Obama one year later

but top liberal writer thrilled with the new man in charge:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-03/rick-hertzbergs-victory-dance/

Hertzberg, of course, has voted for every Democratic nominee for president since Lyndon Johnson. Most of those ballots were cast with little reservation. But Obama offered particular enticements. For one thing, there was his muscularly liberal convention address in 2004, which appealed to the old speechwriter. There was Dreams from My Father [3]. "When I read the book," Hertzberg says, "I knew this was not just speechwriting. This was writing. I knew that this was a book that could properly be called literature." Then-more to the point-there was the age thing. Hertzberg is 66, and, he thought, If not a great, liberal president now, when? "I'm at the stage of my career where one is spending one's capital rather than accumulating new capital," he says.

With Obama in office, Hertzberg says he will turn his attention to another of his long-time obsessions: the byzantine structures of American government. Triumphant Democrats have discovered that big victories in 2008 haven't instantly led to policy outcomes like, say, health care reform. In the British system, the public option would have been a fait accompli; in what Hertzberg calls our "ridiculously undemocratic" Senate, health care can be single-handedly dynamited by a Max Baucus or a Joe Lieberman.

"Right now, we have a situation where the human occupants are about as good as we're going to get," Hertzberg says. "So my attention goes back to the structure they're trapped in. That's what Obama and the Democrats are in the grip of now. And that remains to be fixed."

and here I thought it was only 9 months.... ;)

... and still, the U.S. feds are defending challenges to DOMA in the courts and DADT is still in place.

It's the new math. 8^)

I'd have to think that a lot of Americans are disappointed - but at the same time, the challenges faced by the American government are really enormous - more so than most politicians are willing to talk about publicly.

One of the biggest challenges is the cumbersome governing structure.

the basics of a US healthcare reform passes the House,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125765850379236569.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFT...

 all due to the election of Mr. O; happy anniversary!

 The vote was a victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), and moved them toward a goal that has eluded presidents for decades. Mr. Obama came to the Capitol on Saturday morning and assured Democrats they would remember the vote as their finest moment in politics should he sign it into law. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said.

Its passage pushes Congress closer to the largest social safety net expansion since 1965, when the government created the Medicare insurance program for the elderly. The measure spends slightly more than $1 trillion over a decade to provide health insurance to an additional 36 million Americans and creates a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers by 2013. It requires most Americans to carry insurance, creates a new exchange where they can shop for it and gives the lowest earners tax credits to help them pay for it.

Republicans described the plan as an unprecedented power grab that would raise -- not lower -- medical costs. They lambasted the legislation for creating new taxes and failing to curb frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

"Does this bill mean the government will take over running health care? Yes," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.).

 "But what's worse, this bill replaces the American idea with a European-style social welfare state."

I wouldn't put any stock in that quote. The Republicans will shriek and holler about anything. If you look at moderately progressive ideas that are on the mainstream political radar of every major industrialised country, the Republicans will paint them as being far-left socialist ideals one step away from communist Russia. Obama has bent over backwards to make health care seem not "scary" to Republicans while failing to stand up for any concrete reforms. Just because the Republicans claim an idea to be far-left does not make it the case.

Just curious what the "American idea" is that's too good to replace.

African Americans Slam Obama in White House Protest:

http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2009/11/08/african-americans-slam-obama...

"White Power in Black Face.."

The political climate, as observed by Paul Krugman in the NYTimes today:Paranoia Strikes Deep By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we've grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption "National Socialist Healthcare." It was grotesque - and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn't a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership - in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is "mild." The signs were "inappropriate," said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, "conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

Talking Blues: Gitmo Gets Worse under 'Progressive' Rule:

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1874-...

conditions deteriorate under Obama. innocent Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, a child at the time of his apprehension, remains there with no help from either his government or the people they represent

Yeah, that Obama is a fresh change all right.  This is Dick Cheney/Bibi Netanyahu territory:

US mosques and New York skyscraper seized over Iran links [16]

It would have been the best ventriloquism act ever, except the New York Times noticed lips at a biotechnology company moving.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies. E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
That really says a lot about what's wrong in American politics. The companies aren't merely having their interests catered to by the politicians, they're writing the speeches!

This article asks*, What happened to the community organizer Amercans elected President?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24008.htm

*edit

From the article: "It is depressing for a columnist who had great hopes for Obama to be forced by the facts to credit editors at the right-wing Washington Times for getting it right when they opined: "Revolving doors between industry and the administration and fat-cat political contributors getting bailed out at taxpayer expense sound like business as usual. This certainly isn't change we can believe in." Please, Mr. President, say it ain't so."

