Red Planet's picture

    Obama/Biden Whine About Progressive "Whiners"

    What else can I say? Except this:

    Tom Friedman got something right today. Wait! Wait! Stifle that nausea response. He didn't get much else right in today's NYT Op-Ed, but he said that the country is looking for a leader "...with the ability to lead in the face of uncertainty and not simply whine about how tough things are..."

    Mr. Obama. That's why we elected you. We thought.

    Comments

    I suspect that we whiners are being set up, Red Planet.  If things go really badly in November, we'll be blamed for not turning out in greater numbers.  If they go less badly than the already diminished expectations being set, they'll say they did it in spite of us.  In the face of adversity, I suspect that Obama and the party in general are getting exactly what they want, so far as legislation goes.


    Here's my problem, destor23. With all my heart I won't to believe your assessment is wrong. But the facts "on the ground" tell me you're right.

    We're not engaged in a struggle between "Ds" and "Rs." We're engaged in a struggle to unseat corporate control of a government intended to be of, by and for the people. What underlies the disillusionment we're experiencing is this. In 2008, we thought we'd elected a group of Ds who would take the fight to the corporations. But we were wrong.

    If corporate money owns us, who cares whether it's clothed in Democratic or Republican clothing? That's the source of the "enthusiasm gap." At least, that's the source of my "enthusiasm gap."


    Agreed. It looks like corporate Dems are positioning themselves to scapegoat Progressives following the election. And if Clintonian wisdom holds firm, they will have more cover to continue on their corporate course if Republicans gain control of Congress.

    Democratic leaders -- especially Obama and Reid -- will be directly responsible for losses in the upcoming election. Berating their base will only make those losses worse.

    Hopefully we can expose them in their hippie punching and prove Clintonian wisdom wrong.

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/29/a-battle-of-ideolgies-not-cu...


    I don't think there can be any doubt about what that "stop your whining" whining is all about and it's to place blame for what the corporate Dems have wrought.

    Beginning with his flip flop on the FISA bill in the summer of 2008 Obama hasn't given the time of day to progressives, liberals, the left, whatever you want to call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.  Since being sworn in, Obama has shown nothing but arrogant disdain for thos who expected him to actually try and do the things he said he would do.  He and his administration have behaved alternately as though the hippies were second class citizens whose function was to write checks, cheer on cue and shut the fuck up otherwise. 

    The only hippie group that has refused to stay in it's assigned place is the GLBT community regarding DADT and marriage equality and good for them!  They have gone about it more intelligently than the rest of the left who mostly remained silent until the corporate special interest version of health insurance reform was passed.  And even the GLBT community gets little more than lip service from Obama who didn't do all he could to push the repeal of DADT through the Senate, who continues to have his DOJ actively resist Federal court rulings throwing DADT out and who continues to officially oppose marriage equality.

    The rest of the left gets nothing but the contempt of the President and his minions if they aren't cheerleading and for those who dare to criticize they engage in setting up and knocking down the straw man argument that the left is upset that Obama didn't do "everything" they wanted "overnight".  Nobody has ever complained about or even hinted that they were upset with Obama for not getting "everything" done overnight.  That's hogwash and a willful attempt to avoid discussing the substantive criticisms of the Obama adminstration which are essentially that he hasn't actually even tried to implement the things he promised he would fight for.  Had he even attempted to bring real change in any number of areas people wouldn't be so angry but the fact is he hasn't even tried.

    They roll out the old shibboleth that the White House was only being "realistic" and "pragmatic" by cutting deals with the worst special interests instead of even attempting to do what is right.  Well, that argument only works if you actually made any honest, energetic attempt to do the right thing and Obama's administration simply did nothing of the sort whether on the stimulus, healthcare overall, financial reform, credit card reform, the public option, an actual liberal for Supreme Court, transparency, torture, you name it.  The total lack of sincerity and the arrogant belief that Democrats should be satisfied, nay overjoyed at whatever tiny bones get thrown their way once the corporate special interests have been served is a perfect example of how tone deaf and out of touch Obama and company really are. 

