### What's with Obama? ###
strik...@mail.com
<nan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Greetings to you all!
>
>Here is a copy of my latest email to keep you all updated. It has
>two articles about Obama and why people HATE his ass so enormously
>today. I truly hope you all enjoy reading them, as I did.
>
>
>### What's with Obama? ###Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:05 PM
>From: "nancy luft" <nan...@yahoo.com>To: "--Turkmenistan"
><tur...@mindspring.com>, "--UAE" <u...@un.int>, "--UK" <u...@un.int>, "--
>Ukraine" <uno...@mfa.gov.ua>, "--Uzbekistan" <in...@uzbekembassy.org>,
>"--Venzuela" <vene...@un.int>, "--Yemen"
><ambas...@yemenembassy.org>, "-Kofi-Annan" <inqu...@un.org>, "--
>Afghanistan" <con...@afghanistan-mfa.net>, "--Armenia"
><arm...@un.int>, "--Australia" <Cons...@AustraliaNYC.org>, "--
>Azerbaijan" <off...@apparat.gov.az>, "--Bahrain"
><new...@bahrainmission.org>, "--Brazil" <loub...@delbrasonu.org>, "--
>China-President-Hu-Jintao" <ch...@un.int>, "--Croatia"
><cromi...@mvp.hr>, "--Cuba" <cu...@un.int>, "--Czech"
><un.ne...@embassy.mzv.cz>, "--Denmark" <lon...@um.dk>, "--Egypt"
><emb...@egyptembdc.org>, "--France" <fra...@un.int>, "--Georgia"
><geo...@un.int>, "--Germany" <ger...@un.int>, "--Hungary"
><hun...@un.int>, "--Iran" <ir...@un.int>, "--Iraq"
><pr...@iraqmofa.net>, "--Israel" <isra...@newyork.mfa.gov.il>, "--
>Italy" <it...@un.int>, "--Japan" <mis...@un-japan.org>, "--Jordan"
><in...@pm.gov.jo>, "--Kazakhstan" <kazak...@un.int>, "--Kuwait"
><kuwait...@msn.com>, "--Lebanon" <in...@consulat-liban.mc>, "--
>Lithuania" <lith...@un.int>, "--Macedonia" <in...@macedonia-un.org>,
>"--Moldova" <unmo...@aol.com>, "--NorthKorea"
><dprke...@hotmail.com>, "--Pakistan" <Paki...@un.int>, "--
>Palestine" <ma...@palestine-un.org>, "--Poland"
><General...@PolandUN.org>, "--Qatar" <qat...@qatarmission.org>,
>"--Romania" <mis...@romaniaun.org>, "--Russia" <ru...@un.int>, "--
>SaudiArabia" <Saudi-...@un.int>, "--Serbia-Montenegro" <Serbia-
>Monte...@un.int>, "--Slovakia" <slov...@un.int>, "--Slovenia"
><slov...@un.int>, "--Syria" <ambas...@syrianembassy.ca>, "--Turkey"
><turku...@un.int>Cc: "news--abc" <net...@abc.com>, "news--cbs"
><eve...@cbsnews.com>, "news--fox" <comm...@foxnews.com>, "news--nbc"
><nig...@NBC.com>, "news--newsweek" <let...@newsweek.com>, "news--
>time" <let...@time.com>, "news--tnt" <t...@turner.com>, "news-
>Friedman" <edit...@nytimes.com>, "news-K-R-M"
><cfele...@newscorp.com>, "news-K-R-Murdoch" <rno...@newscorp.com>,
>"news-K-Rupert-Murdoch" <teve...@newscorp.com>, "news-Keith-Rupert-
>Murdoch" <abut...@newscorp.com>, "talk--Bill-OReilly"
><ore...@foxnews.com>, "talk-afranken" <afra...@airamericaradio.com>,
>"talk-ArtBell" <art...@mindspring.com>, "talk-edschultz"
><we...@edschultzshow.com>, "talk-malloy" <mi...@mikemalloy.com>, "talk-
>rrhodes" <rrh...@airamericaradio.com>, "talk-rush" <ru...@eibnet.com>,
>"talk-sedition" <sedi...@airamericaradio.com>, "-Obama"
><pres...@whitehouse.gov>, "-Biden" <vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov>,
>"-Feingold" <russell_...@feingold.senate.gov>, "-Hatch"
><senato...@hatch.senate.gov>, "-Leahy"
><senato...@leahy.senate.gov>, "-Lott"
><senat...@lott.senate.gov>, "-Lugar"
><senato...@lugar.senate.gov>, "-Mccain"
><john_...@mccain.senate.gov>, "-Rockefeller"
><sen...@rockefeller.senate.gov>, "-Sensenbrenner"
><sensen...@mail.house.gov>, "-Warner" <sen...@warner.senate.gov>,
>"DOJ" <Ask...@usdoj.gov>, "news---washingtonpost"
><let...@washpost.com>, "news--20/20" <20...@abc.com>, "news--dateline"
><date...@nbc.com>, "news--niteline" <nite...@abc.com>, "news--
>primetime" <abc.news....@abc.com>, "news--thisweek"
><this...@abc.com>, "news-60min" <6...@cbsnews.com>Bcc: "vip-allen"
><in...@pgafamilyfoundation.org>, "vip-gates"
><un...@gatesfoundation.org>, "vip-oprah" <Opra...@oprah.com>, "-------
>Abunimah" <abuni...@yahoo.com>, "-----nan" <nan...@yahoo.com>,
>"-----Nancy" <nanc...@hotmail.com>, "----EMHE" <feed...@emhe.tv>,
>"----OrgIslamicConf" <o...@un.int>, "----Rahul"
><ra...@empirenotes.org>
>Greetings to you all!
>
>
>What's with Obama? Well, you fucking foreigners most likely just do
>not understand what is going on here inside of the USA with Obama ...
