Well, he closed Git- oh, wait.
Repealed DAD- damn.
Repealed DOM- crap.
Stopped asserting the state secr- fuck.
I got nuthin'.
The only thing that makes me feel slightly less like a chump is that there was no one to vote for who in retrospect I think would have been any better.
(a) We haven't bombed Iran. (This is more or less disagreeing with your "less war" point. I do think it's important not to underestimate in retrospect how bad McCain was.)
(b) Sonia Sotomayor has been appointed to the Supreme Court, and Paul Clement hasn't.
Neither of these points is to say that I'm not feeling extremely disappointed at the moment.
For all her faults, Clinton never struck me as a coward.
Well, I suppose he hasn't made war(1) on anyone else. By this point in his presidency, Bush had already invaded Afghanistan and had let bin Laden get away into Pakistan, where he has remained, quite comfortably, ever since (2).
(1) I originally wrote "declared war", but of course the US doesn't do that.
(2) Yes, he gets the blame. As we were incessantly reminded, he was the Commander-in-Chief.
3: Absolutely. No McCain/Palin administration and that trumps every other consideration. By a LOT. Sadly.
(Or do you mean just in the primaries?)
4-6: Yeah, I think there's something to be said for the possibility that the rest of the world has less reason to be afraid that we'll be taking bizarrely impulsive and irrational military actions. That's something.
I concur with the "hasn't bombed Iran" assessment.
One year. Out of four. He's had a steep learning curve and faced a serious crisis in the economy while simultaneously trying to pass HCR. I have serious problems with his approach, but he's at least tried to move things in the right general direction.
He's not the liberal lion we would like, but he's adequate and vastly better than the alternatives. All I want out of his first term is a cooling down of imperial aggression and maybe one major liberal policy initiative. I figure there's a pretty good chance he'll be able to do that in the next three years.
7: Both. I still think he's way better than McCain/Palin, and all this sort of thing is exactly what I would have worried about Clinton doing -- I'm not regretting not having voted for her.
Fucking John fucking Edwards. The affair probably didn't make any difference to the primary, but still.
And a hearty "fuck yeah!" to 6.last, a point that deserves regular repetition.
10: Generally I try to be upbeat, but that sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations to me. The detainee/human rights stuff is stuff he could have fixed by fiat, which makes it the canary in the coal mine for me.
And today's announcement is just stupid.
S-CHIP. Ledbetter Law. Drug enforcement rollback somewhat.
I also agree with 4.last, of course. A gathering to watch the SoTU tomorrow night will probably be grim.
12: actually, I was just rereading Peter Bergen's account of Tora Bora and this passage caught my eye:
"...In late November, Donald Rumsfeld told Franks that Bush "wants us to look for options in Iraq." Rumsfeld instructed the general to "dust off" the Pentagon's blueprint for an Iraq invasion and brief him in a week's time. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers would later write, "I realized that one week was not giving Tom and his staff much time to sharpen" the plan. Franks points out in his autobiography that his staff was already working seven days a week, 16-plus hours a day, as the Tora Bora battle was reaching its climax. Although Franks doesn't say so, it is impossible not to wonder if the labor-intensive planning ordered by his boss for another major war was a distraction from the one he was already fighting..."
In late November 2001, when the war in Afghanistan was at its height - that was when Bush decided to order the theatre commander to prepare a plan for a completely different war, and to do it in a week.
A week!
The normal military planning rule is "one-third, two-thirds". (This is a good one for all projects, actually.) In other words, if you're a battlegroup commander, and you're told "attack this town in three days' time", you take the first day to prepare your own overall plan - the general outline of which unit will do what when - and then you go to all your subordinates and give them the other two days to plan their own parts of the job. And so on down the chain.
Giving Franks a week to plan only makes sense if it was vital to be ready to go in three weeks. Which was ludicrous.
He's not the liberal lion we would like, but he's adequate and vastly better than the alternatives.
Vastly better than the alternatives, yes. Adequate, no. Proposing a spending freeze in the middle of a recession is inadequate on a heroic scale. See Krugman, linked above.
Now it's possible that this is a one off mistake, however costly it will be to the common weal. But Obama isn't an economist and if he's taken this decision on the advice of the economists he's appointed, then they'll go on giving him crap advice and he'll go on taking it.
Mainly I voted for Obama because I thought he'd break the cycle of opening the State of the Union address with "The State of the Union is ..." a la fifth-grade book reports. Now I worry.
Vastly better than the alternatives, yes. Adequate, no.
Yep.
17: I still remember when Reagan got confused and gave a well-spoken, but pointless, address on "States of the Union." The newspapers kept hacking on him just because he forgot New Jersey.
I'm pretty annoyed. But have no reason at all to believe that Sec. Clinton would have done better on any issue. And the other side is so bad that the OP question is beyond frivolous: keeping Republicans away from appointing the judiciary is difference enough.
On detainee stuff, there are real differences in the prisons -- not as good as shutting them down,* but not nothing, by a long stretch. And the right to detain definitely is, under this Admin, limited only to what the judiciary will allow. This is very different from the prior Admin's pre-Boumediene stance. Too bad for the prisoners that we have GWB's judiciary in the DC Circuit making the rules. And it's too bad that both parties in Congress are full of bedwetting fools.
* I'm not aware of any polling, but I'd have a hard time believing that many residents of IV, VI, or Iguana would rather live in a penitentiary in Illinois.
the OP question is beyond frivolous
Can we take it as read that the question in the original post was meant as "Why you voted for Obama specifically" rather than "Why you would have voted for the worst imaginable Democrat rather than any Republican"?
That should sound slightly less frivolous.
The "accomplishment" of keeping Republicans away from appointing the judiciary cannot be overstated. Would Sec. Clinton have done as good a job at this? Yes she would have.
I don't think Sec. Clinton would have pursued an Afghan policy that is materially different, or that she would have had any better luck with HCR. I don't think she would have stood up to the generals on the Abu Ghraib photos, or to the intelligence people on state secrets. I don't think she'd be prosecuting anyone from the previous Admin. I would guess that she'd be taking advice from the same economics people, and that Rahm could have a place in her White House as well.
23: All that is why I don't feel like I screwed up by voting for him. But the relevant comparison isn't to Clinton, it's to someone who, hypothetically, didn't suck.
Huh. I forgot, I didn't vote for him. Worked for him, but didn't vote for him.
soft bigotry of low expectations
Yep. I don't expect much from anyone capable of getting through the Democratic primaries. Still, he's got three more years to deliver at least something. Clinton was similarly disappointing, but still a vastly better president than the Bushes who bracketed him.
Its nice to be disappointed by a Black president. In my lifetime, I hope to be disappointed by a female president. It will probably be left to my children or grandchildren to be disappointed by a gay, atheist or Muslim president.
Rob
["If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointment" --TMBG]
Further to 22 -- there's a non-trivial chance that even successful application of the Victory through Defeat strategy would, on the way to getting us to Single Payer, give us a Supreme Court that would say that Single Payer (once passed) is unconstitutional.
The Justice Department has stepped into a gender identity discrimination suit on the side of a student who is suing the school system where he was harassed. The HIV travel ban has been lifted. The Justice Department's LGBT anti-discrimination task force has been restarted after being shut down by the Bush administration. There are rumors that in the State of the Union address he's going to advocate for legislation lifting DADT. There are definitely reasons why I'm still glad I voted for him. He's not perfect and there have been some real boneheaded decisions, but fuck if he's not better than McCain would have been. I'll take the good I can find wherever I can find it. The system we have is so opposed to any sort of reform or change that I think anything being done at all is near-miraculous.
Well, I hated was deeply suspicious of Obama, yet voted for him, so obviously much better than the alternative for all the reasons above.
And I am not sure I can articulate it well, but there remains something in the idea of Obama, an empathy for those (in some sense my "friends" or allies) who did put faith or hope in Obama that keeps me from bolting from the Democratic Party. Democrats still have more attractive illusions.
The ability to be "disappointed by someone new" is a very great virtue. I hang around the Marxist and anarchist blogs, and I don't ever want turn into IOZ or Dennis Perrin or the aging Trotskyists.
On the other hand, 21 clarifies the question such that it negates most of what I say to myself when I'm listening to NPR on the way to work every morning.
there remains something in the idea of Obama,
You know, to the extent I retain any positive feelings for him, it's in the hope that he's inspiring the deluded. My parents really hated JFK, for a lot of very good reasons. OTOH, a lot of people who probably had a less accurate sense of what JFK actually did and believe did good stuff because they found him inspiring. Maybe there are enough whirly-eyed appointees and bureaucrats out there to do some good.
We're really using the language of "soft bigotry of low expectations"? That's pretty disgusting, actually.
Sorry about that. It wasn't well thought out, and looking back at it I do agree with you.
