Obama: year 2

this seems to wrap up the mood here, too

It won't be long now before we see what the House is going to demand in the way of reforms...there is that anti-abortion bit for one thing.  And from that, we will see whether a further watering down of the health legislation is expected by Democratic constituents.

Any way of finding out more about Howard Dean?  You'll recall he was written off by his party as too radical - it wasn't just the "scream". Does anyone recall his policy proposals that won him that appelation?

I'm starting to like this Obomba guy. Anyone who can hasten the complete economic, moral, and political collapse of the US empire is okay in my books, and Barrack Hussein "there's no such thing as racism" Obama is doing a heckuva job.

Dean was never exactly written off by the party, not even by those centrists and right-wingers who were glad to sink his campaign in 2004. They made him chair of the Democratic National Committee for the next four years, a very powerful position that definitely doesn't come under the heading of being written off. They did that because he's a great organizer, likeable and intelligent, and people come out to work for him.

Lefty Dems still take Dean seriously and speculate on what he might do; centrists like Obama don't like him, I'm sure; and the Blue Dogs might as well be Republicans anyway. In Canada, he'd be a sort of Gerard Kennedy figure, no more radical than that.

I'm horrified at what's about to pass as "universal health care" there - forcing people to buy shitty plans from private insurance companies or face a fine, without offering a public option!  Good lord.  That's worse than what they already have!

And don't get me started on the anti-choice initiatives wrapped up in the deal.  Hey, let's make it the norm for private insurers not to insure abortion!  That won't set the clock back for women or anything.

I'm reading a lot of them who are horrified too when they work out the numbers. People are going to be forced to pay what to me sound like huge sums for their insurance, but because things like co-pays are still in place, they won't be able to afford to go ahead and get the medical care they need in spite of what they have already paid.

The only good thing seems to be that the working poor will be covered, but most working people (whom they tend to call "the middle class") will be handing over money to the insurance companies still with no assurance of accessible care. I just gape when I see the figures -- I couldn't afford that; through my entire career I couldn't have afforded that.

I know.  It's just unbelievable.  It would be one thing to require everyone be insured if they were offering public health insurance - heck, that's what we have.  But to force everyone to buy crappy plans from private insurers - or face a FINE?  Good god!

Do you have a link to some of those numbers?  I'd be interested in checking that out!

Michelle, the best of these discussions that I see usually go on regularly at emptywheel's place, although this week she's focused on the auto industry. (She -- Marcy Wheeler -- is a Michigander.) 

Her blog is one of the firedoglake associates -- you can see their homepage link there at her place, and there's bound to be someone writing to the main page about health care every day. Jane Hamsher, who is the founder of FDL, has been one of the strongest critics of Obama's collapse on single-payer, never mind the public option -- they know who she is in the White House, and they're skeert of her. She really knows how to organize.

I first started reading these guys during the Plame investigation/Libby trial because, as you know, I love a good detective story, and Marcy turns out to be the smartest Sherlock around. Several of the FDL regulars were liveblogging the trial, but Marcy, who'd written a book on the case, was definitely the one with the background -- msm reporters were following her blogging because she always understood what was going on. Since then I've been a regular reader, and she can disentangle anything faster than most of the media -- she got the scoop on the number of times Abu Zubaydah and KSM had been waterboarded, eg -- she did that simply by reading the released memos, which of course the msm get paid to do but hadn't done with anything like her attention. She is brilliant on the law, torture, health care, and cars (also football), and she attracts a number of commenters who are specialists in each. Her group are part of the reason the FBI had to back off some of their nonsense about the anthrax attacks, eg.

Anyway, I think you'd enjoy it. I really do. It took me a year to get up the nerve to chime in occasionally, and I don't very much because most of this is 'way above my pay grade, but I do know some of it well by now, and they like their Canucks.

will US gradually become "like Europe"?

Do you have an Obama tattoo? Seriously, that's the only reason I can think of that anyone would still support that dumbass, despite clear evidence that he's more neocon than even Bush dared to be.

I look forward to DaveW's lusty defense of the Obama era after he privatizes social security and nukes Yemen.

