Why The Left Should Trust And Support President Obama

[babylonsister]

The Case for Trust and Support
by: Chris Bowers
Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 13:53


Yesterday, I outlined six reasons for progressive activists to approaching the Obama administration mainly with an attitude of "distrust and pressure," aka "make him do it." Today, I am happy to present the counter-argument to that post, "The Case for Trust and Support," aka "give him a chance."

To my surprise, I think the trust and support argument is actually very strong. It focuses on five main reasons:

1. President Obama's progressive background
2. President Obama's voting record in the Senate
3. Democratic trifectas are rare
4. A major shift toward the public sector has occurred in just the first few weeks of President Obama's administration.
5. The Senate is the real problem anyway.

In writing the argument, I found it very persuasive. I think you might, too. Of course, given that our checks and balances system of government was founded on distrust of power, that might remain the best, default attitude for citizens to take.

Five good reasons to trust and support President Obama more than distrusting and pressuring him:

1. Because of his background: There are some very progressive aspects to President Obama's background. Two that always stick out in my mind are that he spent time after college as a community organizer and found religion through a church that preached liberation theology. Experiences such as these can only come from a person who is open to left-wing ideas. Obama simply must view progressivism as something to take seriously, rather than as the caricatured fashion it is often portrayed in our national political discourse. There have been times in his life where he has sided with some very, very left-wing ideas.

Further, while President Obama often uses anti-partisan and anti-ideological language that many center-right pundits and Democrats have often used to mean "let's capitulate to Republicans and conservatives on everything," his background as a person of mixed-ethnicity suggests a very different possibility. President Obama has long been required to navigate between apparently dichotomous worlds, and the fact that he was able to become the first African-American President of the United States indicates that he is very good at this navigation. As such, there has always been good reason to believe that his usage of anti-partisan and anti-ideological language comes from a different place than, say, Evan Bayh, and has a very different meaning.

more...

http://www.openleft.com/diary/12774/the-case-for-trust-and-support

[Clio the Leo]

1. Thank you. NT

[Mass]

2. It is not one or the other. You can generally trust and support Obama and still recognize he needs

the pressure from the Left in order to counterbalance the nefarious effect the so called moderate have on his government actions. Amazing how something so simple is difficult to grasp for some.

[babylonsister]

3. I agree, but I also think it's not a bad thing to try and counter all

the negativeness around here occasionally.

[nevergiveup]

6. I think you and mass are both correct

We do need to hold Obama's feet to the fire and I think it is what he wants but we must also cover his back from the radical right who will do anything to destroy him. There are also a few on the left who want perfection and they want it now and they are not going to get it. In his heart Obama has always been and remains a liberal but he is also a pragmatist which makes him well suited to take on and manipulate the well entrenched powers of Washington. This is going to take time and a whole lot of luck. I am sticking with Obama because I think if anyone can make some major breakthroughs in instituting progressive reforms in this country it will probably be him. I will also do some screaming and yelling along the way but when it gets down to the nitty gritty, I got his back.

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. Don't you think holding his feet to the fire actually HELPS him withstand RW attacks in the mass....

.....media?

And that for progressive criticism to be publicly silenced, to swallow principles and unite behind the official line (before even engaging the right wing in Congress) will allow the public discussion to be shifted to the right?

Don't we have some sort of "Good Cop, Bad Cop" responsibility?

And isn't Obama depending on us to do our ("bad cop") job?

[treestar]

30. Right! Bush's feet could be held to the fire, we needed that!

But we don't need to do that now! It's just plain stupid to get in the way of the guy who is going in the right direction, paving the way for the people who would go in the wrong direction to come back again!

Just plain ass stupid, makes me think some people have to oppose just to oppose and are incapable of supporting anything. If they had Dennis in the WH, they'd hold HIS feet to the fire too!

[Faryn Balyncd]

41. Actually, the right wing did regularly demand (successfully) that Bush keep his promises to them...

We now have a good president, with good values.

But Obama will only overcome the systemic corporate influence within the government, and even within the Democratic Party, and within our own administration WITH OUR HELP.

But this is not a job for blind support.

Allowing corporate influence to continue to shape policy, and silently swallowing our better judgment and remaining out of the public debate for the sake of unity and "message discipline" has consequences.

Obama is depending on us not for blind support, but as a counterweight to systemic corporate influence in SHAPING policy.

In a "Good Cop, Bad Cop" scenario, he is depending on us to do our job.

[Ken Burch]

80. When it comes down to it, ileft-Democrats will stay loyal.

It'll be the RIGHT of the party that defects and backs the other ticket, like in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

What's even worse than the "negativeness" is all the threads that are driven by the fixation with shouting people down and shutting them up. There's no good reason for that ever happening here on DU.

[mkultra]

51. i think its stupid to assume that any pressure we exert

will be beneficial to our own interests in the long run. Then again, we eat our own young and have never figured out why we lose.

[Ken Burch]

81. If we don't exert pressure, we end up recreating the dead zone of the '90s.

Eight years of a "Democratic" administration in which all the pressure was from the right and progressives were told to shut up and know their place, as if we had no right to expect ANYTHING. That was eight years almost all of us would have to concede as worthless.

There's no good reason to ever go back to THAT dynamic again. There should never be another Democratic administration in which progressives are totally out in the cold. We didn't deserve that treatment then, either.

[SlingBlade]

4. K & R

[MadHound]

5. First off, it's a bad idea to trust any politician

By the very nature of US politics, politicians have to please their corporate masters in order to keep receiving political funding. Money trumps all in our political system.

