Obama’s Two Mistakes That Lost The Country

[KamaAina]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/21/obamas-two-mistakes-lost-country

Nothing Obama could have done would have avoided the tsunami of vicious racist and xenophobic hatred that washed over him and the country, aided and abetted by the savagely partisan and vitriolic FOX news. Nothing would have stopped obscenely rich and intensely self-interested individuals like the Koch brothers from pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to discredit and defile the President and the government in general.

But Obama might well have stunted the emergence of a rightwing populist movement if he had pursued an aggressive populist strategy of his own, one that demonstrated government could effectively challenge giant corporations and unbridled private greed on behalf of small business and the average family....

In his Inaugural Address Obama needed only to change two words of Reagan’s to begin to change the narrative and foster a new populism: “It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the ... unnecessary and excessive growth of giant corporations…. corporations are not the solution to our problem; corporations are the problem.”

The time was propitious for taking on corporate capitalism. A month before the election, responding to popular outrage, Congress had rejected the first no-strings-attached bailout bill despite warnings that it had to act within hours or risk a total financial meltdown and against the wishes of the White House and leaders of both parties. The American people wanted public money used for the public good rather than to satisfy private greed. A revised bill directed the use of bailout money to increase lending and prevent foreclosures.

[musiclawyer]

1. I'll get flamed again. But I'm right

Obama --the great disappointment

[randys1]

2. Well, he accomplished a great deal, but some hold him to a different

standard.

Have from day one.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

4. +100. n/t

[Generic Other]

7. The racism he faced was and is so extreme

and undercut his accomplishments. I don't think white liberals were prepared for that. We should have been attacking the racists more than we criticized Obama. We fed their monstrous sense of entitlement. I am sorry for that.

[randys1]

9. Every single person who is white who opposes Obama on ANY issue from the right

does so first and foremost because of racism.

Then, in those instances where they were actually on the opposite side of Obama all along, i.e. not being hypocrites, it is STILL a first and foremost over reaction due to racism.

Unwilling to compromise, AT ALL is because of racism.

I do not know how Black people have survived this emotionally, I am in a rage over it most of the time and I am white.

It is literally bad for my health.

AS I have said many times, reverse everything here the past 200 yrs and the white folks would have burned down the entire country a very long time ago (as they would have been treated the way Blacks have been and they would not tolerate it for one day let alone 200 yrs)

[hughee99]

18. I don't agree.

What you're suggesting is that president Obama would face the same opposition as "president" Ben Carson or "president" Herman Cain would have. If Obama were a republican, he would get a good bit of republican support. Yes, race is a factor for some, but PARTY is the first and foremost factor.

[randys1]

19. Race would work against Ben also, he would be a token for them.

Racism is a part of all white Americans, some of us work against it and most dont.

[hughee99]

23. I didn't say race would HELP Ben, but to suggest that their opposition is, first and foremost,

based on race isn't accurate either. You call them "tokens" but what they are are black people who espouse republican ideas. Most republicans (no, not all) will support, or even celebrate black candidates that say what they want to hear (see Allan West).

Some white people also opposed Clinton from the right, and he's white. I'm not saying racism isn't involved, but politics, not race is the prevalent factor.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. BULLSHIT! There are plenty of examples of black Republicans FINALLY getting shitted

on when they are no longer useful as puppets:

J.C. Watts
Mike Steele
Herman Cain
Armstrong Williams

...and countless others who either explicitly or implicitly not admit racism in the Republican Party and being mistreated by former party allies.

[hughee99]

96. When do they "get shitted on"?

When they stop saying "republican" things... When their POLITICS change, not their race.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. It doesn't matter. The point is that they're BLACK! Eventually they learn...

...and I am black so don't lecture me about when and what happens!

[hughee99]

100. Since this discussion is about what white republicans think, how does being black

make you more qualified to know what's going on in a white republican's mind?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

110. If you need to ask, that's your problem. I don't have time or the energy to explain to you

how racist white people think. Find out on your own. Do your own fucking research.