    Intellectually they understand the country "is hurting" but the fact is none of them actually know anyone who has lost their job and their home and their pension.  Neither Obama, Summers, Geithner, the loathsome Rahm, or any of the rest of them have any fear of losing their jobs or being economically insecure.  Not a single one of those rich bastards know anything about what it is like for hundreds of millions of us who understand that as far as getting laid off goes well... there but for the grace of God go I!

    For the record: the complaint is not that Obama hasn't been perfect.  It isn't that he hasn't done "everything".  Nor is the comlaint that the left is "frustrated with the pace of change."  The fact is, the left is upset because there has not been one bit of substantive change of the kind we all demanded in 2008 and we all know is still necessary if we are to restore stability and prosperity to our working and middle class citizens.  You can trot out the list of minor accomplishments that any adminstration could produce after two years or tje watered down contenders for change like the stimulus bill and healthcare but even those bills were undermined by the President and his administration through their inexplicable fetishization for giving away the store in order to claim bipartisan support and their obsession with making nice with a dishonest enemy every on earth except Obama knows doesn't negotiate in good faith. 

    The real problem here is that the President clearly is not an agent of change at all. 

    If he actually believes the minor legislative victories he has achieved counts as anything like the substantive change people voted for in 2008 then he is sadly mistaken.  And if he thinks the dirty fucking hippies out here who he loves to bash are stupid enough to fall for that set of excuses then he's even more naive than I thought.  Nobody, but nobody anywhere would use the words "bold" or "dramatic" to describe the legislative accomplishments he has gotten passed.  Nothing he has done has been bold or dramatic and that's a huge part of the reason people are so disenchanted and disaffected.  Had he at least tried it would be very different.  But people aren't that stupid.  Everyone knows very well he made no attempt to make good on his major campaign promises.  Pretending that the things he has done are the things people voted for or that they are even "just the beginning" truly insults the intelligence of the millions who invested so much hope in Obama.  It's quite clear that Obama thinks we should all be thrilled that he sold out his base on every major campaign promise and got little or nothing of what we sought by backing him.  It's that out of touch arrogance that spawned the enthusiasm gap and that is bringing about the electoral disaster coming in November.  Obama knows it, won't take responsibilty and needs a scapegoat and thus the offensive scolding of the base and all the whining about how we need to stop whining.  You reap what you sow Mr. President.


    Glad you brought up the FISA flip-flop, oleeb. That happened as soon as it became clear that he'd won the Democratic primary. That's when the canary died. The arrogance of his unresponsiveness to an upwelling of concern, expressed on his own Web site, was breathtaking.

    But we didn't have any alternatives then, did we? What, we were going to throw our support to that patriotic corporate puppet from Arizona? 

    We also didn't know then what we know now. Which is that Obama is just as deep in the corporate bag as the rest of them.

    But now we do know. We know that FISA was a precurser, not an anomaly. Now he has succeeded in pissing away the opportunity of a lifetime to turn the country back from the brink of corporate ownership and wingnut ignorance. Now there's no excuse for just accepting Obama's new campaign bullshit at face value.

    I don't care whether he's a corporate whore who can give a stemwinding liberal speech, or whether he's just not competent to get the job done. If we want real change in America, we've got to start looking beyond Barack Obama. 

    Or, in the immortal words of a former president, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."



    What's frustrating about Obama is that his campaign-trail rhetoric showed that he knew -- KNEW -- that the system was broken and the voting public were relying on him to fix it. He promised to escape the Washington bubble, to break the power of lobbyists to write legislation, to end not only the senseless wars but the mindset that created them.

    Those were his literal words. That language was inspired and inspiring, and it resonated. He was elected with a unique mandate and he would have had the public with him if he had challenged both the Republicans and the old guard of his own party. Instead, he settled for whatever policies met the low bar set by the Liebermans, Nelsons and Baucuses.

