  It’s always difficult, of course, to challenge a standing president UNLESS that president has shown himself to be inept and UNLESS that president has dissed his own political base.  This is exactly what Rahm and Obama have done.  Repeatedly.  Like a Trojan Horse, Obama pretended to be a liberal Democrat largely to get the Democratic nomination but once he got it and once he won the general election, he began shredding campaign promises as soon as the votes were being counted.  Remember FISA?  His DADT and DOMA promises?  Instead of health care reform he started talking about “insurance reform” and pushed not only single payer but the public option “off the table”.  On financial regulation and economic matters, Obama’s in bed with Goldman Sachs and BP having taken in record sums from both.

In fact, what Hillary predicted in 2008 has come true.  She said “this man is not a fighter” for average Americans and that has been proven correct again and again, on health care, on financial regulations, and now on the environment.  

If she challenges Obama in 2012, she will once again get an overwhelming majority of the female vote–  maybe a larger percentage than in 2008 because Obama will no longer be an unknown entity that people poured their hopes and dreams into.  He cannot play the “change” card again since he has failed to bring about significant change (and doesn’t even talk about it anymore).  Hillary will also sweep the gay vote and the Latino vote.  As for one of the mainstays of the Democratic party, the labor vote, Obama dropped organized labor’s main legislative aim and he has a pathetic record on creating jobs.  He’s essentially run a Republic administration with Republican economic ideas.  Then, there’s the African American vote.  What really has Obama done for them?  They have the worst unemployment numbers in the country.  Moreover, Bill Clinton was not called “the first Black president” for nothing.  Note too that Bill has cleaned up his act and would not be the perceived threat in 2012 that he was in 2008.

Looking at the tea leaves as shown by these 3 criticisms (in virtually 3 days) by top Clinton advisers, I’m seeing a Hillary primary challenge in 2012.  If Paul Begala comes out next with a another stinger of a commentary on the Obama administration, we’ll know for sure.  And a Hillary challenge just might be the only thing to get this bumbler of a president off his butt. And out of office after one term.        

Here’s a link to Daou’s hard-hitting article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-great-shame-americas_b_586377.html

Two Democrats with close ties to the Clinton administration and to Hillary have recently called out the Obama administration for its ineptness on the BP oil spill.
First, Democratic strategist James Carville called the administration “naive” and said they are relying too much on BP.  Carville has been joined now by Donna Brazile, another top Clinton strategist.  In an article over at Huffingtonpost by Sam Stein, Brazille is quoted as saying that “one of the problems” she has with the Obama administration is “they are not tough enough.”  Like Carville, Brazille says that Obama and his team are relying too much on BP and not being forceful.

Note too Brazille’s choice of words. Her “one thing” indicates she (and others who are liberal minded) are tired of the weak-kneed and weak acting Obama. Look at his pathetic record. He’s folded on real health care reform, he has tough talk for bankers but coddles them, and he has essentially done nothing to treat the unemployment situation. Now there is the BP disaster in which his toughest “action” is to call for a commission to look into the situation!

Interesting that two individuals with close ties to the Clintons, Donna Brazile and James Carville, have called out the Obama administration for its ineptness on the oil spill. If Paul Begala joins the choir, I think it might be an indicator that Hillary might be willing to challenge the blunderer Obama in 2012.

As for Robert Gibbs and his contention that the administration has acted swiftly on the oil disaster, he must be kidding. The White House didn’t convene a conference on the disaster until 2 days after it happened, Obama didn’t visit the Gulf until 11 days after the incident (compared to 4 with Bush and Katrina). The inept Salazar still has a job.  Moreover, Katrina was not a man made event. The oil spill is on Obama. He’s the guy who on April 2nd told the world that oil rigs offshore were safe nowadays and that besides “oil spills don’t happen from rigs but from refineries”. He’s the guy who reversed a 27 year old ban on offshore drilling. He’s the guy who hired the environmentally challenged Ken Salazar and who has kept him in office. At least Bush fired Brownie. Salazar was criticized by environmentalists when Obama made the pick; they rightly pointed out the fact that he has long been in bed with special interests.

Obama should be primaried in 2012. I think a lot of Democrats, like myself, are sorry they chose the timid corporatist Obama over Hillary in 2008.  We might get a chance to rethink that!

No one can accuse James Carville of being anything but a loyal Democrat.  He’s long been one of the most colorful and loyal of Democratic strategists and gave good advise to Bill Clinton and others.
Now in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Carville has slammed the response of the Obama administration to the BP oil environmental disaster.  Huffingtonpost has this up as its lead story under the title, “James Carville takes on Obama On Oil Spill:  He’s ‘Risking Everything’ with ‘Go Along with BP Strategy’ “

Basically what Carville told Anderson Cooper is that Obama’s response has been inadequate and that he has relied too much on the oil giant and not taken the initiative.  That fits in with the facts.  The White House didn’t call a major meeting on the spill under 2 days after it happened.  Obama didn’t visit the Gulf until 11 days after the oil rig blew up and oil began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Carville has urged Obama to go to Plan B but unfortunately, his administration doesn’t appear to have a plan B.  That’s likely because Obama chose the inept Ken Salazar as his Secretary of the Interior, even though environmental groups had warned him that Salazar long had been in bed with special interests and that he was a proponent of offshore drilling.  Note too that under Salazar and the Obama administration, BP was given waivers for drilling without filing environmental impact statements, as reported by the Washington Post.

