Another "Told You So" Diary: The V-8 Edition

A lot of people seem to think that the many progressives and liberals, who feel largely betrayed and outright hostile to the Obama administration at this point, really ought to just quietly grumble, fume, and stay quiet in the corner, give their unconditional support to Obama while said administration goes across the line and repeatedly gives their corporate friends and K street supporters whatever they pander for in order to accomplish things.

And here at myDD it seems that any time anyone dare to writes a post that complains about this and is negative towards the job that Obama has done as President - the fan boys immediately jump into the comments and start throwing personal insults and attacks at the author.  If one dares to write a diary complimenting Hillary Clinton while critiquing Obama - the anger of the fanboys is then surrounded and supported by the oh so solemn hand wringing of those that say that to bring up this comparison is just too 'damaging" to be allowed to be discussed. The "Oh, we must not crowd." Both are sorry attempts to silence dissent and to censor anyone who dares to say the obvious about this situation, which is that Democrats are heading to certain disaster in 2010 and if we dont want lose to Sarah Palin or whoever - we better prepare ourselves to consider serious primary challenges to Barrack Obama for 2012.

Sorry folks I know you are very desperate to - but you can't put the cork back in this bottle and you can't stop the many voices who are saying this by screaming loudly and insulting the speakers.  

I too decided to be quiet no more when I read this in Ben Smith's column in Politico on December 07, 2009.  A second day that should live in infamy...

Insurance industry insider: 'We win'

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a "pure public option," an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

"We WIN," the insider writes. "Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor."

In the two weeks since its got much worse than that.  The fanboys both in and out of the media have spent the last week pretending that we lost the public option because of Lieberman - even though writers like Glen Greenwald have shown you that it was Obama who maneuvered to get rid of it and Senator Feingold even said this publicly.  But the Obama myth is stromg.  This week he also worked to kill Senator Dorgans bill to import lower cost drugs into the US - something that would have saved consumers an estimated $100,000,000,000 - but as a payback to big pharm he muscled Senators to vote no - and this was barely mentioned on the blogs or in the MSM.  

Watching Obama sell out us to big pharm and sell out the public option to big insurance millions of Americans are coming to the conclusion that it was a big mistake to allow the big media and the Chicago crowd to bully us and the system in 2008 and many are starting to say this publicly.

Whine and cry and post as many diaries about how awful this is that you wish - get used to it - over half the country now knows what would have been best.

I may be saying this early and you may be able to silence my small voice at this little blog, but be sure -

"Apres moi le Deluge...!"

------

The regrets over what could have been are clearly shown by the polling.  Hillary Clintons approval rating has soared to 75% while Obama, who has the singular honor of having dropped further quicker than any other president in polling history now has more people opposed to him then are for him.

This is not a new phenomena.  Rasmusen polling had Obama dropping below 50% approval rating in July.  In early November, they did a poll that said that 76% of voters believed that Hillary would be doing as good a job or better than Obama.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c

ontent/politics/general_politics/novembe

r_2009/27_say_hillary_would_be_better_pr

esident_than_obama

27% said she'd be saying better and only 14 % saying shed be doing worse.  Thats a 5 to 1 positive to negative gap. Those were impressive numbers - but recent polling for her is even better.

This week From Politico Aemon Javers reports:

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/t

hread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&thr

eadid=3437369

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified "news watchers," Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

Lets begin with the most important progressive voice writing today, Paul Krugman.  In his latest "Conscience of a Liberal" column in the NY Times Krugman reminds us that he warned us about all this years ago and he uses those 3 little words that are driving some so crazy....told you so...



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12

16/illusions-and-bitterness

But what's happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we're seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he's not the transformative figure of their imaginations.

Can I say I told you so?

 If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning -- and I'm talking about 2007 -- that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped.

And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he'd be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

Then there was Matt Taibbi's new piece in Rolling Stone titled "Obama's Big sellout" with this memorable opening:

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

But also in the blogs, what was until recently never discussed, is being spoken about publicly.  At Talk Left - Obama supporter 'Big Tent Democrat' writes that he was "Wrong About Obama"

I thought, despite my disagreements with his political style, that the historic opportunity he was presented coupled with his immense political talent would lead him to become our FDR (who did not change politics, he changed how we think about government, much more important.) I wrote that a lot here, especially after the financial meltdown in September 2008.

It seems pretty clear that I was wrong.

One commenter there sums it all up:

I voted for Obama and didn't expect much, but then, I didn't expect this.

Big Tent also wrote this very short blog:

The Primary Wars

I'll reignite them right now:

It remains the most prescient statement of the primaries.

At Huffington Post there have been a series of blog posts along these themes, but let me quote from just one, Lee Stranahan writes"

To use a trendy Tiger Woods analogy, this is the 101th mistress -- the time to stop defending and start packing.