[hughee99]

111. I do need to ask.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

How does being black make you able to able to read white republicans minds? Is it a magic power you (and others) have or do you just spend a lot of time having honest and open discussions with white republicans?

I'm not questioning your experience with racism, or what you believe to be true, but you were suggesting that you have a special ability to read white republicans minds that I do not have, and I'd like to know, specifically how you came to have such a remarkable ability?

In most arguments, one can get away with, "if you're not black, you can't understand and I can't explain it to you". And if the argument were about what black people think, I wouldn't really be able to counter that. Unfortunately, because we're discussing what WHITE people think, this is one of the few situations where you can't simply say "I'm not going to make an actual argument, but I'm black and therefore I know better."

[Omaha Steve]

31. Obama was good to labor

Donated when he ran for the US Senate. Caucused for him twice. I voted for him twice in November.

But he never put on his comfortable shoes. He didn't fight for the Employee Free Choice Act.

On TPP he is with the Republicans, not us. That is a BIG mistake.

You can't say I'm upset on issues from the right.

OS

[randys1]

33. From the right means someone who is already a righty. If you oppose him on TPP as I do

from the left, we (you and I both) do so with credibility and we are not hypocrites.

If you oppose him from the right you do so maybe because you disagree but always because you are a hypocrite, or they are.

[Marr]

41. Is that an acknowledgement of Obama's conservative political positions?

I mean, if any right-wing opposition must be based on racism, then it isn't based on policy.

I would say that's been the case on several occasions, where Obama offered to advance right-wing policy, like Chained CPI, and the Republicans dug in their heels anyway.

[still_one]

26. Yup

[rpannier]

84. He did

I was an early critic of some things (more on his style than substance)
He has accomplished quite a bit
The level of incomprehensible hatred towards the man and his family has staggered me
I will always appreciate John Stewart helping me finally coalesce what was happening when he said, "There's a President Obama that only Republicans can see."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Praise you!!!

[spanone]

5. no you're not.

[sharp_stick]

14. No you're not

and you're not worth a flame.

[brush]

16. Living in the past a bit

Clinton and Sanders are running, not Obama.

[redstateblues]

20. Not to me. Who was running that would have been better?

Obama has been a good President. Especially considering how unified his opposition has been. The bully pulpit is vastly overrated.

[akbacchus_BC]

86. Nobody will flame you. But President Obama will go down in history

as one of the best President ever in American history.

He worked his ass off to work with the rethugs who never liked him and even if he could not close the space the US usurp in Cuba, he is the best President ever since Kennedy.

Wait till you get a dumb fuck like trump as president, he will be the nominee on the rethug side, you naysayers would be wishing you got Mrs. Clinton as your President!

[Progressive dog]

3. So-again it's Obama's fault that he saved the economy

using the awful corporations, after his critics claimed it wouldn't work. Actually, he did the right thing as seen by the results.

[GummyBearz]

42. Regarding the economy and the wall street bailouts, he continued down the path Bush started

Not exactly a great path to go down. Has it worked in the short term? Yea, wall street is better off than ever. Corporations love it. Is that really a good measure of success for the majority of the people in this country? I would say no

[Progressive dog]

54. Sure he did, that's why the economy improved dramatically,

If you mean returning to the economic system this country has used through it's two hundred plus year history, I think we've done rather well in the long term.
I don't have a Pavlovian response of fear and loathing to the word "corporation"as a few seem to. I've never run into one on the street. I do know that a lot of people work for them, invest in them, are paid pensions through them. They even exist in the Scandinavian countries. In fact, the economy of the Scandinavian countries is mostly based on them.

[GummyBearz]

63. Corporations are obviously the dominant part of nearly every country's economy today

Traditionally our government has also had anti-trust laws to keep corporations in check, as problems can occur when corporations are allowed to have too much influence on the government or society as a whole. For example when the 2008 financial melt down occurred, instead of letting banks that made bad decisions go bankrupt and get replaced by better run banks (which is how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work), the banks successfully got US tax payers to bail them out of their bad bets, and avoided going bankrupt. If you want an example of a scandinavian country which did NOT do this, do a google search on iceland and what happened with their big banks.

