Food for thought from Tom Tomorrow: "Obama is a centrist technocrat"

Ergo, we're not likely to see anything from President Obama that will get a 100% (or even a passing grade) on a Progressive Purity Test. That would include Supreme Court Justices. Health care reform. Prosecution of the wars. Military commissions. Prosecution of Bush administration 'war crimes' and 'lies'. Economic policy. Legislative strategy. Executive appointments. And so on.

And anyone who ever thought they were were putting a dyed-in-the-wool progressive in the White House was not listening to Obama's actual words during the entire 18-month campaign.

I keep an eye on the St Petersburg Times ObamMeter that is tracking each of Obama's campaign promises. Of the 514 promises, 115 (22%) have had some action taken in the first four months (8%) of his first term. Pretty good. Of these, 30 have been kept, 8 are compromises and 6 have been broken. Really not too shabby.

Am I an Obamabot? I'm sure by this point in the post many are saying 'yes'. But I have had plenty of disagreements with Obama since January - the appointment of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, shoddy vetting, appointee ethical problems, continuation of Bush policies in security matters, his lack of explicit vocal support for GLBT issues. And I argue against them.

I just keep two things in mind: 1) He told us most of this stuff in advance, and 2) Sarah Palin's in Alaska.

brace yourself and reef the sales for storm.

They just have a different opinion and are welcome to it. As I have mine.

the sandals with the steel studs in the soles

:)

But I fail to see any mistakes in grammar. Feel free to address the substance of my post at any time.

:thumbsup: He did indeed tell us most of this in advance. K&R

You're a pal. ;-)

to paraphrase Dennis Green "Obama is who we thought he is!!!" He is governing as he promised.

I quibble with "centrist technocrat"...what the hell is that?

or this one which actually an improvement. Anyone here had access to the real intent of the Party to go softly if they won in 2006. As enthusiasm built the centrist stacked primary choices started to play to the action/reform/peace/change momentum with NO intent whatsoever of changing their passive strategy. We knew what in fact we were getting in the need to oppose/slow down/build toward real change commitment to help them get elected. Yet in the enthusiasm of the campaign we swallowed(not the Congress critters) the hype. Today we still get a lot of the "shock" and disillusionment meme which is best suited to people outside DU who indeed knew nothing except campaign ads.

We are light years ahead of being enmeshed in the still unaccountable Bush administration. On all fronts, including party true representation we are far from having arrive, far from surety on any success, far from facing simple reality. But we have hope, not the hype and not the wishful thinking or the expectation of a progressive leaping unbound from the hushed up mushed up centrism of the campaign that never focused on the reforms, the crimes and the alarming dangers to democracy to the degree that reality, not the MSM, cried out for.

If anything we should become disillusioned with our self delusions and get back to the forward moving slog that is OUR challenge in the years to come. Delusions plus real power might easily have ruined even a pure Progressive presidency in ways much worse than the grousing now.

What can change Obama? Severe confrontations with intractable evils might move him necessarily, though cautiously, toward another way of dealing with the fraudulent status quo. Continued grass roots progress and getting better Dem officials and ASAP election finance reform could move the ground beneath him. The latter is actually healthier for our democracy and make progress more intact and less vulnerable to the one man hope of the short term presidency.

Things have not changed at all, but we are moving forward. We even still have the bad guys to kick around because they still are a threat. And we certainly have not been spoiled by power or even a victory in forming the one existing party that tries to keep the American neck above the abyss.

The phenom the poster is talking about is old MSM/DU trap where our judgment is spun by MSM perceptions
even as we decry the biased control of that treacherous fraud. We know better, but we talk stupid. It is symptomatic of our ruined national forums.

And I don't recall a Green Candidate anywhere in the vicinity of Presidential nominee in 2008.

Who thought Obama was a Green candidate?

He's not been in office 6 months. It's not possible for any promise to be broken until his first term is up.