Whatever happens with this bill, one thing is now crystal clear - the White House is calling the shots and they want a bill that's a giveaway to the insurance industry with no real protections, public option, or Medicare rollback. There is NO standard here except passing a bill.

Oh. And the White House is willing to lie about it, too.

Enough. It is now time for anyone who supported Barack Obama in 2008 to let the President know loud and clear that this is not what we voted for it. This isn't a question of liberals whining. This isn't about piling on the President.

We didn't elect Barack Obama to pass a health reform bill that Joe Lieberman and his insurance cronies approve of.

It's time for Obama voters to be outraged. Many of us voted for Obama because we felt he was different -- after all, he told us he was different. He said he wasn't about politics as usual. Okay, now we know that's not true. Let's be adults and act like it.

Barack Obama is just another politician; willing to lie on the campaign trail to get elected. Then treat him like any other politician. He understands votes so let him know he won't be getting yours, especially in the primary. That's the language that people like Rahm Emanuel understand.

And don't let anyone scare you with Sarah Palin or a GOP White House in 2012. Dropping support for a series of horrible decisions from Larry Summers to Afghanistan to this health reform bailout means you want a better Democratic candidate to emerge. The White House wants you scared; cowed into thinking that not going along with their bad decisions means eight years of some Republican you hate.

It's a scare tactic. Don't fall for it.

Instead, if you voted for Barack Obama realize that you voted for an idea, not just a man. Just because this man hasn't delivered on those ideas doesn't mean it's time to give up on principles like changing Washington to get rid of the power of the lobbyists who run things. Or real health care reform for that matter.

It's time to do what Barack Obama asked us to do - hold him accountable. This is totally unacceptable, Mr. President. Start acting like the man we elected or you have three years left in the job.

Finally,this piece from Thursday's Examiner newspapers titled: "Are Hillary Clinton supporters murmuring I told you so?"

I suggest you go the link and read ALL of it.

THIS is the future folks get used to it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-

Administration-Examiner~y2009m12d17-Are-

Hillary-Clinton-supporters-murmuring-I-t

old-you-so

With a new NBC/Wall Street journal poll showing Obama hitting his lowest approval rating in that poll, and the same poll showing that people are getting increasingly fed up with Obama...those who supported Hillary Clinton for president in the Democratic primaries are starting to say "I told you so".

...he has accomplished little to nothing in his first year that has showed any concrete results in spite of him giving himself a B+ for his performance in his first year.

Now as Obama's approval ratings continue to hit record lows for a first term president, and he is bringing the Democratic party down with him, many Hillary Clinton supporters are starting to say "we told you so".

More and more of Obama's staunchest supporters, the same people who turned a blind eye to Obama's deep character flaws, lack of experience, and brazen political dishonesty and deceit, are now complaining that he's not what they thought he was, that this isnt change they can believe in...

Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, the people at The Nation, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, and Michael Moore are just a few of Obama flag wavers now wavering in their support and scratching their heads saying  "what happened"?

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes, "Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different..."

This is the person that liberals and Democrats who supported him are now surprised has sold them out when it was apparent that Obama was probably the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. The difference between the two is that Nixon used deceit to get even. Obama used it to get ahead. It all goes to character and how that influences decisions. As well as having a vision and sticking up for a principle, something Obama has thrown overboard on healthcare.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton supporters can be excused if they are now saying " We told you so". Because they did.

Now go ahead - sputter, spew, meow and hiss, please go ahead - call me stupid, a troll, a closet republican, a paid shill and by all means...pretend that Im a racist, none of this bothers me and be sure of one thing - it wont stop whats coming.  There are many, many millions of Americans that feel the same way I do and their voices will be heard in the coming months and there ain't nothin' you can do to stop it...

So enjoy!

Tags: obama fail (all tags)

Comments

22 Comments

Re:

Seymour:

Glad you are at least adding pictures to your rants.  It was the best thing about them.  I still love that one of LBJ yelling at someone while Kennedy turns around (please find another excuse to post that one).

I don't know how you use the Tabbi piece that attacks Obama for bringing in the Clinton economic team as an argument for Clinton.

In an earlier post you wrote that Harkin should challenge Obama in 2012.  That clearly won't happen, but I would take Harkin in a second, but I would have done the same thing in 92.