The Recession is Over, the Depression Just Beginning

http://www.sjlendman.blogspot.com/

"...in his upcoming State of the Union address, Obama is expected to repeat his post-China trip message that fiscal austerity (many sharp social spending cuts) is necessary to cut the public debt. In other words, bankrolling Wall Street, health insurers, the drug cartel, other corporate favorites, and war profiteers will continue while working class Americans won't be helped during the greatest economic crisis in their lifetimes, a protracted one that will last for years..."

an unhinged comment like that says more about your political judgement than mine;

if you expected a big left-winger in power, you did not read Obama's campaign materials, starting from the Democratic primaries, where even Hillary attacked him from the left;

and yes, his economic/social policies have a family resemblance to some European social democrats, I like that

Which part of his economic/social policies did you like best; the one where he gave away the keys to the treasury to Wall Street, or the one where he's forcing the poor to subsidize insurance companies? Was it the refusal to investigate the criminal actions of the big banks (A.K.A. his cabinet), or the "indefinite detention" of suspected suspects that tickles your fancy? Or maybe his bombing of the poorest countries on earth strike you as particularly enlightened and progressive. The continued torture of kidnapped farmers is very chic among the socialists in France, I understand.

The fascists count on fools like you to continue supporting their rapaciousness, because you are easily blinded by style and completely ignorant of substance. Slap a "Democrat" label on the most regressive, brutal, and destructive acts imaginable, and the blind partisan will stand ready to cheer them on.  

Fascists count on sagacious types like yourself, Jingles, to make their ventures possible.

To be fair, Obama does have his legitimate reasons for doing this to the poor:

Googling for the McCain contributions from the healthcare industry you get:

This poster neglected to provide any context behind these numbers.  In this case "from the healthcare industry" largely means "from individual donors working in the health care industry."  So health care professionals/workers gave almost 3 times more to Obama than McCain.

Since Obama raised over $650 million from individual donors, I don't find it particularly odd that Obama raised $20 million of that from individual donors within the healthcare industry.

Additionally, since McCain raised $200 million from individual donors, which is less than a third of what Obama raised, I don't find it particularly striking that Obama raised three times as much as McCain from individual donors in some particular industry.

There are better criticisms to be made of Obama, and some here are making those criticisms--but this one is pretty weak.

a critical but sympathetic  assessment from the left:

 www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/greider

i'm in agreement with jingles view on obama one year out.. to quote jingles.

"Which part of his economic/social policies did you like best; the one where he gave away the keys to the treasury to Wall Street, or the one where he's forcing the poor to subsidize insurance companies? Was it the refusal to investigate the criminal actions of the big banks (A.K.A. his cabinet), or the "indefinite detention" of suspected suspects that tickles your fancy? Or maybe his bombing of the poorest countries on earth strike you as particularly enlightened and progressive."

obama has been a very big let down for many folks on both sides of the spectrum.. perhaps it reflects the deteriorating state of affairs that has been taking shape in the usa and by proximity - canada over the past few years...

When the company I worked for moved to Florida in 2006, my boss was to move down there with his wife and toddler son. It was going to cost between 1-2k a month for decent healthcare from the insurance companies there.

At present my sister in law in PA pays 400/month for healthcare for her and her husband and 19yr old son. She said if they get his by a bus, its all covered but if they develop diabetes, heart disease, etc they are on their own.

Critical Mass: Dem Agenda Opens Right Wing Doors

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1907-crit...

"And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It boils down to 3 main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care 'reform' that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land.

Now it is obvious to all that Obama's core agenda is the same as Bush's: maintaining the elitest, militarist, corporatist system in all its essential elements.."

Paul Krugman

Hey skdadl, thanks for that link.  I'm not sure why I haven't been back to this thread until now, but I'll go check it out.

Howard Zinn

Probably far more dangerous to the big banks than anything the GOP can offer from their Heartland headquarters.  :D  Krugman:  "At this point Mr. Obama probably can't do much about job creation. He can, however, push hard on financial reform, and seek to put himself back on the right side of public anger by portraying Republicans as the enemies of reform - which they are."  (But we must not mention those folk hereabouts...just Obama, the failed president).

Krugman, Krugman...

Where have I seen that name before?

Oh yeah; three posts ago.

from the washington note

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/01/krugmans_blunt/#commen...