I thought he was elected just as it was recognized that economies throughout the world were falling like dominoes. Did the author think that this community organizer from Chicago's south side would be able to correct this by choosing only the enemies of Wall Street as lieutenants, even as his political enemies began organizing lynch mobs? He's now in China trying to make sure that the world's next greatest power does not pull the rug out from under him. I don't believe folks understand the immensity of the changes occurring in the first months of his watch.

I never thought of Obama as an American; I recognized him as a "Third Culture Kid" right away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Culture_Kids

His experiences in other cultures may give him ambassadorial insignts and strenghts. But after he handed America to Wall Street, is there much left to save?

America was never his to give - anywhere. If you look carefully at our total dependency on the markets functioning, Monday to Friday, every last one of us, capped by the depth of ignorance of "they who must be appeased", your take on old Hussein is a bit beyond unfair. He was given the job of undoing the Republican mess only because the mess was so bad it hurt Republicans and what is left of middle class America. Otherwise it would be John and (may his heart hold up)  Sarah. That's not a lot of voter intelligence to count on in the crunch of Congress.  That "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" guy is dead ...some say he never existed. Count us lucky. So far.

GV wrote,

"America was never his to give - anywhere."

Correct - America has been owned by bankers and holding off this crisis since, erm, President Wilson. 

Undoing the Republican mess: Celente, Max Kaiser and Peter Schiff say much worse is yet to come. 

Worse to come? That I believe. Thing is, if we go into reductionist mode and lay it all at the feet of the pres., the popular rant at the moment, we'll hardly be able to explain what is really hapening, or suggest a way out. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter  when the star of Bedtime for Bonzo rode on stage, changed working class allegiance and affirmed corporate rule.

We have to understand what he can be expected to do without a media that tells it like it is, or an electorate able to read. If he's not in a position to work the economic levers and create jobs, they'll go for John and Sarah, and it can't get worse than that. It's not just a matter of funding a Tennessee Valley Authority any more.

Worse to come: Check this out.

http://ampedstatus.com/the-critical-unraveling-of-us-society

Faux News is thrilled over Obama's latest U.N. move:

Tough U.N. Critic Tapped to Represent U.S. on Human Rights Council

Good pick, Obama!

Why the Catholic hierarchy pushes political buttons in Washington

And Congress gave him just exactly the number of votes to prevent a Republican filibuster. Not bad in dumbed down and paid off 'Merica.

Obama will soon announce an expansion of the bloodshed and terror in AfPak.

Secret Muslim Obama Pardons Avian Terrorist!

Just thought I'd get there before Fox News did.

I can't help thinking about the NDP in Ontario. Bob Rae had made all sorts of lofty promises, then got elected and inherited a bee's nest of troubles, and when he failed, everyone across the board lined up to kick his corpse a few times.

Then we got Mike Harris and Ernie Eves as a replacement. And in all likelihood, it'll be another decade, at least, before the NDP stops wearing it over what Rae wasn't able to do.

So ya, let's really wail on Obama. Let's make sure that he goes down in history as the most promise-breaking, lie-telling, half-assing flop of a President that the U.S. ever had. Mind you, that's not going to lead to a leftist revolution to install someone more committed, it's going to lead to a decade or two of uninterrupted White Republican Man rule. But that's gotta be better than a guy who wasn't even able to do a year's worth of miracles in nine months, right?

That seems to be the thinking, hereabouts...although I'm damned if I know why.  Frustrated revolutionaries perhaps?

It has been announced the Obama administration will not sign the international treaty banning land mines. They will however commit 30,000 more troops to killing subsistence farmers and propping up war lords while sinking Pakistan into hell on earth complete with remote control mass killings.

It's so much more acceptable when "our guy" is the bastard is it not?

Everyone with me, "Obama my lord ... Obama. Obama my lord ... Obama. Oh, lord, Obama."

Of course it's not "acceptable" FM. And of course he obviously relishes what he's doing.

Sarah for pres.

I guess if Sarah is the alternative, almost any crime is acceptable. Quite the scam they have going in that country.

Do you see the position you put yourself in, George? "I must sin for God lest the devil get me!" Hmmmm. What else would you accept from Obama in fear of the devil from Wasilla?

There is no denying the integrity of your position peoples.  And it can never fail to be "holier than thou". But I don't know how that reverses the situation - particularly if you don't understand that the situation was created by folks to the right of Vlad the Impaler and your putative enemy can't fold the deck without guaranteeing even worse will prevail. What a wondrously impossible  moral world you dwell in. Possitively  Biblical.