Secondly, while there are some things that I support Obama on, there are many things that I don't support. The escalation of the Afghan war, instead of doubling down, we need to get the hell out. The Wall St. bailout. Throwing ever increasing amounts of money with little oversight isn't going to help(witness Japan, 1990's). Having people like Summers and Geithner, who helped create this problem put in charge of fixing it brings images of foxes guarding chicken coops to mind. Nor does the fact that Obama is ignoring some of the smartest people in this particular field is also rather disturbing. Education. Sorry, but the man is continuing the march towards a two tier, private/public school system, and I'm dead set against that. Agriculture. With Vilsack in charge, the war on small farmers continues. Being a small farmer myself, it makes absolutely no sense for me to embrace the Vilsack/Obama position. His endorsement of warrantless wiretapping, sorry, but I happen to really, really like the Constitution, and I won't sell that out no matter who is in office.

So what am I supposed to do, swallow my objections for some mythical greater good? I don't think so, that would mean ignoring the thousands of innocents that are dying, that would mean selling out my own best interests in life. So I will continue to be a political skeptic, and while I will support Obama when I agree with his position, I will not sell out and support positions that are not in my best interests, no matter who's in office. That's hypocritical and counterproductive.

[empyreanisles]

13. If Dennis K. were President, you would be talking about "trust" all the time I bet.

Hypocrite.

[Marrah_G]

15. So what is other name you post/posted with?

You just outed yourself.

[empyreanisles]

16. You'll get nothing out of me, Lady G. :)

The important thing is, I am here now and am I strong supporter of President Obama.

[MadHound]

21. Actually no, I wouldn't

Again, it is like I said, don't trust any politician, even DK. You speak as though you know me, but you really don't. I don't trust any politician, and I criticize any politician if they are, in my opinion, in error. The reason that I don't criticize DK is because he is rarely in error.

That being said, I do find DK more trustworthy than virtually any other national level politician, simply because of the fact that he takes no corporate money, thus, unlike Obama and the rest, he isn't beholden to corporate interests and does what is best for people rather than what we see others, including Obama doing, what is best for corporations.

Any other nonsense you would like to spew?

[jonnyblitz]

28. personality cultists always assume everybody else is one, too.

I personally could give a fuck about ANY politician and get really annoyed when I get accused of being a disgruntled supporter of some other gawd awful DEM politician whenever I criticize.

[bvar22]

58. No.

If Dennis Kucinich escalated the War in Afghanistan

OR

Hired all the old Free Trade/Deregulation retreads to run the economy

OR

Increased Defense Spending

OR

Covered for the Bush Criminals


I would be just as critical.

You fail to understand that for many of us it is NOT about the person...It IS about the Policy.

[treestar]

31. Yes. There is a greater good. Your objections are perhaps

valid but unrealistic with the people that are in this country today. Politics is all about settling for what you can get, no one gets everything they want.

And not trusting any politician is just cynicism and an overgeneralization. No one deserves to be placed in a stereotype, not even politicians.

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. ..& why our "Trust & Support" for Obama MUST include principled, constructive & CRITICAL engagement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8334936



Obama NEEDS US (and probably wants us) to hold his feet to the fire......

Constructive, and even critical, engagement by us is essential, if we are to have positive legislation that is ultimately positive, rather than corporatist pseudo-reform (such as a mandated all-private insurance corporate-welfare scheme that excludes a public option, privatizes Medicare, bankrupts us while enriching corporate interests). Such a plan (the Emanuel-Fuchs plan) is now being promoted, with little fanfare - as is usually the case with corporate welfare) within our administration.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The Case For Distrust

By the author of the OP's article:

It probably comes as no surprise to Open Left readers that I place myself in the "distrust." Or, at least "more distrust than trust" camp, as obviously there are degrees of trust and mistrust. (For example, I clearly trust the Obama administration more than I trust the Bush administration or John McCain. There are degrees of everything.) As such, in the extended entry, I provide the case for distrust. Since I am well aware that this is not a one-sided issue, I am eager for comments to supply counter-arguments for the "trust" camp. Tomorrow, I will work to compile such arguments, and offer up an article that serves as a rebuttal to this one: "the Case for Trust."

...


Because it isn't just the Obama administration we are dealing with: Before I even address my lack of trust in the Obama administration itself, it first must be emphasized that in finding ways to solve the economic crisis, we are dealing with a lot more than just the Obama administration. Outside of a few top executives, and the governments of Iceland and the United States, the greatest worldwide financial crisis since at least 1948 is being handled by the same individuals and institutions who brought us the crisis in the first place. Generally speaking, the same administrations, the same financial institutions, the same executives, the same policymakers, the same "experts," the same media pundits, the same pretty much everything that f*cked the people of the world is now in charge of unf*cking the people of the world. In fact, many of these players have actually become even more powerful then they were before they caused the crisis.


More here:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12758/the-case-for-distrust

[cyclezealot]

9. We can support Obama w/o following him blindly.

As we know FDR would not have been as progressive, if there had not been a 'progressive movement.' As the saying goes, if the people lead, the politicans will follow. Even the Republicans have their limits to what they will tolerate from their leaders. As should we progressives.. Because we make demands upon our leaders does not mean we will not support them against the Republicans.

[Justyce]

10. We should never trust & support ANY politician unconditionally.

It's up to us to speak out about actions we disagree with.

[Metta]

11. And his bait and switch policies? ... reminds me of Clinton selling us out.

I hope O makes the turn around and stops listening to the bad advice he's getting.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Hear, Hear!