The point about tologosh's expectations being unreasonably low I'd still make, but but if I had it to say again I wouldn't use that language, and I did not intend its obvious implications.
it's to someone who, hypothetically, didn't suck
Ok, so if we're dropping Sec. Clinton, Pres. Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR, and Wilson from the question -- and I don't think we could have expected any better from any of them -- we're left with . . . Grover Cleveland. And, to be honest, I'm really not sure that Obama is better than Cleveland would have been. So, yes, I guess I'm disappointed.
35: No worries, of course. I was just taken back by the rhetoric. Also, I think we're all overreacting somewhat to what might be a pretty minor political tactic. But it's too soon to know for sure. Still, I think it's best to actually watch the speech before we all put on our FDL t-shirts. Really, take a look at this and see if it makes you feel better. And if that doesn't work, give it a few more months before you* adopt too many of the right's frames. Health care reform may still pass. And if it does, no matter what Bob and Apo say, Obama will be a huge hero.
* You here could stand in for anyone still willing to give Obama half a chance to be a successful president.
36: Sorry, I should remember that no policy I favor is now or ever has been possible, and keep my mouth shut and not complain. I'll start writing "Improvement is impossible, and only unrealistic fools have hope for anything ever getting better" a thousand times -- maybe that will make it sink in.
Shorter Ari: if we get health care reform, nearly everything else is noise. But if we don't, we're all Bob McManus now. And since shorter Ari is still pretty long, I'd add that what he says about hcr in the SOTU is going to tell me an awful lot about his intentions on that front.
You think doing something about global warming is noise. You're utterly mad.
What have we done about global warming?
I think Weman was talking to Ari's first sentence -- saying that Ari was mad for calling everything but health care noise. "Utterly mad" seems a bit hyperbolic, given that Ari did have a 'nearly' in there.
You think doing something about global warming is noise.
Politically, it is.
41: well, nothing, but I think 40 is objecting to 39's implication that, if HCR is successful, failure everywhere else doesn't matter.
I agree with 40, to be honest - the US can manage fine without HCR indefinitely, it's just going to be slightly poorer and sicker than it would otherwise be, but failure to sort out climate change could mean the collapse of civilisation. Biblical scale disasters.
["why is it that, when we want to describe unparalleled destruction and human suffering, we use an adjective derived from a book that's supposed to demonstrate how God loves us all?"]
I'm still pleased with what I see coming out of Interior and EPA. Like, surprised and pleased, with every announcement.
What have we done about global warming?
The federal EPA has declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant, so that if Congress does nothing, the EPA can unilaterally regulate it.
Maybe the EPA should go ahead and do that now, but that's the stick behind getting Congress to act. "If you don't pass something better, we'll regulate CO2 our way."
I dunno, what if McCain/Palin had won? First off, that would be one less Republican senator. Then you'd have had a couple of Republican senators boosted to the cabinet, plus maybe a governor and a Rep or two. Now, there would have been some backbiting on the Democratic side, especially by the Hilary partisans, but that would be pretty much dying down by this point. Assume all the other races had gone how they did, Franken got seated, etc. Probably wouldn't have lost Mass. Might very well have actually picked up an extra Senate seat in a special election to cover one of those Cabinet appointments.
What would McCain have done? First, there was no way he wouldn't expand the Iraq War. But he couldn't have done all that much with a Democrat controlled Congress and economy in the toilet. Probably, he'd have followed the previous administration's policy pretty closely: starve Afghanistan and continue functioning as Iraq's defacto government, military & police. Similar troop and money commitments.
He would have done something with HCR. Probably a pretty milquetoast bill that wouldn't cover everyone, but would include some kind of bullshit tax credit & expanded HSAs. "Let the market do its job." There's no way that would've gotten out of committee, and all the energy for single-payer/public option would have been maintained on the left/center.
Stimulus: Well, the banks & insurers would have gotten a good deal, plus there'd be a little extra for the oil industry. Sound familiar?
Supreme Court: Probably would've picked someone inappropriate off the bat, but hey, Democratic congress, remember? Bork the first one and wind up with a Souter-type compromise. Not necessarily much worse that what we've got now.
Executive branch stuff: Yes, there would have been some drawbacks there. But mostly you'd see the status quo maintained on a lot of issues. In fact, if Castro dies, a McCain administration might have a lot more traction than Obama could to normalize relations with Cuba. So there could even be some benefits.
On the whole, I think a lot of things would be right about where they are now, and a bunch of youse guys would be ready to storm some fucking barricades, instead of sitting around moping so much.
and a bunch of youse guys would be ready to storm some fucking barricades, instead of sitting around moping so much.
If McCain had won, the ultimate life would have been sucked out of us. It would have been like "The fucking stars aligned, we gave it everything we got, and we could not elect our guy."
It would not have rallied the liberal troops a year later to see that the economy was such a shithole that some of McCain's worst plans were foiled.
48: You're right, I'm giving you all too much credit.
But seriously. I'm not even sure McCain wasn't 100% right about the conduct of the war. Afghanistan is basically a lost cause, right? But Iraq had a large middle-class, a tradition of secular society, and plenty of oil. Maybe an extra 50,000 US soldiers could actually have fixed everything there. Afghanistan would be fucked, but Afghanistan is always fucked. And the best part is, we could still be blaming the Republicans for everything that went wrong.
One-termer McCain, screw-up of the millennium, followed by President Obama, savior of everything. Kind of a nice ring to it, isn't there?
I don't think a McCain stimulus would have been anything like the one we've had, which is employing a lot of people in various construction trades.
Bork? No, Alito. Or Thomas. Souter didn't get on because of pressure and counter-pressure. He got on because there was just enough juice left in New England moderate Republicanism to get a final appointment. Don't expect another.
47
What would McCain have done? First, there was no way he wouldn't expand the Iraq War. But he couldn't have done all that much with a Democrat controlled Congress and economy in the toilet. ...
There would have been people urging war with Iran. Perhaps McCain would have said no as Bush did but McCain gave the impression of being an impulsive hothead. So hard to be confident.
38
Sorry, I should remember that no policy I favor is now or ever has been possible
Wow, I'm generally pessimistic, but this is putting it very strongly. Let's see here, five horses' heads or the equivalent in centrist Senators' beds would get a cloture motion on one important bill, right?
40: As Megan notes, there's already a plan in place to (somewhat haltingly) regulate carbon. Having talked about this before, I (foolishly) thought that people would give me the benefit of the doubt on that front. That said, the votes weren't there in the Senate before Coakley lost, and they're sure as hell not there now. So the idea that Obama should tilt at that particular windmill (get it?), in the legislative arena at least, has always struck me as folly.
I think a lot of things would be right about where they are now, and a bunch of youse guys would be ready to storm some fucking barricades, instead of sitting around moping so much.
By far the most depressing part of the year to me has been that all the activist energy has been on the side of the Teabaggers. I went to one of 350.org's solidarity vigils during the Copenhagen summit (which got tens of thousands of people in some European cities), and, even in lefty Austin, there were only about 20 people there.
One year into Obama's presidency, is there anything left of the reasons any of you voted for him? ...
Since my vote for Obama was mostly an anti-Bush vote my reasons are largely intact. Although the extent to which Obama is carrying on Bush policies that I disagree with makes it harder for me to continue to blame Bush personally for them.
I would say the biggest negative surprise is the continuation of Bush's war policy. I didn't vote against 1000 years in Iraq to get 1000 years in Afghanistan instead.
The passivity on the economic front is also a bit of a surprise although there is a good chance I wouldn't like the direction of a more activist policy.
The biggest positive surprise has been his immigration policy which has been ok from my point of view.
I see he's lost Brad DeLong, and lost him from the right. Quite a trick. According to Kleiman, the "freeze" is actually a freeze *at post-stimulus levels*, though. Still pretty depressing.
And, what happened to no drama, by the way? One damn fool by-election and it's like that Civil War battle outside Washington where the quality all turned out to watch in their Sunday best, and ended up being caught up in a panic rout.
One of the great rules of British politics is that by-elections can always be won against incumbency and usually are, and are therefore fundamentally random events, because, y'know, parliamentary deaths and disgraces are decorrelated. Reacting to them is a big mistake - a classic Edwards Deming thing. If you lose three in quick succession, that's a problem; if you lose one, that's a random.
I think a lot of things would be right about where they are now, and a bunch of youse guys would be ready to storm some fucking barricades, instead of sitting around moping so much.
Definitely, because in that situation we would be able to easily imagine a world where things would be better.
give it a few more months before you* adopt too many of the right's frames
I'm not the one adopting the right's frames, it's the centrist asshole in the White House.
And no, that Maddow video doesn't please me in the least. The actual policies are bad (if not nec. abysmal) on the merits, but the rhetoric is "Hoover was right, and current Republicans are, too." What possible progressive cause is advanced by embracing crazy right rhetoric in the service of moderately right policy?
It's fucking amateur hour over there. Have you noticed that they're losing DeLong?
One damn fool by-election and it's like that Civil War battle outside Washington where the quality all turned out to watch in their Sunday best, and ended up being caught up in a panic rout.
This is the perfect image. Now I'm even more depressed.
