Is it OK with everyone if I criticize Obama just a little?

:-)

My opinion is that he wants to unite this country - not like George W Bush who just talked about it - but President Obama wants to lower the level of vitriol between the Parties.

Because of this, he made the decision to hire or keep Republicans in his Administration. He kept Bob Gates on as the Defense Secretary. David Petraeus was retained as the leader of Central Command. They worked very closely with George W Bush before Obama. Their ideas about the war are probably already set in stone? The FBI Director, Robert Mueller, stayed on as well. Perhaps he is term-limited?

Also, he hired Timothy Geithner on as Secretary of Treasury and so far, we have spent about a trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street. All of this as the Repubs try to brand Obama as a socialist. Also, Ben Bernanke is still on board at the FED. So Obama is attempting to get things done with these folks calling the shots in their respective fields of expertise. Perhaps he will be proven right in the long run?

However, this is my major gripe with Obama. He has surrounded himself with folks that cannot be trusted, in my opinion. This makes his job just that much more difficult.

Is it still OK to criticize our President? Even mildly?

:)

hes a public servant who works for us. its our duty to critique every politician, no matter who they are.

It's the jumping the gun, over-the-top stuff that really bugs on a Democratic site. Your post is fine by me because you said it was your opinion.

My opinion: I don't know that they can't be trusted. Obama is a pretty smart cookie. I doubt that he could be fooled for very long.
I do agree that he is trying to lower the level of vitriol. He is a really good politician, perhaps more skilled than even Clinton.

He kept them on so he would not have to take all the blame for any failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think he did it for political reasons, to a large degree.

it should be a known quantity to some.
these folks have records.

if We the People believe so.

Read my sig. line. :patriot:

No one is happy with all of his choices - at least I haven't met any.

I think most people who don't criticize him are willing to trust him while others just want the madness and "PTSD" we all have to be over with. It would be nice if the people who helped cause the problem were gone. You have valid reasons not to trust the people he is surrounding himself with while others have enough faith in him to trust him to get the job done his way.

No one is wrong to have their opinions on either side of this issue. I understand both sides.

and I especially like it when the repugs are ginned-up on vitriol. It makes them say stupid, crazy shit that make ordinary Americans recoil in disgust. They're at their most dangerous, IMO, when they say things that resemble what sane people would say.

I agree with your point, but I'm pretty sick of the "Is it OK to criticize?" line. It seems pretty passive-aggressive to me.

I'm fine with criticizing the president. It just sometimes goes over the line and it's a pretty easy line to see, IMO. This post doesn't come near that line, but even having to ask the question annoys me. Criticize the president, but don't jump the shark.

why not?

:hi:

He was financed by Wall Street. He has served them well.

The struggle in this country over the last century or so has been between Financial Capital and Industrial Capital, with Democrats largely on the side of the former and Republicans on the side of the latter.

The big difference is that Financial Capital now (unlike in the era of FDR) is ascendant, and is looking to cash in while the opportunity exists. Industrial Capital has been forced to outsource its support, meaning that it's traditional allies in the Union movements are now very much weakened. So we have "Wall Street bailouts", while GM is forced into bankruptcy.

For some historical perspective see Carroll Quigley's "Evolution of Civilizations" and "Tragedy and Hope", which Clinton cited as being formative in his views on the development and prospects of world civilizations.

Of particular import in these two works are the notions of "instruments of expansion" as essential to the well-being of civilizations and "institutionalization of instruments" as essential in the dissolution of civilizations.

Pay close attention.

There will be a quiz.

I can't understand why Obama would sanction a criminal like Geithner?

Here is what Obama has given to foreign banks so far:

Deutsche Bank Germany $12 Billion
Soc General France $12 Billion
Barclays England $9 Billion
Union Switzerland $5 Billion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20039.htm

Current estimates of the Derivative problem peg the amount of rotten financial instruments out there at $1.5 QUADrillion. (When the numbers get into the quadrillions.. my eyes start to glaze over and my head spins)

Will Obama expect Americans to pay for this? There isn't enough money in the world...

I'm not crticizing... just confused about Obama's recent priorities.

It smacks too much of needing to be loved by everybody, which was and is Bill Clinton's tragic flaw. Sometimes the action of getting somewhere causes one to forget what the destination was all about.