We've got to let this man do his job and get back to work on our congresscritters.

#5 Because the Senate is the real problem:
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Senate, rather than the Obama administration, is the biggest obstacle to progressive governance right now. If we were dealing with only the House and the Obama administration, there would be a noticeably more progressive government in America. From health care reconciliation, to 100% auction cap and trade, to a larger stimulus package, to bailout reform, to bankruptcy "cramdown" reform, and even to executive compensation, the Senate has moved to the right of both the House and the Obama administration. As such, it is the Senate, and not the Obama administration, against whom we should be directing more of our distrust and pressure.

Just imagine what we would have accomplished in terms of legislation without the Senate over the past few months. The stimulus would have had a hundred billion more in spending, 100% auctions would be on their way, hundreds of billions for new health care would be on its way, bankruptcy "cramdown" would be law, EFCA would be law, executive compensation limits would be far more severe, and on and on and on. However, if we had the Senate but there was no President, the legislative accomplishments would have been pretty much the same.

While there have been moments where the Obama administration has been checked by Congress on the business tax or executive compensation, overall the filibuster-based Senate, and Evan Bayh's conservodems, are the real problem.

[Adelante]

14. I so agree with this

Congress needs the heat.

[PBS Poll-435]

32. .

oops!

[PBS Poll-435]

33. +1 brazillion

Maybe 2.

[Overseas]

17. The article describes my hopes well

but my disappointments are still quite intense.

I cleave to my hopes regarding the president's progressive background while hurt repeatedly by what I see as more regressive moves like expanding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like introducing talk of "entitlement reform" in this cruel for-profit medical care system we have, in which an accident caused by someone else could bankrupt a whole family.

Because 95% of us earn less than 250K per year, I fear that "entitlement reform" could cut a lot of us in the lower middle class right out of the picture. We have a crisis in our health care system and cannot afford to have long discussions about how to cut medicare and social security payments-- how poor is poor enough to get help -- especially when we are more than willing to increase an already bloated defense budget by 4% !! (Although I'm glad to see weapons systems re-evaluated for their relevance to current national security needs.)

Yes, I'm glad President Obama has included billions for improving our health care system in his budget, but I don't want it merely for the computerization of hospital records. I want it to include a public health option and allow us to choose to buy into Medicare early.

I am also afraid of entitlement reform because privatization of government services has been a disaster in most cases, and far more open to corruption than the regulated services they displaced.

And when the Clinton administration was doing welfare reform because there was a 5% fraud rate, I kept wondering what that would do to the 95% of poor American citizens who really needed some help.

Even if Medicare has a 5% fraud rate, HOW BIG WAS THE FRAUD RATE for the financial giants we just bailed out? If I can understand the fraud inherent in NINJA loans and credit default swaps, how can I believe the finance guys made billions on these deals completely innocently?

[saltpoint]

18. When he had the chance earlier in his life to join a power law firm and roll

in the big bucks he chose instead to revive and strengthen communities.

This is an enduring characterization of Obama, an authentic and reliable one, that is resonant across his ascent in the 08 campaign and which should be heavily weighed in what is still mostly his future presidency.

It impresses me at the level of blood and bone.

Recommended.

[AtomicKitten]

22. I agree. Life choices resonate.

Getting into the weeds of politics tends to distract. There is a diffuse undercurrent of malcontent that seems bent on branding and summarily dismissing often with little regard to truth, reality, and reason.

Pres. Obama's authenticity and intelligence resonate. I too am impressed, and I have no problem reconciling that with not agreeing with him on every issue.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

45. You're grilling great burgers today, AK.

Good to see ya.


:toast:

[biopowertoday]

25. It was a calculated move as he was already running for the Presidency.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Yeah, I heard it on good authority that Barack had it all planned out when he was in kindergarten!

:rofl:

[treestar]

34. Heck, his mother planned it from his birth

What with going all that trouble to fake a Hawaiian BC and put a notice in the births section of the newspaper!

:rofl:

[old mark]

94. His birth in Africa, I assume.......nt

[biopowertoday]

36. I actually think his calulated moves were good planning for his

run. I see nothing wrong with strategic planning related to life goals. Nor do I laugh at them like you do.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Give it up. You're not fooling anyone.

[treestar]

35. I bet you could find that exact sentiment posted on FR

Straight from the RW talking points. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[saltpoint]

44. "Well-planned" in politics is a good skill.

Were Obama not skilled in this art he would not be president, and John McCain and Sarah Palin would be at the helm.

I don't want dulcet shepherds in positions of influence. I want smart, tough operators with vision.

I'm quite satisfied with the new guy.

[HughMoran]

53. hehehe

:)

[jsamuel]

61. He is past the employment application. He has the job. What he has done before is not what we should

judge his current job performance with.

[saltpoint]

62. Public service is a continuum. It is indeed part of any such evaluation.

[babylonsister]

68. You are on my wavelength. Thank you!

Obama is impressive, but he has so many burdens. Saturday night, dog, church, South America next week, he's such a lazy guy.
:rofl:

[saltpoint]

69. It's going to be just awful for some on this board if Obama wins

a second term.

I believe he is likely to.

The gnashing of teeth and general wailing from the purists is going to be something to behold.

History has been known to give leaders more than 3 or 4 months.

Hi, babylonsister. You hang in there. Great OP.