56: First Bull Run. Sorry, I can't help myself.
Also, how much wouldn't you give to read this lede in the NYT: "Highly-placed sources within the scandal-rocked McCain administration confirm that Vice-President Sarah Palin will announce her resignation at a press conference scheduled for 12:01 p.m. eastern time today."
Shorter Ari: if we get health care reform ...
And if we don't get health care reform?
I'm glad CharlieC and Natilo are participating in this thread. Both of them are making me feel better about the country's current trajectory. (Though I appreciate the effort, ari.)
One of the great rules of British politics is that by-elections can always be won against incumbency and usually are, and are therefore fundamentally random events, because, y'know, parliamentary deaths and disgraces are decorrelated. Reacting to them is a big mistake - a classic Edwards Deming thing. If you lose three in quick succession, that's a problem; if you lose one, that's a random.
Because of our system of "primaries" and corporate funding of elections, our office-holders are always terrified of everything, except for those who have no reason to fear having their corporate funding taken away.
I've noticed that they're losing DeLong today. And Krugman, too. But the blogosphere becomes more and more like cable news with every moment that passes. Which is to say, everyone has to have an opinion NOW. And they have to share it NOW. And then things change.
Like I've said, if health care reform goes down, I'll be happy to condemn Obama as ineffectual -- or worse. And also like I said, if the spending freeze amounts to anything, I'll join McManus in assuming Obama's a Manchurian candidate. In the meantime, I'm waiting to see what actually happens in the speech and then a bit beyond that. Because I have that luxury: I can actually wait to to gather information before carving my opinion in stone.
Look, frankly, after the Hilarycare debacle, I pretty much gave up hope of seeing any significant top-down reform of healthcare in this country. What we need is a completely different paradigm for health care -- an RN on every block, a good surgeon for every neighborhood, an emphasis on prevention and nutrition and good self-care that comes not from bullshit PR campaigns, but from people collectively organizing themselves at a grassroots level to take charge of their own health and that of their community. Another 10,000 MRI machines or $3 prescription drugs aren't really going to change anything.
Thanks, Ari.
Lizard: calm down. remember who won. I could have said Namsos, Aandalsnes, or perhaps Tanga in 1915, but only Ajay would have known what I was talking about. Dunkirk would have been wrong - tragic, rather than tragicomic, and missing the abject pants-down circling panic. Also, it's a historic example of a radical change of plan in a hurry that worked.
65.1: Actually, DeLong was criticizing them before this announcement, too. But a nice try, anyway.
Obama is not so bad, he's just an incrementalist establishment liberal with too much respect for the conventional wisdom. You could predict a lot of this from the campaign. I'm disappointed in a number of things he's done, but I didn't really expect better. I think I said around the time of Obama's inauguaration that he's good if you think the system is fundamentally OK but being run badly, but if you think the system is fundamentally flawed then he is nowhere near radical enough. I still feel that way. In a lot of ways, we're all sitting here wondering how flawed our system really is.
The stimulus makes an enormous difference to the everyday lives of people around the country. Millions of people have been helped by that alone.
Also, I have to admit that the economy in particular is so badly fucked I'm not sure there are any clear right answers.
Like a lot of political leaders, we're going to have to stick around for a few years to see how good Obama really is.
But Iraq had a large middle-class, a tradition of secular society, and plenty of oil. Maybe an extra 50,000 US soldiers could actually have fixed everything there.
Are you out of your fucking mind? A civilian international control commission in 2003 might have fixed some things, but 2010 nothing the US military could do short of revoking all the contracts Cheney gave to his friends and shooting the people responsible, plus tying Eric Prince naked to a lamp post in downtown Baghdad is going to help anti-American resentment in Iraq for a generation.
He hadn't started calling him Barack Hoover Obama, though.
By the way, Haiti response. I can remember when there were two LHAs sailing around pointlessly in the Gulf because chimpy and horse show boy didn't bother to call them in although they'd been following the storm track for several hundred miles in order to be ready.
Now, you've sent a complete mobile port to Haiti, which isn't even in the United States. Far more than Bush did for New Orleans.
incrementalist establishment liberal with too much respect for the conventional wisdom.
I can buy this only if you're using 'liberal' in the leftist-pejorative sense. But what does 'too much respect for the conventional wisdom' mean? The conventional wisdom is that pledging to freeze spending in the middle of a recession is not bright.
68: Wait, you're saying DeLong hasn't been a stalwart Obama supporter up till now? Because that's just wrong. Sure, he's been critical of Obama on some occasions, but who hasn't? I was responding to your claim above that Obama has "lost" DeLong (like losing China, I guess?). And my response was that's true for today. As for Krugman, Obama lost him, then found him, and now seems to have lost him again. Things change, is my point.
Even that it is conwis is something of an achievement. It wasn't that long ago that monetarists still stalked the earth's finance ministries. Now they have been driven back to their university lairs, although they've not been roasted yet.
Incidentally, I'm feeling that it's a lot more likely that we'll lose the House this fall. What on earth is going to draw the Democratic base to vote this November? Maybe if Obama actually outlaws unions? Ooh, or he could name McCain co-President! He's already taken up his economic policies.
The good news, such as it is, is that there simply aren't enough at-risk Senate seats for Dems to lose it entirely - worst imaginable case is 50/50 with Biden the deciding vote.
As for Krugman, Obama lost him, then found him, and now seems to have lost him again.
Maybe Obama should try to get the kind of Krugman that beeps when you press a button on the TV.
But what does 'too much respect for the conventional wisdom' mean? The conventional wisdom is that pledging to freeze spending in the middle of a recession is not bright.
No, that's the conventional wisdom among experts. Not what makes sense to the braindead people who make up the media.
74: The last few days, DeLong has run a number of items that, IMO, have crossed from critical to frustrated and doubting. He's blaming Obama for Bernanke's stupid public statements, he was unhappy with the SOTU before the "freeze" announcement, and he's linking approvingly to others who are being, well, pretty shrill.
I mean, the guy's not in McManus territory, but I'd say that he's madder at and more disappointed in Obama than you are.
76
The good news, such as it is, is that there simply aren't enough at-risk Senate seats for Dems to lose it entirely - worst imaginable case is 50/50 with Biden the deciding vote.
Nate Silver apparently has more imagination than you do. He gives a 6+% chance Republicans take the Senate.
What's particularly frustrating is that if the Democrats really get trounced in November, the full court press media story will be that it was because Obama and Congress were governing as hard-core communists, and that got rejected by the ever and always conservative America.
The conventional wisdom is that pledging to freeze spending in the middle of a recession is not bright.
Not among Beltway journalists and legislators, it's not.
It's breathtaking to me how utterly BHO has been captured by Beltway CW. Yet another presidency ruined by a hardline commitment to looking at whatever Clinton did, and then doing the opposite.
81.last: I looked at that before I posted. I'm gonna call 16:1 against worse than I can imagine. By contrast, Nate thinks that the House is 50/50.
80: If he's mad at all, he's madder than me. And like I said before, I'm withholding the full force of my game-changing disappointment until I have a better sense of what's happening. For now, sure, Obama and the Democratic Congressional caucus are looking lousy. They're reeling publicly, which is embarrassing. And the rhetoric of spending cuts smacks of capitulation. As I said yesterday, I miss the guy who said that Democrats have better policies and that he welcomed an argument with the opposition over substantive issues.
Still, I'm not willing to freak the fuck out about any of this. So long as health care passes, and he stays the course in other ways (sane appointments to agencies and the bench, an EPA that acts on climate change, etc.) he'll still be the best president of my lifetime.
Yet another presidency ruined by a hardline commitment to looking at whatever Clinton did, and then doing the opposite.
This is a joke, right?
or perhaps Tanga in 1915, but only Ajay would have known what I was talking about.
I resemble that remark. I wrote a paper about the East Africa campaign in sixth form. It wasn't much good, but the first appearance of African killer bees on the world stage kind of stays with you.
As I said yesterday, I miss the guy who said that Democrats have better policies and that he welcomed an argument with the opposition over substantive issues.
The thing I really can't figure out is this. Neither I nor anyone else in the country has heard any Democrats, either in the administration or Congress, say anything about what their priorities are or why they are doing whatever it is that they've been doing over the past year. 100% of the propaganda that anyone has heard in this country has been Republican propaganda. This seems odd, given that the current ruling party might have viewed themselves as having a mandate after the 2008 election. Now, how much is the corporate media to blame for this, and how much blame goes to the Democrats for not bothering? I really don't know.
89: The media can't ignore the president of the United States. Obama just hasn't had much to say since his inauguration.
This is a joke, right?
You know that his approach to staffing and to HCR is predicated on doing the unClinton thing, right? Bush wanted to be the unClinton wrt policy, Obama wanted to the unClinton wrt WH management and legislative approach. This is not exactly news, ari.
he'll still be the best president of my lifetime.
That'll be fantastic news to the millions of extra unemployed who would have been helped by a non-capitulationist stimulus.