>therefore please read the following articles about that all.
>
>
>OpEdNews
>Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Now-I-m-Really-Getting-Pis-by-David-Michael-Gree-091219-496.html
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>December 19, 2009
>Now I'm Really Getting Pissed Off
>By David Michael Green
>Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf,
>and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately?
>
>No, as a matter of fact I'm not talking about Tiger Woods.
>
>You know, I've really been trying not to write an article every other
>week about all the things I don't like about Barack Obama.
>
>But the little prick is making it very hard.
>
>Like any good progressive, I've gone from admiration to hope to
>disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I'm fast
>getting to rage.
>
>How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from
>the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even
>if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is
>for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin
>at the helm. That much rage.
>
>Did this clown really say on national television that "I did not run
>for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on
>Wall Street"?!?!
>
>Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you
>help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell
>did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in
>all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow
>them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing?
>Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers,
>rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be
>suffering badly right now?
>
>Are you freakin' kidding me??? What's up with the passive president
>routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the
>world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat
>cat bankers don't actually let do that whole decision-making thing
>often enough that it would actually matter...
>
>But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years
>perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don't really think I could
>bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you
>have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.
>
>Are you going to tell us that "I did not run for office to be shovel-
>feeding the military-industrial complex"? But what they're just so
>darned pushy?
>
>"...I did not run for office to continue George Bush's valiant effort
>at shredding the Bill of Rights. It's just that those government-
>limiting rules are so darned pesky."
>
>"...I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the
>coffers of health insurance companies. It's just that they asked so
>nicely."
>
>"...I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I
>just never got around to doing anything about it."
>
>"...I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just
>didn't want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more
>troops."
>
>Here's a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his
>presidency, and he's turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block
>D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the
>fellas with the tattoos there. He's being punked by John Boehner, for
>chrisakes. He's being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a
>come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them
>literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese
>prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr.
>Happy.
>
>And he doesn't even seem to realize it.
>
>Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself "a good solid B+" for
>his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his
>healthcare legislation passed?
>
>Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?
>
>I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has
>lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less
>than a year's time, falling now below fifty percent. His party, once
>dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today
>almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month,
>Obama's inverted coattails (don't even ask where those go) got two
>Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia.
