• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    riverdaughter on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    riverdaughter on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    Propertius on “Pet Peeves”
    Ga6thDem on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    Propertius on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    Beata on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    Beata on “Pet Peeves”
    Beata on “Pet Peeves”
    Propertius on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    William on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    HerStory Repeating on Once they’re in, you can’t vot…
    Beata on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    William on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    Beata on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    jmac on The Welcome Escape of a M…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    November 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • Ginni in the spotlight
      NEW: Ginni Thomas met with Jan 6 committee IN PERSON. She did not answer my questions pic.twitter.com/5z6pypr0S9 — Annie Grayer (@AnnieGrayerCNN) September 29, 2022 New: In interview with Jan 6 cmte, Ginni Thomas reiterated her belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. “Yes" Cmte Chmn Bennie Thompson said when asked if Thomas said she … Con […]
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Attacks On Nord Stream I & II
      Let’s point out the obvious. Russia had no reason to attack its own pipelines. If it doesn’t want gas to go thru them it just turns off the tap. Sabotage to the pipelines weakens Russia’s position, since it will be months before they can offer to turn fuel back on, which they would have wanted to offer during the winter in order to pressure Germany in specif […]
  • Top Posts

Remind me again, which party is stupid?

The other day, I found this link from Corrente’s post, Who’s Going Rogue?, to what I initially thought was the left coming to its senses.  It’s all about the “secret” meetings that Democratic donors are having about the 2012 election season.  It turns out that what we had suspected in 2008 was true.  Obama had captured the donors and had all of them funnel their money to his campaign instead of outside advocacy groups.  Peachy.

Well, those groups have seen what the last two years of Obamaism hath wrought and they’re not going to do THAT again, by golly.  No, by neddyjingo, they won’t get fooled again.  In 2012, they’re going to give their money to whomever they please and not just solely to Obama:

In meetings this past week, some of the top financiers in the party advanced discussions about building a third-party apparatus to counter that on the Republican side of the aisle. The tone, said one person involved in the talks, was remarkably different from 2008, when the Obama campaign urged donors to funnel money strictly into their coffers. In 2010, similar requests are being made — but they’re not always heeded.

“Those days are other,” said the individual. “It is a really big sea shift. People said we need an outside structure and we are going to do it. It is no longer ‘Will you give us permission to do it, sir.'”

As is often the case in Democratic circles, little consensus was reached over the past week. If anything, the meeting of the Democracy Alliance — a formal community of well-funded, progressive-minded individuals and activists — ended with more lingering questions and promises for future discussions than concrete answers. Among the issues left unresolved were how a third-party group would be structured, what it would cost, and whether it was more effective to decry outside money helping Republicans or to simply match the Republican’s outside money.

“There probably is some kind of need [for a third-party outlet]. The one thing about us though is when we lose we have a lot of meetings. We are not even getting started on the retreats or retrospectives,” said James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist, during an unrelated breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “There is probably going to be one now, it is just the nature of what it is. Undoubtedly the Democrats will have symposiums and retreats.”

Hurrah!  They are finally getting the picture.  These donors are not going to let Obama take their money without some kind of pro quo for their quid.  They demand satisf… wait… what’s this at the end?

That such money would be available to help Democratic causes is in and of itself a remarkable reflection about the evolution of the party. In 2008, attempts to build an independent arm was essentially axed when the Obama campaign nixed donor giving to outside functions. This go-around, even the president’s team seems to be of the mindset that such a tight restriction on funds is impractical or perhaps disadvantageous.

One of the things the White House is recognizing as they think about the reelect is it is going to cost a lot of money, which is not to say the last one didn’t,” said one Democracy Alliance attendee. “It will be an expensive campaign though and they will need some help with it.”


Ohhhh, OK, I get it.  They still have a crush on Obama.  B to the A the R-A-C-K, O-B-A-M-A!