If I actually dig a little trench for the bar, he can clear it without any risk of tripping over it.
I'm really disappointed with Obama, but I don't think anyone else would have been better, and it's still cool that the President of the United States is a black guy from Hawaii. About the only way I can see that Hillary might have been better is that maybe the Republican "you're not the boss of me" freakout would be slightly less intense if the President were merely a girl and not some sort of Negro foreigner, but that's something we need to go through. And Edwards has thoroughly proven himself to be the preening flake I always suspected him of being.
A generic Democrat as President will sign bills that a Democratically controlled Congress manages to pass. A generic Republican wouldn't.
That's the best I can do.
93: I think it's just the opposite. The only good thing about Obama's presidency is the degree to which it's driven the hard right crazy, exposing deep rifts in the Republican party.
90 -- The WH puts stuff out every day. The Pres speaks regularly in public, and the press is there. It's easy for the media to ignore him because he's not selling soap.
We have a media and a Congress fit for a nation of pathetic losers.
At this point, I'm convinced that Clinton would have been much better. I don't really have time to go into detail, but I think, basically, that she would have been able to move more quickly an effectively to get things through Congress in a short window of opportunity. Interestingly, I am fairly certain that she would have been better for three constituencies who voted for her in the primaries -- working class folks, gays, and Californians.
Foreign policy would have been a wash with Clinton but this was/is a moment for a great domestic policy President.
Of course, who knows. And the Presidency is a tough job, we're in crisis, and it's early. But the unforced errors are reminding me of Jimmy Carter.
his approach ... to HCR is predicated on doing the unClinton thing, right?
Why mess with success?
The only good thing about Obama's presidency
The quality of the musical guests performing at the White House has improved sharply.
95: We don't really disagree on that. What I was trying to say is that Hillary might have been able to get a little more done because the opposition might have been a little less energized, but I'd rather have them learn that the world doesn't end when a black guy becomes President now rather than 30 years from now.
91-92: You do know that he's stocked his administration with Clintonites, right? Including his leading economic advisers, his CoS and, wait, that's right, his SoS? As for the stimulus, I'd have liked it done differently, of course, but I suspect that what I'd have liked wouldn't have made it through the Senate. And so we keep coming back to that old refrain: how do you plan to get the 59th and 60th vote for truly progressive legislation?
And if your point is that being the best president of my lifetime is a low bar, then so be it. The structural constraints are what they are; the system is badly broken; and the electorate, like the lurkers, isn't with me. There it is. I wish things were different, but they aren't. Given all of that, this guy still has a chance to be pretty good.
97: But under a Hillary presidency, I'd probably be getting subjected to Fleetwood Mac again.
but I think, basically, that she would have been able to move more quickly an effectively to get things through Congress in a short window of opportunity
I wish you had more time to explain, because this strikes me as incredibly farfetched. The Republicans have a disciplined caucus. They are completely devoted to obstruction. And Clinton would have come into office pre-tainted as a Clinton. Which is to say, obstruction would have been, if anything, an even easier strategy to maintain. In sum, things might actually have been worse.
That said, I do think she would have been better on gay rights and might have been better for California.
Apo goes to every music event at the White House.
I do think she would have been better on gay rights
Well, maybe. During the campaign*, though, Obama supported full repeal of DOMA, while HRC only supported repealing Section 3.
It's breathtaking to me how utterly BHO has been captured by Beltway CW.
This is true, but you could sort of tell it in his campaign.
One thing I liked about Hillary is that she's such a hard-nosed vet that she was less likely to be impressed by the Beltway CW -- she's been played wrong by that crowd before. Obama has great temperment and character in many ways, but he's very new on the scene and is learning on the job.
he's very new on the scene and is learning on the job.
You know, I didn't think I was whirly-eyed about Obama. I knew he was well to my right. But I did have an exaggerated idea of his competence: his campaign seemed to run so smoothly!
I always found Hillary to be a tough sell.
Republicans are obstructionist, but the willingness od Democrats to go slow and delay was the killer. Would Pres Hillary have let Barbra Boxer sit on her ass for months with a climate bill, until it's now too late? Would she have let the ridiculous Baucus/Grassley process dominate talk of health care for months? Would she have settled for a stimulus as small as we got? Maybe, but I think it's much less likely, and that the sense of urgency would have been greater.
There was a conscious decision made by the White House to leave everything up to Congress and to allow slow movement. Perhaps Hillary would have done the same thing. But i think someone who was used to arm-twisting and controlling powerful Democratic Congressmen, as opposed to making nice, could have been useful.
Of course, who knows, she could have been worse.
she was less likely to be impressed by the Beltway CW
I don't see much of anything in her Senate career to suggest that.
And not in Obama's or Edwards' either.
For the second guessing Clinton hindsight supporters: there were lots and lots of, umh, Clinton type triangulation moderates in the Clinton campaign. Top advisers included Mark Penn and Lanny Davis - folks who make Rahm Emmanuel look like BobM. Also, she may or may not be less impressed by Beltway CW, but this is the person who was extremely hawkish, voted for things like the flag burning amendment and in general spent the first six years of the Bush admin seeking to forge a rep as a Sensible Moderate (TM).
Then there was Edwards. Policy idea nice, political sense completely missing. I was an Edwards supporter, but in retrospect I'd say that Obama was the best choice. (Is it too early in the day to start drinking?)
I think Clinton would have bickered a bit more with congress and had more infighting, and have been more hawkish, otherwise about the same. But who knows?
I was an Edwards supporter too, but that was heavily predicated on believing that he had honestly renounced many of the positions he took as a senator. Sigh.
The Republicans have a disciplined caucus. They are completely devoted to obstruction.
And thus they behave like pretty much every other political party in the world, except the bleedin' Democrats. I don't know why it's so shocking to find a political party being disciplined, or an opposition opposing. This is what they do, except the bleedin' Democrats.
This makes me feel that the democrats' days are probably numbered.
110: Halford gets at part of it in 109. I think she just would have been less deferential -- to Baucus, to Summers and Geithner, all around. She's been in the show a long time and knows that the vets are nothing special. She is pretty conservative on foreign affairs, hence the Iraq vote, but has a bit of a populist streak on domestic economic stuff I believe.
But we don't know whether Hillary would have had the stomach for the fight. Her leaving the Senate to be Secretary of State was disappointing.
While I'm spitting into the prevailing media/blogospheric winds, I should note that I remain grateful to Edwards for having pushed the leading candidates to the left. That he turns out to have been a complete douchebag in his personal life is still entirely beside the point for me (though holy crap, what a douchebag!).
Here's something I don't think anyone's made. The way Dean inserted himself in the healthcare debate felt like someone who's tempted by another presidential run. 2016 is pretty remote. If Obama looks weak enough a year from now, he'll be tempted to run against him.
And thus they behave like pretty much every other political party in the world, except the bleedin' Democrats.
And the Republicans 20 years ago. They didn't behave this way then.
117: Sex tape! (Not that I've seen the tape, just read that it exists.)
In re Edwards, it would have been pretty sweet to have had an official "first bastard." Otherwise, thank God we dodged that bullet.
Policy-wise, I don't think there was much difference between the candidates. The question was who could deliver results. I voted for Obama because I thought he could, but I'm now rethinking that.
I don't really buy that the current administration's failures are a result of political laws of nature. No one made them propose a stimulus that was too low. No one is forcing them into a spending cap. No one is making them abandon sidecar reconciliation (or whatever we're calling it) as a way of getting a damn health care bill done. Unforced errors. Could Hillary have done better? Maybe.
They didn't behave this way then.
So the parochial know-nothings learned from the dumb foreigners. But not the bleedin' Democrats.
115: I completely agree. Though I have a very hard time envisioning the particulars surrounding the fall of either major party. I think the realignment would have to coalesce around an important issue -- like slavery -- and I'm not sure what that would be now. Abortion coupled with gay rights? I suppose the Democrats could become even more conciliatory on these issue, Roe could be overturned, and then a meaningful part of their constituency might bolt along with some significant number of Republicans who are turned off by that party's increasing obeisance to fundamentalist Christians. Eh, the future is cloudy.
107
You know, I didn't think I was whirly-eyed about Obama. I knew he was well to my right. But I did have an exaggerated idea of his competence: his campaign seemed to run so smoothly!
Bush was good at campaigning also. And Obama might have looked good in part because Clinton was so bad.
117 His personal life would be completely irrelevant to me if he had disclosed it up front. But the reality is that a major sex scandal like this coming during the fall would have been a political disaster. If you want to fuck around, you need to be open about it. (I'm still waiting for a campaign like the most recent one in France where you have a juicy sex scandal, folks are fascinated by it, but it has no political impact whatsoever.) Otherwise, yeah, I'm voting for President, not who I think would make a good husband/serious bf for a friend.