>The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that
>in Kentucky, "a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a
>state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats
>have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12
>points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington". Wow. Obama
>is now wrecking state senate races! What's next? Will local Republican
>candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment
>in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to
>fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers?
>
>"For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said
>Democratic pollster Peter Hart in a recent AP article. "What we don't
>know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?"
>
>Au contraire, Peter. Au contraire. I think anyone more sentient than a
>newborn amoeba can answer that question. The first thing to note is
>that the economy is not coming back anytime soon, if it comes back at
>all. Unless, of course, you're a fat cat Wall Street banker. Then
>you're just fine, because the Bush-Obama administration took care of
>you quite nicely, thanks very much. The rest of us poor slobs out here
>in real-world land, on the other hand, got a "jobs summit".
>
>I can't even begin to describe how insulting Obama conducting a "jobs
>summit" is to me, or what an unbelievably ham-fisted piece of public
>relations that was for the White House, which is increasingly showing
>itself not just to be sickeningly regressive, but also fully inept. I
>think I speak for a whole lot of Americans when I say that, one year
>into his stewardship over a destroyed economy that was actually
>atomizing for at least six months before inauguration day, I don't
>want my president sitting around a table, running a dog-and-pony show,
>pretending to kick around ideas on how to generate jobs. I wanted him
>to have those ideas, himself, before he was inaugurated. I wanted
>those to be real ideas, that produce real jobs for real Americans who
>are really hurting. I wanted that to be, and still be, the be-all and
>end-all of his presidency, not some distant fourth-place priority,
>behind healthcare and the White House dog selection process. And,
>especially not some fourth-place priority behind jive healthcare
>reform.
>
>Which brings us to the second answer to Mr. Hart's question. If
>Democrats think they'll be screwed next November because of
>unemployment, wait till Congress passes this healthcare monstrosity.
>Or doesn't. At this point, either way they're gonna get slammed for
>it, and rightly so.
>
>If they don't pass anything, they will be seen as unable to govern.
>This perception will be quite true because they will have failed to
>pass a major piece of legislation, despite having 60-40 majorities in
>both houses of Congress and control of the presidency. It doesn't get
>much better than that for a governing party in the American system.
>But it will be true in an even more profound sense, because the whole
>priority structure of the Democratic agenda is wrong. Sure, people
>want healthcare reform right now (especially if it were to
>miraculously also have the virtue of being authentic healthcare
>reform), but what they really want, overwhelmingly, is jobs. This
>choice of priorities is the equivalent of, say, invading Iraq when
>you've been attacked by people in Afghanistan. Surely no president
>would be that stupid, right? Surely any political party would realize
>the costs of having priorities so divorced from those of the voters,
>right?
>
>On the other hand, the Democrats and their hapless president are
>probably in worse shape if they actually pass this legislation.
>Especially now that it's been stripped of nearly every real
>progressive reform imaginable, it has become an incredibly stupid
>bill, from the political perspective. It will force people who can't
>afford it to spend a giant amount of money on lousy insurance, without
>any real choice to hold down costs, and it will fund this by hacking
>away at the Medicare budget. No wonder an insurance industry lobbyist
>broadcast an email last week declaring: "We WIN. Administered by
>private insurance companies. No government funding. No government
>insurance competitor."
>
>But here's a little riddle that any sixth-grader can easily figure
>out, although it seems to have eluded the brain trust at the White
>House: If insurance companies are winning big-time, then who is doing
>the losing? Something tells me that if Democrats are dumb enough to
>pass their own legislation, voters will provide them the answer to
>that puzzle in November of 2010, and then again two years later. What
>could be stupider than saddling thirty-five million Americans with a
>new monthly bill that will probably represent the second or third
>biggest item in their budget, in exchange for crappy private sector
>health insurance that is unlikely to pay out when needed, and wastes a
>third of the dollars paid in premiums on bureaucracy and profits
>anyhow? Slapping big fines on them if they don't pony up for the
>insurance, perhaps? Yep, that's in there too.