It’s not that they’ll be pushing Obama from the left so much as they will be “perceived” to be pushing Obama from the left.  What they will really be doing is the same old thing and funneling all of the cash they will be hauling in from their duped small donors directly into Obama’s re-election campaign.

So, the outside advocacy groups will take our money and shake their tiny fists and wail at the Obama administration and the blue meanie Republicans and then turn around and use the money to help Obama’s re-election campaign.


Wait!  Let’s back up a minute.  This whole scenario depends on the general public sort of already buying into the idea that Obama will not be challenged in his own party.  Says who?

Oh, sure, the press will keep beating Hillary over the head with the question of whether she will run in 2012 and she will (carefully) keep denying it. (OMG, Andrew Sullivan says Hillary has finally won him over- as long as she behaves quietly at State and doesn’t make a fuss.  Oh, please, what nauseating bilge.)  And, heck, it might even be true.  But who’s to say that there won’t be some other Democrat or third party candidate who will see all of the disaffected Democrats and working class stiffs that both parties have left on the table and swoop down to grab them?  In fact, if ever in the history of the US of A there was a better time for an Independent or primary challenger to win, this would be it.

These donors are stupid.  They were stupid in 2008 and they’re just as stupid now.  They are falling for the Obama Haka once again.  He’s the only one.  No one else cares about them but him.  No one else dares challenge him.  That’s a crock of frog bollocks.   There he goes, strutting around like the proverbial cock on the walk and as James Carville says, he’s got no balls.  The donors should do an aggressive pat-down on him to find out but they’re too afraid.

And I don’t buy this nonsense that it wouldn’t be genteel or couth for Hillary to challenge him.  Does anyone think for one minute that the assholes who ran Obama’s campaign would have given two $#@%s about running HER over?  Um, no.  We already know they have no scruples when it comes to dirty campaigning.  But they expect Hillary to not feel her cheerios and put aside every concern she may have for her country so as to protect Obama’s and the DNC’s sense of propriety?

At this point, it doesn’t matter what the donors think or what Hillary thinks or Obama thinks or the DNC thinks.  All that matters is that there are hundreds of millions of Americans right now who see their lifestyles negotiated away by Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress and they are ready to throw Obama out.  No, I’m not kidding.  It’s only going to get worse in the next two years and his chances of turning this ship around are rapidly fading.  By the time 2012 rolls around, his re-election is going to look remote, just like the Democratic Congress’ re-election this November looked remote.  We saw it from a mile away.  When the Republicans go all Fallujah on Obama’s ass in the next two years, he’s going to start looking like a punching bag and no one wants to vote for four more years of that.

At that point, we will want an uncouth, uncivil. hairy, unibrowed renegade from the left to push Obama out.  A left wing version of Atilla the Hun will look like a viable alternative.   The left doesn’t produce many of them from its Stevensonian branch, which is why Obama’s retainers should feel really nervous right about now.

It is too late to try to cheer Obama on for a second term.  And anyone who attempts to do so should be gagged for being irresponsible and dishonest.  He is what he is, which is what we told them he is.  He is an opportunistic, Republican lite politician who does not have the experience or the temperament to operate the levers of government to get things done for the vast majority of Americans.  We already know this in 2010.  An infusion of spine is by no means guaranteed to work and is likely to be shortlived anyway.  If he gets re-elected in 2012, what’s going to stop him from reverting to form?

We gave this guy the job and we have evaluated his performance and found him lacking.  He is not entitled to a second term.  He has to earn it.  So far, he isn’t doing that.  But the Democratic donors have decided to play it safe and re-elect him even though they don’t like him or his policies, forcing him back on the hapless voters in 2012.  And we call Palin voters stupid? Hey, it’s their money.  Just don’t ask me to throw my good, hard earned money down that drain too.

Do us all a favor and get Hillary or someone of her political persuasion to run.  Just save us all the time and agony of a prolonged death by bipartisanship Obama style. He can’t win in 2012 no matter how many billions you siphon to him on the side.  Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

111 Responses

  1. Great post. I love this:

    At that point, we will want an uncouth, uncivil. hairy, unibrowed renegade from the left to push Obama out. A left wing version of Atilla the Hun will look like a viable alternative.