Krugman has always been very critical of Obama while being a pragmatic liberal Democratic partisan. He'll attack him on policy while remaining completely loyal in any conflict with Republicans. Note for any present day anti-HCR bill folks who look to Krugman - his biggest criticism of Obama's health care plan was that it lacked a mandate. That was the central part of the primary left-critique of Obama's health care plank. Clinton had one plus a joke of a public option; Edwards' public option was designed as a gradual stealth single payer mechanism.
122: The Republicans are so disciplined these days for the same reason Stalin-era Communist parties were so disciplined: ideological conviction. In many ways, their behavior is not natural to the system, because the personal rewards are so low. If you are personally popular, you can remain in office forever, and as a free agent you have more influence over policy than a dutiful party soldier does.
If the gossip book was right, Edwards was kind of megalomaniacal and had bad judgment even apart from the affair, a bit Blago lite without the corruption. I never thought Edwards was a Feingold, only that there was a chance he'd stay a bit leftish for a while in the beginning of his presidency if it didn't seem too difficult. In retrospect I think he'd been consistently worse than Obama from the start.
as a free agent you have more influence over policy than a dutiful party soldier does
Probably helps that the remaining Republicans are singularly uninterested in policy.
he'll still be the best president of my lifetime
And how utterly depressing is that? I'm going to have to break it to my kids that, despite whatever they read in their Kid's Guide to the White House or whatever, that presidents basically suck.
127: That doesn't seem exactly right. There were periods, long ones, where a House member could not cross the Speaker unless the speaker gave them permission (i.e. you would have to convince the speaker that this vote could cost you the election before you could vote against the speaker). The institutional set-up of the House is very open to strong party disciple because a unified party leadership can shut down a member very quickly through actions in the Rules Committee and committee assignments. This would only take a majority of the House Dems. You may be able to remain in the House forever, but you can be stopped from getting anything done. The Senate is a different animal, but that was last week.
Meanwhile, I'm starting to hate the Senate Democrats a little more every day.
One-termer McCain, screw-up of the millennium, followed by President Obama, savior of everything. Kind of a nice ring to it, isn't there?
You know, I heard a lot of talk of the frankly-I'm-glad-we're-not-in-charge-right-now sort after 9/11 and after 2004 and to hear it turned into a fantasy is just laughable. News flash: the current Republican party excluded, one doesn't usually get to rule by losing elections.
I am pretty shocked that people are so willing to abandon the guy after one year in office. I don't think he walks on water to get anywhere, no, but damn. Remind me not to run for office in any of y'all's neighborhoods.
130: Yep. Listing the five best presidents is a great way to realize this: Lincoln, FDR, Washington, TR (maybe?), LBJ (occupies the five slot on the "five worst" list as well).
The first two are pretty good, though not without significant warts. The third guy makes the list because he chose to embrace democracy rather than allowing himself to become a de facto monarch. TR is a pretty iffy candidate for greatness, especially if you figure race into your equation in any way. But we'll give him a pass because of progressive legislation and his acquisition of public lands. And LBJ, well, where to start? But who should be fifth instead of him? Truman? Puh-leeze. Eisenhower? Has as good an argument as Truman, probably, which is to say, not a very good argument. And it gets worse from there.
For a variety of reasons, being president is hard.
134: Jefferson and Madison? Or were most of their achievements outside of the presidency?
I know this sort of stuff doesn't convey much to y'all, but at our last public meeting, people from Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers attended. Before last week, we hadn't seen anyone from a federal agency at these meetings for years.
I gather Grant is now one of the presidents likely to appear both on peoples "best five" and "worst five" lists. I suppose Herbert Hoover does, too.
138: Another one of those is Woodrow Wilson.
135: Most of their accomplishments were outside of the presidency, though I give Jefferson some points for acquiring Louisiana. But not enough points to offset his desire to hamstring the federal government, his ideological opposition to taxation, his eagerness to prop up the system of slavery and dispossess Native people, and his willingness to embroil the nation in another war with Britain. As a president, he was truly awful. And Madison was, if anything, worse. Maybe Grant should make the list, though it's hard to overlook the corruption in his administration. Still, he's better than most.
Hoover shouldn't get within sniffing distance of a top-five list. That he does is nothing more than right-wing revisionism, an ideological struggle over historical memory.
I know this sort of stuff doesn't convey much to y'all, but at our last public meeting, people from Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers attended. Before last week, we hadn't seen anyone from a federal agency at these meetings for years.
I think that kind of stuff is huge, though. A lot of the executive branch's job is to create and maintain the atmosphere around given issues. Having cooperative or at least non-combative representatives at a meeting says a lot to the people who are already working on that thing.
Also, if we're seriously talking about putting Grant and Wilson (I spit when I say his name) on a list of best presidents, that suggests how crappy the bench actually is.
Really, the important thing is not to have really horrible leaders. Our worse Presidents were not nearly as bad as the really horrible leaders around the world.
Re 112, it's worth noting that entire apart from my irrational dislike for Clinton -- she just plays as a phony to me*, and her flag-burning amendment pandering lost me completely -- Mark Penn is a professional union-buster. Like, literally. His chief income comes from advising companies how to stop unionization, and he was running her campaign. Obviously once she became Senator Beer-and-a-shot she was downplaying this, but I have no faith in anyone not entirely cowed by the right wing of the Democratic Party making it through the presidential primaries. That said, what I liked most about Obama's campaign was his refusal to take part in his opponent's framing of things, and that's the most dizzying thing about the last two weeks -- the White House people are just regurgitating Dana Milbrook or The Note rather than demonstrating some basic, non-panicked leadership.
* All politicians are phonies, but some are better at making you forget it while they're talking.
|| No more masturbating to Air America. |>
134: What about James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump? He was very definitely my HS history teacher's favorite president.
149: Your HS history teacher really enjoyed provoking Mexico?
150 would have added value with scare quotes around "provoking Mexico".
150: Well, he really, really, really liked Manifest Destiny. Which was weird, because he was socially very liberal. But he sincerely felt that Canada & Mexico should both be annexed by the US and their provinces/states be given US statehood.
In retrospect, he was much crazier than he appeared, despite bearing a strong resemblance to the bearded John Brown.
151: Yes, that would have made it "better."
149: I'm going to get the statistic wrong, but Polk was among the most brutal planters in the South: the majority of the slaves he owned didn't live beyond the age of fifteen. Also, the annexation of Texas/US-Mexican War was truly an abomination. So, I think the best that can be said of Polk was that he was very effective: he had a clear agenda, accomplished every one of his goals, and then didn't run for a second term. Of course he also left the nation on a course for civil war, but what are you gonna do? I mean, without Polk there would have been no John Brown. And U.S. history without John Brown is just unthinkable. So yeah, you're teacher was right: Polk should be number one.
Looking like John Brown and yet being much crazier than one looks is an impressive achievement.
115
This makes me feel that the democrats' days are probably numbered.
The Democrats' lack of party discipline has been a running joke for 75 years, and yet it's still around. "I am not a member of any organized party -- I am a Democrat." (Ironically, that statement was made when Democrats were at their largest majority in Congress and passed some of the most important laws ever.)
153: So he looked pretty crazy, but he turns out to have been even crazier?
What about Monroe? The "era of good feelings" sounds pretty hott.
"era of good feelings"
That title was given ironically because that's when frottage was invented.
Or Cleveland. Pullman strike -- not so grate, but otherwise, not too awful.
136, 142: I know it is important, but I can't really evaluate it for myself. Four years from now, hopefully the good results will be obvious.
160: Earl Monroe deserves serious consideration.
President Black Jesus would definitely be a contender for best possible presidential nickname. Even President Earl the Pearl would smoke President Old Hickory or President Napoleon of the Stump, but President The Beast of Buffalo would win three out of five falls, I think.
Whenever I see polls ranking the presidents, I'm always surprised at how high Kennedy ends up. Not that he was particularly bad or anything, but that one really seems like an Incomplete.
World B. Free would have been a decent ironic nickname for W.
136, 142: That is excellent, and may be the only hope for the big plan's success... Though it would have been even better if they'd been there for the last year, since it wasn't exactly a secret that the feds weren't engaged; plus, it's been a month now after their work plan went public.
But as someone who works with the people running the show at those and other agencies now -- and had to suffer their predecessors -- I will say that despite the recent spate of change we don't particularly believe in, we're still a lot better off as a country.
I figured that when I predicted that the election of Brown would lead to the end of the progressive moment, that it would take more than a week for everyone to agree with me.
Wait, we have two water nerds here? I love the internet.
You know Megan has a double-pseudonymous water blog, right? If not, you should -- I think you're the audience.
I do, but thanks! We have top-secret off-blog email communications about it.
He supports me by email. It's awesome.
I support you by having stopped running the water while brushing me teeth.
Now, this offers a curious gloss on Obama's ability to influence things.
Millard Fillmore. You heard me.
I find the notion that Sec. Clinton would have stood up to the Village (much less its Idiots) better to be completely laughable. I can't think of a single thing upon which the assertion is based except wishful thinking. I'm certain that she would have done precisely what O did wrt Baucus/Grassley.