>
>This bill alone could mobilize legions of people to go to the polls
>and vote for whichever party didn't do it, and I'm pretty sure the GOP
>won't be shy about reminding Americans who that is. I mean, if
>Democrats were searching for legislation less likely to win them
>votes, why didn't they just bring back slavery or the debtor's prison?
>Why not come out for pedophilia? It would have been so much more
>efficient. At least they wouldn't have spent the last year looking
>like idiotic bunglers who, in addition to sponsoring really unpopular
>ideas, also inadvertently left their testicles at the coat check and
>have spent the last thirty years trying to find their way back to the
>gala.
>
>Ah, but wait! If you order now, there's more!
>
>As I understand it, the bill doesn't even actually force insurance
>companies to cover people, at least in the sense that they can charge
>prohibitive amounts to those with whatever they define as pre-existing
>conditions. You know, like the young woman who had a policy but died
>when she was denied cancer treatment because she had a bad case of
>acne as a teenager.
>
>This will be a total train wreck for the Democratic Party. Already,
>the public opposes the plan by a ratio of 47 to 32 percent. And they
>haven't even been handed the bill for it yet. And they haven't even
>had their premiums skyrocket yet. And they haven't even seen insurance
>corporation executives buy small countries for use as second homes
>with the increased compensation they will be floating in. And they
>haven't even found out what this does to their Medicare yet. And they
>haven't even seen the impact on the national debt yet. And they
>haven't even realized that the "good' parts of the bill don't go into
>effect until FOUR YEARS from now.
>
>You know, elite Republicans may be sociopaths, and they may be lower
>on the moral totem pole than your basic cannibal, but they're not
>stupid. I bet they're salivating at the idea that this thing passes. I
>bet they'd even have Olympia Snowe vote for it if necessary, just to
>put it over the top. They must be laughing their asses off at this
>gift. All they have to do is oppose it right down the line, then say
>"Told ya so!" at the next election, squashing the pathetic Demognats,
>one after the next. Hey, even if worse comes to worse and the thing
>eventually becomes popular, they can always wait a decade or two and
>become champions of the new publically beloved healthcare system just
>like they did for Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, etc.
>
>This is President Nothingburger's great gift to America, along with
>doing nothing about jobs, doing nothing about the Middle East, nothing
>about civil liberties, nothing about civil rights, and now doing
>nothing at Copenhagen. Regarding the latter, the world is literally on
>fire, and he jets in, gives a speech haranguing the delegates that
>"Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action", then
>splits even before the vote in order to beat the snowstorm headed to
>the east coast that might delay him getting home to his comfy bed. I'm
>not kidding. You can't make this shit up, man.
>
>This guy is killing me, though at the same time I still can't quite
>figure him out.
>
>Here's what I get: This president is a corporate hack. Like Bush or
>Clinton, he has constituents, alright but you and I are not on that
>particular list.
>
>Here's what I don't get: He is radically tanking, at a moment when
>people no longer have patience for those kind of politics anymore.
>
>Here's what I get: This president has his fingers in many pies, as he
>needs to, ranging from global warming to economic implosion to two
>wars abroad to massive federal debt.
>
>Here's what I don't get: Why does he bother to do these things in a
>way that pleases no one, and only dramatically undercuts his own
>political standing? Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus
>making everyone his enemy?
>
>Is he just massively deluded? I wouldn't have thought so, but watching
>the guy give himself a very good grade for 2009 straight face and all
>during the same year he's lost twenty points off his job approval
>rating, and at a moment when even blacks and gays are deserting him,
>you know, you have to wonder.
>
>Is he happy just to be a one-term president just to say he's been
>there and done that, and then sell some more books even if he is
>reviled as one of the worst in history?
>
>Maybe. But what about the rest of us?
>
>The rest of us, indeed. It's been quite some time since anyone in the
>White House ever cared about that sorry pack of rabble.
>
>Obama looked like he could've been something different. He ain't.
>
>So this is it, folks.
>
>Change you can believe in?
>
>More like bullshit you can take a bath in, if you ask me.