:thumbsup: :hi:

[CTLawGuy]

19. Here's how we should handle the Obama Administration

1. Understand

This is first and foremost. If we don't UNDERSTAND what is going on, both in nature and in scope, we cannot take the right action in response. For example, some low-level career DOJ lawyer making a state secrets argument is NOT Obama's personal endorsement of warrantless wiretapping. Furthermore, lawyers make arguments they have little faith in all the time, because they are required to defend their clients to the best of their ability, even longshot clients. To treat this as if Obama is spying on all of us, a la Bush, or endorsing the policy, is unjustified.

Example number two is from the campaign. Remember when Obama had voted "Present" on an abortion bill in the IL Senate and Clinton tried to paint him as weak and wishy washy? If you didn't UNDERSTAND, you might agree, voting "present" is wishy washy. But if you knew IL politics you would know that a "present" vote is common and, because of the rules, is the same as a vote of "No." It is used to signal reservations, such as support for the basic idea, but doubts about the bill as written, or a willingness to compromise on a future version.

So read, put aside preconceived notions about things, as well as raw emotion, and pay attention to details and context. Once you UNDERSTAND what is going on, you can know how to properly react.

2. Assume good motives (or don't assume bad motives)

Even if you disagree with some of his policies, Obama is not George Bush.

Obama grew up mixed race in a working class household. After college he went to work in Chicago as a community organizer. He then went to Harvard Law where he was president of the Law Review and then he left to organize a voter registration drive in Chicago, and serve as a civil rights lawyer before entering politics. He became president due to a coalition of young people, blacks, highly educated, liberals, Hispanics and working class northern whites. He ran his campaign with millions of low dollar donations from all over the country.

George Bush was born to a wealthy and politically connected family. He eked his way through Andover and Yale. He tried different businesses but they failed, and as a result his rich father bailed him out. He helped run his father's presidential campaign before entering politics himself. He became president through southern whites, the rich, and religious fundamentalists (and even then it took the Supreme Court to finish the job). He was funded by high powered campaign bundlers taking cash from special interests.

Just becuse you don't agree with what Obama has done, doesn't mean he is a corporate sellout, or a homophobe or owned by Wall Street. What from his background or his campaign would indicate that to anyone? Nothing. Contrast with Bush, who has been assisted and bailed out by the financially powerful for his entire life, and his ideology reflects a preference for them.

Also remember that Obama has more access to information than you or I do, and he actually has to get policies enacted into law, unlike you or me.

George Bush is a right wing fundie conservative, and everything he did for the past 8 years was read through that lens. Don't use the same lens on Obama because it is undeserved.

3. Speak out

If you don't like a policy, the best thing to do first is to write or call Obama and members of Congress, and organize like minded people to also do so. You should say why you don't like the policy and what you would suggest instead. on the other hand, be respectful, because respectful people are at least listened to. The more people agree with you, the louder and more elaborate these communications can be.

4. Continue to Understand

Keep learning as much as possible about the issue you are discussing. There may be something you didn't consider, something new may happen, or you may find something leading to a better solution.

5. Praise for being right

Acknowledge when the administration does things you agree with or takes a bold stand in your favor on a controversial issue. We need to remember that overall, Obama is a liberal and thus he agrees with us most of the time. We on the left have a tendency to become easily disillusioned. The problem with this is then some Ralph Nader type, who will never have to govern, will swoop in with very idealistic talk and siphon enough of our votes to let a Republican sneak in. If we remind ourselves of the good things we can resist the Ralph Naders come election time and preserve our own power.

6. Flex the power of the primary

At the very worst, if, after all of this, Obama turns out to be hopelessly lost, we should feel free to do what we did in CT to Lieberman, invoke the power of the primary. Primaries, despite what Democratic Elites say, are good for a party. They ensure that a party stays responsive to its base. Without the long presidential primary, Obama would not have won NC or IN in my opinion. He had campaigned in those states because he had to for the primary, and so he had organization and name recognition there.

Importantly, if ANY primary challenge in ANY race fails, we must get behind the incumbent. The incumbent will be sufficiently scared into taking us more seriously, just from the fact of a competitive primary.

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. good approach.....thanks.

[Sentath]

47. This one lays it out well

This is a very tight presentation of an emerging consensus approach.

[Kaleko]

78. Ah, the cure

for the herky-jerky knee disease. You're making too much common sense, man.

[skepticscott]

93. Do you understand

that Obama fully supports the Justice Department's position on the state secrets argument? This is not being done behind his back or against his expressed wishes. Obama is endorsing his DOJ to continue the exact same arguments that the Bush administration used to justify illegal activity. And he has complete flip-flop on habeus corpus. What he is doing now is in DIRECT contradiction to what he said he believed in when he was making flowery speeches in the Senate. Explain please.

[NoSheep]

104. Isn't it possible that there IS some knowledge that needs to be protected?

I think it is possible. Perhaps in a pile of lies and coverups there is some information you and I don't know that is sensitive enough to be kept secret. HEll, it could even be evidence someone might want to use in court against those criminals. I don't understand the mistrust....I just don't. It seems many are automatically assuming he can't be trusted and that doesn't make any sense to me.

[CTLawGuy]

107. there's a difference between

habeas corpus when the US has brougth prisoners halfway around the world to what is effectively US territory in Cuba, and habeas corpus when prisoners are kept in their home country where there may be home courts to hear cases. Should the US be required to fly Afghan prisoners in Afghanistan to the US for court?