The Democratic party has run a long string of them, and the leadership positions are primarily populated by them.

But I reject anyone who argues that criticism of Obama is invalid because he is "doing as he promised". Criticism from the left will occur, independent of what was promised, and will be just as valid coming from a surprised person as a not-so-surprised person.

I am one of those not-so-surprised people. But that doesn't mean I agree with many facets of policy right now, and I reserve the right to sound off on those criticisms when and if they occur. Conversely, I will heap praise on praiseworthy policies.

I really think that the "He's doing what he promised, what are you upset about?" Argument is based on the false notion that a vote for Obama meant that you agreed with every position 100%. I do not think that many DUers voted for Obama thinking that every policy proposal was great.

We had a choice, McCain or Oabama...ALL of us voted for Obama. I also reject the idea that critiicism of Obama means a person would have preferred McCain. That is a silly and insulting argument on this board.

We were given the choice of a long line of centrist technocrats in the primary. It was whittled down to three of them very early on. We simply had different shades of centrism to choose from within the party (that is, if you vote strategically like I do). I chose the technocrat who seemed the farthest from the DLC. Obama played his cards close to his chest with the conservadems, but did not have clear ties to them like the other two.

I am a little surprised at how much influence that the conservadems have gained since his election both within his WH and in congress. The part that irritates me is that there was a promise that all voices would be allowed at the table, and I am not convinced that has happened with the left. But no, nothing else really has surprised me, but I still reserve the right to disagree and make my voice heard when need be.

...at times when they in fact were not that gets under my skin.

I feel betrayed when Ben Nelson decides to run off to the Republican side and sink our chances of passing good legislation. He's a fucking Democrat and has no loyalty, and what's worse is he is never held accountable for it....ever.

So when one feels betrayed by Obama, it may not necessarily be because of a specific promise broken...but the fact that a ostensibly right-wing policy is coming from a Democratic WH.

And it does not follow that said criticism is invalid even if the person believed differently about Obama's intentions. You must admit that the campaign was carefully designed to appear all things to all people. When "Hope and Change" is on everything, people do expect something more than centrist technocrat. It is not really good form to mock the people who believed what was in their faces when those things were carefully designed to elicit such a response. I see that a lot around here. Who wants to feel screwed only to effectively be told "Suckers!"?

None of this should be at all surprising, IMO.

Disappointing, yes... for sure.

But he is a traitor to the party that welcomes him.

There are many others. There are a lot of DUers who have been talking about them for years. Some DUers are just beginning to notice their effect on getting our platform passed into law.

The surprise issue I thought was Obama. In that respect, I can understand surprise under a few circumstances, but not all.

as a symptom of a disease. The disease is RW ideology, and this country has been steeped far too long in it, which is why we have those ****** up there.

I only hope that we're finally on the way to repairing that, and restoring some semblance of balance.

My position that Nelson is a traitor is more of an aspect of the cure for the disease than a comment on it. I realize he is just doing what has been the "beltway wisdom" for years and thinks what he is doing is perfectly fine. But if a segment of the Democrat party treats him as a traitor for it and gives him political consequences for, it will be a good way we cure the red-shift (within the Democratic party). I guess I try to give voice to such a force on DU.

so that running a liberal challenger will pay off. Maybe MoveOn could target those states with ads or something... I dunno.

But I know we have the same problem here (TX). My short experience with the Dem party here was eye-opening, to say the least... now I just focus on Move On, Acorn, and that kind of stuff. Dems in my area are way to the right of me... it sucks so hard.

But in the short-term, go with populists. They know how to speak to the local culture very well because they share many of the same cultural values as their constituents (so you may be up against them on a prayer for school issue), but economically, they are what can break the backs of the corporatists and neoliberals.

I just don't think they should be at all surprised.

Not all of which you may share with other people. That is how the human condition works.