You just don't get it, George. The question isn't one of "principle". It's whether Obama has done, or will do, one single solitary thing to distinguish himself from George Bush. In real life. Not the nauseating ephemeral bullshit of rhetoric.

Sorry U, but you ignore his attempts to put throug bills in Congress that are adultarated or destroyed by the Republican enemy and gutless Democrats. Perhaps we are reading different news accounts. That, plus the inflated idea that he could possibly achieve it all. He had to get elected, and he used the best marketing devices as Naomi Klein pointed out (in the Globe the other day) in a new edition of No Logo. But I can't believe that you bought into it completely - just as I can't believe he holds the power of a dictator, that there is no intervening Congress with all its "bought" politicos. Remember Mr. Smith goes to Washington? Course you do. And of course people like myself live in hope that the people I must not "demean" in your eyes, will finally awaken to reality and give him and progressive Democrats th votes to beat down the bastards in Congress. It took some bloody awful conditions in the 30s but by God FDR could tell the opposition to pee up a stump.

No, it will just get worse, chaps, until the vast pall of ignorance that has descended over that country (and pretty big acreages up thisaway) is lifted. And in the meantime, you don't have a corner on the pain department, believe me - just different ideas about causality.

George, sorry to be a nuisance, but I posted here for one year before Obama's election predicting that he would not do one single solitary thing that was different from Bush. Not one. I bought into nothing. I was not disappointed. I would have loved to be. I don't appreciate any of the bills that he "tried" to push through Congress. They all count as neo-conservaitve in my book. And if he can't do anything with Democratic control of both houses, then he should pack his bags, apologize, and slink away. Those babblers who said we shouldn't write him off, and who defended him vociferously during the election campaign, are perhaps the ones who should reflect, take stock, and explain what terrible horrible thing changed that turned Obama into a useless - no, I wish he were just useless - a dangerous warmongering cynical enemy of the world's people.

Oh, puuuuhhhhhleeeeze, George. By your telling of it he has no power nor authority to maintain a single commitment he has made, such as, for example, no secret meetings at the White House. That is something his administration, and ultimately he alone, has authority over. And that is but one little and painless example. Signing statements are another. You want us to believe the great Obama has no authority at all. And if that is true, then two things: One, no point voting as, Obama/Palin? Don't matter. They have no real authority so the bogeyman factor is moot. Two, he knowingly raised false hopes just to get elected and collect a pay cheque. What do you really think George?

It is you that don't get it, U.  I have read your postings in 08, and you hve indeed not changed. But are you truly ready to throw in the towel and expose us all to the mercies of the "alternative", now building?  To what possible end?  To call him a "dangerous warmongering cynical enemyof the world's people" is simply a ridiculous, corrupted caricature of reality. There is clearly no room for his redemption in your eyes, and no room for discourse between you and me. 

Canada's PMO has more power than the office of the U.S.pres., FM. Check it out (and wish us all luck).   Oh, and come down off the chandelier to read it, eh?  :D

Your heart's in the right place, George, but Obama is no more significant a part of the American Hologram than is Paris Hilton.

George, I love ya man, but I fear you're a consumer of fantasies. No one expected nor demanded any miracles from Obama. What was expected was the same man who campaigned for president to be president. Instead, we have a pale imitation without so much as a fighting word for the fighting words he espoused during the marketing stage. It isn't that Obama can't advance the agenda of his election campaign, George. It's that he's not even trying.

FM, what do you recall about his campaign agenda that I've forgotten? Other than closing Guantanamo by January? This is an extremely serious question. I heard him deny racism was endemic to America (and throw his preacher under the bus and then flamboyantly resign from his church over this point of principle); swear allegiance to Israel and AIPAC; and threaten to chase Al-Qaeda into Pakistan. I never heard him promise public health care. I don't recall him promising to get back to Kyoto or sign any landmine treaty or stop threatening Iran and North Korea. Which part of his agenda has he violated. I repeat - I'm serious.

He promised a public option (vowed it actually). He promised to renegotiate NAFTA. He promised no secret meetings. He promised an end to indefinite detentions. He promised "sunlight before signing" whereby a bill would be public 5 days before it was signed. He promised to reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax. He promised no administration jobs for lobbyists. He promised to support the labour Free Choice Act. And those are just the ones I remember. There are a lot more.