Ya, and how about the removing the limits for campaign contributions from corporations!! WOWZER, that was a stinger and a stunner for a "leftist Prez".{does this news deserve it's own thread?}

I suppose this means I have to admit that Obama is as hard right as any other American President, he was just keeping it hidden until now.

And he did this now because it is time to start collecting donations for the next election?

Nobody can blame that on Obama, it's a Supreme Court decision and Obama's single appointee so far was in the minority, for whatever that's worth.

"Nobody can blame that on Obama, Doug?   Have you heard of anything happening south of the 49th blamed on anyone else, hereabouts? 

Obama's biggest challenge?  The vast middle in America (i.e., the independent voters).

That is where the real power resides.

Excellent piece by Robert Scheer (remember him?):

What Massachusetts got right

From a recent Washington Post poll of Massachusetts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/mass-poll22.html

This poll has a majority of MA voters, even Brown voters, supporting MA's health reform.

"Barack Obama is rich, powerfull, respected... and definately not a revolutionary" - I saw that quote the other day, I like it! now me:

-----------

Over the past year he has proven himself to be part of "the establishment".

  Warmongering, forcing every American to buy insurance even though there is no public option, and now this "no more limits on campaign donations from corporations", and Obama participated in the H1N1 vaccine scare /farce too.  Yup, establishment right down the line. I had such hopes...

"I forgot Obama was black for an hour."

I believe that was a SCOTUS decision, and Obama has already said he opposes this. Don't know if he is moving to change it, but these things take time.

Time and a couple of new Surpreme Court Appointments (one would have done it on this one).  That's about all he can do, Boomer.  Noah scaping that.  : D

Helen Thomas, who shouldn't be confused with Sarah Palin, who asked "How's that hopey changey thing workin' for ya?"

Did anyone catch Stephen Colbert call Palin a "f***ing retard" last night?

The most distressing thing is to see someone like Palin advocating on behalf of something you believe in.  But then they showed her response to Rush's use of the term.  That proved her advocacy was born from political partisanship and again she was using her daughter to score political points.

So according to Palin a Dem. should be fired for using the "r" word and Rush was merely being himself.

I believe the qualification Palin used was that Limbaugh was using "satire."

That was the qualification and if you believe that Rush is not a political commentator but merely a comedian like Colbert then it has some validity.  I can't make that first leap. I heard the clip and Rush was using the term in the nastiest way possible and there was no satire. 

Obama administration tries to quickly turn around the worst schools in America

It would be interesting to try to unbundle what's going on here - that is, what are the effects of the extra money versus moving schools out of the normal public school administration versus the higher standards expected in staff performance and student achievement.

Well, of course he was...and obviously it wasn't.

And clearly the fascist, racist bastard is not a "comedian like Colbert." 

Nobel-winner Paul Krugman disagrees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html?em [48]

What would work? By all means, let's ban discrimination on the basis of medical history - but we also have to keep healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that people purchase insurance. This, in turn, requires substantial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can afford coverage.

And if you put all of that together, you end up with something very much like the health reform bills that have already passed both the House and the Senate.

What about claims [esp. at Canada's influential Babble site -ed.]  that these bills would force Americans into the clutches of greedy insurance companies? Well, the main answer is stronger regulation; but it would also be a very good idea, politically as well as substantively, for the Senate to use reconciliation to put the public option back into its bill.

But the main point is this: California's death spiral is a reminder that our health care system is unraveling, and that inaction isn't an option. Congress and the president need to make reform happen - now.

Let me grasp this U.S. style logic:

Krugman wants to force healthy people to pay insurance companies so that they can remain profitable and keep premiums down and heal the sick.

Krugman hasn't thought of forcing people to pay more taxes on a progressive basis so that the society can look after everyone's health and to hell with the insurance companies.

Krugman is (as DaveW says) a "Nobel winner". He's a loser in my book.

Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

I agree with this guy, too, also a Nobel winner , along w. Unionist and Krugman:

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-says-it-time-move-forward-health-care-reform

 The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

And as bad as things are today, they'll only get worse if we fail to act. We'll see more and more Americans go without the coverage they need. We'll see exploding premiums and out-of-pocket costs burn through more and more family budgets. We'll see more and more small businesses scale back benefits, drop coverage, or close down because they can't keep up with rising rates. And in time, we'll see these skyrocketing health care costs become the single largest driver of our federal deficits.

