President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 08, 2010 08:08 PM UTC

Who Is Barack Obama?

  • 17 Comments
  • by: JO

In 2007-2008 conservative “establishment” Democrats, plus feminists, had a clear choice: Hillary. Self-proclaimed progressives could hear echoes of their sentiments in John Edwards. And then there was Barack Obama, inspirational speaker without peer. Yes, he seemed more conservative than Edwards, but perhaps that was just caution, an appeal to the broad middle of an electorate aching for change–but exactly what sort of change they weren’t entirely clear. Obama carried those hopes on what was, in many respects, a blank slate.

Some leftists, sorely tempted by Edwards, nevertheless gravitated to Obama, captured by his oratory and willing to see what they wanted to see. After all, how conservative could a veteran South Side community organizer really be? And hadn’t Obama long opposed the Iraq war that Senator Edwards had voted to approve and that Hillary still supported? Wasn’t Iraq the overwhelming issue in 2008?

Ah, what a difference a year makes.

Edwards, of course, has proved to be one of the most wretched individuals ever to run for the White House, at least as far as we know.

Hillary “I support the war in Iraq” is now Secretary of State! The president of the New York federal reserve, Timothy Geitner, who was at Ground Zero during the financial meltdown of 2008, is Mr. Treasury Secretary with Larry Summers calling shots from the side. And there’s Rahm “Fuckin'” Emanuel callin’ the fuckin’ shots from next door to the fuckin’ Oval fuckin’ Office.

Where is Obama in all this? And what should progressives who bought into the rhetoric of Barck the Candidate a year ago make of Obama the President at the outset of Year 2?

An article last week in the FinTimes ( http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6b4…  Regis. required, free, and worth it) suggested that the White House had been taken over by a Gang of Four from Chicago (Axelrod, Gibbs, Emanuel, and Barack Himself), whose particular brand of politics may not go down especially well outside the Windy City.

In other cases, some progressives view with wonderment Obama scheduling a televised conference with Republicans on the topic of health care, in hopes of persuading them, finding a middle ground, or whatever, and thereby rescuing “health care reform,” without exactly defining what that “reform” might be–guaranteed profits for private insurers? Continued runaway costs? “Do Not Touch” pharmaceutical prices? Yes, Virginia, the health care system could be made even worse and that could be called “reform.” Guaranteeing health care as a basic human right…well, that’s a bit tougher if we’re still expect to put a Mercedes in every MD’s garage and Bentleys in the 4th through 6th bays of health insurance CEOs’ car barns.

How many Americans are concerned that any sense of national purpose or common good has been lost beneath the constant drumbeat of Me, Me, Me, whose drum majors are the CEOs of corporations that have happily exported jobs to lowest-paid worker zones, conveniently forgetting ol’ Henry Ford’s notion of making cars that his workers could afford to buy–not just by making cheap cars, but also by paying decent wages? Will lofty rhetoric alone solve this symptom of social decline and fall?

How many Americans marvel at the speed with which the favored ones covered by TARP have sprung back and resumed paying multi-million dollar bonuses, while upwards of 15% of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, or just too discouraged to even look? Seems the government can do something about economic hurt–when it’s determined to do so.

I might still be chanting “yes, we can” if I had a clearer picture of just what it was we could do. I might not be asking “who is Barack Obama” if Safeway accepted Hope for groceries and offered Change in return.

Is Obama drifting to the right, as I read here and there? Was he always on the right, having hidden there in the bygone era of don’t ask don’t tell? Well, we can still hope, but our belief begins to wear thin.

Tweet
Share

Comments

17 thoughts on “Who Is Barack Obama?”

  1. but I can address one point.

    …marvel at the speed with which the favored ones covered by TARP have sprung back and resumed paying multi-million dollar bonuses, while upwards of 15% of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, or just too discouraged to even look? Seems the government can do something about economic hurt–when it’s determined to do so.