    Btw, the links in your post are not working for me because they all seem to start “http://http://”

  2. All the self-destructive moves they made were for Obama. Starting with the “off the table” deal. Nancy said that much when asked why:” Because it would be a distraction from our effort to recapture the White House”
    Let’s see them come back from this

    • Backwash Obama has a nice ring to it.

      • Great post!

        “In fact, if ever in the history of the US of A there was a better time for an Independent or primary challenger to win, this would be it.”

        And amen to that! Although, I think the challenger might be Howard Dean.

        • He’ll be the first in, but he won’t be the last. And he’ll get wiped out. But I welcome him to throw his hat into the ring. It clears the way for Hillary.

  3. What about the bit I read recently that said HRC is “telling close friends that a primary challenger cannot win without the AA vote?” What to do about that seemingly devoted block?

    • Obama SHOULD step down. And depending on how low public opinion of him goes, he might.

      Otherwise… well, it’d be messy, but I think the numbers could work out if the challenger had solid leads with older and working class whites, the LGBT, and the Latino populations. And an endorsement from Conyers couldn’t HURT.

  4. Please rescue my question from Spammy.

  5. Uh oh…Spammy is hungry this a.m. Just ate two of my comments. Feed him an Obot or something.

  6. I’d love to see a Dem challenge Obama in a 2012 primary, but I doubt it would be effective. Basically you’d have to restore faith in the Dem party and lift American spirits. And you’d have to do it while running against the past four years of a Dem majority in congress and a Dem president. That’s a tough, tough, message to sell because it contradicts itself. The Dem brand is tarnished at the moment.

    Obama himself could lift American spirits and make people feel good about themselves, their country, and their future, and possibly win a second term. Problem is that would take leadership, maybe some saxophone playing, and I don’t think he has it in him.

    I don’t see Hillary making a run at all. She is currently a world leader, admired by millions, doing work she loves, and with far more power than she would have in a limited role as President. But yes indeed, I want a do-over. I wish we could have Hillary swoop in and save the country and the Dem party from itself. I wish Obama could become nothing but a bump in the road and we could just hit rewind. However, back to reality, baring a miracle, the country is going Republican.

    • I was thinking the same thing after hearing her interview this past weekend. Most presidents find their foreign policy chores far more enjoyable than the domestic slog, except for the nasty tendency for world hotspots to explode, with or without our help.

      She is, in effect, our foreign president, as the many misspeaks by foreign leaders (cf Australia trip) introducing her as “Madam President” instead of Madam Secretary amply demonstrate. Obama’s fall from accepted leader status on his recent foreign escape the US trips has been all too evident.

      Yes, Hillary looks the happiest she has been in years …with good reason!

    • Hillary is driven by a deep need to be of service. I think she knows that as much good as she is doing as SoS, she could be doing more by being President (since the President is still setting foreign policy while doing all the domestic chores). That’s why I think she’ll challenge him if she gets half a chance.

  7. Wow! What an insight!

    She is currently a world leader, admired by millions, doing work she loves, and with far more power than she would have in a limited role as President.

    • But unfortunately not true. A President who exercises power has far more than any Cabinet officer. If Hillary has more power than Obama, it’s because she’s strong and he isn’t, not a function of their respecive offices.

      • On the world stage though, think more world leaders respect Hillary at this point.

        • Yeah, but that has nothing to do with her being SoS, and everything to do with her being Hillary.

  8. Howdy-DUdie time! This is the ” Backbone like a ramrod,brain larger than his skull” edition

  9. i can see BO doing an LBJ and just not run .

    • especially since hes has a contender just waiting in the wings and we all know who she is. who’s just itching for his job.