That's what the future is on track to look like. But it's not what the future has to look like. The question, then, is whether we will do what it takes, all of us - Democrats and Republicans - to build a better future for ourselves, our children, and our country.

That's why, next week, I am inviting members of both parties to take part in a bipartisan health care meeting, and I hope they come in a spirit of good faith. I don't want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that's been with us for generations.

Empty rhetoric, after being elected on a promise of reforming the system and a year of retreating from that promise. Now he's ready to adopt revolutionary Republican ideas of allowing people to buy out-of-state insurance and small employers to pool their efforts. What a diplomat! I think he should be in line for some kind of Peace Prize.

Yeah, in the absence of any discussion about the GOP and Sarah and teabags and any possibility of a bipartisan Congress on this or any other issue, he sure looks bad.  I'm reminded of the story of LIttle Red Riding Hood.  Same depth of analysis.

The long-promised, oft-delayed OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility) report on the behaviour of Justice Dep't lawyers was released in redacted form yesterday. Friday afternoon -- imagine that. You're shocked, I know.

I'm just catching up with it now, but it is of course an investigation that's been given several coats of whitewash, and a lot of that under Holder/Obama's direction. Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury, the three OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) lawyers who wrote the infamous torture memos and conspired with the White House (as well as general counsel at the CIA and DoD) to make the facts fit the policy, as it were, have been let off the hook. I know: you're shocked again.

Well, they're looking forward, y'know. Can't let a little thing like a torture regime still not accounted for spoil things, can we. I'll be back with more when I know more.

While Sarah Palin may be a retard* and the teabaggers a collection of howling morans created by Fox News, the charming, articulate Obama is nevertheless a corporate pawn doing the bidding of his masters.  He's at best a liberal capitalist, but he's not on our side.

*Bill Maher on Sarah Palin's impromptu teleprompter: "Sarah Palin writing 'tax cuts' on her hand is like Wiley Coyote writing 'Roadrunner' on his paw."

"*Bill Maher on Sarah Palin's impromptu teleprompter: "Sarah Palin writing 'tax cuts' on her hand is like Wiley Coyote writing 'Roadrunner' on his paw."

Thanks aQ, needed that. (But would dearly love to see a "GOP in year 2" starting somewhere. Of course Obama is nowhere near babblers' ideal. Gaia knows, I'm only playing the role of relativist here. But does anyone here think the Great American Unread Taxpayer, Market Player, Soothsayer would have elected him if he were entirely without those redeeming virtues? C'mon, folks here wanted a socialist elected. And ice cream sundaes in hell.

Y'know, George, I think that if you look at what is going on in the GOP more carefully, beneath the sound-bites about cartoon characters like Sarah, you'll see that there's much worse on the horizon, and Obama is responsible for some of it.

The GOP candidates to worry about in the future, I'm guessing, are Petraeus and McChrystal. The Disney show isn't the problem; it's a diversion.

Believe me I feel the fear, skdadl.  I'm only seeking desperately for ANY sign of hopeful, positive political change south of the 49th.  Like maybe Arnie will have seen the tax light?  :)

By the way, just heard on CBC Radio this a.m. an advertising flashback to the advertising campaign of Dwight D. Eisenhower, 195l?  52? He says in response to a question ...like.."is America ready to defend itself>?      And his very FIRM reply was simply "No we are not."

And we all recall his famously quoted concern, eight years later for the growith of the "military industrial complex."    Now there's a changeup.   And it sure as shucks would not be forthcoming from the motley Republican crew today.  They are a completely destructive force.  (Roadrunner on the paw of Wiley Coyote....jeez, just in time).

Chris Hedges

Please have some respect for people who are not the same as you.  Just because my son is intellectually challenged doesn't mean he is anything like Palin and your using his level of ability as an insult is so very tiresome. Your language is no more acceptable than using the "n" word for Obamba. 