>
>
>
>
>Author's Website: www.regressiveantidote.net
>
>Author's Bio: ?David Michael Green is a professor of political science
>at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive
>readers' reactions to his articles (d...@regressiveantidote.net), but
>regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. His
>website is www.regressiveantidote.net.
>
>Back
>
>
>
>OpEdNews
>Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Obama-Is-Failing-by-Robert-Parry-091219-750.html
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>December 19, 2009
>Why Obama Is Failing
>By Robert Parry
>Reprinted from Consortium News
>
>A year ago, as Barack Obama was assembling his administration, he was
>at a crossroads with two paths going off in very different directions:
>one would have led to a populist challenge to the Washington/New York
>political-economic establishments; the other called for collaboration
>and cajoling.
>Faced with a dire financial crisis and two foreign wars not to mention
>a host of long-festering problems like health care, the environment,
>debt and de-industrialization Obama's choice was not an easy one.
>
>If he took the populist route and further panicked the financial
>markets, the nation and the world might have plunged into a new
>Depression with massive unemployment.
>
>There were also political dangers if he chose the populist path. The
>national news media rests almost entirely in the hands of corporate
>"centrists" and right-wing ideologues, who would have framed the
>issues in the most negative way, blaming the "radical" Obama for
>"wealth destroying."
>
>This media problem dates back a quarter century as American
>progressives have mostly turned a deaf ear to those calling for a
>major investment in media and other institutions inside the Washington
>Beltway, as a way to counter the dominance of the Right and the
>Establishment.
>
>So, if Obama had nationalized one or more of the major banks, the
>stock market would likely have dived even more than it did in early
>2009. And there would have been lots of commentary about the
>inexperienced and inept Obama making matters worse.
>
>He would have confronted media denunciations as a "socialist" or
>worse. The CNBC "free-market" crowd, led by Larry Kudlow, would have
>used their influential forum to rally the business sector; Fox News
>would have cited nationalization as proof they were right about the
>"communist" Obama; Washington Post editorials would have chastised
>him.
>
>A new Depression might well have been pinned on Obama.
>
>Similarly, if Obama had ordered aggressive investigations into torture
>and other crimes committed by George W. Bush and his administration,
>there would have been howls about Obama's vindictiveness; about how
>his promises of bipartisanship had been lies; about coddling
>terrorists.
>
>Given the tiny size and marginal influence of the progressive media,
>any cheers for Obama's courage and principles would have been drowned
>out by the condemnations that would have bellowed forth from CNN, Fox
>News, the Washington Post and other powerful media voices.
>
>In other words, the populist route would have traversed some very
>dangerous territory. At least superficially, the collaborationist
>route looked less daunting.
>
>By continuing Bush's policies of bailing out the banks, Obama might
>succeed in stabilizing the financial markets. He could reverse the
>collapse of the stock markets (which had wiped out trillions of
>dollars invested in middle-class retirements and union pension funds,
>as well as the paper wealth of many rich people and top executives).
>
>By reaching out to Republicans and Democratic "centrists" on health
>reform and by adding lots of tax cuts to his stimulus bill Obama also
>could blunt right-wing attacks portraying him as a crazed radical. By
>"looking forward, not backward" on Bush's crimes, he could show
>independent voters that he was serious about his campaign promises
>regarding bipartisanship.
>
>By retaining Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Washington
>Establishment favorite) and by recruiting his primary opponent Hillary
>Clinton as Secretary of State, he could win applause from the
>mainstream media for his "team of rivals" and maybe win over a few
>influential neoconservatives who would see these hawkish appointments
>as continuity for Bush's war policies.
>
>The Triangulators
>
>This course also would mean turning to Bill Clinton's retreads, from
>John Podesta as transition chief to Rahm Emanuel for White House chief
>of staff. After all, the Clintonistas had defined the strategy of
>"triangulating" against the Democratic "base" to win a measure of
>approval from the Washington/New York powers-that-be.