Our President is a corporatist. Okay, so he's a "nice" corporatist, and his allegiance is possibly one of being misguided, but the result is the same. The very idea that we should be calmed by the reassurance that something like 90% of the stimulus money will be distributed by the private sector is a clarion call if there ever was one. Fuck that. The important issue is not that the poobahs of plutocracy don't feel threatened, the important thing is that the least people get hurt in this typical spasm of unregulated hornswoggling that was CAUSED BY THE FREE MARKET RAPTORS IN THE FIRST PLACE. The BEST solution would be one more like the WPA: have the government hire individuals directly and get as many people working as possible. Can't say that, though; that's socialism. That's some kind of ungodly sin against the unseen hand and the genius of the market. (The genius of the market has periodic mass extinctions, lest we forget, and some of us softies don't think the trade-off's worth it.)

I've used the "cult" label over and over from the very beginning because so many of the extremists speak in airy reverence and their adulation attributes all good to him, but none of the bad. That's just like believers attributing all good to God, but none of the injustices, horrors or disasters. Somehow, mistakes made by the ghastly corruptness of Geithner and Summers are THEIR faults, not his, even though HE'S THE BOSS. Waffling warmongering in the unwinnable abyss of Afghanistan is somehow justifiable. Cozying up to industry on environmental issues is acceptable. Sucking up to Religion Incorporated is not fraught with even the slightest of dangers. Fighting with every contortion to retain the right of medical profiteers to keep us hostage in a bonanza of blood-soaked personal gain is a moral imperative.

Perhaps this is as good as it gets. Perhaps we're fooling ourselves that ANYONE can accede to the reins of state in this country without being held captive to the power blocs that hold it as their right to be unchecked in their gluttony, but that doesn't mean that we have to sit still and shut up.

The jury's out on whether he's the good guy doing everything he can in the "art of the possible", whether he's misguided and simply doesn't see obvious instances where market substitution and regulation are healthy for a large free enterprise society or whether he really IS one of "them".

As Sancho Panza said: "whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's going to be very bad for the pitcher."

We don't know what's really, really in his heart, but there DEFINITELY seems to be a far greater need to be loved by everyone than a truly great leader can have.

Yeah, he's been dealt a bad hand, but that's the gig, and it was well advertised in advance. By being all things to all people, large factions will get pissed off as he is forced into taking stands. Nothing of value will be accomplished without making enemies, and the aching need to not make them is a road to ruin.

:shrug: We don't know what's really, really in his heart, but there DEFINITELY seems to be a far greater need to be loved by everyone than a truly great leader can have. Interesting perspective. Personally, I think he 'is one of them'. :shrug:

Is it okay for me to challenge your criticisms?

Go ahead! :-)

Just checking.

Invariably, the times I have attempted to challenge someone's criticisms I have either been a) accused of attempting to stifle criticism altogether or b) told that the only reason I'm challenging the criticism is because of who the target is. This is what is typically offered rather than an attempt to answer the challenge itself.

I don't have any specific challenge for you at this time, however. Whether Obama's choice of subordinates makes his job harder is not something any of us knows clearly.

Yes, that is how we stimulate conversation right?

Unacceptable, totally:

Geithner & Summers - key authors of the financial meltdown and looting of the Treasury

Petraeus & Holbrooke - spokesmodels for "the Empire project" and 700 bases overseas

Domestic economic policy in a shambles. Foreign policy based on killing people to get our way generating hatred around
the world (who were those London G-20 protesters mad at again?).

I'd say that your criticism is quite appropriate.

Once again, this is not what the citizens voted for, it's what they voted against.

are we children or what?

gates is not rumsfeld.

for hundreds of years there have been close ties between wall street, the fed, and government...what is new here?

No, wait, what am I saying? There's a huge, wide, bright line between the two.

Our President is cool under fire. He gets it from all directions and he doesn't wince. That's what we need in an effective President during these tough times.

My worry is that I don't see a clear exit from the Middle East swamp. Despite all the praise of the "surge," Iraq is still a tinderbox. Afghanistan has always been a sink hole for everyone, and we seem to be getting closer to taking on Pakistan. We don't have the resources, either human or financial, to continue these adventures. They have the potential of undermining everything else that the administration wants to do. We can't be the policeman of the world and at the same time have any hope of fixing our problems at home.

Don't let that stop you, though.

It's what we do. It's healthy. Obama can take it.

He said point blank he wants us to hold his feet to the fire..He wants to talk with those that disagree with him. He wants to hear their side and their best argument..IMO that is one of his biggest pluses. He listens to all sides of an argument. Doesn't mean he always acts in what I would consider the best manner but then again who am I.. Obama does say unequivocally that he does make mistakes. Let us hope on National Health Care he is not making one..

If he fucks it up, we'll have to fight to get it fixed. Like when Bush was fucking up the country, we had to fight to get someone else in there. This is a ongoing deal...

must, by definition, involve a focus on the good and the bad, rather than just one of the two.

Because if he is then it's not OK to criticize him.