My use of the "r" word was topical; it isn't as if I've  ever used it in any other context.

really, there is zero evidence of that;

the last serious military figure in presidential politics was Colin Powell,  in the mid-1990s, and as soon as his non-security domestic positions started being known he was finished among grass-roots Republicans,

despite being routinely ranked as among the 2-3 "most admired" Americans (along w. Oprah);

in fact, a good case could be made that a well-run 1996 campaign for Powell could have edged Clinton, but Powell would have had to spend a lot of effort -- A LOT -- dodging fire from the right

 and the guys above are absolutely unknown to the attention-deficit masses and they show no aptitude for public relations outside Congressional committee rooms, so they are non-starters 

I am so glad you can insult my son and others when you consider it "topical."  So I will say that I am only being "topical" when I note that only assholes with no grasp of the harm their language causes to others use this kind of oppressive language.  The context is a nasty vicious woman who lies from greedy motives is like my son and other intellectually challenged individuals.  Nice context. 

One question;  Do you think it would be topical to use the "b" word to describe her? Sure seems to be just as "topical." 

Yeah al-Q, don't do that. You know better.

I agree: pass the bill!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_democratic_plan_finish_thi.html

 The election of Scott Brown threw the politics of the issue back into chaos, and unlike in past instances, left the process uncertain as well. But Democrats have spent the past few weeks rebuilding the process, and today was the first step: The press will now spend a few days covering the plan itself, rather than just the politics of the issue. Then comes Thursday's summit, and if all goes well there, Harry Reid says that the Senate will use the reconciliation process to make a few tweaks and changes and, alongside the House, finish this bill.

That, of course, is the real plan: finish the bill. The Democrats have been roundly criticized for mishandling the politics of health-care reform, and those criticisms have often been justified. But there's a larger truth, too: The only way to win this issue is to pass the bill.

Occasionally something good happens at the White House.

US President Barack Obama is planning "dramatic reductions" in the country's nuclear arsenal, a senior US administration official has said.

Of course, this amounts to being able to destroy the world only ten times, rather than twenty, but it's progress.

No it is not progress because they are now going to bunker busting technologies and like uranium tipped ammo they will feel no restraints on using them and releasing radiation into the atmosphere unlike the big bombs that even the American military was only crass enough to use twice for maximum terrorist effect.

just to get your logic straight:

having nuclear weapons is very bad, using them is terrible, but getting rid of them or greatly reducing the arsenal, is also bad or at least an illusion leading to other terrible things

doesn't leave us too many options, eh?

When the US stops developing weapons of mass destruction I will praise them, in the meantime I don't buy propaganda items by the Emperor that are designed to obfuscate the real weapons race going on.

so, no point in reducing the large arsenals of nuclear weapons?

OK, glad we straightened that out ...

No point in listening to propaganda designed to get you looking in the wrong direction while the Empire develops even nastier weapons.  I worry about the arsenals they are now building for actual use not the old ones that were built as a deterrent and were never intended to be used.  Getting rid of something you don't intend to use in any circumstances is not progress it is disingenuous militarism.

Read the article. The nuclear bunker buster program is canceled.

Great I hope that is actually the case.  Not like when the democrats closed the School of the Americas by renaming it.

yes, vote - vote! - on the thing now :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?hp

Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes," Mr. Obama said. "And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children's Health Insurance Program [75], that was used for Cobra health coverage for the unemployed and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts - all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority."

Republicans were furious.

Cafeful Dave, we mustn't be too positive regarding the pres.  It would mean the end to thousands of postings finding him the chief architect of workers' hardship south of the 49th, while the GOP Godly get a free ride. Who could we turn to for political "analysis" down there. Sven?  (But by golly it will be great to see the vote results broken down by party and person).

A dozen Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives opposed to abortion say they are willing to bring down President Barack Obama's proposed health-care bill unless tighter language barring funding of the procedure is added.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/04/us-health-reform-abortion.html#ixzz0hETwYAc8

one more time:

enough talk, ram it through:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/09/ram_it_through_mr_p...

Let's see. Joe Biden, VP extrodinaire, about to try again to bring the two parties together for negotiations,  gets slapped in the chops by Netanyahu's release of news about a new settlement to be built in Jerusalem, and one searches desperately for that news hereabouts. 

Perhaps I've missed it in another thread?  Dave?  

How long will it be until we read about Obama's moose hunting trip?

And no matter how he tries to placate Republican "opinion", that opinion has been taken over by bloodthirsty wingnuts and out and out racists.  The poor silly bastard keeps trying though, eh?  But in the face of near-universal ignorance and bigotry in the land of the free, this African American careerist has some wide rivers to cross. He should probably have left the mess to his betters, huh!