>
>Indeed, choosing the collaborationist route would mean replaying much
>of the Clinton playbook: reject calls for accountability on the
>outgoing Republicans; treat anyone who wants to know the full story of
>the GOP crimes as extreme; join in covering up Republican wrongdoing
>in hopes of some reciprocity; continue most of the foreign policy
>initiatives to avoid charges of "softness"; behave "responsibly" on
>domestic matters even in the face of GOP attacks and obstructionism;
>devise a health-reform plan that protects the interests of private
>insurers.
>
>This collaborationist course could even cite repudiation of the "base"
>as further proof of Obama's moderation.
>
>Sure, these moves would anger Obama's core supporters from 2008, but
>where would the "base" go? Maybe, Obama could rely on the memories of
>the Bush years and warnings about a prospective Sarah Palin presidency
>to keep the progressives in line.
>
>Understandably, in December 2008, this collaborationist path looked
>the most inviting. With a few minor deviations, it became the one that
>Obama followed.
>
>The subsequent problems were largely predictable, though compounded by
>some of the inexperienced President's unforced errors.
>
>By giving Bush's team a pass on torture and other war crimes even
>protecting them via "the state secret privilege" Obama got no thanks
>from the Republicans, just as Clinton got no reciprocity for giving
>Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush a pass on Iran-Contra, Iraqgate,
>October Surprise and other scandals from that era. [See Robert Parry's
>Secrecy & Privilege.]
>
>Also, by turning on people who had honorably pressed for the truth
>about the Bush-II-era scandals much like Clinton did to honest
>investigators from the Reagan-Bush-I era Obama undercut and alienated
>these potential allies.
>
>By choosing continuity over change on foreign policy, Obama like Bill
>Clinton failed to apply any real brake on the military-industrial
>complex which has been draining the U.S. Treasury for six decades
>while entangling the United States in foreign wars.
>
>By seeking "common ground" on the economy, Obama ended up owning the
>bank bailout and got stuck with a watered-down stimulus that still
>drew nearly unanimous Republican opposition, much as the Republicans
>voted en bloc against Clinton's deficit-reduction plan in 1993.
>
>Though Obama's modest stimulus bill appears to have helped stanch the
>bleeding on unemployment, GOP lawmakers and their right-wing media
>allies nevertheless brand it a failure and a waste of money.
>
>Maneuvering on Health Reform
>
>On health reform, Obama sought to avoid the pitfalls that crippled
>Clinton's effort in 1993-94. However, Obama actually replicated many
>of Clinton's key mistakes, albeit with a few tactical differences,
>such as giving Congress the lead rather than having the White House
>compile its own legislative package.
>
>Substantively, Obama's and Clinton's approaches had many similarities.
>Instead of proposing a single-payer "Medicare for all" system, they
>sought to protect the private insurance industry while devising
>complicated jerry-rigged "reforms" to the system.
>
>Because of the complexities of both reform strategies, Republicans and
>other opponents mocked the plans for their number of pages, while
>still blasting them as "socialistic government takeovers." Then came
>the inevitable compromises that made the bills even more confusing and
>unappealing.
>
>Clinton and Obama also made political mistakes. Clinton imposed
>excessive secrecy in having First Lady Hillary Clinton assemble the
>package behind closed doors. For his part, Obama failed to demonstrate
>forceful presidential leadership in guiding the legislation through
>Congress.
>
>Obama allowed his initial deadlines for congressional action before
>the August recess to slip so Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max
>Baucus could pursue pointless negotiations with three Republicans. By
>the time Baucus realized that Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and others
>were playing him for a fool, the Right had built a powerful
>"grassroots" movement of its own to fight any reform.
>
>Then, rather than getting angry with "centrist" Senate Democrats who
>held health reform hostage by threatening to join a Republican
>filibuster, Obama catered to them, granting concession after
>concession. Like any negotiation from weakness, Obama only invited
>more demands from more hold-outs.
>
>The most galling case for the Democratic "base" was Obama's
>capitulation to Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, who had been Bush's
>favorite Democrat on the Iraq War and who had switched to Independent
>after losing a Democratic primary in 2006. He then backed Sen. John
>McCain for President and questioned Obama's patriotism, before
>accepting a spot in the Democratic caucus this year and keeping a
>committee chairmanship.