[AtomicKitten]

23. K&R!! I am more concerned with herding cats in Congress.

n/t

[Honeycombe8]

27. True. Thanks for putting it all together and rounding it out. nt

[treestar]

29. Nothing could be truer. He is at least going in the right direction

[OneBlueSky]

37. one can support President Obama and still disagree with some of his policies . . .

it's kinda like when, in the 60s, the hawks were always shouting "My country, right or wrong!", but never bothering to complete the saying: "My country, right or wrong. When it's right, keep it right; when it's wrong, make it right." . . .

guess the same thing could apply to President Obama: "My President, right or wrong. When he's right, keep him right; when he's wrong, make him right." . . .

[Cha]

40. Most definetly and I'm glad this article

is saying that! Thank you for the rest of that famous quote, OneBlueSky~

Just saying the first part of the quote is quite purposely obtuse.

[HughMoran]

54. That is what the author was saing

...in his 2 articles...

[Phx_Dem]

38. I just read this over at Open Left. Good read! n/t

[ananda]

42. Excuse me BUT.. critical and independent thinking is not and should not be..

.. a matter of left or right.

It should be part of everyone's ability
and education.

[BlooInBloo]

43. I would treat the ihateobama people more seriously if they ever recognized the large number of...

good things he's done.

The fact that they're All Complain All The Time however simply BEGS that they not be treated with any seriousness.

[OldTimeHippie]

46. Never trust a politican. Try again.

Why should I "trust" any President.  I don't know
him.  I don't watch all the photo ops so all I know is what
his actions are, what policies he enacts or supports.  Reserve
the trust for your family and friends, make everyone else earn
it. 

[HughMoran]

55. You didn't read the O/P

How do I know? Because the author leads by stating that this is a "pro" article in opposition to his previous article stating the opposite. Now I know you're a reactionary who only posts based on the Subject line and can't take you seriously any more.

[OldTimeHippie]

56. Man, you can sure read alot into a man

after just one paragraph. Very impressive!

[HughMoran]

57. You've done it twice now (that I know of) in just 7 posts

Since you use that weird font, it's easy to remember your posts.

[OldTimeHippie]

102. My bad

Evidently I'm in the wrong place.

[inthebrain]

48. I don't trust politicians...PERIOD!!!!

I recall Britney Spears making such an airhead statement and Democrats RIGHTFULLY giving her shit for it.

Now these same people thing we should all shut off our thinking and blindly trust THEIR politician.

[depakid]

49. One of Obama's very first votes was in favor of a full blown corporate protection bill

Misleadingly titled (as usual)

The 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts. Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress. (You can read more about some of the chicanery involved in selling CAFA in my book.)

Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against this bill.

So what's up with Obama? No surprise here, but maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.

Obviously the class action vote was just one among many, but I do find it telling. Either Obama didn't fully understand the implications of the bill for consumers (who may be shut out of court when they're ripped off for relatively small amounts of money), or he was voting with an eye on the White House and courting future campaign contributors in the business world.

http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html

So, errr- no. Based on the record- I neither trust the guy (much less many of the members of his administration), nor do I think it's wise to let up one iota on the pressure to enact responsible financial and economic policies- and hold Wall Street and others accountable for what's often been illegal- and most certainly brazen and contemptible behavior.

[babylonsister]

63. "thetortellini.com" is where you get your info?

:rofl:

[depakid]

73. It's simply an accurate and well sourced restatement of the facts of the matter

There are pleant of others

Boptton line of course is that facts like these (whixh there are no good excuses for) arern't things that sycophants and cheerlaeaders like to acknowledge- so they find something to ridicule in order to avoid dealing with unpleasantries like this- many of which are now becoming much clearer.

In that sense, they have much in common with Republicans.

[babylonsister]

77. ...

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[depakid]

79. Run a search for yourself

"class" "action" "obama" you'll find plenty more.

Then again, if support for Republican policy aimed at limiting- or as a practical matter- precluding accountability for corporate abuses, doesn't bother you, laugh away.

Based on what we've seen thus far, looks like you'll be seeing a lot more of it in America.

[Number23]

50. #4 says all that needs to be said

"A major shift toward the public sector has occurred in just the first few weeks of President Obama's administration."

And not just in the public sector but there's been a huge shift in our country's domestic and international policies in the few months that he's been in office.

The nay-sayers will moan and beat their breasts but the facts remain that the man has already put policies and procedures in place that show a dramatic shift from the previous generation. And there has been a very noticeable shift in even the tone of the rhetoric coming out of Washington. If this is palpable less than THREE MONTHS IN, who knows what progressive changes will be occurring this time next year or two years from now?? Yes, there is much more to do but no one, NO ONE can convince me that Obama has already failed or is even on the path to failing.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Anyone who isn't bitching about Obama is a lockstepping, dissent-silencing nazi....

So I've learned from the ihateobama people.

[Two Americas]

59. what does that even mean?

What does "trust and support" mean? An emotional feeling we should all have?

[jsamuel]

60. good question

[babylonsister]

64. Did you trust or support idiot son? Is this man a better

president, or in his short time of proving himself, trying to make it so? It's simple, if you think about it.

I trust and support him, and after the last pos, I haven't a reason to change my opinion.

[saltpoint]

65. Strongly seconded.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

66. your personal emotional feelings

You are saying that this is a matter of personal emotional feelings - that "trust and support" really means feeling a certain way.

You certainly are free to have whatever personal emotional feelings you like. The rest of us bear no responsibility to alter our behavior or thinking or speech so as to not interfere with your feelings.

I don't think in terms of "trust or support" for any strangers or celebrities, or at least not since I was a teenager.