Some people see the most prominent message and build their expectations based on that. A lot of people saw "Hope and Change" and really not much more than that. There was a lot of opposition to the Bush policies, and a lot of essentially substanceless promises from the stump, and people took that home with them.

I have been around these parts for long enough to know that even DUers (God love them!) do not do their homework when it comes to the hard facts surrounding issues. This is a discussion board and not a research center (sometimes I wish it was). Many DUers do not have a holistic view of the Democratic party's internal factions, their agendas, and members amongst the pols. It is not a criticism. People just don't have the time or interest to do that much dang research, and I am often guilty of it myself.

Many people here did not read the nitty gritty on the Obama website, but went with what was in their face, which was carefully tailored to look like all things to all people. It was a beautifully run campaign, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that Obama enumerated all of his political decisions from the stump....he didn't, and it would have been stupid for him to have done so.

The left feels they were promised a spot for everyone at the table, and they do not feel that promise has been delivered for them. Any leftie who acts surprised about that deserves to be so. That is perfectly rational, and can be traced back to a repeated promise from the stump.

Campaigns are designed to bamboozle the most amount of people. If a lot of people feel betrayed because they got bamboozled, it should not irritate you. It is a sign of a well-run campaign.

In this context, I interpret it to be the equivalent of 'pragmatist' or 'policy wonk'.

democracy is to be managed, by those expert in their particular fields...very university of chicago

He's not what America wants.

And you're pretty awesome, too.

:loveya:

:blush:

:hi:

" none of which is meant to imply happy acquiesence to Obama’s own versions of indefinite detention and military tribunals."
Just wanted to add that because that is what Tom said, and we're quoting Tom!

Just don't act so surprised.

Happy acquiescence would be an abdication of our duty as liberals to keep pushing him to the left.

And I am not in the least surprised. He's always seemed far more conservative than I am, and I've always said so. I do know many ardent Obama supporters who are surprised and I hope they are not forever lost back to the jaded or the Greens.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He does veer moderate on social issues though.

Obama is more slightly left of center.

he would do away with DADT and he would eliminate DOMA. No fancy words to maybe go back later as though we misunderstood him - very plain, very simple words were used. At least until the election. Do I expect miracles overnight? Nope.

But some indication that anyone was even working on either of these would be nice - everything that the WH has said so far is that they really aren't a priority. And to many people in this country, they aren't a priority. But to those of us affected - we've been here before.

Well, to those of us who've listened to the fancy promises during the fundraisers and when they needed to get out the vote - only to get put on the back burner time and time and time again - we're sick of being sent to the rear until the next election cycle.

Am I happy with some things he's doing? Yes. Will I ever be 100% happy with everything he's doing? Nope, and no one else will be either.

But I'm ready to see a little progress on the change I can believe in.

You are correct, of course, about what he campaigned on, about what the electorate elected.

I was never under any illusion, which is why I adamantly opposed his nomination. Why I never had any hope for authentic, positive change from an Obama administration.

Pointing out the nutcase in Alaska is a distraction, and her existence does not change anything about Obama.

I'm not disappointed in the least.

He's governing EXACTLY as he said he would.


Those that are disappointed were hearing what they wanted to hear during the campaign and not what Obama was actually saying.

he governs as he promised rather than as they had hoped.

priority and importance. They don't.

Which ones are the highest priority depends on who you are talking to, I suppose.

But consider that the economy in the country - on the planet - took a sudden, dramatic decline, so all his priorities and plans (and ours) had to be changed to deal with that emergency.

Things should be viewed in relation to the happenings in the real world. His first 8 months will not be like Bush's first 8 months or Clinton's first 8 months. Still, he has kept many of the promises I personally cared about, in addition to dealing with the drastic economic problems.

I'm very pleased so far. He truly was the right person at the right time, I believe. I'm far from happy about everything he's done or not done. But even if I were in office and wanted to pass all my priorities, I wouldn't be able to (even if I were an experienced and smart politician). We're having a few unexpected situations, like bordering on a Great Depression.