    He's still a smart man, and maybe the departures of Rahm, Axelrod and others will inspire him to chart a bolder course for the next six years. I simply don't know. Meanwhile, if I were an American voter, I'd be looking for the lesser evil to support in November. In virtually all cases, that's the Democratic nominee. Maybe Crist and Murkowski are practical strategic alternatives.


    Shortly before the FISA vote, I wrote an op-ed column for one of my host newspapers explaining why Obama needed to stand firm on that issue.  (Hope the link below works for non-subscribers.)  Like many citizens, I'm on record for doing all that I could to communicate with my former candidate and his political party. On that issue, and many others.

    http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=783&Art...


    ...whatever you want to call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

    So there are true Democrats and the imposters?  A moderate or a conservative Democrat are Democrats?  Yet you willing to take their votes in order to achieve a majority? 

    He and his administration have behaved alternately as though the hippies were second class citizens whose function was to write checks, cheer on cue and shut the fuck up otherwise.

    Maybe they haven't asked y'all hippes to shut the fuck up otherwise but criticize the administration in a way that takes into account the realities on the ground.  Of course it is an oligarchy.  Always has been.  And it will be so for decades most likely. 

    For the record: the complaint is not that Obama hasn't been perfect.  It isn't that he hasn't done "everything".  Nor is the comlaint that the left is "frustrated with the pace of change."  The fact is, the left is upset because there has not been one bit of substantive change of the kind we all demanded in 2008 and we all know is still necessary if we are to restore stability and prosperity to our working and middle class citizens.

    The road back to stability and prosperity without returning to the old system which was built on things like the housing bubble and exploitation of third world countries is easier said than done.  The real path requires a rethinking of public-private sector relationships, namely government intervention in the way the private sector does its business.  A rethinking that a good swath of Americans are unwilling to do.  This is along the same lines of how many of the left won't accept the general unpopularity of a general bail out of foreclosures.  Which usually leads to a statement that the government should ignore the general sentiment, while at the same time rolling out some poll about how the majority of americans wanted a public option and thus how government should listen to the voice of the people.

    What will bring this stability and prosperity? A larger stimilus?  There is too much sentiment against increasing the deficit.  Taking on the Wall Street?  The private sector is still supreme in this country.  These are realities that we must deal with when looking for the change we want.

    Speaking of which...

    The most recent victory in the courts around DADT came from Log Cabin Republicans, not the hippies.  Where were the hippies?  Why did they wait around for some republicans to be the change we believe in? These are the people who would just call the "dishonest enemy."

    The short of it is that maybe if the "hippies" were engaged in working toward change that can happen, rather than looking for some pie-in-the-sky overturning of the oligarchy and the militiary-industrial complex in two years time, we would be in a better place than we are now.  For example, if the "hippies" of Maine has gotten up and flexed their muscles in Maine, Snowe and Collins may have joined in with a public option.  But apparently Snowe and Maine have no fear of the "hippies" walking away and staying home.  Or maybe that is exactly what they are counting on.  Maybe they saw how quickly the "hippies" turned on their party.

    The real problem here is that the President clearly is not an agent of change at all.

    Maybe the real problem here is how do we define what change is.  We have a corporate-dominated economic system, along with its corresponding white heterosexual Christian patriarchy, that has been in place for all intents and purposes from the get-go.  Fundamental change in this system, these dynamics, will take a decade if not a generation.  The only way that can happen is that those most likely to help that process along stay in power for more than two years.  

    And this is where the Bidens of the world are coming from when they use such terms as whining.  As long as the farmer in Nebraska is going to side with the corporate big shot against any move toward a socialist agenda, it going to be a while before we have the change that we all wanted when we voted for Obama in 2008.  That Obama works within the system, seeking steps forward while maintaining the support necessary (i.e. $$$) to maintain the power in order to make future steps forward, is not a knock on him or his administration, but rather simply the reality of our government. Our founding fathers set up a system that resists radical change, and those on the right and left who gnash their teeth because there isn't radical change are just being naive and/or unrealistic. 

     


    Latest Comments