Carville is right and this disaster isn’t just going away anytime soon.  Obama must be more decisive in this than he has been.  He should can Salazar immediately and then start getting much tougher with BP and other oil companies.  He should also permanently restore the offshore ban (he put it on hold for 30 days).  

Here’s my effort to import the video clip of the interview with Anderson Cooper.  <iframe src=”http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=99D1HC3882XXX3VX&widget_type_cid=svp” width=”420″ height=”421″ frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ scrolling=”no” allowtransparency=”true”></iframe&gt

If that doesn’t work, check out the Huffingtonpost story which includes it!

SOURCE:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/obama-faces-new-wave-of-c_n_585620.html

ED: Apologies for my inability to include that video here. Maybe someone can help out?
[editor’s note, by fflambeau] Sorry for my inability to put the video into the story. Maybe someone could kindly help out?

[UPDATE:]

The statement by Carville is so strong I’m wondering if it is more than just criticism. Could it be a “shot across the bow” of the Obama presidency? Perhaps not by the Clintons themselves but by some of their most loyal supporters, as Carville is. Carville may reason that he is getting on in age and health (so is Bill) and that 2016 might be too late to wait.

Then too, they may feel that if the Republicans take over the House in November (as many expect) this will not only result in gridlock but also continuous investigations of the administration. Both will not be good news.

If this happens and the recovery continues in slow fashion, Clinton might be in a good position to say to Obama in 2012: you’ve had your chance, you had 4 years, and it isn’t working. I did all I could to support you too. Now, please step aside.

Let’s face it, she would take most of the labor union support, almost all the progressives, most of the Latino vote, a huge majority of the female vote, and a chunk of the American American community (which may well reason: what’s this guy done for us? We have the worst unemployment rates in the country.).

Moreover, the line of attack that was effective for her in the last months of the Democratic primary campaigns: that Obama is not a fighter for average Americans, seems to have been borne out.

This does appear a means of putting some distance between the Clinton faction and the Obama administration, which with its commission to investigate the oil spill, is looking more and more ineffective.

The whistle blower website Wikileaks is under attack by the Australian government.  
From DemocracyNow:

WikiLeaks Founder Has Passport Revoked in Australia

The founder of the whistleblower website WikiLeaks has had his passport confiscated in his native Australia. Julian Assange says Australian officials told him his passport would be canceled because it looked worn. Last year WikiLeaks stoked a controversy in Australia after publishing a list of websites the Australian government had been preparing to blacklist even though the sites had no links to the stated reason of child pornography. And last month WikiLeaks drew international attention after releasing a classified US military video showing a US helicopter gunship indiscriminately firing on Iraqi civilians in 2007.

SOURCE:  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/20/headlines

Wikileaks is one of the essential sources for an open internet and for holding governments and their agencies accountable for their actions.  This is a travesty not only for Australia but for every democracy.

Arlen Specter has been ousted in Pennsylvania and Bill Halter has dragged Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln into a runoff election in Arkansas.  

Yesterday’s election results were a slap in the face to Barack Obama and Rahm.  
The results are a clear indication that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is not only fed up with Obama’s centrism/corporatism, they were ready, willing and able to do something about it.

As usual, the mainstream media got just about everything wrong.  Have a look at this pathetic story from the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut.

She wrote an article (or typed out a handout given her by Rahm) on May 19th called “Obama and Primary Candidates Kept Each Other at Arm’s Length”.  She claimed that Obama made just one trip in support of Specter and that he “played a limited role.”  

Comments written by readers almost uniformly rejected her column and said it was little more than an apologia.  In fact, Obama raised almost $3 million for Specter, helped cut TV ads for him, helped channel Democratic party money to him, twisted arms by way of telephone, and sent his VP three times to campaign for Specter in addition to making a personal appearance last September at a fundraiser.

Blanche Lincoln was also the party favorite in Arkansas and the recipient of lots of money from the Democratic Party.  

None of the above helped Specter or Lincoln largely because the Obama administration has repeatedly dissed its progressive base and yesterday was, in part, pay back time.

To avert huge losses in November, Obama would be wise to do the following:

1.  Begin to fight for and implement the progressive agenda he outlined as a candidate (rather than trashing it).
2.  Fire Rahm.  Rahm hurt the party back in the 1990’s in almost the same way as he is now.  He doesn’t realize that you cannot diss the people who voted and put you into office without suffering consequences.
3.  Not only start talking in a populist fashion (for instance about “fat cat bankers”) but actually do something that is progressive.  Push a financial reform package that has real teeth in it.  It’s interesting today that two leading Democratic liberals (Russ Feingold and Maria Cantwell voted against the bill being pushed by Dodd and found it “inadequate”.  Good for them).  Reinstate the Glass Steagall Act, the demise of which Bill Clinton has himself admitted was a huge mistake in his administration.
4.  Get rid of the incompetent Ken Salazar at Interior and actually bring a strong environmentalist in at Interior.  Crack down on repeat offenders like BP (and don’t take their campaign contributions).

If Obama and the Obama Administration take to heart the message sent to them by voters yesterday, November need not be a blood bathe for the Democratic Party.  BUT, if they continue “business as usual” expect progressives in the party to work only for progressives and not Republicans with a (D) next to their name.  

UPDATE:

Here’s a link for the Kornblut article. html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051805155.