Look, I think O could have and should have done a lot better. Even if the face of the countervailing forces, which are considerable.
I can't think of a single thing upon which the assertion is based except wishful thinking.
Well, it's also based on the piss-poor job Obama has done in this respect.
136: "Y'all" violation in the comment zone. Five-comment penalty.
For a variety of reasons, being president is hard.
I was recently reminded of that fact while reading The Clinton Tapes.
Once a water nerd, always a water nerd. In which connection, a lawyer I know from another continent recently wrote looking for water policy advice. Roadtrip, Megan?!
I'm gonna have to see the codebook on that, Flippanter. I've never heard of that regulation before; cite a section number, please.
Man, I'm scared to go on a roadtrip with you, CCarp. You're always having lunch and dinner with friends in two separate countries, and then getting home by breakfast.
West Dakota prejudices to the contrary, Missoula is *not* a separate country.
(I sent him art. IX sec. 3 of our constitution to get him started. How would you like to have the mandate of enforcing art IX sec. 1?)
127
The Republicans are so disciplined these days for the same reason Stalin-era Communist parties were so disciplined: ideological conviction. ...
I don't think this is correct. Stalin-era Communist parties were disciplined because they all answered to Stalin. The had no ideological principles at all other than loyalty to the party line coming from Moscow.
Hmm. It looks vague and it looks like it includes things that aren't water. I wouldn't be any good at it. Air? Who fucking cares? Trees? Whatever.
Y'all is a perfectly good word. I like that it basically translates as the French word vous as is used in the second person plural.
If you're keeping a list of things that include water, you can add the freeway between me and downtown. Stupid Mon.
Here's my list:
Things that include water:
Water.
Things that don't include water:
Boring.
So "water in what was, earlier today, a passable road" doesn't qualify as a separate category?
Are you commenting from your car, MH? Whee.
193: In LA, I think they call that a river.
194: No. I don't even have a phone that could do that.
195: Yes, we use that word also. It's just that the river used to be about 50 feet to the left.
He's a midnight pumper.
I put the mistakes in to remind me that only God is perfect.
One thing Bill C would have done; instant counter-attack. i have a vague theory of competition that says you need to worry about your best and worst performances. Fuck the average. The moments when you're at your best or your worst are likely to maximise the difference between you and your competitor, and therefore define the result.
I don't know about the man himself, but the whole structure seems to be utterly shocked by setback. I recall Bob telling us how tough Hillary Clinton and the Clinton machine people were, how they'd root out the sleeper cells from the bureaucracy if only everyone realise Obama was the Manchurian candidate cos of Jason Furman or something.
Well, they're not showing it more than the Chicago staffers, who everyone thought might be a bit flaky and inexperienced. But the Clinton killers, the hope of the Left, appear to be completely rudderless.
I don't see much difference between Obama and Clinton's responses to events, other than the fact that Clinton had the decency to wait until he lost Congress before he tacked left. This is the exact completely-confirm-Republican-talking-points strategy he would adopt, like "end welfare as we know it."
One thing Bill C would have done; instant counter-attack.
Except for one important detail: the SotU is tomorrow night! Which will provide Obama with the bulliest of bully pulpits. So let's see if he uses it. Which is another way of saying, yet again, that I'm going to wait to hear the speech before I begin completely freaking out.
204: You're right on the substance, but Clinton would manage to make it look as if he'd meant to do that, rather than just floundering sadly.
Ezra Klein (or was it Yglesias? I clicked from one to the other) just noted that a really weird thing about the freeze, whatever it turns out to be in practice, is that it's not the outcome of a deal. This is the sort of bullshit that I could imagine being a good idea if it were buying Blue Dog votes for something vital like, oh, HEALTH CARE REFORM. But no. It's just a free-floating concession that no one asked for. Feh.
205: He'd better walk on water and breathe fire.
Ari's so freaked out he's at the act calm, breathe deeply stage.
I deny the existence of any typos in 204.
The misplaced optimism in 205 makes me sad. What could Obama possibly say? "In 2010, we'll introduce Medicare-for-All, and then we'll introduce a spending freeze?"
Spending freezes for some, miniature healthcare proposals for others.
she was less likely to be impressed by the Beltway CW
I don't see much of anything in her Senate career to suggest that.
I more or less agree with this, except that BHO's strategy really seems to have been predicated on an absurdly naive theory of how things would work in DC*, while his belief seems to be that the Washington Post editorial page is his primary constituency (see: DADT, Afghanistan, Bernanke et al., "freeze", "bipartisan", etc.). I just don't think that HRC would suffer from these precise delusions. I think she would have suffered from Beltway policy capture (I can't believe she would have pursued a radically different direction on anything major), but I don't think she would have capitulated so wholly to Beltway shibboleths, if only because she saw them get Bill's Presidency so wrong**.
I might add that, as SoS, she has done and said more or less everything right; I'm probably as happy with State as with any Dept in the gov't. I think that has to go on the plus side of her ledger.
Also, the only reason*** to make Baucus President of HCR is if you've hired his Chief of Staff to be your HCR point person. Is there any particular reason to assume that HRC would have done this?
* this was linked by Atrios the other day - the idea was that they'd party-line pass all these awesome bills, which would make Republicans sad to be left out, and then Republicans would vote for what Obama wanted. Seriously. They thought this.
** Apparently she doesn't harbor any desire for revenge on Republicans or Villagers, but I think she at least has learned the lesson that whatever Sally Quinn says is important is not actually important
*** OK, yes, he still heads Finance. But Obama, fetishizing bipartisanship, gave him, literally, all the time he wanted; that was not necessary. The President leads the party and sets the agenda, and is not wholly at the mercy of Senators. We can be pretty sure that BHO's message to Baucus was "get me a GOP vote so I can say it's bipartisan;" if HRC says, "try to get me a GOP vote, but we can move without them," that changes Baucus' calculus.
Except for one important detail: the SotU is tomorrow night! Which will provide Obama with the bulliest of bully pulpits.
Do people still believe this? Every SOTU that I can recall has been prefaced by testing-the-waters leaks, populated with embarrassingly disharmonious "Stop! Pander time!" moments and followed by the same "the President made his case, but Congress will take a wait-and-see attitude..." analysis, which doesn't seem all that bully to me.
You do know that he's stocked his administration with Clintonites, right? Including his leading economic advisers, his CoS and, wait, that's right, his SoS?
At some point, people who worked in the only Democratic administration in 28 years are simply "Democrats," not "Clintonites." I don't think Rahm Emmanuel's primary goal in life is furthering Bill Clinton's agenda; do you? Furthermore, who staffed Clinton's admin? "Carterites"? No, he wanted fresh faces, and was accused of an inexperienced startup. So what did Obama do? Hire experienced Beltway types, including so-called Clintonites (does Geithner count? he's kind of important, don't you think?), but more importantly including legislative staffers - a shit-ton of them.
IOW, if you think that Obama's staffing strategy resembled Clinton's, then I think you are ignorant about one or the other.
As for the stimulus, I'd have liked it done differently, of course, but I suspect that what I'd have liked wouldn't have made it through the Senate
Do you think that Collins' $100B was based on a very precise sense that $800B was the precise right level of stimulus? Or do you think that she wanted to be able to say that she lopped $100B off of the stimulus bill? I mean, if BHO's proposal had been $878B, do you think Collins would have demanded a $78B cut?
If BHO had brought a $950B bill to the table, he would have gotten more than $800B passed. But, instead, he negotiated against himself (and ignored a lot of economists), proposed an amount that he thought was right, then had to lop off a chunk to satisfy Collins et al. Terrible, terrible negotiating. And we're all paying the price for it now.
Ari, is George Stephanopoulos a Clintonite? Just wondering.
I am hopeful that Obama will, in a clear attempt to distinguish himself from Bush, come out in favor of human-animal hybridization in the SOTU.
215: President Barry O'Manimal would get a third term by unanimous consent.
come out in favor of human-animal hybridization in the SOTU instead of the Naval Observatory
Hi Unfoggedereenies! I just came by to apologise for my previous apology; if you remember, it was that time I was all "ha ha! more troops for Afghanistan and no public option for healthcare! Where's your superman now!!?", and you were all "god you tool, davies, we never thought he'd be a progressive superman, all we were ever hoping for was a reasonably competent administrator who could get at least some of his legislative programme passed, not fall for bullshit deficit-reduction plans, deliver at least some progress in Copenhagen, get more than 10% of his nominees confirmed and not lose the state of Massachussetts". I am, obviously, sorry for being so cynical.
never mind, there's always financial services regulatory reform. although frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath. He is still black though.
Well, you win again. Congratulations.
Well, there's no need to be mean, daniel.
Prediction: during the SotU Obama will introduce an old white guy in the balcony, saying "and this is Joe Champaigne*. He's a senior executive at AIG, and because of the wonderful things this administration has done he's not only getting a $20 Million bonus this year, he's not going to have to pay any tax on it!" and all the Democrats will applaud.