Ok, you're right FM. Though some of these promises (NAFTA, capital gains) can hardly be described as progressive. As for the others - yes, he has not done one single useful thing. Gotta agree.

Chaps, if he caves and blesses the "election" in Honduras I will join your merry band of chuckleheads.  But I will never, never stop fearing his alternative waiting in the wings. (Which thought leads me to ask...can you name anyone in the Democratic Party that you might back?  The senior senator from Vermont, perhaps?)

Definitely, but out of deference, please first name anyone in the Liberal Party whom you might back as head of a Liberal majority government.

I getcha. Obdurate fella, eh!  I'll disown Barack Hussein if need be but I'm not ready to fly the black flag yet. There are some very progressive voices down that way. (Not sure I could find that flag under the detritus of entervening years anyway).

And your question is like that we dealt with once in philosophy 101.  "When the judge says, his/her hands are tied, and it is necessary to sentence the guilty to....."  you say, "nonsense, the judge can resign from the case and the bench."  Always felt good in that period at the end of the 60s to retire from such scinitillating discussion and toke up on that note.  Didn't bother (then) to search my mind for real life instances of such paragons of virtue. They tended to disappear from the limelight...or any mention at all.

Anyway, up democratic socialismo in this "Fair Country", where a "real" alternative stands more than a chance of a snowman in hell.

Thanks, George. I don't blame you for not answering my question. There is no answer. In Canada, as in the U.S., we must measure our politicians by our principles. Not the other way around.

So that's it? Obama's best qualification is his not being Sarah Palin or George Bush?  Shouldn't one hope for better?

Mr O.'s record looks darn good to me, and to many people not as far Left as Babble:

 http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

The case for Obama's successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak [54] for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated. The bill he signs may be flawed in any number of ways-weak on cost control, too tied to the employer-based system, and inadequate in terms of consumer choice. But given the vastness of the enterprise and the political obstacles, passing an imperfect behemoth and improving it later is probably the only way to succeed where his predecessors failed.

 [...]

Obama's claim to a fertile first year doesn't rest on health care alone. There's mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in February-combined with the bank bailout package-prevented an economic depression. Should the stimulus have been larger? Should it have been more weighted to short-term spending, as opposed to long-term tax cuts? Would a second round be a good idea? Pundits and policymakers will argue these questions for years to come. But few mainstream economists seriously dispute that Obama's decisive action prevented a much deeper downturn and restored economic growth in the third quarter. The New York Times [55] recently quoted Mark Zandi, who was one of candidate John McCain's economic advisers, on this point: "The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do-it is contributing to ending the recession," he said. "In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent."

George:

  "But I will never, never stop fearing his alternative waiting in the wings."

 Al:

"So that's it? Obama's best qualification is his not being Sarah Palin or George Bush?  Shouldn't one hope for better?"

U: "Thanks, George. I don't blame you for not answering my question. "

I will answer your loaded question, U, when you begin to speak to the issues I raise.

And Al, I add the Bageant bit, below, that I have already posted in another thread, because you will see that FEAR motivates me in my reluctance to roll the dice in Mulroney fashion (somethin that you folks also take to, strangely).

And here is the bit that you failed to comment on in the Sarah Palin thread, Al.  And this is why I cannot be so sanguine about the outcome as yourself, ands U, and FM, and a lot of other folks who just don't get what's brewin' down there in the hills:

And as Bageant says in yesterday's blog (again describing Sarah country):

"When World War Two started 45% of Americans lived on farms or in farming based communities. Ten years after the war only 12% remained on farms, and not much later it dropped to six percent. And believe me, they did not all leave willingly.

"The result is that we are into our third generation of underclass whites -- around 60 million of them. At one point in the 1950s when unions were at their peak, a large portion of these people briefly constituted a legitimate working class. Since then they have been ground back down into a malleable disposable work force with no real contours, no vision, no philosophy or principles of labor, zero negotiation regarding the price of their labor, and no avenues for self determination as individuals or as a class.

"They are that great white unwashed that educated liberals just cannot get their heads around. Liberal audiences ask me,  "Why are so many working class Americans non-union or anti-union?" Sometimes I reply that if you kick a dog hard enough and often enough, the dog will do any goddamned thing you want, whether it is "in his interests" or not. If the dog doesn't bite that union organizer, the poor fucking beast doesn't get fed at all.