Amazingly, iceland let their banks fail, put the people responsible for the fraud in jail, because hey... there are laws regarding business fraud. And iceland is better off for taking that path.

Anyway, there is nothing Pavlovian about it, and if you honestly think corporations are paying pensions I don't think you know how it works. I am "owed" a pension from a huge corporation, because I paid money out of my pay check into that pension. That money is then invested by a 3rd party, who charges a fee, and could easily lose it all. At which point the pension vanishes. Try reading up on how this stuff actually works. I'll give you a quick quote and link that I found with a google search:

"The amount of money Boeing owes for future pensions is $75-billion – more than the company’s entire stock market value. And it’s only socked away three-quarters of that money. But Boeing is not alone, according to Olivia Mitchell, who specializes in pensions at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business."

http://www.kplu.org/post/boeings-latest-move-confirms-nationwide-trend-end-pensions


If you care to read more I will assume you are able to google key words and find good articles.

[Progressive dog]

70. Boeing may owe you a pension

but destroying the economy is not the way to make sure you get your money.
Most of the money held in Iceland banks was not from Iceland. The US government insures deposits in our banks (unlike Iceland) and would have been stuck for huge losses if the banks were allowed to fail.
I know how pensions work, I don't think you know how economies work. Boeing is not going to hide the money so it can't be lost. Neither is anyone else. If the economy collapses because idiots are hiding their money, then we'll all share in the pain.

[GummyBearz]

72. You honestly think a pension fund has never gone bankrupt? Honestly?

And no I have never worked for Boeing, that was an example I found on google. And yes our government insures bank deposits via the FDIC. The government let several banks go bankrupt (washington mutual for example). The point being the politicians easily came up with the bailout out money for corporations, and they could have done the same for FDIC insured bank depositors as well. The difference is, they bailed out poorly ran companies, which should have gone bankrupt due to their own incompetence, and been replaced by better companies. But due to the giant amount of influence these huge companies had, politicians actually decided to just give them between hundreds of billions to trillions of tax dollars. You don't see any problem with that? Corporations being paid by the government via the circular reasoning of "well, they just went bankrupt, but they are really big. Lets give them more money so they are not bankrupt, and make them even bigger!"

[TransitJohn]

81. It would've been cheaper and just as effective to simply have

paid off everyone's mortgages, but instead he bailed out those fuckng crooks on Wall Street.

[Progressive dog]

122. That is not even close to true

[TransitJohn]

123. Question for you

What was 'worth' more, the subprime mortgages themselves, or their securitized instruments (CDOs, MBS's, etc.)? Think hard, now.

[Scootaloo]

105. He stalled the collapse.

While hey, that's better than letting it collapse, there was no fundamental change to fix the problem. just a bunch of handshakes and pinky swears. The middle and working classes are still getting assfucked, the too-ig-to-fail entities are STILL too big to fail. He kept the status quo, but that status quo is one that is skating razor's edge of collapse. The problem was not solved, just averted for the time being. The next president will either have to engage in systemic change, or face a re-collapse.

[Progressive dog]

121. He collapsed it upward, he is a miracle worker

He turned gravity around.

[comradebillyboy]

6. I was not an Obama fan in 08 but he certainly exceeded

my expectations. But I don't actually expect professional politicians to be pure and perfect. I might criticize him for not being ruthless enough and I despised Arnie Duncan but all in all a fairly successful presidency.

[KamaAina]

8. That isn't really the point of the article

It's about how the Repulsicans have managed to win just about every election since '08 except for Mittwit's.

[zappaman]

10. Obama still being trashed on a Democratic website I see...

[alarimer]

12. Criticism is not trashing

There are legitimate reasons why Obama deserves criticism, from the left. He could have pushed a more populist agenda (which is not to say he would have succeeded, but he didn't even TRY). He is far too corporate, with far too many corporate retreads appointed to important positions.