    • Me too. And I think it will be because the hounds have been loose and he will see criticism like he’s never experienced before from all sides. The MSM will join in too as evidenced by PBS censoring Ms. Fey’s remarks. It’s republican time now, and the media will be too willing to please those who have the keys to the bank.

      No longer will we see Obama treated with kid gloves. A term which has new meaning since Obama grabbed the spotlight — Obama-gloves.

    • Yes, I’m with the LBJ option too.

    • I certainly HOPE so.

  10. well, Hillary must be working hard this morning… this can’t be good news that N. Korea shelled S. Korea…

    (here is that 3am phone call)

  11. Great post!

    Yes, he’s done. Not happenin, Carville.

    New Zogby poll shows Obama approval down to 39%, and Zogby says it’s Democrats who are abandoning him.

    The Independents were gone long ago, and they ain’t comin back.

    BTW: News all reporting that Velma Hart was laid off in a “downsizing” corporate move. Ouch.

    • Criticize the President to his face, get canned a few months later. Coincidence, I’m sure.

      • Creepy, ain’t it?

        Wonder which one of his thugs made that happen……

        • [comment removed]

          • Honk!

          • Calling for assassination is not cool, and not a thing I think this board allows.

          • ISLAM

            Mods, this post by votermom quotes Henry II’s call for Becket’s assassination. It’s shown up elsewhere as a thinly veiled call for Obama’s.

            Apologies to Spammy–don’t know how to contact a mod directly.

          • okasha, I think you misread the string.

            She’s discussing the figurative assassination of Velma Hart by the O administration, not O’s assassination.

            And she meant it as a joke.

            Mod…….false alarm.

          • I don’t think I did. Besides, this has shown up elsewhere clearly referencing Obama.

          • Probably OK. We’ll assume the intent was really about Velma. But it’s a close call, so I changed it. Just being extra careful here.

          • Thanks, Dandy.

          • Oh, sorry for the lack of context. Yes, it was snark, speculating that an overeager well-connected obot pressured the non-profit to remove Hart because she embarrassed BO in public.

            The point of the quote being that Henry was NOT calling for Becket’s assassination, simply expressing frustration, and overeager knights decided to take him literally.

            Oh, and by the way, RFK was assassinated in June!!!!!

          • (That was a paraphrased quote from Hillary, you all remember, right? )

          • votermom — I got it. But then again, I know the history (and I’ve even seen the O’Toole/Burton movie) — Henry did NOT call for Beckett’s assassination, so quoting him cannot be calling for an assassination in any way, shape or form.

            And RFK was assassinated in June!

          • I figured votermom, but we just have to be careful here.

          • No problem, DT. I should have put it in context.

          • Actually, free free comment again on Mary’s comment, just with more context so there’s no ambiguity.

          • The O’Toole/Burton movie was once thought gone forever, but has been resurrected and is available on DVD, etc. It was a great movie with powerful performances.


          • Excellent film, but Anouilh’s Henry bears no resemblance to the historical figure.

            Henry’ contemporaries were pretty well convinced he intended murder, an impression borne out by his failure to arrest or confiscate the property of the killers.

          • Not a historian, but I don’t see that would necessarily prove that he approved of what they did. It may have been that he felt responsible even if he didn’t want it to happen. Besides, kind of cutting his nose off to punish his loyalists.
            He submitted to public flogging by the church, or something like that, right?

          • Yes. Henry got a public whipping, and the knights were excommunicated by the Pope.

            Given that what they did was a capital crime on several levels, and given that Henry’s failure to prosecute was one of the reasons he was personally in trouble with the Pope, who was threatening England with interdict to boot, he’d have been well advised to make examples of the four knights. Given also that this was a stunning lapse of public relations by an otherwise politically astute monarch who enjoyed widespread popularity–it seems that Henry was looking through his fingers to allow the escape of the only persons who could have directly implicated him in the killing.