>
>For his vote on health care, Lieberman demanded that a "public option"
>even one with a trigger be dropped. Senate Democrats then replaced it
>with one of Lieberman's own ideas, letting uninsured Americans 55 to
>64 buy into Medicare. But Lieberman then repudiated his own plan,
>saying he would filibuster unless it was removed, too.
>
>So, White House chief of staff Emanuel told the Senate leadership to
>surrender to Lieberman's demands no matter how inconsistent they might
>be. The Obama administration also has been pandering to other
>"centrists," like Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who wants strict
>language against women obtaining abortions through a subsidized
>insurance system.
>
>Yet, while fawning over these "centrists," Obama's team has been
>following the Clinton playbook toward the "base," reserving the only
>flashes of anger for progressives who complain that the giveaways have
>gone too far.
>
>Clinton immortalized this classic triangulation maneuver when he
>ostracized an African-American hip-hop artist named Sister Souljah who
>was perceived as his ally.
>
>This week, in a similar Sister Souljah moment, White House spokesman
>Robert Gibbs called former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean
>"irrational" after Dean finally threw up his hands in disgust at the
>Senate's overly compromised health bill. Instead, Dean urged Democrats
>to circumvent the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster by using
>"reconciliation" to pass as many real reforms as possible.
>
>As progressives hailed Dean's rebellion, the Obama administration
>rolled out its big guns to pound away at its own disaffected
>supporters -- and demand that they get in line behind the health bill
>even if it has been gutted of nearly all the reforms that progressives
>favored.
>
>Less-Traveled Path
>
>While the end game for the health bill is still playing out, the
>result does not look promising for Obama.
>
>After making health reform his top domestic priority and finding no
>bipartisanship Obama holds out as his best hope that he will sign a
>bastardized piece of legislation that will force tens of millions of
>Americans to sign up for private insurance that they may not want or
>can't afford.
>
>Even if there is such a signing ceremony, Obama has managed to
>demoralize and alienate his "base." He's compounded that problem with
>the perception that he has catered to the big banks on their bailouts
>and pandered to neoconservatives by escalating the war in Afghanistan
>and inserting Bush-like arguments in his Nobel Peace Prize speech.
>
>After all the compromising and concessions, Obama and the Democrats
>are now looking at disaster in the congressional races for 2010. The
>millions of voters who were inspired by Obama's call for change in
>2008 are disillusioned if not embittered. Many are likely to stay home
>next fall.
>
>By contrast, the Republicans are brimming with confidence. They're
>sure they can blame all the nation's problems on Obama and ride the
>wave of right-wing enthusiasm to a victory reminiscent of 1994 when
>the Democrats were routed from the House and Senate, leaving Clinton
>to struggle on trying to stay "relevant" and avoid impeachment.
>
>In retrospect, the more challenging path at last year's crossroads
>might have been the politically preferable one after all. While it
>would have upset the Washington/New York apple cart, Obama could have
>pinned the blame for America's ills on the Republicans and tied them
>to the lobbyists and bankers.
>
>Even in the face of economic troubles, he might have kept the
>excitement alive among his supporters and put public pressure on
>Congress to enact meaningful reforms. If the Republicans still
>obstructed, he could have turned his rhetorical skills against them
>and pressed for bigger Democratic majorities in 2010.
>
>But Obama is not the only one to blame for not taking the path less
>traveled a year ago. Most well-to-do progressives continue to keep
>their wallets closed when it comes to building the kind of small-d
>democratic media-political infrastructure that is needed inside the
>Washington Beltway.
>
>By failing to do the hard work of building institutions, the
>progressive community has largely sidelined itself, sitting in the
>stands and booing the players on the field. In other words, much needs
>to be done and not just by Obama to set the United States on a
>different course.
>
>
>
>Author's Website: http://www.consortiumnews.com
>
>Author's Bio: Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in
>the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book,
>Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq,
>can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
>Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the
>Press & 'Project Truth.'
>
>
>Back
>
>
>
>
Ms. Luft's article is very well.
striker
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>