I know. Obama was supposed to fix the world, and all we had to do was sit back and watch.
Being democrats our whole lives has been a lot of hard work. Going to the poll that November Day? That was a lot of hard work too, what with having to connect the dots between the proper line, or punch the right hole, or pull the right lever.
You miss the message of the very speech you criticize while taking the same dark and cynical tone the President derides: where's the social activism?
Very rarely has great change in this country been unaccompanied by social activism. Civil rights marchers, with a favorable administration, braved dogs and fire hoses and murder to achieve their objectives that we now as a society take for granted.
Meanwhile, you moan about the trivial public option hole in the HCR donut. Despite the fact that Obama finally accomplished what no other democratic president could accomplish in passing HCR (and received the same criticisms that were leveled against FDR with social security), Jane Hamsher couldn't get more than 500 people to show up in Washington and rally for the public option.
Thanks to the ARRA, I was one of the people who returned to work full time on April 26. I can not express in words how thankful and blessed and proud I feel to be one of that number.
I was unemployed for 60 weeks (14 months). The damage it did to me financially and career wise may not be recovered for a long, long time.
Your analysis is good, and you duly note that the economy needs to create 100,000+ jobs a month just to keep pace with a growing work force. Moreover, the economy needs to add 200,000 - 300,000 jobs a month just to bring down unemployment, as many previously discouraged workers return to the workforce.
Lowering unemployment will be key to our successes in November, and any chance we have to attempt a second stimulus and tax increase. The more I think about it, the more I think a tax increase on the wealthiest and a second stimulus will be necessary. I just don't know if Obama will go for it...
He's behind in the polls, but that has nothing to do with Obama (who is unpopular in Arkansas to begin with). Halter's been behind, since, well, the beginning. That sounds like a problem with Arkansas democrats, not Obama.
Unfortunately, the Senate creates a system where those with the least amount of scruples can bargain for the greatest amount of power.
Punish Lieberman and Lincoln? that's the politically dumbest thing ever. As was noted above. Instead of having someone who votes with you 10% of the time, you have someone who votes against you 100% of the time. The best thing to do is to unseat these people in primaries and hinder them from running in the general election.
I'm afraid Jerome has been lost to the Obama Derangement Syndrome. I read CTG at a very important time in my life, and looked up to Markos and Jerome. But those two co-authors now seem to have led very different paths after the Dean campaign.
Many of the more notable critics of Obama at least have intellectual consistency on their side. Take Jane Hamsher, for example. These people oppose President Obama over the disparity between liberal campaign promises and more centrist legislative actions. But Jerome's not one of them.
At the request of a fellow poster here, I was encouraged to do some digging around in primary past. It turns out, Jerome was an ardent supporter of Clinton during the primary. He even got so into the horse race, he twisted himself into all sorts of contortions with delegate counts; counting delegates that weren't there and discounting caucus delegates that were, all the while breathlessly trying to prove that somehow Clinton was the winner.
Fair enough. Some people supported her strongly for her more moderate positions. But you can't then turn around and attack President Obama for being too… Clintonian! For that is exactly what Jerome is doing.
I don't even believe this really has to do with Obama -- I think it more has to do with tweaking his supporters. That's who he seems to have a real grudge against.
As someone else noted, he seems to post the most when there is controversy that generates lots of page traffic and can bring the pumas out of the woodwork, and then he mysteriously disappear when us supporters have good news to crow about.
I really want to believe it has to do with us, and is not simply Obama Derangement Syndrome. Really. So I think it's best to just ignore it. Don't give it the response it doesn't deserve. I try to focus on the many hardworking bloggers here and out there who aren't out there to rile people up they disagree with.
Where past Presidents campaigned against the incumbant, especially within the democratic party. As noted above, FDR did it (in Iowa) in 1938. So the only person here creating a separate set of rules for Obama is you.
As others have already noted above, Obama must support the incumbent democrat. And that ad was pretty tepid.
There is no political reward for Obama in supporting a primary challenger, and all the risk in the world.
If Obama backs Halter now, and Halter loses but Lincoln wins, you have lost what little control you had over her to begin with. Now Obama has an enemy. Will she go Independent? Will she caucus with the Republicans? Who know? Likewise, Obama must also back who he feels is more likely to win in November. One would have to be very foolish to not realize that it's infinitely better to have a member of the caucus who only votes with you 10% of the time than one who votes against you 100% of the time. Politics is about winning and losing, and if you're not a winner...
If you want to be disappointed with somebody, be disappointed with the Arkansas democratic primary voters. Such a far from ringing endorsement isn't going to persuade them much. Progressives in general seem to be continuously disappointed in the Administration's inability to magically turn the rest of the electorate progressive, as if it's their fault our candidates lose.
The new CBS/New York Times poll also gives good news for Democrats. The President clocks in at a 51-39 approval rating. In previous monthly CBS polls, he was at 50-40, 49-41, and 46-45. Quibble with the numbers, but a trend is a trend. Maybe he’s above 50, maybe not, but President Obama and even Congressional Democrats have only improved their position over the past few months. CBS/NYT finds similar trends on specific issues, even those where the net remains negative.
All this is very interesting, for should the trend continue, losses will be insufficient to effect a change in House Leadership.
* * *
On a lighter note, news such as this is bound to drive the Obama Derangement Crowd on the left (even more) stark raving mad, which provides me with unending glee. I've noticed an uptake in their hysteria. Their only solace was Obama's depressed national poll numbers (at about a 50/50 split). Take that away...
When news broke of the failed Times Square bombing attempt, those on the right suspected Islamic terrorists, those on the left suspected right wing radicals, and I suspected PUMAs.
I know many lifelong liberals expressing the same sentiment down there.
Their sense is that Meeks is weak and unelectable, at least now. Crist is the moderate Republican they know, and when faced with a choice between the RINO they know and they teabagger they fear, they will vote Crist.
My question is: how will the GOP respond if Crist wins?
There is no regulatory framework for these oil platforms. The Coast Guad and US government has no means to deal with a spill of this magnitude. Any competence, or lack thereof, will have little effect on the result.
I used to wonder if it was even possible for that degenerate to become more breathless in his irrational criticism for Obama. It won't stick, though -- the meme is all wrong.
When Kanye West said it best, that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" four days after Katrina made landfall, there was a moment of national clarity. We'd already had "heckuva job, Brownie" which conflicted with the images on national television. And then this Kanye West guy comes along. From the southern strategy to decades of racist, implemented conservative policy, it hit home. And then the callous flyover picture to show no correction, all in the wake of the national mobilization after 9/11.
Offshore drilling is (or at least it was before this incident) widely popular. I seem to remember a whole lot of talk about Obama needing to be a populist?
In a summer of anticipated rising gas prices, to come out as an opponent to offshore drilling would have been politically foolish. Instead, Obama simply acknowledged a series of areas where there is so little oil and it is so difficult to extract, the chances of there actually being drilling in our lifetime were minute.