New York Times reporter Helene Cooper wants to know: Does Barack Obama seem like, you know, a crybaby?
Cooper’s piece (6/14/12) about the campaign’s economic messaging dwells on Obama’s tendency to pin the blame elsewhere—namely on his Republican predecessor and others in the party who adhere to favor similar policies. She writes that
as the furor created last week over Mr. Obama’s remark that the private sector is “doing fine” demonstrated, the president must walk a tightrope whenever he talks about the economy.
What kind of tightrope? According to Cooper, Obama must talk about his accomplishments but “he cannot go too far in sounding optimistic.”
That makes sense. But the real problem, as she sees it, is that Obama blames Republican policies and the legacy of the Bush administration for the economy he inherited:
So Mr. Obama ends up falling back—again and again—on the Barack Obama Defensive Offensive—which largely means, blame the Republicans. And while that strategy is not necessarily doomed to fail—polls show far more Americans still blame President George W. Bush for the economic decline than blame Mr. Obama—it also runs the danger of making Mr. Obama come across as a crybaby, not to mention opening him up to ridicule from the right.
Let’s set aside the danger of being ridiculed by the right, which will happen no matter what. Obama might be a “crybaby” for criticizing the Bush era? As in the way most Americans continue to blame Bush for the economic disaster? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.
Then again, this is a newspaper that once told readers (1/28/08) that Bush’s economic record “would be the envy of most presidents.” And a paper that seems unusually concerned with the dangers of populist economic appeals—calling talk of raising taxes on the wealthy is “politically sensitive“—though that idea is supported overwhelmingly by most Americans.
I wouldn’t characterize Obama as a crybaby but as more of a coward.
When Obama took charge of the economic failure–that most Americans acknowledge as coming to a head during Bush’s administration–the Democrats had both houses of congress and the expectation of public support to bring change, Roosevelt style, despite Republican and Blue Dog Democrat opposition.
Instead, he filled his cabinet with economic advisers and Clinton administration retreads that could not possibly offend his owners in finance capital.
Of course, Roosevelt was a member of the class that Obama could only aspire to membership in; while Roosevelt was comfortable in casting aspersions at the failures of his class and its economic royalists, Obama remained always cowed and deferential.
No guts, no glory. Maybe he will cry about that if he can ever understand the magnitude of his blown opportunity.
And of course the fact that from Day -1, the Rethuglicans who were still there fought tooth and nail to stop ever single thing he tried to do, and would not under any circumstance show any support, regardless of who actually made the proposals; even when many of the proposals were made by their own side.
With the kind of stupid logic you’ve used, the Spartans would be wimpy little cry babies.
It would actually help if some folks took actual history, not Limburger’s or “Newt the Nut’s “The way we wish things were so we could sound intelligent when we talk” lectures.
No, a Bully PUPPET.
Glenn posts on here every single week.
That might be why Krugman today mentioned Bush’s crappy jobs record.
President Obama never ran as Roosevelt. He ran as a centrist who promised to try to make peace between sides. He tried, but didn’t realize how power-hungry Republicans are. If we want Roosevelt, we will have to create him!
The key to understanding what is going on is knowing the underlying strategy of Karl Rove and his groupies — attack the opponent at his STRENGTH, rather than his weakness. (Achilles’ heel is so yesterday.) Two recent examples include (1) the Republican brouhaha over the “leaks” that “make Obama look like a strong commander-in-chief” and (2) the administration’s comparisons of their own record versus that of George W. Bush. Just today I heard a prediction by a Republican operative that President Obama would give up on comparing his record to Bush’s before long. If he does he is playing right into the hands of Rove and friends. Job creation has been in positive territory under Obama, even if weak. Under Bush, the economy was hemorrhaging jobs every month.
You can’t tell me you miss what this is. What is a black person who complains about racism? NOT to equate Republican policies with racism HEAVENS no I certainly never would imply such a thing but if you can call Barack Obama a crybaby in the NYT, you score.
…and please don’t be all “she’s black” cuz Michael Steele, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, & co.
Who was the one who bailed out the Wall St. Big Banks? Obama can’t keep blaming everything on Bush and the repuglicans, when all 3 houses were democratic after his election. Why would anyone who supposedly supports the 98% give everything away in his first term?? The fact that he knew that the message from Mitch McConnell [sp] from the start was, “we have to do everything we can to make this Obama’s only term”, should have been enough to face them down, right from the beginning; but, he didn’t. He capitulated on one bill after another. He’s either very weak, or, he’s giving payback to Wall St. for selecting him!
President Obama did not actually mis-speak when he said that in comparison to most workers, the private sector is doing well. Especially if, as he does, one defines the “private sector” as the being the big banks and other Wallstreet financial institutions which received blank checks from him early in his Presidency. In stark contrast to the the well-coddled corporations, few workers have large piles of cash on hand. In fact, most workers have not only suffered a net loss in terms of wealth, but they are also mired in debt. I do not believe that Mr. Obama is weak. I believe that he is a product of the DLC , and as such, he could never be anything other than what he is, an eager enabler for Wallstreet and the military industrial and prison industrial complexes which serve it. In modern America, “centrists” in both of the major parties hate the poor, racial minorities, and unions, and blue collar workers, and it shows. On the other hand, they worship the rich and the 1%, and they love fighting wars which benefit them, by using other people’s children. Such are the ways of the American Empire in the early 21st century.