Educated urban liberals never seem to grasp that most Americans no longer have access to the levers of self-determination. But then, I never expect the bourgeoisie to understand the legions of industrial serfs outside the gates. Nor do they much bother to try. After all, they've "got theirs." Education, safe working conditions, negotiable wages, access to real culture if they choose, progeny who will more or less continue their class patterns, even if on a somewhat lesser scale. When they look around their affinity groups and communities, they see only people like themselves. "Naw, we're not elites," they conclude.

"But the sheer gravitational pull of 60 million people circling the drain is starting to draw these elites who do not know they are elites toward the drainpipe. So now we are seeing academic papers with titles such as "Does a white American underclass really exist?" Lemme see now, are there any clues? Well, about 49.1 million people, most of them white, went without food at various times in 2008 (USDA). This is called "food insecurity" in government and academic circles. I suppose the 3.1 million folks sleeping under bridges, in cars, in shelters and cardboard boxes are experiencing "housing insecurity." This includes the 1.4 million homeless children attending our public schools. I suggest they start by asking these people if there is a white underclass in America. You know, get it straight from the horse's mouth. You don't know if you don't ask. I mean, hell, these people might all be just hobo-ing for a lark!

Whatever the case, I read a slew of these studies in the course of writing the new book. My conclusion is that the academic elites can hustle a grant out of any damned question you can think up, then write 70,000 words that not only do not answer the question, but lay the groundwork for further research into other ways to not answer the question.

What do you mean? And what do you mean by that Mulroney dice reference?

Al, read the Bageant bit and see if the demographics of Republicanism today don't bother you a bit too.  And everyone recalls Brian at the time of the constitutional issue and his favouring a roll of the dice.

GV: "Chaps, if he caves and blesses the "election" in Honduras I will join your merry band of chuckleheads.  But I will never, never stop fearing his alternative waiting in the wings. (Which thought leads me to ask...can you name anyone in the Democratic Party that you might back?  The senior senator from Vermont, perhaps?)"

Heard on CBC this AM that the U.S. is breaking ranks and approving the election in Honduras. Consider me a novitiate (with a naive, hopeful aspect).

Still better than Palin though, eh George? She would have nuked Iran by now and imprisoned all the queers and invaded Canada.

 One should hope to be able to define the POTUS in terms of what he is rather than what he is not.  Unfortunately, much of the reason for his win was the fact that he wasn't Bush or Palin.  That, together with a bunch of unrealistic expectations (fueled, at least in part, by his election promises) put him over the top.

But think about it. Obama was probably the most charismatic and personable candidate we've seen since Kennedy. He was running against a Republican ticket that was extremely weak. The incumbent President, a Republican, was the least popular President in recent history. The press regularly told everyone how dumb Palin is and refused to touch Obama. The US was engaged in two extremely unpopular wars and the economy was headed into the tank. Against that background you'd expect him to win by a landslide - instead he managed to eke out 53% of the popular vote. And many of the people voting for him did expect miracles.

Exactly, Ab.   Without economic collapse, Sarah would have been (as they say) "within a heartbeat" of the presidency. Aren't we all lucky ?(in some twisted sense of that word). 

Being able to high-five it with some folks from Jamaica on election night was some compensation. Something was improved there.

Obama fans' litany:

"President Obama is powerless. He's just a small cog in a huge system."

"President Palin would destroy the world."

Congrats, U.  You got it. 

The bankster bailout endorsed by McCain/Palin... And that's a positive? Few mainstream economists, huh? What about good economists? The issues that threaten the US economy, high debt, high energy costs, a contracting consumer market, and no productive economy not only remain, they are growing worse.

For George, as only he could truely appreciate it:

Our President; our war [68]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure we really were that lucky.

But next time, Obama won't be able to blame Bush - the Messiah, the miracle worker, the hopey changey man, had better deliver or he'll be gone. 

Yeah, FM.  I don't really "appreciate it", mate. But wiser men than you and I, Gunga Din, do not isolate themselves from the powers at work in that country.  Graeme's news that Rory Stewart is now both working on his restoration of old Kabul (he had to remove 7 feet of trash accumulated over the centuries in the streets to improve access to the buildings) and some of its ancient woodworking crafts, but is also teaching at Harvard, is hopeful. He knows the language and customs of Afghanistan and the surrounding states so well that he will bring enlightenment to the core of the U.S. establishment where only vast ignorance reigned. If people of his wisdom can carry on with hope, who the hell am I to cross them off?

And I think, abnormal, we see our luck in all this in equal proportions.

Compared to Obama Bush was a good guy. Expanding the wars, new military bases, and a coup in South America.

See what you have started, FM? Sky's the limit. :D

The unrepentant Marxist has a good piece called Barak Hoover Obama.