  12. Let’s try the direct approach. Here is the quote:

    “It is too late to try to cheer Obama on for a second term. And anyone who attempts to do so should be gagged for being irresponsible and dishonest. He is what he is, which is what we told them he is. He is an opportunistic, Republican lite politician who does not have the experience or the temperament to operate the levers of government to get things done for the vast majority of Americans. We already know this in 2010. An infusion of spine is by no means guaranteed to work and is likely to be shortlived anyway. If he gets re-elected in 2012, what’s going to stop him from reverting to form?”

    Two years in. Actually 22 months in, you have already decided that Obama is a failure. Perspective. The following presidents were polling lower than Obama at this exact time in their presidencies:

    Bill Clinton
    Ronald Reagan

    What Riverdaughter and others need to explain, and can’t, is what makes Obama markedly different than those two POTUS, each of whom ultimately came to be beloved by their base.

    One can only conclude that Obama is a failure after less than half of his term is served if one went into the term looking for Obama to fail.

    In other words, I get that you hate Obama. You hated him in 2008. You hate him in 2010. You will hate him in 2012.

    But if you want to have some credibility in your criticisms, their has to be some level of objectivity. And regardless of what you think about the past 22 months, history tells us very clearly that those that make such premature calls are ultimately found to be fools. Dems looked like fools when the did it to Reagan. Repubs looked like fools when they did it to Clinton.

    And yet, here we are again with those on both sides who hate the current person in office jumping to final and definite conclusions before the term is halfway out.

    So the question is why do you think you are so different than those that have made this mistake in the past?

    Look forward to anyone who would like to respond.

    Here are those poll numbers by the way.

    As of this exact time in each presidency, here are the approval numbers:

    Obama: 46%
    Clinton: 43%
    Reagan: 43%


    Obama is more popular than those two POTUS’s and yet they were not failures by any stretch (I disagree with everything Reagan stood for, but objectively you can say that he was very successful in his goals and gaining the support and admiration of a majority of americans).

    The rhetoric used at TC does not match the historical reality of how these things have generally turned out.

    Is it really realistic to think that things will be exactly as they are now in 2 years? You may think so but that’s not what history tells us.

    • Well, no.

      Presidents do not win elections or re-elections without Indpendents and the middle.

      Independents and the middle deserted him LONG ago. His “people” should have seen that, when Brown won Massachusetts.

      Approval ratings mean very little. People can like Obama personally, but disapprove verrry strongly of his policies and the direction he’s taking the country. And that’s where we are right now.

      If you’re interested in approval ratings as the marker, Zogby has Obama’s number at 39% this morning.

      Not a good sign, ya know?

      • And the more Obama’s elitist Stevensonian supporters belittle and sneer at the “Bubba’s” in the country as ignorant, uneducated, bitter -clingy hicks “unworthy” of the MAJESTY of the The One (ie, too stupid for words, Pavlovian dogs, etc)………

        the more Obama and his minions drive away the very Independents and middle they will need in 2012.

        There’s confidence, and there’s arrogance. Obama and his supporters don’t seem to understand the difference. Read Somerby—he breaks it down clearly.

        And by the way, Obama is NO Clinton or Reagan. Not by a longshot. Period.

        Have a nice day!

    • and speaking of history-ABG, what on earth makes you think that we were wrong about Reagan. The ‘big deregulator’ was wrong then and the tail of his dereg. haunts us today. I don’t care if he was popular–he tripled the deficit and helped destroy the unions. Screw Reagan.

    • Too bad for you the number is actually 39% for Obama. Kind of messes up your entire argument doesn’t it.

      • and that’s the number he achieved when he had a Democratic Congress and a filibuster proof Senate to do whatever he wanted.
        From now on, it will be a whole different ballgame.
        How LOW can he GO?

      • He’s headed for Nixon territory.

      • Not to mention that Clinton had a 58% approval rating at inauguration, and Obama had a 63%. So even using ABT’s numbers, he’s dropped 17 points to Clinton’s 15.