Democrats are supposed to be better than Republicans, in that we do not fall in lockstep just because "our" guy is in charge. Clearly that's not the case.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. That's trashing? Are all critiques of authority trashing?

[yeoman6987]

27. So when TPP passes and it will, we cannot complain and even be disappointed in the president?

[Skittles]

78. it's called not being a swooner

[treestar]

89. and it's not even needed now

who are they trying to convince of what with it at this point in time?

[IMG][/IMG]

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Short-term memory is a real affliction

in US politics.

Prez O inherited two wars and a financial system on the brink of collapse in 2009. In spite of constant GOPer obstructionism - and obstructionism from some Dems - he still managed some impressive accomplishments in his first term.

I have been very impressed by his second term especially where he has managed several more, including some on the international level that would practically have been inconceivable by leadership other than his.

IMO, this piece is mostly B***S***.

[Scuba]

76. And it appears he will leave us with three wars and a financial system on the brink of collapse.

[BlueMTexpat]

88. Why do you even bother to post on a website

that supports Democrats by making comments worthy of GOPers?

Not a word about any of Prez O's most noteworthy and significant accomplishments - and there are quite a few that are impressive, especially in the circumstances - but a heckuva a lot to say about situations inherited primarily from a previous misadministration. Your true colors perhaps?

[Scuba]

90. I'm not a cheerleader, I'm a citizen.

Are you disputing that what I wrote is correct?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

104. Yes, I dispute what you said is correct

It is obviously false. But before anyone lets you twist out of the original point, why are you on this website?

This is not RepublicanCitizen.com. It's DemocraticUnderground.com. If you're going to bash the Democratic president, pretending, exactly like Republicans do, that he is a failure, when he is in reality an outstanding success - and defending yourself by calling yourself a "citizen", you really should find a website that better reflects your non-Democratic ideology.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scuba]

106. Which part do you dispute? The three wars? The financial system on the brink of failure?

I've given the President props when he's been right, and he's been right on numerous occasions.

I've also been critical of him when he's been wrong, as he's also been on numerous occasions.

That's what being an informed and proactive participant in our democracy is all about.




Do you support the TPP? Killing civilians with drones? If so, perhaps you're the one who belongs on Republicancitizen.com.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

112. Both

The US is not at war right now. We're bombing a few terrorists in the middle east, but this is in accordance with routine police action, akin to having a handful of shootouts with murderers holed up. But even that isn't anywhere near a war. There are five times more Americans killed in the city of Detroit alone than as a result of all Middle Eastern conflicts combined - and that includes all of Daesh's snuff-videos and the terrorist attack on health care center in California.

Insofar as the financial system being "on the brink of failure", if you ever left your mom's basement, you'd know that the stock market has more than doubled. Gas prices are at an all time low. Fewer people are unemployed than ever were under Reagan. And your beloved Bernie supports droning, in case you didn't know.

Substituting your preferred fantasy of President Obama being a failure for absolutely 100% verifiable face really isn't what the Democratic party is about. So if you can't handle reality, there are other places for you, even more of an echo chamber than what you and the handful of Democratic party haters have been trying to turn the DU into.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scuba]

114. I do know the market has doubled. If you were better informed you'd know that an inflated market....

... is part of the problem. To wit:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/07/next-financial-crash-is-coming-imf-global-stability-report

Next financial crash is coming – and before we've fixed flaws from last one

IMF global stability report makes for a sobering read, saying sustainable recovery has failed to materialised and cheap money has led to bubbles and debt

The next financial crisis is coming, it’s a just a matter of time – and we haven’t finished fixing the flaws in the global system that were so brutally exposed by the last one.

That is the message from the International Monetary Fund’s latest Global Financial Stability report, which will make sobering reading for the finance ministers and central bankers gathered in Lima, Peru, for its annual meeting.

Massive monetary policy stimulus has rekindled growth in developed economies since the deep recession that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008; but what the IMF calls the “handover” to a more sustainable recovery – without the extra prop of ultra-low borrowing costs – has so far failed to materialise.