    I too would like to see the government do more for the typical individual and household.

    But when I lose a job, it doesn’t destabilizee the entire economy, just my household.  But if AIG failed, it would have dragged down a large piece of the financial sector of the economy. Likewise, Goldman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, and before that LongTerm Capital Management and others.  

    So unless and until there is significant regulation and reform of the financial sector, the government is going to have to continue saving the major players and not me and you. Not because trickle down works (it doesn’t) but because when your house is on fire and the dishes need washing, you put out the fire first.

    1. With one or two exceptions, TARP funds have been paid back–largely in order to get out from under limits on bonuses. That could be interpreted as “the rescue worked, the rescued are back in gear.”

      The remaining problem, of course, is that as long as credit remains tight–as many reports say it is–businesses are unable or unwilling to expand, and jobs remain hard to come by.

      At the same time, although Obama has made noises about the issue of the fixed value (under-valuation I should say) of the Chinese yuan, his administration has so far not taken strong action. Granted this is not a simple issue and one that requires consideration; at the same time, it’s an issue that requires action and it’s not a new one. It is also an issue that runs up against the entire free trade position of Clinton-era “corporate” Democrats (see: NAFTA).

      Similar cases could be made for a massive infrastructure renewal program, a Teachers for Tots program employing recent college grads in school rooms as tutors, and a continuation of tax breaks for purchases of Green-and-Made-in-USA consumer capital goods like cars and appliances. Instead, I see a timid president proposing a “spending freeze” in the budget (well, part of the budget) in recognition of deficit panic (see Paul Krugman, 2/4/10, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02… )

      And lastly: Obama is notorious for being one who seeks consensus. Is this really possible with Republicans circa 2010? And if not, is Obama ready, willing, and able to declare that he is proceeding anyway, play hardball anyway he can, and take dramatic action, tea parties, the GOP, and Sen. Shelby notwithstanding?

      Thus my title: Who is Barack Obama, what does he stand for, and will his actions match his rhetoric? Stay tuned…

      1. Not saying we shouldn’t because it’s hard, but it’s going to remain difficult to negotiate the Yuan exchange rate while the China sovereign fund remains invested in such a large piece of our national debt.

        As for Obama- he campaigned as a moderate who would prefer to build consensus. Why surprised that’s how he’s governing?

  2. It’s all well and good to say we should be “Guaranteeing health care as a basic human right” — but really, what is it you think Obama (a) did wrong, or (b) didn’t do that he should’ve?  Even if you can fault this tactic or that, how is the problem either of teh things that you suggest — that Obama isn’t progressigve enough or that we don’t know “who is Barack Obama”?

    1. Obama did not take a clear, strong stand for guaranteed health care…not insurance, but care … as a right, and push for a bill that would guarantee that right. Instead, he stood back and hoped for/encouraged/wished for a bipartisan consensus to emerge, which was never in the cards (and still isn’t).

      Ergo: failure of leadership.

      1. It sounds like you’re saying the problem was that President Obama didn’t push single-payer (at least that sounds like what you mean by saying he shouldn’t pushed for guaranteed care rather that guaranteed insurance). I’ll stand corrected if that’s not what you meant, but saying that single-payer had a remote prayer of passing is ridiculous. You wouldn’t have had anything close to a congressional majority, much less a filibuster-proof majoriity

          1. I thought you were talking about single payer and I did say “I’ll stand corrected if that’s not what you meant,” so I in no way was rying to argue against a “straw man.”

            If I didn’t get whether you meant single payer, then frankly, it’s because your explanation was totally incoherent. I asked what you thought President Obama did wrong, and you write this mish-mash: “Obama did not take a clear, strong stand for guaranteed health care…not insurance, but care … as a right, and push for a bill that would guarantee that right.”  That’s an extraordinarily vague explanation of what you think the President did wrong; I was paying you the courtesy of assuming you meant something specific.