Republicans may have shot themselves in both feet as a result.

Latinos aren’t swing voters anymore: For example, 68% of Latinos approve of Obama’s job (compared with 48% of overall respondents and 38% of whites), and they view the Democratic Party favorably by a 54%-21% score (versus 41%-40% among all adults and 34%-48% among whites). And their views of the Republican Party? In the poll, the GOP fav/unfav among Latinos is 22%-44%.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday delivered a victory to U.S. President Barack Obama and gay rights groups by approving a proposal to repeal the law that allows gays to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation.

The 234-194 vote to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected a view among many in Congress that America is ready for a military in which gays and straights can stand side by side in the trenches.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/27/gays-military-american.html#ixzz0pETJqTbs

The Obama administration has unveiled a new national security strategy, saying armed conflict should be a last resort when diplomacy is exhausted.

Also when you can't afford a third war.

Paul Krugman on May 23 in NYTimes: The normal tendency of corporate money is "to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, hawever, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in 'a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury' toward the president, writes John Heilemann of New York magazine. What's going on?"

For one thing, the taxing of people who run the corporations. "The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals." And there's to be some regulatory tightening up. "Yet corporate interests are balking at even modest changes from the permissiveness of the Bush era."

"So what President Obama and his party now face isn't just, or even mainly, an opposition grounded in right-wing populism. For grass-roots anger is being channeled and exploited by corporate interests, which will be the big winners if the G.O.P. does well in November."

Karl Rove is behind the populist ploy to fund the "real Americans" Republican candidates.  "Last week Rand Paul, the Tea Party darling who is now the Republican nominee for senator from Kentucky, declared that the president's criticism of BP over the disastrous oil spill in the gulf is 'un-American,' that 'sometimes accidents happen'."

Krugman says Obama is now in the position of Franklin Roosevelt as he described it in a 1936 speech, "struggling with 'the old enemies of peace- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering'. 

"And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Roosevelt turned corporate opposition into a badge of honor. 'I welcome their hatred,' he declared. It's time for President Obama to find his inner F.D.R. and do the same," says Krugman. 

Although one could say that Roosevelt was waving the populist wand back then.  Now it's Rove pulling the populist strings.  And Obama isn't white. And the south went Republican since FDR. And....

If corporate America hates Obama, then it must be a loving-hate relationship, given the amount of dough the Obama campaign received from corporations. 

From what I understand, Dixie went Republican following Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" of pandering to southern white racism.  Until then, the South was considered a Democrat stronghold.

Johnson's Civil Rights did it to the Dems in Dixie.  Nixon made the shift profitable (industry began the move south).

And Obama did receive lots from the corportations in his campaign. And probably lots still do (Krugman gives the shifting proportion, since then), but that was before the G.O.P. began turning the screws, eh? ANd  he can't, like Rand Paul, declare himself all-American and say that oil spill accidents happen...   

Or is all that somehow unimportant in the babble rating game?

They're only getting most of what they want instead of all of it, and that makes them mad.

quote: "They're only getting most of what they want instead of all of it, and that makes them mad."

"They" (the bosses) hate paying more taxes on their highly inflated (in the past couple of decades they have been paid a hundred times more than the shop floor) earnings. Fancy that.

a good assessment of the changing GOP that Obama faces:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255433/

... since the second Bush left the White House, something different appears to be happening in Republicanland: a shift away from Southern-style conservatism to more of a Western variety. You see this in the figures who have dominated the GOP since Barack Obama's election 19 months ago: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul. You see it in the right's overarching theme: opposition to any expanded role for government, whether in promoting economic recovery, extending health care coverage, or regulating financial markets. You see it most strongly in the Tea Party movement that in recent months has captured the party's imagination and driven its agenda.

Maybe Rand Paul will not now be able to accuse the pres. of being "un-American" for criticizing BP. And maybe Obama now understands the DEPTH of corruption laid down in Bush's 8 years.  And maybe all of America now knows that oil industry claims of infallability were  just as dependable as the formulas used by the world's leading economists. 

And despite all of the insightful observations made hereabouts from rear-view mirror watching, I've yet to see evidence of any predictions about oil or economy predating either catastrophe.  I will eat these words - on toast from hell - if I can be corrected.