I don't ask politicians to win my love or cause me to feel any particular way. I think that to do so, let alone demand that others do, does the president no favors whatsoever, and actually harms the potential future success of the administration.

I think that it is extremely self-absorbed to place one's personal emotional feelings above the success of the administration, and I do not think this strange personal identification with a celebrity has any positive effects at all.

This reminds me of a parent being so over-bearing and protective of their child that they another them.

It is not love, nor support or loyalty, when it is all about the lover and not the object of the love.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with "idiot son" or who is the better human being. None of us will be marrying the guy.

I would rather have a person with Bush's personality and skills who went to bat for the left out and the left behind, then I would have the most brilliant and charismatic person on the planet of they did not.

Comparing Bush and Obama is absurd, anyway. It is like defending an incompetent fire fighter because he is better than the arsonist.


...

[babylonsister]

67. WTF?

You said this?

I would rather have a person with Bush's personality and skills who went to bat for the left out and the left behind, then I would have the most brilliant and charismatic person on the planet of they did not.


I must have missed the personality, skills, and went to bat for who? The oil companies? Soldiers? American middle class? Integrity? Peace and diplomacy?

[Two Americas]

70. not following

I don't know what you mean. I suspect you misread what I wrote.

I will try again -

Politics - the struggle over who does and who does not have access to power and resources - is what matters, not party loyalty, not personalities, and not our personal feelings.


...

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Two Americas]

85. enough with the personal attacks

Respond to the points I made, or don't. No need for making personal attacks.



....

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

72. Come on, trooper, you can mention what went wrong the last time.

BUSH?!
So what is your current problem, and what or who would encourage you? Please, your opinions on how to make it better would be helpful.

[ASUliberal]

74. My current problem

is his short but questionable record on civil and human rights issues such as habeas corpus, 6th amendment, wire tapping and his unwillingness to really bother doing anything about people who have tortured prisoners or anyone else who has broken the law in the last administration.

[ASUliberal]

76. Also

Bush and his administration was very much the main reason for many things that have occured over the last 8 years. But need I remind you that he could have been impeached? He could have been investigated. Congress could have done something.

And since we vote in congresspeople, the responsibility really does end up in the American peoples hands. We all turned a blind eye to the bullshit and voted in a bunch of morons.

And by encouraging some form of "trust" of Obama, you are just encouraging that same mentality of irresponsibility.

[Two Americas]

87. are you sure you want to make that argument?

The other member said "the last time people blindly followed the president" it did not go well. Are you saying that it is OK now to blindly follow the president, because the new president is not Bush?


...

[Two Americas]

75. of course

What is truly alarming is that we now know that the Obama team intentionally set out to create this mindset of blind obedience and loyalty in the followers, through manipulation and deception.

"The 2008 Obama presidential run," noted Bruce Dixon in February of 2008,"may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in history." <10> According to the campaign's financial report to the Federal Election Commission. Obama had by then spent $52 million on "media, strategy consultants, image-building, marketing research and telemarketing." As Pam Martens noted in early March of 2008:

"The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is to change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion and win votes" using ‘the power of branding - with principles rooted in commercial marketing,' and Elevation Ltd., which targets the Hispanic population and has ‘a combined experience well over 50 years in developing and implementing advertising and marketing solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political candidates, government agencies.' Their client list includes the Department of Homeland Security. There's also the Birmingham, Alabama- based Parker Group which promises: ‘Valid research results are assured given our extensive experience with testing, scripting, skip logic, question rotation and quota control ... In-house list management and maintenance services encompass sophisticated geo-coding, mapping and scrubbing applications.' Is it any wonder America's brains are scrambled?" <11>

Besides contracting with sophisticated big client corporate marketing firms like GMMB and the Parker Group, the Obama operation grew its own considerable internal, sophisticated, and vertically integrated mass market research and sales capacities for identifying and seducing political consumers (voters) susceptible to "brand Obama." When ABC News anchorman Charles Gibson visited Obama's sprawling Chicago office seven days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, he observed the quiet hum of a corporate sales office. "The tone of the campaign headquarters," Gibson noted, was "strikingly serene." He observed "33,000 square feet of downtown Chicago office space and no one is sure exactly how many staff....The 20-somethings in the New Media department," Gibson said, "are responsible for everything from designing merchandise sold on the Web site to blogging to unloading videos and managing chat rooms." By Gibson's account, "the money flows through the computers, a steady infusion of cash in $10, $25, and $50 dollars. Obama's media maven Axlerod told Gibson, "It's strange that a computer terminal can make politics more intimate, but that's what happened." <12>

In Dixon's judgment, however, the Obama campaign's massive investment in selling their candidate was "not a good thing. Marketing," Dixon noted, "is not even distantly related to democracy or civil empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience."


...