Someone please define “centrist” economic and foreign policy so that I have something to measure Obama and/or rivals against. What does a “centrist” agenda look like, specifically, without comparing it to any actual politician or party. Thanks ahead of time!
PEASEHEAD:
Obama is not “a product of the DLC”.
http://mydd.com/users/shergald/posts/is-barak-obama-a-member-of-the-dlc
“You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.” ~~ Barack Obama
Ever since the decision to invade Iraq was made, there have two factions in the Democratic Party. On one side was the DLC, the Clintons, the old party hands, the hawkish intellectuals, and The New Republic. On the other was Howard Dean, the netroots, MoveOn.org, Iraq Vets Against the War, and progressives of all stripes. Today we may see the former faction hand George W. Bush unprecedented spying powers, while the latter faction nails another nail in the coffin of Clintonism by sweeping the Potomac Primaries.
Hillary Clinton was the DLC candidate – Obama was more progressive than Hillary. Of course, if he was TOO progressive, like Dennis Kucinich, he would never have raised the money needed to get elected President in the USA these days. You can only make incremental changes to a country of 300+ people, hopefully in a good direction, year after year after year – to demand sweeping change shows an immaturity and ignorance of the situation. A protest vote against Obama because he was not a White Knight doing everything you had ever hoped for is stupid, because a President Romney would just push the country incrementally in the wrong direction, for 4 or 8 years.
Google James Carvilles remarks this week.He has been trying to help Obama by telling him to change his tact.This blame Bush road may even have merit….But its a road to know where.For two years BAM had a super majority.He spent as he saw fit.Did as he saw fit.Moving on four years, we don’t even have a budget,and congress is debating popcorn size in movie theaters last week.This is HIS economy.It is not Bush senior’s,or Clintons,or Bush(jr)….No the buck stops there.That is the straw that breaks, or makes the presidents back.He is a good campaigner.My guess is his polls tell him this may be one of the only roads he has left to him -bad as that is.I will always be saddened that a president so empowered by peoples wishes for “HOPE AND CHANGE” did nothing more than drag out of the closet well worn and worthless liberal policy’s that have never worked, and will never work, to pump vital blood into this country.We now move beyond him.THANK GOD!
@Ashurbanipal:
Not that it matters, but did Mr. Obama actually keep his word about disassociating himself from the the DLC? Or did he backflip again? What exactly is a “new Democrat?” Yet another version of Republican lite, courtesy of the Democratic party? It is not very difficult to be “more progressive” than either of the two Clintons or any of the other major players in the two political parties. Nixon was more “progressive” than most of todays mainstream politicians. If President Obama has any real serious political or philosophical differences with the DLC or with its progeny, the Clintons, why did he give Hillary the position of Secretary of State? Had he lost, the election would the Clintons and the Democratic machine been gracious enough to have given him a similar post? I strongly doubt it. If President Obama is such a progressive, please explain to me why his cabinet and his advisors and his court appointments so closely mirror those of the Clinton AND Bush administrations which preceded him. Once the election was over, and he no longer needed to panhandle, he was free to clean house and to fill positions with like-minded people. The reason that he did not is because the like-minded people were already in place. Obama, the self-styled new Democrat is playing the old Democrat game of using their base, much of which they actually despise, to collect enough votes to get elected or to get re-elected. Once in office, they pander to the same monied interests do as their alleged opponents in the Republican party, while staging empty symbolic acts and gestures for those in their base. Most of this is just theater. Democrats, new and old, from President Obama on down, are unwilling to actually to risk anything in order to fight for the poor, for racial minorities, or for those in the working class. Apparently for the new Democrats, their base consists only of those in the middle class or in the 1%. Most of their gestures to people who are outside of these two groups are self-serving, and will not significantly better their conditions. Those who wish to believe that voting for those who are presented to us by either of the two interchangeable parties is either a real choice or an actual solution to stopping the slide into plutocracy and neo-feudalism are welcome to do so. I believe that voters need to begin the process of crashing both parties by crossing party lines when it suits their interests and more importantly, by voting for third and fourth parties. The two main parties take turns in office, and while they are there, they serve the same masters. No change, incremental, or otherwise will come through them.
That’s not completely true, PEASEHEAD. The Democrats are a bit better than the R’s; there are some good dems, but the Republicons are absolutely and ruthlessly run by the nutzoids. However, the Money Power is winning, and will eventually, I think, win. There has been some good news under Obama; the fact that folks up to the age of 26 can stay on their parents insurance, for instance. The Cons absolutely did not want this, or any of the other stuff that Obama got, though he certainly negotiated from a point to the right of where he could have negotiated from on health care. His embrace of same-sex marriage was a good and risky thing to do as well.