Meanwhile, the cheap money created to rescue the developed economies has flooded out into emerging markets, inflating asset bubbles, and encouraging companies and governments to take advantage of unusually low borrowing costs and load up on debt.

... and ...

http://www.alternet.org/robert-reich-wall-street-hard-work-cooking-next-financial-collapse

Robert Reich: Wall Street Is Hard at Work Cooking Up the Next Financial Collapse
The finance industry still presents a massive threat to the middle class.

The Street’s excesses pose a continuing danger to average Americans. And its ongoing use of confidential corporate information is defrauding millions of middle-class investors.

Do we really need reminding about what happened six years ago? The financial collapse crippled the middle class and poor — consuming the savings of millions of average Americans, and causing 23 million to lose their jobs, 9.3 million to lose their health insurance, and some 1 million to lose their homes.

A repeat performance is not unlikely. Wall Street’s biggest banks are much larger now than they were then. Five of them hold about 45 percent of America’s banking assets. In 2000, they held 25 percent. And money is cheaper than ever. The Fed continues to hold the prime interest rate near zero.

This has fueled the Street’s eagerness to borrow money at rock-bottom rates and use it to make risky bets that will pay off big if they succeed, but will cause big problems if they go bad.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

116. So you've bought into all the Glenn Beck doom and gloom?

Buy gold and bullets? Lest those marauding Democrats get their hands on your precious treasures and women in the coming financial apocalypse?

Sorry, Robert Reich may be a reasonably smart guy, but he's no prognosticator. When Paul Krugman starts to issue warnings, then I'll actually begin to worry. And he says exactly the opposite of these Very Serious Articles you've dug up: debt, far from being bad, can often be quite good.

And by the way, many of the worries about evasions of financial controls are addressed by Hillary Clinton's proposed Wall Street reforms. Furthermore, there are people on Wall Street that praise the plan too, saying it will bring stability to the markets. I know this doesn't mean much to people like you - as you're as nutcase about Wall Street as Teabaggers are about Muslims - but there really are moderate Wall Streeters out there who want the place reformed, and nothing will get past congress without at least some of their support.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scuba]

117. I'm sure a conservative like yourself would know a lot more about Beck than I, what with ...

... you defending Wall Streeters and all. Yuck.

Three wars, collapsing financial system. Own it ConservativeDemocrat. It's yours.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

118. Enough to know you sound just like him...

...horseshoe theory and all that.

And I don't need to "own" any of the fever dreams emerging out of your bizarre and colorful imaginings - because unlike you, I'm reality based. And reality says that our Democratic President has done loads of good for the country, and all the people who are now crying "just you wait - it'll get bad sometime, maybe soon" are a bunch of petulant whiners, mad that their predictions of doom, gloom, and $6 a gallon gas, that they made at the beginning of his tenure didn't come to fruition. In fact the opposite did.

So go sit at the extremist table with all the teabaggers, Scuba. Own it. That's where you really belong.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Scuba]

119. Hey, you're the self-described conservative. You go join the teabaggers.

Three wars, collapsing financial system. Owned by a conservative Democratic President - and you.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

120. Okay scoobs...

...when you come down off whatever you're on, we can talk later. Or not.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[unblock]

15. nice of the article to mention 2 huge causes of these problems and then say it's obama's fault

obama's achievements are objectively huge. he inherited an economy in free fall and unemployment's back to healthy levels. had you invested in the stock market at the beginning of his presidency and you would have made more money than during the tenure of any other president ever.

had obama been a republican there is absolutely no way he would not have been elevated to sainthood already.

remember that obamacare was based on a republican/heritage foundation idea for a market-oriented solution as an alternative to government-based solutions like medicare-for-all. very similar to rmoneycare.

had mclame won in 2008 and put rmoneycare in place nationwide, or had obamacare been stymied and rmoney won in 2012 and put rmoneycare in place nationwide, republicans would have been shouting its gloriousness from the rooftops.


it's disingenuous to blame the victim of such media and partisan attacks. had obama done things differently, the media and republicans would have stymied him and vilified him differently, but at least as effectively.

obama has faced nearly unprecedented challenges as president, and done far more than most other occupants of that office could have done with the cards he was dealt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Well, commondreams are experts on losing

[Enrique]

21. he didn't lose the country

I'm in favor of the policies that this author favors. But Obama has relatively high approval ratings.