As Rolling Stone political writer Matt Tabbai noted in a February 2007 article bearing the provocative title "Obama is the Best BS Artist Since Bill Clinton:"

"The Illinois Senator is the ultimate modern media creature...his entire political persona is an ingeniously crafted human cipher, a man without race, ideology, geographic allegiances, or, indeed, sharp edges of any kind. You can't run against him on the issues because you can't even find him on the ideological spectrum. Obama's ‘Man for all seasons' act is so perfect in its particulars that just about anyone can find a bit of himself somewhere in the candidate's background, whether in his genes or his upbringing...his strategy seems to be to appear as a sort of ideological Universalist, one who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly... His political ideal is basically a rehash of the Blair-Clinton ‘third way' deal, an amalgam of Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and the New Deal; he is aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle." <5>

Acting in accord with the longstanding dance of America's Winner Take All politics, the media-savvy Obama Team cultivated his "blank sheet" appeal by tailoring Obama's message in flexible, chameleon-like accord with his own shifting audiences. Claiming to stand above "ideology" and partisan conflict, Obama bashed Wal-Mart and upheld the right to organize unions when talking to labor audiences but extolled free trade," "free markets," and entrepreneurial values when addressing "the business community." He invoked the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement when talking to black audiences but downplayed racial justice when speaking to white farmers and workers. He embraced capitalism's supposed virtues when talking to the rich and powerful but seemed stress its "drawbacks" when addressing the working class and poor. He told liberal and progressive primary voters that they could "joint the movement to end the war " and shift U.S. policy towards peace and negotiation but made sure to tell The Council on Foreign Relations of his belief in the essential nobility of U.S. war aims and empire and of his desire to advance American global supremacy through gigantic military expenditures and a ready willingness to use force, unilaterally when "necessary," to "protect the American people and their vital interests."

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19692


Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama's campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. "BUT, BUT, BUT," deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama's GOTV operatives nationwide, "What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!"

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation's leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: "A Record Turnout Is Expected." That's because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. "People want to do what they think others will do," says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. "The Obama campaign really got that."

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. "It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it," Moffo tells TIME. "These guys really know what makes people tick."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153,00.html

[babylonsister]

83. You are a jerk for this:

What is truly alarming is that we now know that the Obama team intentionally set out to create this mindset of blind obedience and loyalty in the followers, through manipulation and deception.

Someone's opinion? Please. I couldn't get past that. Kind of set the tone, ya know? And your opinion? Ugh.

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

86. they brag about it

I have linked to the documentation for this a couple of times already tonight.

Stop with the name-calling and personal attacks, please.

I wish it were not true, too.

Someone's opinion? Yes - Obama staffers describe this, the advertising industry applauds it, the lobbyists and financial indusry people verify it, and some Obama supporters are admiring it.



...

[Political Heretic]

92. I missed it. Please direct me to the information (PM or reply)

[Two Americas]

106. thanks PH

This is a big and important subject, and I probably shouldn't be shooting from the hip, but I have an exceptionally high degree of confidence in what I am saying here. You are more organized and scholarly than I am, and could probably do a better job with this subject, as you did with the discussions we were having about FDR, farm credit and Lincoln on economic issues and Labor.

Here is what I see -

Long before the campaign to win over the public began, the Obama camp was meeting with and getting the approval of Wall Street. He reassured them that they should not take his populist-sounding rhetoric seriously and be alarmed by it, as he would just be using that to win over the traditional Democratic party factions.

The Obama campaign was never a political campaign in the traditional sense, but rather was a carefully and intentionally concocted branding and marketing campaign. Many who are objecting to that characterization of his campaign perhaps cannot tell the difference between the two. There is nothing wrong with putting the best possible spin on your plans, but when the spin and the plans have no relationship to one another - when the goal is to get people's support without being honest with them as to what they are being asked to support - we have crossed a line that has not been crossed before. Winning people over to a policy is one thing. Winning people over for the sake of winning them over, based on emotional appeals generated through corporate branding and marketing techniques, misleading them about the policies, and then proceeding with what you intended to do all along regardless of what people want - advancing an agenda that helps big money interests and that was decided on long ago and agreed upon out of view of the public - and building a group of carefully cultivated true-blue fanatics - and that effort continues through mass email campaigns to this day - to harass and shut down any dissent is a very disturbing thing.

The Obama team intentionally manipulated people (unless of course a person does not see corporate marketing campaigns as manipulative, then they would not see that here either) to be frantically loyal to a brand - to the sizzle rather than the substance. Short-circuiting people's ability to approach a subject with critical thinking skills, and replacing that with emotional appeals, is common in the marketing of products. Selling the people that way in order to win an election is something else again. We see the success of that effort reflected in the discussion here every day.

The Obama team intentionally worked on ways to give an impression about their plans and policies that was contrary to their actual plans and policies - knowingly. The intention was to give the base the impression that he supported progressive causes when he actually did not.

The Obama team is continuing to market the administration and the brand, as though we were still in an election campaign.



...

[Political Heretic]

108. Oh yeah, we've talked about this before. I still think I see it slightly differently

though I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong. I tend to characterize Obama the person a little more favorably than you, not quite is consciously and willfully manipulating the public through outright lies and carefully planned deceit.

But in the end, we still see the same "conclusions" and just currently develop speculative explanations a little differently. Unfortunately I have no evidence-based way to ensure that my speculation is accurate and for all I know you could be completely correct. Plus, I have a natural bias, which is I tend to be an bit of an overly-trusting person... little naive at times.

Anyway, in the end we see the same problems, so...
:)

[Two Americas]

109. I view him very favorably

Brilliant and accomplished man, and an extremely talented politician. I wish he were on our side. Can you even imagine what that would be like right now? Takes my breath away. With his skills and brilliance and popularity, with the people ready for serious social change like they have not been since the 30's - we could be living in such an exciting time were he on our side. Instead we have a long slow sickening slide back into neo-liberalism and watching the right wingers get a new lease on life and corporate power solidify its hold over all of us.


...

[jefferson_dem]

97. Honestly, I cannot understand your position.

Let's concede the point that much of Obama's support was due to coordinated "on message" marketing that resonated with voters. It was that support - which you now scoff at - that got him elected. The result is that we now have a pro-union president who (while not perfect by your standards) is thousands of miles better than the 2008 alternative. So I, for one, will your phony purity tests and petty criticisms for what they are.