* name changed because I signed a non-disclosure agreement
I'm just grateful we still have so much power to make dsquared feel good about himself. Someone has to do it.
I forgot my catchphrase. Help me out, D.
He is still black though.
Wait 'til you see what he does during the speech tomorrow!
213-14: Y'know what, JRoth, hate him as much as you want. I'm halfway there myself. Regardless, It was a mistake for me to get in between you and your outrage. But I'm too tired to play definitional games with you. That said, I think, strictly speaking, that George Stephanopoulos is a hairdo posing as a sentient lifeform.
It's nice that in a moment of national - indeed international - misfortune, we have someone like D to rub in how contemptible we all are for having once some modest amount of optimism.
And y'all should be ashamed for picking on ari. Let him maintain his illusions for as long as he can.
(I'm allowed to say "y'all" if I want to. I've lived below the Mason-Dixon line most of my life.)
Note that in 227, I originally used the word "hope" instead of "optimism." That's a word that I'm going to have trouble using non-ironically henceforward.
Hope: it's just a small town in Arkansas again.
George Stephanopoulos is a hairdo posing as a sentient lifeform.
No wonder he didn't run for public office. People would have been demanding the birth certificate patent number.
Lifeform I might buy, but sentient?
Semi-related: According to Ben Pershing at WaPo (whoever he is), the WSJ sez:
"Obama's liberal backers have a long list of grievances," the Wall Street Journal writes. "The Guantanamo Bay prison is still open. Health care hasn't been transformed. And Wall Street banks are still paying huge bonuses. But they are directing their anger less at Mr. Obama than at the man who works down the hall from him. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, they say, is the prime obstacle to the changes they thought Mr. Obama's election would bring.Huh? Who the hell is saying this? I mean, I don't think of the WSJ as being particularly sensitive to the pulse of the liberal community, but WTF? I haven't heard a single person in the last 6 months blame Rahm for, really, anything.
Unless DKos is saying this*, I'm kind of shocked that, in this day and age, CW in the Beltway can be this clueless about liberal discourse. Spend 15 minutes at Eschaton, DKos, Yggles and FDL, and you've got a pretty good grasp of the irl complaints of liberals. I know that doesn't capture the full range of grassroots sentiment, but if none of them are talking about it, it's probably not a major "liberal" complaint.
* in which case I would've missed it
226: Well said, ari. You definitely win. As a result, tomorrow's SOTU will be nothing but a giant FU to every non-progressive entity in America. I can hardly wait.
Remember all those threads where D^2 told us that Obama was indistinguishable from McCain? I sure do. Those were awesome. Anyone have a link? I can't seem to find them.
233: I'm confused now. Obama's going to kick a hippie during the SotU because of something I said? It's your "as a result" that's throwing me here.
232: A lot of folks at FDL, OpenLeft, and Kos think that Rahm's the anti-Christ -- or at least a tool of the Goldman-Sachs board of directors. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that he's Jewish.
Before he joined the White House Rahm was known best as the mastermind who enticed a couple dozen people who would vote against the Democrats on every major issue to run for congress as Democrats. This irked the people mentioned in 236, especially those who believed that in a lot of cases the fundamentals were such that a non-right wing Democrat could have won just as easily. As for what he does in the White House now, who knows.
237 is true also. And Emanuel really does seem like a craven piece of shit. That said, know hope(ish)!
235: No, he's going to kick non-hippies because of your inspired repartee. Keep clapping!*
236-238: Oh, no question that Rahm is a piece of shit; I'm just amused by the idea that "liberals" primarily blame him, not Obama. Maybe they do over at those sites (although DKos has had a thing against Rahm since 2006), but what we've seen over the past week is 99% aimed at Obama himself (and there was plenty of that before; certainly this site features a fairly broad range of liberal-left opinion, and Rahm rarely comes up at all). There was probably a time when Rahm was a scapegoat for Obama's mediocrity, but that time is long gone. A CoS doesn't keep his boss off-track for 12 months.
* Actually, it's fine, it doesn't matter. If you think he deserves another 24 hours to show he's not incompetent and a center-right wanker, who am I to complain?
239: You're literally not making any sense. You should have a muffin or something. Maybe a drink?
That said, know hope(ish)!
The trouble with hopeish is it has no notion of time or speed.
Seriously, I'm just not understanding the causal chain.
241: Yes, but it's better than nothing! (Exclamation points are the only thing standing between me and madness!)
D'j'ever read that SF story about how "the staff" have replaced Richard Nixon with a sort of quasi-pod person, and only Pat can sense that something's really wrong? I wonder if Michelle Obama feels like that now.
JRoth, you haven't seen Rahm-hate on FDL?
I was an early anti-Rahm person since he was my rep. in Chicago--saw stories about him pressuring Dems in swing states to vote for Tom Tancredo's immigration bill, trying to make sure anti-Iran-war amendments didn't get added to appropriations bills, etc. Kept hoping someone would primary him; I didn't care how hopeless it was. Was utterly dismayed when I found out he'd be chief of staff. Have heard for a while that he was one of the key advocates for breaking promises on human rights, transparency, etc. (Though the CIA & DoD holdovers from Bush obviously had a huge role too). And his strategy on health insurance was, basically, ignore public opinion & Obama's campaign promises & cut deals with every industry group & bought senator instead--disastrous both substantively and politically.
Obviously, it was Obama who hired him & listened to & implemented his crap advice, so saying that Rahm is *the* obstacle is not right--it's not like he's operating in secret. But I sure would like to see him fired.
"Rahmbama" gets 2140 hits. "Rahmbamarama" gets 5570 hits, but a lot of them seemed to be tied to some absurdist internet subculture.
"Rahmbamarama" gets 5570 hits, but a lot of them seemed to be tied to some absurdist internet subculture.
Specifically, to a Livejournal Rahm Emmanuel fandom community. From the few publicly-viewable posts, it seems to include things like Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow fanfic. People are so fucking weird.
See also refs. to "President Rahm Emanuel".
RAHM RAHM AH AH AH ROMA ROBAMA BAUCUS OOH LA LA
WANT YOUR BAD POLICY
Big A, little a, bouncing b,
The system might have got you,
But it won't get it me!
1,2,3,4
External control, are you gonna let them get you?
Gonna be a prisoner in the boundaries they set you?
Say you wanna be yourself, but Christ, d'ye think they'll let you?
They're out to get you, get you, get you, get you, get you!
Hello, hello, hello,
It's the first black president,
The union's really great,
Unemployment's up, you can't pay your rent,
And bankers own the state!
There's no health care, and no jobs,
Torture's fine, Haiti's really fucked,
But I'm here to protect us from the mobs,
You bobbed, you weaved, you shoulda ducked!
I promised you some change and hope,
You bought the lies,
Now who looks like a dope?
From the few publicly-viewable posts, it seems to include things like Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow fanfic.
Nate Silver is my sapiosexual lust object.
I'm just amused by the idea that "liberals" primarily blame him, not Obama
Ernst Kamtorowicz
The King's Two Bodies
Been wondering about protecting the leader and why since Nixon. During the GWB years, it was always Cheney. I personally believe the trope of Bush as moron was to avoid, umm, discussion of regicide. impeachment.
I think the feeling that President embodies the state, and I doubt that the feeling really changes that much from theocratic monarchy to liberal democracy, the leader still embodies transcendental values that provide identity, is very fucking interesting.
some absurdist internet subculture
New mouseover text.
I got into this with Scialabba over at CT a while back. Something about Shakespeare and the history plays, and that modern people have trouble seeing Hamlet's double nature, kid and prince, in a way that was nearly automatic to people prior to French Revolution.
Although maybe not so alien, When Lilacs Last and Camelot and all that.
Anyway,we blame Cheney, we blame Rahm to to to...
I really liked the *idea* of Rahm Emmanuel, foul-tongued, nine-fingered, ballet-dancing vote-wrangler. In my alternative universe, he has been instrumental in rallying legislative support for Obama's progressive vision.
Rahm was said to have wanted a larger, more progressive stimulus, but Obama listened to his policy guys, right? I at least don't think is any worse than Obama himself in any way.
|| There was a TV series on the other night that turned out to be a spinoff from the Terminator movies, with the added bonus that all the Terminators were apparently Scottish. One of them was called Cameron, one of them was called Cromarty, and one of them (whose name I didn't catch) actually had ginger hair and an Edinburgh accent. I feel incredibly affirmed. ttaM, you should check it out. |>
I really liked the *idea* of Rahm Emmanuel, foul-tongued, nine-fingered, ballet-dancing vote-wrangler.
I know! It's like he doesn't understand he has an aesthetic imperative to submit to.
257: Yes, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. The show ran for two seasons but is now cancelled. Cameron was played by Summer Glau. I have to admit I never even noticed or thought about the Scottish connection. (I had no idea about the ethnicity of the name Cromartie although if I had to guess I suppose Scottish sounds reasonable, I didn't know until I looked it up right now that Summer Glau was Scotch-Irish, and viewers learned the red-haired CEO was a Terminator within minutes of the character's introduction so her accent was just another dirty, scary lie.)
||
Senator Udall says it's time to kill the filibuster.
|>
How many divisions has Senator Udall?