P.S. What the heck is the whole v-8 thing?  

by labor nrrd 2009-12-19 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: you must be a youthe

But V-8 actually tasted awful, which is why I'd be careful with this analogy.

by Steve M 2009-12-19 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: and sugary sodies rots out yo teeth

Wow, a ludwigvan comment I can at least partially rec!

and 'spicy' v-8 with a lil vodka, horseradish and a touch of 'old bay' is sublime

To tell the truth, I happen to like V-8...a lot. I just like it better when prepared as above.  ;)

by Kysen 2009-12-19 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: you must be a youthe

What makes you think the special interests would have been any easier on Hillary?  That doesn't make any sense.  The Conservadems wouldn't have been any less demanding and the special interests wouldn't have backed off, even a little.  She might have taken a different tactical approach, but there is no basis for the notion that she would have gotten us a more liberal bill when you need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything.

by psychodrew 2009-12-19 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: if you think hillary

Her plan was not very good. It was only the pressure from Edwards which moved her left. So, I agree with the other poster. You replace one hero worshipping crowd with another.

by bruh3 2009-12-19 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: if you think hillary

There are plenty of people around here who aren't engaged in hero worship of anyone.  But if you read everything they write through that lens a priori, that's all you are gonna see.

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: if you think hillary

And, by the way, I now concede Edwards would have been a dud considering he couldn't keep it in his pants. Thus any policy he wanted to enact would have been overshadowed by scandal. But, when I start reading these claims that Clinton was not a centrist just  like Obama has turned out to be- well, I got to laugh. The only value I now concede that Clinton may have added is that no one would be bending over backwards to explain away her attempts at betrayal, and right now, for the purpose of holding Obama accountable, that lack of faith in him would be a very good thing. Really last year, we had no good choices. Thus, the only thing we are left with at the moment is the need to hold all accountable.

by bruh3 2009-12-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: almost every AFL-CIO union backed her

The unions are also not fully coming out against the plutocratic health insurance industry subsidy bill right now- what's your point? That there are no enablers who may not believe, but never the less enable bad actors to act badly? I mean- seriously? What? My point is that i am so over hero worshipping. the problem is systemic. Clinton would not matter because she was and is a part of the same system that created the problems in the first place. We have two corrupted parties in this country. The sooner people deal with that, the more likely real change will happen.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: you must be a youthe

Agree fully 'bout Hillary....we would prolly have been in near to the same place we are now. Perhaps a little better in some places, perhaps a little worse in others.

Where you been hidin' bro?

by Kysen 2009-12-19 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: if you think hillary

There are few bigger Clintonistas than myself, but I have to say that I'm fairly confident Hillary would have cut the same deal with Pharma.  That deal silenced a powerful adversary without precluding any future efforts to regulate pharmaceuticals.  One of the reasons I was attracted to Hillary was that she is a pragmatist.  There is no reason to believe that the Conservadems would have bended more for her than they did for Obama.  None.

And let's be honest.  Having Obama at the top of the ticket may have helped put Kay Hagan over the top.  It might also have meant just enough extra votes that Al Franken won.  It's quite possible that Hillary would have to bow, not only to the Conservadems, but also to the two senators from Maine.

by psychodrew 2009-12-20 02:17PM | 0 recs
Doubt Hagan would've lost

but Franken almost certainly won cause of Obama.

That said, Clinton could have put Lunsford over McConnell, but we know Lunsford would have been on the Nelson/Lincoln side of things.

Her weakness in the Northwest might have kept Gordon Smith in power though.

by ND22 2009-12-20 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: if you think hillary

Hey Drew,

I have a question specifically for you, as you have been the most effective advocate for same-sex civil rights on these boards.  Do you think that settling and AfPak policy (good or bad) and passing this deeply unsatisfactory step in HCR will remove Obama's political rationale for dragging his feet on DADT?  Will it enable him to lend more support for marriage.civil union initiatives?  Or was he just paying lip service.  And will the "progress" on these two fronts make room for reinvigorated grass roots action on civil rights this spring?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: oh and by the way

You really know how to pick 'em, don't you?  Then again, given the lack of insight and general incoherence you're showing here, perhaps they screwed up picking you.

by TexasDarling 2009-12-19 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: insulting harkin?!

For someone so committed to his own intelligence and education, you seem to employ a strikingly limited vocabulary.

Are you capable of writing a sentence that doesn't employ a cliche?

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: dumbest comment ever

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: you must be a youthe

No, I remember those ads.  The strangest was when the people walked diagonally until they have the V-8.

I just thought you making some other reference I was missing.

by labor nrrd 2009-12-20 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: strike that

This blog seems in your view to be heavily populated with hopelessly dense kossacks and fanboys who have no lives and devote all of their time to drooling on themselves, cheerleading, and biting your ankles.

Given that you are an intelligent individual with a significant life in the real world (and an important democratic operative to boot!) why do you spend so much time on us?

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 05:14AM | 0 recs
You've told us so

what else have you got?

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 05:15AM | 0 recs
V8 is crap

and way too salty.  Much like this diary.

by JJE 2009-12-20 12:01PM | 0 recs
you are consistently

retarded.

by JJE 2009-12-21 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: oh you wound me so

Stunning rational argument you have there.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 09:17AM | 0 recs
There's one who does

her name is Mrs. Ludwigvan.

by JJE 2009-12-21 12:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------