By the way, much of what you pasted into your message above is exactly what we hear from those who did support the "2008 alternative."

[Two Americas]

101. my position

"Let's concede the point that much of Obama's support was due to coordinated 'on message' marketing that resonated with voters. It was that support - which you now scoff at - that got him elected."

Agreed. My objection is to the marketing of leaders as though they were consumer products. Others think that is fine or even admirable. I also object to the people being intentionally deceived.

I don't agree that the only two alternatives are "support McCain" or "support Obama" and that everything we think, say or do must conform to one of those two. That precludes almost everything. What people really mean when they say "support" is "represent" - act as unpaid public relations agents for politicians, and promote their careers. The politicians are supposed to represent us, we are not supposed to represent them. The approach you are recommending - demanding - sabotages and undermines representative democracy.

By what stretch of the imagination am I applying a "purity test" to anything? As to whether or not my remarks are "petty," I am content to have the readers decide that for themselves without your assistance.

I do nit think that any Republican anywhere ever said anything even vaguely like what I have said - if that is what you are insinuating with this remark - "much of what you pasted into your message above is exactly what we hear from those who did support the '2008 alternative.'"


...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

98. "...an opportunistic politician who lies as skillfully at W. lied."

Wow. Thanks for playing.

[katandmoon]

88. So how many times DOES he have to betray us before it's OK to stop trusting and supporting him?

[Ken Burch]

89. I agree that we should believe that President Obama can be progressive

But that we also need to build much more pressure from below not only to guide him in the direction he wants to go, but to bolster him against the forces of reaction that still have a disproportionate ability to thwart the grassroots popular will.

This is a time for activism, and for maximalism in our thinking. A lot of good things have happened, but the momentum can only be maintained and expanded if we work hard from below. Without that, the natural impulses towards stagnation that always hold great power in national politics will close the door to change and, well, "Hope", as they did in 1938, 1966 and 1994.

[Political Heretic]

90. The Senate IS a major problem. But its not the lack of 60 votes.

It's that Senate Democrats, or I should say a sizable number of Senate democrats are, for lack of a better term, spineless fuckwads on corporate payroll.

Even with 60 votes, that problem doesn't go away unless those SF's are replaced. But who want's to repalce them right? That might risk a 60 vote majority. So there's the conundrum.

[Political Heretic]

91. Unfortunately we already have some "past" to look at and be unhappy with re: President Obama

This is not all speculative, that's the major flaw in both sides you present.

It isn't:

Loony Lame-Leftist: "I THINK Obama will at some future point, suck a lot."

vs.

Obedient-Obamatron: "I THINK Obama will at some point in the future, totally rock!"


Rather, many people look at an already announced Afghan policy and reject it, look at already made decisions on supporting Bush positions on government secrecy and the executive power grab and reject it, look at already announced policy on handling the financial crisis and reject it.

It's not about SPEED (OMG why hasn't Obama given me my pony yet!) it's about DIRECTION (OMG why has Obama dropped this skunk in my lap?)

[lostnotforgotten]

95. You Must Be Kidding, Right? - Blind Trust Based On Vague Assumptions

eom

[glowing]

96. Never trust a politician. The only way to move a Politician is to a) buy them

or b)protest so massively it scares them straight. The best thing that could have happened on the day he was elected was for all those people to sit right there and tell congress to pass single-payer health-care, pass trade agreements that work, and to put the crooks from Wallstreet in jail. All those people sitting their for days on end protesting might actually push for something. Now, the only thing left is the US massively NOT paying something.. Their c.c.'s, their mortgages, their taxes.. on NOT going to work.. for those that still have work. Something needs to give. Waiting for Pres. Obama to do the right thing will not get us what we need. Pres. Obama was the last hope for real changes for the most of us... if it doesn't happen; the United States will cease to exist.

[acmavm]

99. Oh right. Trust someone who has gone back on his campaign promises,

stocked his cabinet and admin. with the fucking clowns who screwed the economy of several countrys, packed it with former lobbyists and corporate mouth pieces, has decided to go to court to protect the unlawful powers that bush** gave to himself so that he can use them, has decided to play war president against the wishes of the American people, and has proven that his pledges to 'stop outsourcing' that he made during the campaign to get union and worker support were just what salesmen refer to as 'puffery':

<snip>Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, such that no reasonable person would take literally. Puffery is especially featured in testimonials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
<snip>

The guy turned out to be one hell of a saleman. And one hell of a disappointment to millions who believed in him.

EDIT: IN EVERY MAJOR PROMISE THAT THIS GUY MADE, HE'S DONE A 180. He's thrown some bones to people in the 'recovery act'. But he's handed billions to bankers and Wall Street on a silver platter.

[apr09]

100. trust him 100% of the time?

Wow.

[NoSheep]

103. Thanks for a reasonable post.

[iamthebandfanman]

105. trust is earned,

and in the course of US history, nobody has gained the trust of the left IMHO

[CANDO]

110. It was never about HIM, and he said so many times.

I'm tired of all this crap that we are supposed to hang up our citizenship and become spectators after election day. Politicians are not leaders, they are always followers. The most skillful are the ones in tune most closely with the electorate. Barack Obama has the background of a community organizer and thus is very in tune with common people just trying to eke out an existence. It is not tearing him down to simply be outspoken on issues we are interested in. Politicians want and need guidance from the people on the street. If the only people who are in their ears are the lobbyists, who do you suppose gets more influence on policy issues?