    • Another failure for Gooberhead McFailbot. 😛

    • 1982 – Double digit inflation, fed funds rate at 16%, huge economic pain, but boomers entering the workforce in unprecedented numbers, and by 1984, big cuts in interest rates, taxes, regulation, middle class rides the recovery wave, Reagan re-elected in landslide.

      1994 – Country still recovering from Bush I recession, Clinton takes hit for health reform that did not pass and continuing distrust from northern elites, but he focuses on jobs and the economy, and by 1996, the economy is the strongest since Eisenhower, there is relative stability in the world, Clinton becomes very popular with both middle and working class, wins re-election in landslide.

      2010 – Economy in a big hole, bailouts have mainly gone to banks, insurance companies and other creditors…taxpayers will be paying back for generations. National debt at 14 trillion (8 trillion higher than under Clinton, 4 trillion higher than under Bush II), interest rates basically at zero, so stimulus programs from the Treasury and Fed are experimental. Working class angry and feeling abandoned, gays angry for betrayals on campaign promises, traditional Dem women voters shifting in droves to Indies or Repubs or Tea Party, 50 million Americans hungry. Health reform passes with some good fixes, but mainly an insurance industry bailout, costs keep rising for everyone…no single payer, no public option. Retiring boomers being threatened with cuts to social security and medicare. Fighting two wars no one wants. By 2012, Obama retains strong support from coastal creative class elites. There has been no real focus on jobs, so unemployment still close to double digits. The rich have become richer, more middle and working class living below poverty line. The silent majority stands up, the Tea Party aligns with Republicans for the general election, Obama loses re-election in landslide.

    • This is OFFICIALLY a stupid argument for you to make. First of all, even using your inaccurate numbers basic math makes you look bad.

      58 (Clinton’s inaugural approval rating) minus 43 (Clinton’s approval rating at this point in his term)= 15 (number of points Clinton had dropped in approval since inauguration).
      63 (Obama’s inaugural approval rating) minus 46 (your given number for his current approval rating)= 17 (number of points Obama has dropped in approval since inauguration). Corrected for new Zogby poll (which shows a 39% approval level): 24 points.

      So it’s clearly not just US who aren’t pleased with his work.

      Clinton’s accomplishments up to Nov. ’94:
      Major legislation signed (not comprehensive)
      * 1993-02-05 – The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
      * 1993-08-10 – Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Raised income tax rates; income tax, top rate: 39.6%; corporate tax: 35%
      * 1993-09-21 – creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program
      * 1993-11-30 – Brady Bill
      He also created Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was instrumental in the signing of the Oslo Accords and helped to make peace between Jordan and Israel, arranged for the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, and created almost 6 million new jobs.

      versus Obama:
      Legislation signed (not comprehensive)
      * January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
      * February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
      * May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
      * May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
      * May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
      * August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
      * October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
      * October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
      * October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
      * November 6: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009
      * January 27: Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Haiti Earthquake Act
      * March 4: Travel Promotion Act
      * March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
      * March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
      * March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
      * May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
      * May 17: Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act
      * July 21: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
      * July 22: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010
      * July 22: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
      * August 10: SPEECH Act of 2010
      * September 27: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010

      So yeah, Obama has passed an awful lot of mediocre legislation. Congratulations to him.

    • The difference with Obama is that Reagan and Clinton actually had strong beliefs and policy initiatives that they campaigned on. And were making an effort in their first two years to get those things done. They actually were working the whole ‘change’ meme as part of their governing style, whereas all Obama has is his ‘I’ and ‘me’ meme.

      Whether you agree with their beliefs or not, Ronnie and Bill believed in something–Obama has shown he really doesn’t believe in anything.

  13. Undoubtedly the Democrats will have symposiums and retreats.”

    They know all about retreating in congress. 🙂

  14. We gave this guy the job and we have evaluated his performance and found him lacking

    No we didn’t give Obunko this job, his lackeys stole it. And now karma is biting them in the nut sack.