Proyect (the unrepentant one) concludes that Obama is more like Hoover than like FDR. Read the article for more details.

Cindy Sheehan

The supporters of Barak Obama should APOLOGIZE, says Rich Gibson, for getting it all so terribly wrong. Sounds good to me.

The following makes reference to Obama's appointment to Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.

Of course, the Obama moonies will be making no apologies anytime soon. After all, Sarah Palin would have been worse, blah blah ...

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn't have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush's Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you're doing it so you can "end the war") will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you've said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone -- and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout "tea bag!"

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can't take it anymore. We can't take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of "landslide victory" don't you understand?

Don't be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn't be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can't change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can't be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either."

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that's what they'd do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/open-letter-president-obama-michael-moore

OK, I'll bite.  How exactly did Obama supporters get it all so terribly wrong?  What should they be apologizing for?

I think that's a straw man.  I think many Obama supporters knew that taking back a country takes more than one election.  And while I doubt Obama supproters are generally satisfied with his performance so far I don't think many of them are too shocked.  Or i guess maybe we'd agree that those who are shocked might've been pretty naive.

One tactic for bringing about change is simply to vote act towards the best of the current viable options.  Whether that's a tactic you might agree with I don't think it's a tactic you could reasonably expect people to apologize for holding.

Personally i think for those who would make requests of Obama's supporters, tangible requests for specific action are generally better than rhetorical requests.

What do you think the Obama supporters should've done instead that would've led to a better situation than where things are at now?

ETA: This is my favourite of the riffs i've seen so far:

They got it wrong by their capitulation to Obamagogery, by sidetracking a fightback into Obama backwaters, by waging war on the left (as well as the right - give 'em credit for that, OK) and claiming real and fundamental differences between the multimillionaires of the GOP and the multimillionaires of the Democractic Party, and so on. And, if the author is correct and Obama's failures will lead to a GOP President in 2012, then the gains are doubtful at best.

Incidently, the author writes for the  Rouge Forum which is a group concerned about right wing atrocities to education in the US. And there are plenty of those. It seems the Democratic atrocities are much the same as the Republican atrocities. And that's the heart of what Gibson seems to be saying.

But don't take my word for it. Send a note to the author directly and I'm sure he will provide a more thorough answer than me. 

Try rgibson@pipeline.com and check out his webpage at http://richgibson.com/ [80]

Incidently, President Obama will be laying out the reasons why he thinks 30,000 more US troops in Afghanistan is a good thing. That'll be on Wednesday.

Ooh rah.

If the Harper regime agrees - as undoubtedly it will - this will mean more dead Canadians thanks to the foreign policy of President Obama.

Reuters - Obama to lay out long awaited plan re Afghanistan, etc.

One big difference - and a very big one at that. During the next few years a number of Supreme Court Justices will retire. The question is who exactly gets appointed to replace them. If Palin gets to select the candidates I'd be very surprised if her picks weren't either anti-abortion or, at best, literalists who believe in interpretting the Constitution exactly as written. While the latter doesn't sound bad, I do have to say that every US lawyer I've talked to about Roe v Wade will tell you that it's simply bad law (and that's coming from pro-abortion lawyers, not pro-lifers). It's pretty much a given that, if the Court is full of Palin appointees that somebody, sooner or later, will manage to bring a carefully selected case to the Supreme Court and that will be the end of Roe v Wade.

It's pretty sad when the best you can say about a president is that he can name Supreme Court justices - which of course is not entirely true either, because he doesn't have the final word.

It's even sadder that the right to abortion hangs by the fragile thread of an old court decision which could be reversed at any moment by another set of judges.

The people of the U.S. want serious progressive change. That's why they elected Obama and a Democratic Congress. It's sad to see babblers telling them that the best change they can hope for is a few court appointments. Legislation? Executive action? Forget it.

And then, we blame the people for being backward and getting the government they deserve. I don't. I blame a political system that functions on a constant cycle of promises and betrayal.

Saying a people are the product of their culture is not to call them backward or deserving of "what they get", U.  Neither can you dismiss the meaning of the Supreme Court in either country. The right to abortion hangs by a thread in both. The "people of the U.S." do no want serious progressive change - he barely scraped by in an atmosphere where war and economic collapse dominated, and despite the appearance of someone who could somehow appeal to the marginalized and Christian right as authentic. The people want to be saved from the patently pathalogical.

And no babbler has said the best they can hope for is "a few court appointments."  Yer over the top with yer exaggerated, populist  appeals, old son.