259: Cromarty's a region of north-east Scotland, though they pronounced it in a rather strange way.
Thanks for the background. I think I might keep watching it in the hope that Ewan Bremner will turn up. Or, better still, Kelly Macdonald.
Ari@ 236: 232: A lot of folks at FDL, OpenLeft, and Kos think that Rahm's the anti-Christ -- or at least a tool of the Goldman-Sachs board of directors. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that he's Jewish. [...] 238: 237 is true also. And Emanuel really does seem like a craven piece of shit. That said, know hope(ish)!
Feh. He keeps running around and shooting his mouth off that he's going to screw 'the left', and otherwise making incredibly stupid statements about political strategy.
In fact, the biggest problem the O administration has is the amazing ability to communicate a message, and then turn around and start whispering to someone (the WSJ, the WaPo) that they're not *really* going to do that, they're going to do this thing the WaPo/WSJ likes. Which has been very successful in convincing the WaPo/WSJ not to like the O administration while managing to convince 'the base' that the administration can't be trusted. (Geithner is the worst of all about this: I don't know what the fuck his strategy is supposed to be, but if he isn't making it public that might be good, because what he HAS been making public has been incoherent and clueless.)(But Geithner was appointed by Bush to head the FRBNY, so there you go.)
I don't think that has anything to do with anybody's ethnicity unless it's just that RE can't stop kibbitzing. If you're someone who is planning on screwing the vast bulk of your party over, it would behoove you to shut the fuck up about it. But then, that would make it impossible to 'talk lefty, move right'. (Yes, I'm well aware I yell too much and I'm pretty my disclosure is complete: I've no axe to grind except as a citoyen.) At least they got Larry to shut up.
As for O, well, he's run the show for a year this way, with these guys running as human shields, so he must want it that way.
(Krugman keeps saying O was saying he was a Reaganite. Fair enough, but usually when a black guy runs as liberal, and says a bunch of liberal stuff, and has something of a liberal voting record, I don't think I should be surprised when he governs as a liberal. Since he isn't governing as a liberal, I'm kinda bemused & deeply annoyed, at best.
I took the Reagan remarks to mean that he apreciated Reagan, and in that context, he would be modeling himself on RR to a certain extent. Since Reagan moved his party (and his country) right, in a 'let's cut some deals with the D majority' kind of way, that implies that a Democrat in that position would move his party leftward. (Since someone who was more Reagan than Reagan should not, in fact, be a Democrat I would think. There's a party for those folks.) I would further add that politics isn't a one dimensional line, so there's several directions to go to move to center, if you have any imagination.
What we're looking at here is that tonight O is going to get up there and suggest we 'do something' about social security, like turning it into annunities. If that means that the money goes into the market, I have heard that before, and hoo boy, I am pretty sure that's a lot more about getting more cash for the markets than it is about securing anyone's retirement.
We'll see. They haven't even decided what's in the speech yet, but it looks like they're trying to go with scaling back HCR. (Brilliant!)
All this stuff about Presidents though just convinces me that Yggles was correct about needing a parliamentary system. Unfortunately, given the circumstances, I am pretty sure that means we have to move that to the front burner. (The counter is that we have so many problems - indeed, and we are suffering from a permanant breakdown of government and we need to fix it.)
max
['Hrmmm.']
Random family fact! I discovered a couple months ago from family photos that my grandmother dated one of the extended Udall clan!
According to Geithner, the A.I.G. bail-out was needed to prevent a depression and they had no choice but to pay the counter-parties at 100%. So, I guess I'll stop being angry about that. What's $85 billion transferred to some of the wealthiest people in the world if Geithner says it was needed?
Glimmer of hope from the provinces: I mentioned that we had a couple of tax measures—one to raise and restructure the minimum corporate tax, one to raise the marginal rate on high-income earners—and that the opponents were gaining momentum. Both passed last night by substantial (6+ percent) margins.
266: I saw that and have resolved to move to OR.
You're not supposed to Californicate Oregon, ari. It's an unwritten law.
266: I hope the new taxes are ear-marked for the relief of various large banks and hedge funds. I'd hate to think a depression started because Oregon was spending money on public services and such.
266: Yay Oregon! You got any jobs there?
You got any jobs there?
Um, no. The anti campaigns used the slogan "Stop Job-Killing Taxes," which in retrospect probably failed to appeal to voters who were without jobs even when the minimum corporate tax was $10.
But the weather is great, for certain values of great.
But the weather is great, for certain values of great.
Oregon: it's a mycologist's paradise!
272: I was born and bred in the briar patch. Although I've developed a liking for the sun since then.
271: Actually my sister sends me announcements every now and then, but they're mostly in Salem, and she's confirmed my suspicion that Salem is basically Olympia without the charm.
See, I think everyone ought to be talking up this Oregon thing in every way possible. Who cares who you send to the Senate -- any old goober can go down there and bloviate away without affecting an individual voter in any material way -- and obviously apathy is as big a factor in Brown's victory as anger. But this Oregon thing? Everyone cares about state taxes rates.
Too bad most Villagers don't even know how to say "Oregon" much less find it on a map.
Can Blue Blogistan help?
273: Have you tried Monster searching for Oregon and mycologist? I'm guessing that all of the good jobs are taken, but maybe there are openings for assistant mycologists.
273: It really is. This guy moved out here from PA for the mushrooms and the Pinot Noir. Anyway, it's actually sunny today, which feels kind of miraculous.
274.2: So true. I know people who have clerked there and found the almost-an-hour-each way commute from Portland infinitely preferable to living in Salem.
277.2: Someone should start a group called "Envirnomentalists for a less dull Salem."
Or, they could try to make Portalnd worse.
Leave us alone, Moby! What did we ever do to you?
I attended college in Salem. I ended up more or less never doing anything in town but just hanging around the university (and the nearby parks) all the time.
Of course, this says as much about me as it does about Salem.
You know exactly what you did. And I want my jacket back.
I have heard that Oregon adequately funds its Fish Passage Program. It must be heaven up there.
285: I've heard that if you swallow the bones and don't choke, it can still hurt on the other end.
285: I worked for the Water Resources Division of the USGS in Oregon. It is heaven. But no Californians are allowed to live there. Sorry. You'll have to make do with your sunshine and good weather and sandy beaches and semi-nude hotties and all that tiresome unpleasantness. Oregon for Beavers! And fungus! And pasty over-caffienated hipster douchebags!
tog, I am never going to understand your resume.
Eh, I couldn't live there. We had a few days of overcast and my spirits were crushed. I have no internal fortitude.
I have no internal fortitude.
Which explains the concern for fish passage.
We had a few days of overcast and my spirits were crushed
Too bad, because otherwise I think you'd love it. My (and togolosh's) alma mater recently restored the watershed on campus, and the salmon have returned.
That type of fish passage? Then nevermind.
Another water nerd. Do we outnumber people from Pittsburgh yet?
I was recently in Ontario. Yes, that one. Seemed sunny to me.
See, I think everyone ought to be talking up this Oregon thing in every way possible.
I agree. Some of the issues are Oregon-specific, in that these measures address a continuing budgetary clusterfuck caused by a sweeping property tax limitation measure that passed nearly twenty years ago. But the yes campaigns were able to convince people that they were for the middle class, despite their opponents warning of lost jobs and class war, and despite a strong anti-tax movement (this is the first voter-approved tax increase in 80 years). They had good GOTV; turnout was 60 percent statewide and 70 percent in Multnomah County (home of the People's Republic of Portland), which is amazing in a January special election.
(No, Megan, that's not a separate country either.)
Speaking of state government, it isn't one of my nobler emotions, but I enjoy the articles on just how many rat droppings are served to our government officials.
I like water.
I'm almost to the point where I wonder if progressive politics in the US are even possible. Maybe Americans just like living in a hierarchical society, as long as they are not at the bottom. Americans have chosen their lot.
292: I only worked for USGS over the summer, so I may not count as a water nerd. I am, however, a water aficionado.
Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?
Somebody please say something that will make me feel a little less it's-time-to-start-burning-shit-down about this. I mean, aside from the fact that Obama will have me whacked.
299
Somebody please say something that will make me feel a little less it's-time-to-start-burning-shit-down about this.
Global warming will kill millions; no need to make it worse by burning stuff that releases greenhouse gasses just for fun?
Pelosi says she has the votes for hcr if the Senate can get its shit together? No, wait, you think that's bad news.
302: No, that's good news. Except that the Senate getting its shit together is always a long shot.
299 is horrifying.
For Natilo, this. The Villagers will never get it.
294 - I meant the trips you write about on your own blog, where you're all London-Belgium-Holland!! in a day or two.
OT Is it just my impression or is this NYT piece on the Landrieu wiretapping scandal completely cribbed from TPM?