I don't know what you mean by "rear-view mirror watching."  Most of us on babble who are critical of Obama now were suspicious of Obama since before he was elected.

I haven't been dissapointed with any of his decisions since taking office, as they've been everything I imagined they would be during his campaign, and so much more.

That country actually has one-party rule made to appear as a two party system for cosmetic purposes. It's the same here in Bananada.

And all predicted that deep-water drilling in the Gulf - as a result of Obama's decisions - would come to this.  Based on "suspicion."

Ot that his GOP opponents would descent to this level of insanity.  Ot that innate racism in the U.S. would take his white support down to this (38%. They  know a bad thing - for them - when they see it). 

Sure. But keep pasting those prescient punditries.

And, Fidel, I agree with you on the bigger picture - there's little difference between those parties, as any student of U.S. political history knows - it's just the bizarre comparisons of Bush and Obama by the Johnny one-notes that demand a response.  But thanks for your attempt to inject objectivity into the prattle of the "progressives."

Obama Under Fire

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/05/obama-backing-deal-lift-globa...

"The Obama administration is leading an effort within the International Whaling Commission to lift a 21 year international ban on commercial whaling for Japan, Norway and Iceland, the remaining three countries in the 88 member commission that still hunt whales.."

Obama just can't help himself. He sees whaling as another opportunty to behave like a conservative so off he goes.

If you've followed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, you've heard the complaints that Obama isn't showing enough emotion. But scholars say Obama's critics ignore a lesson from American history: Many white Americans don't like angry black men.

Now here's something I hadn't thought of as to why Obama might not want to appear too pushy even if it seems like that's what's demanded.

This oil spill has destroyed his presidency. Latest gallup tracking poll has it him at 44-48% net disapproval!! No way in hell does he get re-elected.  I just hope that the GOP doesn't nominate a nutcase like Sarah Palin because the presidency is theirs in 2012. Stick a fork in him. He's done.

I'm actually impressed with how he's handled the oil spill. He's yet to deliver a bill to congress absolving BP of all responsibility, he is exceeding expectations.

BP: Is Team Obama Pushing for a Full Externalities Precedent?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/06/bp-is-team-obama-pushing-for-a-full-externalities-precedent.html

You are talking from polls taken across an incredibly ignorant and naive population.  Perhaps you could break from poll-watching to describe just how Obama engineered the spill, very early in his first term?      And you live in hope of a GOP not dependent on the wingnuts?    Cry for us all.

Oh believe me, I know that it is the policies of George W. Bush and his puppet master Dick Cheney that led to the deregulation that led to the safety lapses that led to this disaster and I know that President Obama had nothing to do with this and would do anything to reverse it.  None of it matters.  The fact is that the American public has turned against him.  I am so very ticked off. With the Kennedy endorsement, I was convinced that we were looking at the re-birth of a progressive liberal democratic party and thought of Barack Obama as the new Bobby Kennedy. 

In reality, what we have is Carter 2.0. He is a politically clueless, inept, tone deaf, and bumbling fool.  The Republican party was on the floor and dying a not so slow painful death.  Obama single handedly resurrected the GOP and has them on the verge of taking back both the house and the senate, an epic achievement-40+ house seat gain and 10 senate seat gain.  He could have used his immense first year popularity to pass a sweeping Canadian style health care law. Instead, he bumbled his way through it and ended up with a plan similar to the 1993 Republican alternative to President Clinton's plan.

He is a fool with no poltical skill whatsoever. I didn't see at the time but the only reason he won was because John Mccain was such an clueless bastard and Sarah Palin was a clueless raging lunatic.  A competent GOP campaign would have ate him for lunch. Without the economic crisis, Mccain woulld be president today. Obama was running the campaign from hell pre Sept-15th. Indeed, USA Today/Gallup had Mccain up by 10! among likely voters on Sept 7, 2008.

The dem party elders need to get him to decide not to run again in 2012.  A new nominee might have a better chance.

And yeah, I do weep as I thought that we were on the cusp of a great new progressive era the likes of which America hasn't seen since FDR. You remember the FDR comparisons back in December 2008 don't you? Instead, we got a guy that is as politically inept as Stephane Dion and no better than Carter politically.

Remember his immense global popularity? Thousands greeting him in Berlin? How beloved he was in Europe/Canada. He's squandered that too.