            So it seems pretty clear you have no specific thing the Presdident did wrong, just as your man Romanoff has litle idea what he’d do differently from Bennet. You just think “if I or my candidate were in charge, boy things would be better.” Thanks for making the emptiness of your gripe clear.

            I’m new to posting on Pols and was trying in my first posted question to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite what I see is your well-earned rep as a lunatic.  This is the last time I’ll make the mistake of taking you seriously, thanks.

  3. people will fill them in with whatever they want.

    As Obama defined himself as the candidate of “hope and change”, he never solidified what that meant in a universal sense except that everyone had a great deal of hope that he would be a change from Bush. The left interpreted his lofty oratory as hope for a real progressive agenda. Unaffiliateds took it to be a change from intense partisanship. And everyone else took it to mean whatever the hell they wanted.

    So I think the question titling your diary is well taken, but one thing he has never been, ever since he became a presidential candidate is a darling of the progressive left. Despite having the most liberal voting record in the senate Obama campaigned hard on a moderate tack. Unfortunately for the reasons mentioned above this didn’t matter when disguised behind empty slogans of hope and change, but when he started every policy sound bite with “I will cut taxes for 95% of Americans” that should have been a clue that, as President, he was not going to be some champion of liberal ideals.

    I supported him with this understanding, and I continue to do so, despite disagreements here or there. I don’t think he is drifting to the right, I think that the poetry of the campaign has lifted and now he is governing in the prose that has under-lined his rhetoric all along. It’s a shame in a way, because while it’s true that “you campaign in poetry and govern in prose” the poetry Obama chose set up basically everyone for a disappointment because everyone had a different idea of what his prose would be, none of which corresponds with the actual realities of non-fiction governing.

    Looking back on that, I may have stretched the metaphor too far, but I think my point is clear nonetheless.

    1. Some leftists … gravitated to Obama, captured by his oratory and willing to see what they wanted to see.

      Wake up and smell the air off Lake Michigan!

      But there is also this: the Republicans, stung by defeat, adopted a simpler platform after November: Just say no. Limbaugh was one of the few to say out loud what many, many Republicans were thinking–and how they were acting in Congress: We hope Obama fails.

      I see that Obama is still giving voice to the consensus approach to health care, but there will be no consensus, there will be no “bipartisan” cooperation, and given that the GOP’s 41 vote coalition is a helluva lot more disciplined than the 59 Democrats…well, no, let’s not count L. of CT, or Nelson of NE, or …. than the however many Democrats operating under the distinctly weak-kneed “leadership” of Harry Reid… It’s damned depressing.

      Instead of a consensus builder Obama would be better stepping up to the plate as a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners leader of Democrats who makes clear what is wanted and what the price will be for failure to cooperate. Health care. Energy. Financial controls. Environment. Trade. Education. Do it now. Do it our way.

      Mr. Shelby, to cite one, should be gasping for breath at the number of federal facilities in Alabama suddenly scheduled for closure in the next six months. (However many such facilities there are in that benighted state, that’s the number that need to be closed or moved…pronto.) Usw, meine komeraden….

      1. You might be right that post-2008 politics needed a leader like that to avoid the health care morass. But I think you’ll agree, that’s not Obama and it never has been. Part of Obama’s appeal was his pledge to get beyond the polarized politics still hanging over from the ’60s. I just don’t think if he’d run as a hard-nosed Chicago pol, he would’ve excited the new voters and disaffected centrists who swept him in, so expecting him to turn on a dime and become that guy isn’t realistic. I think the administration understands that leaving the details to Reid and Pelosi (and Nelson and Liebermann) leaves the Democratic agenda floundering; we’ll have to see if they can steer things differently this year.

        1. I don’t see why Democrats who want that would disparage Rahm Emmanuel who is the epitome of the hard-nosed bad-ass, smashing heads, partisan leader. From what I’ve read it seems that he has been pushing Obama towards such a leadership position from the beginning with little to no luck.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

86 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!