[KamaAina]

22. Um, take a walk up Capitol Hill and a tour of the statehouses.

See how many more repukes there are there than there were in '08.

[pnwmom]

25. And that is the fault of election fraud and gerrymandering. Look at how many states

are run by Rethugs. That's not Obama's fault, either.

If you have to blame a progressive, blame the ones who helped Nader toss the 2000 election to Bush. That's how we ended up with some of the worst members of SCOTUS. And they're at the bottom of so much of this.

[yeoman6987]

30. My gosh gerrymandering is only with the house

We lost over 900 seats. Only 30 (maybe) we due to gerrymandering. We need to take a look at why we lost the most seats since the 1800's.

[Kingofalldems]

38. Any proof that only 30 seats were lost due to gerrymandering?

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/11/in_evenly_split_ohio_redistric.html

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/4/5960095/what-would-it-take-for-democrats-to-win-the-house

Just a couple links that make your 'facts' suspect.

[pnwmom]

40. "We lost over 900 seats." Except both the US Senate and House put together have fewer seats.

[GummyBearz]

43. Way to overlook the state, county, and city levels

think about that poster's statement, and realize how he is right.

[pnwmom]

44. He provided absolutely no context for that remark. If that is the case,

then how many state, county, and city level offices are there?

[yeoman6987]

48. Add governor and all the state houses we lost.

It's been a bloodbath. You know we only control 18 state houses in the United States. We only have 19 governors. It's actually ugly....more so then most realize.

[pnwmom]

56. And none of this is Obama's fault, or even the DNC's. Why do you think

we were supporting DINO's? Because they gave us crucial votes at critical times, and gave us control of the House and the Senate.

Cutting them loose was a huge mistake.

[yeoman6987]

59. It is nobody's cumulative fault

There are problems that the party needs addressed. I hope they do so soon before were down to 3 governors and 5 state houses and super majorities in congress.

[pnwmom]

60. The article in the OP says it is the fault of Obama and his mistakes.

I agree that we need to stop the blood loss, but we're going about it the wrong way if we blame Obama.

[yeoman6987]

61. I don't blame the president at all....maybe 5 percent. DNC 80 percent, voters 5 percent

And candidates 10 percent.



The reason for the president's 5 percent is because he has national audience. He could hold s press conference everyday to talk about the election in October and beginning November. I would if I saw the 2010 result and know that 2014 are midterms and voters are needed.

[1939]

77. How is a Republican winning a governor's race

An example of "gerrymandering"?

The only position that would support that would be that the 50 states were an example of "gerrymandering".

[pampango]

29. I believe more people voted for Democrats than republicans in the House and Senate

in both 2010 and 2014.

[yeoman6987]

34. No. Not even close but I had hoped you were right.

In 2010, the Repugs had 44 million voters. The Democratic Party had 38 million voters.

In 2014, the Repugs had 40 million voters. The Democratic Party had 35 million.



You may want to self delete your reply due to incorrect information.

[pampango]

35. Good point. We only outvoted them (+1.5 million) in the House in 2012, not in 2010 and 2014.

That was undoubtedly due to the higher turnout that we got when Obama was up for reelection.

[Kingofalldems]

39. Re incorrect info you might want to delete Post #30 for lack of any proof.

[pnwmom]

45. Links, please. n/t

[yeoman6987]

51. Here you go

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

[pnwmom]

57. Where's the link to support your 900 seat claim?

[Kingofalldems]

58. I am still waiting for proof of Post #30

where he claims 'we' lost only 30 seats due to gerrymandering.