The guy is a joke and that homicidal maniac party, the rethuglicans, should thank their lucky stars that Obama became president. He saved them. I can't believe I supported him right from the time he announced in February 2007. Boy, boy, was I fooled by a smooth talker. Now, I'll have to endure another 8 years of Republican hell that will eclipse Bush/Cheney I'm sure come 2013.  I am not a happy camper as you can tell.

I still love him personally and hope and pray to god that he can turn things around but he just doesn't seem to have the demeanor or skill that successful popular momentuous 2 term presidents have had.

American politics/policy is a passion of mine. Even more so than Canadian strangely. lol.

Obama is a "fool" and a "joke" but you "still love him personally and hope and pray to god that he can turn things around" ...but there is no mention of how the Great Unr...  the average masses of 'Merica got all confused as to who to blame for the destruction of the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico.  Love to hear how a more aggressively reforming pres. would overcome the rightwing bias of an entire news industry (led by its advertising corporations) and the gormless crew of Democrats who watch only the polling of the masses. Talk about poisonous feedback loops in nature.

Why would one ever compare Obama's 'Merica to a starving nation, angry at all things "big business" , in the time of FDR? Hell, M'Lord Black was very conscious that FDR saved capitalism, and wrote a very good biography on FDR applauding him for that act. As a student of "Merican politics, you'll have to read it sometime.

Obama is and has always been part of America's elite. He doesn't think outside the box because he believes in the right of business to control the world for the benefit of the american elite. The oil spill of course highlighted this since he ran on an anti-drilling platform (couldn't resist the pun) and then he changed his position just weeks before the spill to Drill Baby Drill.  His military reach is only limited by his supply of oil.

Yeah, an "elite" black man. And both Mississippi and Alabama are decrying the new limitations on drilling in the Gulf.

Jesus, Kroppy....

What you think his colour bars him from the american elite?  Tell it to Condie Rice and Colin Powell.

They are additives on a political agenda mate, with one thing in mind....

I agree and the one thing is imperialism.  Unfortunately there have always been people from every background willing to be the oppressor in exchange for the good life. To me it doesn't matter what colour the Harvard or Yale graduate is;  if they go on to serve the interests of the ruling class they are the elite no matter what there background.  Obama grew up in a privileged family and spent his university years at one of the most exclusive conclaves in the US.

He got where he is by being damned bright, and  focused (read his first autobiography and consider the beginnings..."privileged family" be damned) and with the objective of uniting people...of course, using his colour to advantage. But the "elite", of Boston and Texas, and of course attached to finance and industry, have more than "imperialism" to fry. Imperialism is the product of the military-industrial-academic machine that uses such a public figure to its advantage. He has learned that it's not just a matter of finding middle ground,..that he's being allowed to sink in the quicksand - the wasteland - of public opinion. People who hate black and who love guns. Some prospect for the future, eh? White voters of the middle are decamping at a great rate.

And give me the name of the person who's going to be so self-sacrificing as to take up the liberal-ethnic cause in his stead...while also making the pitch  for economic growth and building a green economy, employing folks at more than the sale of goods manufactured in China and India.

C'mon, he's just an easy mark for those without the foggiest idea of how to get out of the capitalist rut ...while our species tries to ignore/stare down armageddon. Who expected him - or anyone - to be capable of turning it all around?  But you can't just throw in the towel, eh?  Not and look the kids in the eye.

You'll do a better job defending King Obama if you do a minimum of research. Obama is the prophet of offshore drilling. BP must have been part of the Palin Plot to Punish and Pummel the President:

Obama to unveil offshore drilling plans for oil, natural gas

That was March 31 - 2010.

It was described by environment-friendly types this way:

Obama Expands Offshore Drilling Far Beyond Bush [121]

And I thought we had all noticed this on babble two years ago:

But slowly, cautiously, he is trying to close the barn door after the horses which he released have gone. I'll give him credit for that, I guess.

But, of course, that leaking well was NOT a result of Obama's move.   He has seen the error of depending on big oil's claims of safety, but the southern white leadership is salivating after the economic benefits of drilling NOW. 

How juvenile to say that he is responsible for what has happened.

Cut out the name calling.

Sheesh.

Closing for length.