That having been said, you’re mostly correct. That there are right-wing Dems like Joe Lieberman who the President pretended to disagree with hardly matters here. The Dems are slowly moving into the arms of the Money Power; the President coddles Wall Street, and this outrage is simply not mentioned by either party. Wall Street and other malefactors of great wealth steal 11 trillion dollars, and no one goes to jail, and the Cons blame the unions and public workers for the bad economy. Not good, and bound to get worse. Far worse.
Just like I predicted here months ago, the DLC Dems are telling the Pres and other sensible people to stop going after Romney, and don’t be mean to the jackasses. I also said the President would do this, and I’m happy to report that, for now, I was wrong about him. He’s actually going after Romney with vigor, and is still, rightly blaming Bush for his crimes against the economy. He’s actually hooking Romney to Bush, and this is playing very well. Will the Losers like Carville win the day? Will the Pres back down, and stop putting the horn into Romney? We’ll see. I also predicted that Dems would be in full panic mode by summer; so far, some of them, like Stephanie Miller, are. She freaks at least once a week about the perfidy of “journalists” like David Gregory, and the closing poll numbers in the swing states. Many Obambots are screaming bloody murder about liberal folks who don’t march in lockstep behind the President. It’s going to be a hot summer.
“For two years [President Obama] had a super majority”
Quit peddling bullshit.
http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/the-four-month-supermajority
Supporting same sex marriage is far less risky than it may appear to be. Many Americans are actually indifferent to it, others support it, while a very vocal group opposes it. Either way, it won’t restore what people lost in the Wallstreet debacles, and, as far as those in power are concerned, it doesn’t challenge the status quo. I think that it is a tiny sop to a tiny, mostly White, and fairly wealthy minority which has tight links to the President’s well-off Hollywood supporters. President Obama doesn’t do altruism, it’s always about him, his campaign war chest, and his political ambitions. If he was willing to take real risks and, at the same time, tackle serious problems which threaten the lives of a large group of his major supporters he could, for example call out politicians who support so-called “stop and frisk laws” which stoke the prison industrial complex and racial animous. He could also have supported Black farmers getting their settlement with the same intensity with which he and other American politicians support the interests of the State of Israel. Like Democrats before him, both “new” and “old”, he consistently takes direct action on everyone’s issues with the sole exception of those which largely effect Blacks and other racial minorities. Meanwhile, as their problems worsen, he and the rest of his kind do nothing other than to continue to make assenine excuses about the limits of their power, and to issue condescending lectures to those whom they believe are good to take votes from, but not good enough to serve.
Mr. Gozinja, you are obviously unfamiliar with the feller who routinely tells fantastic lies here. Just wait–like a draught, or toothache, or a plague, or swarm of skeeters on still river, he’ll be back with more pestiferous lies.
Okay, PEASEHEAD: “I think that it is a tiny sop to a tiny, mostly White, and fairly wealthy minority which has tight links to the President’s well-off Hollywood supporters. President Obama doesn’t do altruism, it’s always about him, his campaign war chest, and his political ambitions.” You’re right about the above. I’m tired of being lectured by George Clooney, Bill Maher, and Rob Reiner (and their hangers-on and admirers) about falling in behind the President. Just stop being so mean to the President, okay? He’s just one guy! A little boat looking for a harbor!
Obama Pelosi had a super majority in congress for 2 years.Before that Pelosi Reid had a super majority under Bush for two years.During those years of Dem domination they failed to pass a budget for 865 days yet they blame it on Bush and the GOP.The problem with Obama is not is he or is he not a progressive(personally i think he is a new deal dem missing all that fed power)…the question is did he have any qualifications for the job or enough smarts to handle it when it was dumped in his lap.A resounding NO on both counts.
“Obama Pelosi had a super majority in congress for 2 years”
Quit peddling bullshit.
http://washingtonindependent.com/74033/the-four-month-supermajority
I read your article Dick.Talk about peddling bullshit.Did this reporter ever pass the 8th grade?Or is he still in the 8th grade?Does he know anything about how the house even works?What a load of twisted bullshit.Why don’t you look up quote’s from speaker Pelosi where she daily (it seemed)trumpeted the Dems power.Seems SHE missed the memo from your erstwhile young reporter on the extent of her power.If only he(and you)had told her how little she really had at the time.Christ why am I even talking to you?You are re writing history even in opposition to your own leaders acknowledgements of that history.In a year you will be saying Obama was never REALLY the president.
For one party to enjoy having a supermajority in Congress means majority control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate. Obama enjoyed the supermajority for four months.
“It was an era of democratic super majority”.Read that piece,and stop parsing words and definitions.The point we make(and the point everyone evades), is the point Pelosi was so fond of making about the scope of Democratic power in the house, and Senate from 2008 on.And of the ability of Obama to do what ever he wanted to do.Republicans are blamed for stopping him.Bull……The people stopped him.Three years in and no budget.Playing semantics can’t change that.