[truebluegreen]

73. Here ya go: fyi it's from the DNC--ever heard of them?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/dnc-report-messaging-redistricting/

Headline reads: DNC charts path after brutal election losses
Operative quote:
"It lays out the huge losses Democrats have seen since Obama's election in 2008: The party has shed 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 12 governor's offices and more than 900 state legislative seats -- as well as 30 state legislative chambers."


Got it now?

[pnwmom]

24. The ACA was as populist a health plan as he could get through THAT Congress

and it was critical for 18 million people (not counting the new sign-ups, however many there were.)

The idea that Obama, or Sanders, or anyone else can push populist legislation through THIS Congress is either misguided or deliberately deceptive.

We need a new Congress to make these populist laws. Period.

[padfun]

28. This article fails to realize that

Obama was and is a corporatist. Saying that, I still think he has done a pretty darn good job, especially considering what he was up against.

[pnwmom]

46. The word corporatist is devoid of meaning, the way people toss it around these days.

But every time I hear it I'm reminded of Nader because he was the one who first put it into wide use around here.

And I'm reminded that we have him to thank for the Bush Presidency.

[truebluegreen]

75. That old BS.

Jebbie! and the Supremes are who we have to thank.

[draa]

103. Damn right.

I don't understand how any member of Democratic Party doesn't understand that. Someone a few nights back said "if Gore had won we wouldn't have Roberts and Alito." As if that was ever going to happen in the first place. It was rigged. It didn't matter what Gore did he was going to lose. Blaming Nader is wrong knowing what we now know.

You could also add Katherine Harris and the Brooks Brothers Protesters to your list.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/artificial-protestors-are_b_254276.html

[redstateblues]

107. Sounds like another Nader voter

[truebluegreen]

108. Truly an asinine post.

[yourout]

32. Can't say I disagree with any of it.......In my opinion signing the ACA without a public option....

will end up in the long run being worse than no ACA at all.

[GummyBearz]

47. I agree

Maybe if the repubs win they will follow through on their promise to repeal the ACA. Then in 4-8 years time we can have a chance to pass it again, the right way. Cut out the damn lawyers, regulate big pharma, bring costs down so doctors still get paid for their services and non-doctors don't go bankrupt over a car accident.

[one_voice]

37. The whole country huh?

I can't wait for Bernie to get elected so I can pull this shit. Seriously. Everyday. Nothing will be good enough. Count on it.

[GummyBearz]

49. No one will care

other than 1%ers... oh well.

[JoePhilly]

50. He'll never win a 3rd term now!!!!

CommonDreams is a joke.

[KamaAina]

52. A joke? What's so funny about it?

[JoePhilly]

53. Other than being ridiculous?

Nothing.

[KamaAina]

55. Ridiculous? Naomi Klein begs to differ.

http://www.commondreams.org/about-us

"Common Dreams is a daily, glorious taste of what the dominant media could be if it was shaped by our common dreams of justice and peace."
- Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine

[JoePhilly]

68. Yea, read that ... its a good book ... still ...

... CD is a joke.

And today, the joke starts with a false title. Obama has never lost the country. That assertion is flat out asinine.

[guillaumeb]

62. Given that President Obama's campaign money came primarily

from Big Business and Wall Street, why would any Democrat expect Obama to attack corporate capitalism? And yes, I have read the meme that the majority of Obama's donors were small donation people, but the majority of his money came from the 1%.

[hollowdweller]

64. Obama wasted a lot of the first part of his presidency trying to find middle ground and make nice

I was very let down by him early on. I feel much better about him now.

However rather than corporations I feel early on he should have used the crisis to discredit deregulation and trickle down the same way Reagan did in the opposite direction. His complaining about "congress" instead of "The REPUBLICANS" I think contributed to us losing the majority.

He will write a book someday but I'm guessing he learned that lesson.

[akbacchus_BC]

87. President Obama declared he was President for all Americans!

So what if he tried to work with the republicans and they snubbed him, at least he tried. So many of you are so quick to make him the bad guy.

You know what, in the world, he is the best President ever, since Kennedy!

[OilemFirchen]

65. Oh hell.

Does this mean I have to send in a Change of Address form?

[AZ Progressive]

66. This says everything about how the people got screwed by Obama

From the article:

At one point Obama met with the CEOs of the nation’s 13 largest banks. He accurately warned them, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” But rather than make demands, he pleaded with the bankers: “Help me help you.” They were only too glad to do so.

Fuckin sellout

[Quantess]

79. That was no accident, either.

Obama is a sellout, and it was naive of us to think otherwise. But, he's better than Bush.

[AZ Progressive]

67. The Oligarchs are geniuses, they put out a fake populist when the time is right for a real populist.

[redstateblues]

69. Ah- the straw men again- They are everywhere

The oligarchs, the corporatists, neoliberals, third wayers, 1%ers,-scary!

[Egnever]

71. Let me guess... He is Black and a Democrat?

[Skittles]

74. those are true but it's way more than that

WAY more

[NCLefty]

80. There are far too many bought-and-paid-for pols that would have never let him go after corporations.

And not just on the right.

Furthermore, the right would have spun the attempt into something malicious. Then we get into the ACA (malicioussssss!) and all is lost again.

An interesting take but I don't think this would have changed much regarding the right-fed working class that hates him.

[CBGLuthier]

82. The two things he did that created the RW "populist" movement were to be elected president twice.

The fringe racists, John Birchers, anti-government whackos, gun nuts, and the rest came together in an orgy of anger at the insolence of this black man with the "foreign" name daring to lead their lily-white country.

[Katashi_itto]

83. He could have stopped it all by bringing the Bush Cabal up on war crimes.

The Republicans would have turned on each other like the mad dogs they are trying to avoid charges.

[akbacchus_BC]

85. Two mistakes that President Obama did -- I'll play, first of all, he

trusted the GOP to work with him to change the status quo after Bush.

Now, your opinion is yours but you are not President Obama and you have no idea the shit he had to deal with after taking office.

The ridiculous statements being made, but President Obama, whom you cannot have the courtesy to respect him as President, is leaving soon and am sure that with two daughters to support, he will be a pauper after he leaves the White House. Mrs. Clinton had only one daughter to support and they left the White House poor.

In future, please give respect where it is due, it is President Obama whether you like it or not. In the scheme of politics, are you Mrs. Clinton running for the Presidency? Just curious.

I am sick and tired of the disrespect to President Obama!

[LuvNewcastle]

102. So the Clintons were "poor"

and Obama will be a "pauper." If you believe that, you don't have the first clue what poverty is.

[Hotler]

91. Now is not the time to point fingers.....

[Blue_Tires]

92. "Lost the country"??

Last I checked Obama's approval rating was still fairly high and he's still in office...

But seriously -- Nobody likes a Monday Morning Quarterback...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

94. FUCK COMMON DREAMS FOR BLAMING OBAMA FOR AMERICA'S FUCKING RACISM!!

Fuck them to hell.

Shame to all who co-sign this outrageous fuckery!

Americans need to deal with their racism!

[tabasco]

97. well said

you're right

[cry baby]

98. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. nt

[JI7]

101. yup,FUCK THEM

[MrScorpio]

109. The premise here is that a nation addicted to white supremacy would actually follow a black prez

Apparently this article is faulting Obama for for failing to be Bernie before Bernie.

Obama first priority was to keep the country from falling appart. Triage normally doesn't normally give one the luxury of best case scenarios.

[lunatica]

113. Why post this obscenity here? Our country is definitely not 'lost'!

Racism may be rampant but it will never lose this country. It's also still the view of a hateful minority who fear they will be treated the way they've treated others.

To take one moment in time and call it 'the end' as in a book or movie is idiotic. Everything is connected to the past and to the future. We are and will always be a work in progress, just like everything else on this planet, including the planet itself.

[Green Forest]

115. The country is not "lost." On the contrary, it is infinitely better than when Obama took office.

Revisionism is at best an exercise in wishful thinking. Let's move forward.