  15. Well, Obama’s rump faction of the Ds still control the party machinery…

    “Obama’s rump.” I like that….

  16. Didn’t George Soros say he wasn’t going to pony up anymore cash?

  17. There’s some followup information here. Not that it changes any of RD’s analysis, it only makes it worse.

    A group with Ellen Malcolm,Anna Burger, Harold Ickes and Andy Stern met to determine that “something big needs to be done.” Another group (“American Bridge”) is being put together by the Media Matters guy and a bunch of billionaires, with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend as it public leader.

    No description of what either group intends to do, except going back to backing more Democrats.

    • My own guess is they will only change the fundraising appeals for the next election cycle. Since donors were not ponying up like it’s 2008, they’ll put a new spin on the same old tired mess for 2012.

    • Wasn’t Ickes a good guy on the whole Rules Committee thing? I’m not going to bash him just yet.

  18. I love these analysis posts because you put things in a more interesting light. I hope he’s done–but never discount the R’s ability to step on the omelette.

    I’m really sick of these ‘elites’ and what a bs term that is. These are the people who brought us a president who is ‘yet again’ going out today to reconnect with the peeps. Yes, just a messaging problem. Nothing that 40 more condescending speeches won’t cure.

    • I want him to keep on speechifying. The more he talks = the more his approval plummets = the better chance of a primary challenge.

  19. If only we had the British system with the vote of confidence mechanism. He’d get a vote of no confidence and we could move on. Of course, that might mean a Republican President, but we could throw him/her out too, if they did no better, and that might bring us a more competent Democrat.


  20. Well the GOP could still defeat themselves in 2012. But whether Obama wins or loses we won’t get the policies we need.

    • True on both accounts. We’re screwed with Obama or with a Republican. And the GOP can easily defeat themselves by thinking 2010 was about them and their policies.

      The country’s only hope is with a real Democrat beating Obama in the primaries. I don’t think the chances of that are very high, but I’ll help it if someone good steps forward.

      • I cling to the “hope” that Obama will step down — the only things he likes about the job are the title & the perks. Maybe the bloom will be off the rose re: the perks by the time 2012 rolls around & he will feign some illness & decide not to run.

        • I think you’re wrong about that. He likes being an insider, likes being in the room with powerful people where the decisions get made.

          • He also likes being left alone to eat his waffles. When the media turns on him and his approval ratings plummet we’ll see how he responds. He may just stick his nose in the air, declare himself ahead of his time, and walk away.

  21. The woman who said she was “exhausted from defending” Obama has lost her job.

    But -good news- via talk left:
    Hart still supports Obama (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    -so does The intrepid BTD-

    Ms. Hart said she continues to support Obama, though she worries he’s been hurt by the recent midterm elections.

    dont (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:09:26 AM EST

    Not asking me (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    But this always strikes me as an interesting question.
    What does “support” mean? If it means vote for him in 2012, than I support him.

    If it means supporting HAMP, coddling of the banks, inadequate stimulus, Catfood Commissions, caving on the Bush tax cuts, etc., then I do not.

    If it means prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, then I do (most of you do not.)

  22. What makes anyone think Hillary would be any different?


      • Like what specifically? Do you think we would have single payer health care, or that Gitmo would be closed, or that the backsters would not have received immunity along with their bailouts, or that civil liberties would not be still under assault, or that there wouldn’t be drone attacks in ever expanding countries? Exactly what do you think would be different. People like you as just as bad as the OBOTS you rightfully deride.

        • Look, if you were one of the people who were too stupid to see that Hillary actually knew the answers to questions during the debates (unlike Obama who basically said “I agree with Hillary), then there is NO HOPE FOR YOU.
          I can tell you right now for a FACT that Hillary would have put a moratorium on foreclosures as soon as she was sworn in & gotten legislations through Congress that would have helped people and NOT THE BANKS. She was BEGGING people to listen to her plans to help the economy.
          I can also tell you FOR A FACT that she would not be on the golf course every other day or taking vacations or complaining about why the press doesn’t ask her about all the compliments other world leaders gave her on her VANITY TRIPS to India. She would be ACTUALLY BE WORKING.
          But you a$$holes had to vote for the “cool guy” and even now when he has proven himself to be even MORE INCOMPETENT than we told you he would be, you have the unmitigated GALL to come over her and PRETEND that Hillary would be the same? F*CK YOU.