It's so hard to believe that a whole 365 days has gone by since his inauguration!  I bet if he had more time, maybe he'd be able to turn that big ship around, but at this rate, he should be out of the Oval Office by May, when his four years are up.  If only there were more time!

We always have to fight to consolidate our gains. But to suggest that a court case could come along in Canada that re-criminalizes abortion is ridiculous. Yet, abnormal's scenario for the U.S. is not ridiculous at all. Social comparisons between the U.S. and Canada are like comparing the 19th with the 21st centuries. We shouldn't be smug, but we're not climbing down out of the trees the way they are down in that Inferno.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. George, I think we generally have the same disagreement about the Canadian people.

That is literally - exactly - what several babblers said during the lead-up to the election last year. I can understand that you might have forgotten that, but I can't understand why you would vociferously deny it.

I still thank that this thread, "Obama one year later", should not be allowed to go over to exaggerated statements without inspection of the society in question. And you do use exaggeration very freely, U. You are also very selective in your quotations during an exchange. Great debating style - but, of course, we must not rely on style, in presidential debate or down here on earth. :D

George, I'll tell you again to stop commenting about ME and start commenting on views or opinions of mine that I post here. If you have something in mind by the above statement - state it - otherwise keep it to yourself.

Same goes for this. Your analysis of my debating style is frankly boring, dull, obtuse. Do you have some selective quotation in mind that you'd like to challenge? If not, how about leaving me alone? I attack Obama, and you attack me. That's frankly childish and pathetic, besides being contrary to the rules around here. Re-read them if you don't believe me.

Somehow, the misuse of quotations is okay.  And the interminable, unrelenting, unfair but adult, Obama rant.And everyone else is out to lunch:

"It's pretty sad when the best you can say about a president is that he can name Supreme Court justices - which of course is not entirely true either, because he doesn't have the final word.

It's even sadder that the right to abortion hangs by the fragile thread of an old court decision which could be reversed at any moment by another set of judges.

The people of the U.S. want serious progressive change. That's why they elected Obama and a Democratic Congress. It's sad to see babblers telling them that the best change they can hope for is a few court appointments. Legislation? Executive action? Forget it.

And then, we blame the people for being backward and getting the government they deserve. I don't. I blame a political system that functions on a constant cycle of promises and betrayal."

Can't wait to hear some intelligent prescription for change, some analysis of the electoral picture...if that's an okay request, not out of bounds in this "system". Or are you bound to use the system's "rules" to silence an appeal for rational opinion and justice? That's been done before hereabouts...really narrowing the discussion. "Forget it" indeed, U.

They could pattern it after the heartfelt apology the left gave to the province of Ontario after the ONDP reneged on all of their lofty promises. Obama's failing to bring about world peace, but the ONDP couldn't even insure cars!

Anyone have a copy of that apology??

So what should they have done differently?  Just not gotten involved?

"by sidetracking a fightback into Obama backwaters"? What does this mean?

I asked you because you posted about it here on babble.  I'm a pretty busy person and so having an email exchange with a writer in the US isn't really much of a priority.  You said you agreed that Obama supporters should apologize, i'm just wondering what it is they should be apologizing for.  Do you think they should be apologizing for getting involved in the political process?

Gibson outlined the Keynsian failures of the Obama regime, the horrific education atrocities by Obama's hand picked education gauliter, Arne Duncan, and so on. He claims this failure was predictable and, furthermore, that (in his country, the USA) the Obama "Moonies" directly denied that things would come out this way at the time. Seems pretty clear to me. Sorry if you're too "busy" to read my reply.

Obama Issues Order for Escalation in Afghanistan

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d01.shtml

Obama's Exceedingly Familiar Justifications for Escalation
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/ [94]

Oppose Obama's Escalation of the Afghan Pakistan War!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d02.shtml [95]

Sorry, I stopped reading at some point above. The Obama narrative has gone like this:

During the campaign when Obama began reversing his positions (i.e. Illegal surveillance), Obama-ites told us we must support Obama and put pressure on him after he's elected. He must take positions in opposition to his base to get elected.

When Obama was elected we were told not to put pressure on him or be to critical because he can only do so much even as be betrayed his own vows.

Now we're told, as he expands the Bush wars and engages in the same rhetoric of fear that he is better than the alternative.

And when a US activist writer says, no, the alternative would be much the same, the bogeyman of supreme court appointments are raised.

I can almost hear them sayin already, before the election cycle begins anew in 2012, the time to put pressure on Obama is after the election ...

Linked on the other Obama thread: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator...

From Gitmo to Bagram: Bad to Worse?

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/gitmo-bagram-bad-worse

"Thanksgiving weekend's big national security story was the continuing operation of a 'black jail' at Bagram, where detainees [POWs] are held for weeks in completely secret detention. Not even the Red Cross are notified..."

Has Canada sent any 'detainees' there I wonder..?

The Obama Puppet

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022009.html

"It didn't take the Israel lobby long to bring President Obama to heel..."

http://www.progressive.org/wx120209.html

CHANGE we can believe in. Uh huh.

I wonder if the Dems will still have a majority in both houses this time next year? or I guuess a year January.

Obama has done a dexcent job so far.

Although  I am still annoyed Gitmo is still open and he sounded like Bush with his speech on Afghanistan this week. I also wish he would of put his foot down more on Karzai and that fraudulent election. I also do not like his unquestionable love for Israel either.

I hope he gets his health care passed and not a watered down version but it will be tough as many conservative democrats in the House and Senate.

But I would give him overall a 'C+ to a B minus' so far.  It can go up depending on Health Care and what he does on the environment.

up that mark to a B/B+ and I agree ....

I'd go with a C- but that's only because I'm feeling generous.

Meanwhile, he's beginning to duck the press.

http://tinyurl.com/y8q7q2m

Reality is, I don't think Obama has ever allowed uncanned Q&A with the press.  Whenever he stops reading from a teleprompter he manages to make Bush look coherent. 

Ah, "reality." A U.S.president with the erudition of Big Bill depends on a teleprompter?  You haven't read his bios or been concerned with background, right?

He may be erudite, but he doesn't impress me as being all that bright.

Yeah, Magna Cum Laude fron Harvard Law School is just another document, and his two autobiographies - which everyone here has read, I'm sure - were clearly penned by ghost writers.

As someone else has already stated, it's pretty clear that his autobiographies were ghostwritten and, if you've ever listened to him when he ends up "off prompter" he makes the worst of Chretien sound positively coherent [plenty of examples on YouTube].

As far as his background goes, we really don't know much beyond what he's told us in his books (and that doesn't hold together all that well). 

He is the War President.

Neo-con Bill Kristol [110]

Whoops. Conspiracy stuff.  Have fun.

Facts, George, facts ... Oh, and this:

Ooops!

BTW, George, I would've sworn, up there in the thread somewhere, you said you too, despite Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, human rights, etc..., would stop supporting Obama if he backed off on Honduras. Well, guess what?

Obama disappoints [113]

How those progressive Republicans can stand to be in the same vicinity with such a fellow is beyond comprehension.

Walled in By Myth and Deceit:

http://australiansforpalestine.com/cook-walled-in-by-myth-and-deceit

"...American watches in utter disbelief and dismay the demise of the President of Change and Hope into an obsequious and obedient Golem of Israel, subservient to Netanyahu and Lieberman.."

Obama's War Whoop: "Let the Blood Bath Begin!"

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25329 [116]

"...So what exactly is the difference between George Bush and Barack Obama..?"

How Bad in the 'Fuck You Act'?

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-bad-is-fuck-you-act.htm... [117]

"...the monstrosity that will finally emerge from Congress in the name of 'health care reform' is very, very bad indeed.."

here is where the real battle lies for his reform presidency,

and he may well win it before Christmas:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/07/the_health_care_race_to_christmas_99426.html

as the politics are looking somewhat better:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/the-best-sign-yet-lieberman-collins-are-board [119]

Chris Hedges has a good piece over on Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07

"I am not disappointed in Obama. I don't feel betrayed. I don't wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don't dislike Obama-I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor-though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered."

"Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground." They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky's depraved character, have come to believe that the "conscious inertia" of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses."

But, by golly, he kept the bizarre, the obscenely ignorant, and the warped Christian element at bay, giving us a few more years, anyway. You see, there are folks out there, voters,  who fall under one of those descriptors (or all of them) who make reform really difficult, and our continued existence quite problematic.

And, of course, Hedges has got the liberal quite right. But like all Utopian scenarios, the question is how to get from here to there.

What utopian scenarios?  Obama is really happening (despite being a hologram....or merely a brand).

I'm talking about the movement from Here to Hedgeian society as you're aware, Al  Gosh, it would be nice...just don't confuse me with the mainstream, wealthy liberal south of the 49th, or with the average African American anywhere, like those who joyfully high-fived with me this time last year.

Long thread.