          • I can’t HONK loud enough on this comment, well done!

          • Really, honk raised to the thousandth power!

          • If Hillary and Obama were in truth alike, then why was she demonized? After all, if they were that similar in policies, the only reasons to vote for BO come down to melanin and the dangly bits.

          • Such maturity you show here – please give me proof of your ‘FACTS’ – Hillary would not have had a Congress to carry out her legislation? She would have just waved her magic wand and HER health care plan would sail through; she would have said no to business, just like her husband (when did the repeal of Glass Steagel happen, when did de-regulation get going???). Just give me these facts you spout and I’ll agree with you.

          • One of the dead giveaways of a troll is multiple aliases.

            I count three for you.

          • Hillary is her own person…not Mrs Bill Clinton. Don’t be so old fashioned.

    • One word. Competence.

    • Wow, even after all that’s happened, Obots are still pushing this meme. Seriously? Sad, isn’t it.

    • Guts, competence, brains, and dedication

    • 1.) Have you seen her in her present job? She’s kicking ass. The world loves her. Her employees love her. Everyone loves her except her own party.

      2.) What are your alternatives? I mean, you know what you have with Obama. Can it get any worse as far as Demicratic presidents go? He’s the Dems George Bush. Would Hillary really be worse than that?

      If you’re still thinking that, what is there to discuss? Being a well respected politician on the world stage who manages a huge department in an exemplary fashion, who supports gay employees and their families and tells people where to go on reproductive rights is not enough for you.
      That’s a problem.. Yours.

    • Hillary would be prioritizing middle and working class Americans over creative class elites. She would be pressuring companies (who are currently making record profits) to invest in American workers and jobs. She would be executing, not public relationing…executing policies in the best interest of all Americans during this crisis. She would put the country ahead of herself, as all Presidents do.

    • Because Obama stood by while poor Chicago children froze in order to enrich the slumlord who helped to buy HIS children a house.

      That told me all I needed to know about him.

    • Nothing. We’re just poor deluded old ladies over here. It certainly has nothing to do with the fact that Obama was handed every one of his accomplishments (http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print/-1/) while Clinton quietly went about doing the work (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s01-uspo.html). It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that while Obama was talking out of both sides of his mouth and promising everything to everyone (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/), Hillary showed real courage and refused to promise whatever people were short-sightedly demanding at any given moment.

  23. At that point, we will want an uncouth, uncivil. hairy, unibrowed renegade from the left to push Obama out.

    Thanks, but I’m not really interested in the job.

  24. At that point, we will want an (1) uncouth, (2) uncivil. (3) hairy, (4) unibrowed (5) renegade (6) from the left

    Will you settle for 5 out of 6?

  25. Yup…

    Came across the same article and thought they were finally taking it back and basically staking their claim on the party by going outside. And then that last sentence….ugh.

    They must know that Obama has killed the brand. Others have made the point better but Dems are going to start painting him as Bush III to ever get the party back and in good standing with voters.

    Which to be blunt, I am not sure is worth saving at this point, but I hope someone does primary Obama and starts painting him as the Rep he is. With all of their talking points being policy attacks designed to stump Obama every time he is asked to compare and contrast himself against Bush II.

    • Sad to say, but I don’t see anyone willing to primary him and the truth about him and his policies. The dems are too cowardly overall. I think Hillary will wait until 2016, and then I hope to god that she will run again. But there won’t be any point in that if the dem leadership is still corrupt.

  26. Reading this post is making me remember some fun Canadian satire about the primaries and Obama:


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: