Do DU members view Obama as a corporation's or people's president?

[dmosh42]

[ixion]

1. Yet another Corporation President

just like we've had since Ray-Gun. Carter was the last non-corp pres, in my opinion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The new boss has met the real bosses and decided to play it their way.

[ixion]

5. I doubt there's much decision making involved

I imagine it's "an offer he can't refuse," as it were.

[RKP5637]

10. That's exactly what I think too. Obama was idealistic until he got into office and

then realized who really runs this country... not congress, not the president, but those with money and influence. The people, most of us, come last. Money buys the gov. in this country and they do the bidding of the centers of real wealth and real power. The gov. becomes window dressing for the real operation running the country. Anyone not seeing this has their head in the sand.

I do seriously think Obama does not want it this way. He is trapped into playing their game trying to get anything accomplished at all.

[Dorian Gray]

57. So, according to this

he was an idiot rube who immediately capitulated to TPTB (The Powers That Be) upon installation into office?

I don't believe he was that naive or that willing to give up control. I believe he's always been who we see now, but we who were sick of the Bush years
were hoping for more.

[tango-tee]

59. Sadly, I agree with your assessment.

Wholeheartedly.

[RKP5637]

66. I DID NOT SAY THIS!!! YOU DID!!! "So, according to this he was an idiot rube who immediately

capitulated to TPTB (The Powers That Be) upon installation into office?"

[Dorian Gray]

69. I obviously don't believe that

about Obama. It appears as though you believe he was really naive and then gave up control to a bunch of other people. Of course, I used hyperbole to drive (what I believe to be the ridiculousness of that point) home. I truly believe, as a politician, he wasn't so idealistic as to not understand the political and economic machinations in which this country ran. I don't want to be confrontational at all with you, but honestly, my extrapolation from your words is how I read the subtext of your words. And that bothered me. Hence the hyperbolic nature of my response.

[RKP5637]

74. Hi, thanks for your response! I think we're together on this! I don't think he

gave up control in the sense of being really really naive, I do think he is idealistic in terms of having a high moral and intellectual value. There are so many IMO negative influences in D.C. that he has had to compromise and work a lot of deals in order to navigate the sharks so as to accomplish what he has to date.

I feel that as politicians come and go there is a strong core of wealth and power that really controls a lot of decisions, and that IMO stems from the way campaigns are financed and the enormous influence of lobbyists. I think it more a question of semantics...

I think this is similar to what you are thinking...
:hi:

[tblue]

15. Yup. He got elected and then they sat him down and said, "Here's how it works..."

"We'll LET you be president, but you gotta do/not do these things."

[GreenArrow]

17. I suspect that understanding was pretty well established

long before they "let" him get elected.

[Bullet1987]

26. I agree. It was known ahead of time that he was going to "play ball"

Or else they wouldn't have risked letting him become President. Even though the position isn't the top of the food chain like it used to be, and is becoming more and more of a figure-head, media position...it's still very powerful to be President because the people still THINK you're in charge. So if you had a guy go in that really had the intention of completely changing the system, and challenged his own Party about who their alliegance belongs to...it would somewhat exposes how fake and fabricated politics is right now. And that's the LAST thing they want. They want to maintain the media illusion of Left vs. Right, etc, etc.

[Individualist]

82. Agree.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I think he wants to be the people's president,

but he's not willing to take on the corporations one on one. Conciliation with powerful "non-people" forces seems to be the order of the day.

[old mark]

4. People's President , but he hasn't got it right...I think he is trying, though. nt

[Cha]

6. I feel sorry for the people who

don't know President Obama.

[truedelphi]

8. I feel sorrier for those of us who understand the people

That Obama not only knows, but whom he considers as his good buddies.

People like Geithner, Valseck, Taylor, coal and nuke industry executives et al.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[cali]

33. People like Hilda Solis. People like Valerie Jarrett.

Shocker. He's the President. He knows lots of people and has lots of friends. Though how in fuck you know who's he's good friends with is beyond me. Oh, that's right you don't. Hell, you don't even know who you're talking about. I can only assume that "Valseck" is Tom Vilsack.

[tango-tee]

16. I'm glad you have the obvious privilege of knowing him well enough

to enlighten the rest of us.

But "Wah wah" as in your post # 11 won't do, I'm afraid.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

20. Largely the same group who forget how he campaigned...

He's a centrist, he campaigned as such, and was elected as such. It's a far cry better than any Republican by a long shot. I don't agree with absolutely everything he's done, but there were no real surprises.

[Cha]

21. President Obama is a pragmatist..

they can try to label him to make themselves feel better..but he's for the people in the country. I don't care what those say who don't pay any attention to all the good he's doing.

Nothing is fueling them but negativity and that's not the reality of situation.

[Toasterlad]

30. "Pragmatist"

To paraphrase the famous joke, that's what they call a "Corporatist" when he's in the room.

[Cha]

38. No they don't...They, who know anything, call it what it is.

[Toasterlad]

41. Okay, Let Me Try Again.

"Republican Ass-Licker"?

[Cha]

45. Who? Who are you calling a fucking "republicon ass licker?

Edit..yeah, I'm steamed..I left out two words.

[Toasterlad]

47. Please Re-read What You Wrote, And Then Edit It So It Makes Sense.

I'm dying to know what you're trying to say.

[tango-tee]

52. Toasterlad,

why even try? There's no use.

[Toasterlad]

61. It's Fun! Like Poking a Dead Bird With a Stick.

[tango-tee]

62. Dayum - shame on you.

:evilgrin: There are days when nothing but your kind of humor will do.

And just for the fun of it :spank:

[Toasterlad]

60. Who Were We Talking About?

[tango-tee]

63. As a friend, I'll give you a hint.

Get out the dusty can of spray starch from the back of the closet, plug in the iron, then grab that frayed, overused pompom, get to to work on it.... And voilà, there you are! All's better! Practically glowing in the dark night of the soul!

[Arkana]

73. Stay classy!

[Toasterlad]

84. You Got It!

:thumbsup:

[RKP5637]

78. Could you imagine having McCain/Palin right now... That's the stuff nightmares

are made of...

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Individualist]

7. He has admitted he's a New Democrat

DLC/NDC gives precedence to corporations over people.

[RKP5637]

13. +1, n/t

[laughingliberal]

9. So far I see the same old trickle down policies

Prop up the wealthy corporate interests and wait for them to stimulate the economy. Somehow that pipe seems to clog just before the workers are about to realize the benefits. I'd be more encouraged if I saw a big push for EFCA.

[GreenArrow]

12. A corporate type

who exploits populist rhetoric in service of pro-corporate goals.

[Dr Morbius]

14. I see Mr. Obama as a "People's President" but also as a...

...Chicago-style politician.

Politics, Chicago-style, is the art of the deal. In order to accomplish his own goals, Mr. Obama is acceding to the goals of others. It's an "I'll scratch you back, you scratch mine" kind of politics. Tonight, PBS' Frontline will air an episode called "Obama's Deal" and it will illustrate the kind of politics the President employs. It's deal-making. Maybe this is more reprehensible than the smear politics of the previous administration and maybe it's just as bad in a different way. But that's how this man gets the job done.

Given this, it's easy to see why he looks to many on the left as a corporatist. He's giving things to the corporations in return for being able to accomplish his own goals. But I believe his goals are laudable and will lead to a better, stronger nation with more opportunities for the common people.

[Cha]

39. Thank you for some enlightening insight

around here.

[sendero]

58. If he was actually getting anything useful done..

... I could live with that model. But he's not.

[Dr Morbius]

64. I think healthcare reform will be useful.

But then I'm an optimist. I think at least one of the thousands of lives this legislation will save may be that of a useful person.

Maybe this makes me useless. You tell me.

[sendero]

89. You are another of those folks...

.. that think this legislation is actually going to get insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and stuff like that.

There's no way to tell at this time, the bill is so ridiculously complicated I doubt that the people who wrote it really understand it.

We'll see. One thing is for sure, the future of Obama and of the Dems is now dependent on the AVERAGE AMERICAN thinking this bill was a good one on balance. I don't think it was, but who knows what the AVERAGE AMERICAN thinks, or if s/he thinks at all.

[RKP5637]

76. +1, n/t

[JuniperLea]

18. I see him as a people's president who understands...

You can't just rush in and run rough shod over the people and the system like GWB did. I see a people's president who understands he is president to all Americans, not just the Democrats. I see a people's president who sees there's little chance of making real change unless he games the system.

Mostly, I see a president who campaigned in the past as he's performing in the present. That's a big change.

[RKP5637]

77. +1, n/t

[rug]

19. It may be an Apple but it's still a corporation.

[Echo In Light]

23. In the US there isn't such a thing as a "people's president." It's ALL illusion for a phony rep demo

[gleaner]

24. Corporation president ...

He isn't doing much for the people.

[mdmc]

25. A "People's President" could never get elected..

The corporatist won't allow it..

[REP]

27. Wow a lot of people agree with Ron Paul!

Push poll - can't vote.

[Toasterlad]

32. The Crazy Man Is Right.

[GreenTea]

86. About what? How great it is to be a fucking republican? Yeah, that's CRAZY!

[harun]

68. You do realize push polling is the whole point on DU don't you?

We don't come on here to collect data and be independent. We want to make a point with the polls we do so people think about the results.

People crying push poll is the worst thing about DU.

The results of this poll serve the purpose of the questioner very well. They say "You know what, Obama is representing the Corporations more than the people and WE KNOW IT, maybe he should give some love to the people."

[cali]

29. this is stupid. simplistic.

DU gets ever dimmer.

[maxsolomon]

43. agreed. not either/or situation

there is only one government in which the president can operate. that is a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

you don't change that overnight, and you might not be able to change that in 8 years, considering it's been that way since the start of the nation (if you see corporations as the heirs of the founding fathers/oligarchy of america).

just nudging it towards "better for the people" is good.

[EFerrari]

31. It's not really fair to call Obama on this because anyone who runs for President

has to sign on with big money. We don't own our elections. We don't really pick our candidates so whoever the last two left standing are, they have been chosen for us.

[Echo In Light]

34. Exactly. Doesn't matter which "electable" candidate the corp world puts up for us to 'choose'

[Romulox]

36. "Not fair" to call Obama a corporatist because a lot of other people are corporatists, too?

Good luck with that.

[EFerrari]

37. Not a lot of other people, the system itself.

I'm not trying to absolve him, really just pointing out the obvious.

[Romulox]

35. Corprocrat ($) nt

[blindpig]

40. All presidents are corporate presidents

Do you think for a moment that anyone not vetted to the corps satisfaction could ever be president?

[Echo In Light]

42. .

[Bluebear]

48. .

[tango-tee]

53. Is it okay if I steal this image to send to *someone*?

Thanks...

[FrenchieCat]

44. LOL!

polls, schmolls, moles! :rofl:

[dkofos]

46. Definately corporate.

What better way to keep from being assassinated.

[amborin]

49. definitely corporations' president

[Dank Nugs]

50. This is beyond contestation

First and foremost, corporate interests come first. See: The UHC Bill which could have arguably been better had he used it to wipe his bum then signed it into law.

[NoSheep]

51. The better question is: Do you think he's running things alone or are there a gazillion

obstacles in the way of everything he wants to do? Simple minded crap.

[Echo In Light]

67. What makes a candidate "electable" is their Corp Paymasters know they will Follow Standard Procedure

... which is Profit Over People. Policies aren't determined by the subjective whims of our puppet presidents who largely fulfill a symbolic, institutional role designed to persuade people that they have a hand in determining policy in what's supposed to be a rep democracy ... that illusion is necessary precisely b/c the people don't have a hand in it.

[RKP5637]

81. Quite true IMO. And often why I call it USA, Inc. Money and power buy

the presidency and congress, and the SC is more than willing to help that along having equated corps. to individuals for unlimited contributions. How much more proof would anyone need than even that one alone.

[Echo In Light]

83. If more were willing to acknowledge the truth, we could ban together, organize better

As it is, however, all is lost in the cons/mods vs lefty/libs fireworks.

Divide & Rule

[RKP5637]

85. Divide & Rule, my thoughts too. What really amazes me is how minority

groups are at each others throats today, if one looks at the common threads, they have a lot of common interests/needs. Even the teabaggers have some common threads with others in interests/needs. However, all of the common interests/needs, for the most part, are kept divided, lost in the fireworks, hence, Divide & Rule works and I do think it goes over many peoples heads, and that is so sad...

And on top of this individuals, such as Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and the herd play the game, raking in millions upon millions, being for the poor common man. What an astounding farce...

[Echo In Light]

90. It's something else, all right

[SmileyRose]

54. He's never promised to be a people's president.

Every word I've ever heard from him makes it clear he's a corporatist who is willing to try to get me a little less screwn and if lucky toss me and mine a couple of crumbs. By contrast, the Republicans are so busy in their pursuit for personal wealth they don't even hear my screams....... let alone care.

[dmosh42]

55. By almost 2 to 1, we see Obama as having ....

a different agenda, than for the reasons we backed him. Thanks for the voting, and for validating my own conclusions.

[rucky]

56. He thinks they can live together in harmony.

But after watching Frontline last night, I say he leans corporate.

[bigwillq]

65. Corporation's (nt)

[freddie mertz]

70. On policy, he seems more corporatist than populist.

I haven't seen anything yet that suggests a "people's president."

Have we ever had one? Maybe FDR, in part.

And maybe LBJ, also only in part.

Lincoln and John Adams had their moments.

But in a corporate-controlled political system such as we have today, the people end up having very little say.

[RKP5637]

88. Your list makes sense to me. I recall my parents talking about how great

FDR was for the people, and he was... And in my lifetime LBJ, but I was too young at the time to realize it...

Quite true, we are led to believe we have say, "But in a corporate-controlled political system such as we have today, the people end up having very little say."

Often elections remind me of Lemmings scurrying about behind this one or that one... many politicians play the populace for fools, at all levels of government. And the people try hard to believe.

Money and power talk, most people just talk, and the latter is most of us. "...the people end up having very little say."

"And that's the way it is." Walter Cronkite

[The Old Creak]

71. The more things change

the more they stay the same.

[blondeatlast]

72. I dunno, but this may be the BESTEST DU thread ever.

Getcher jammies on, grab a blanket, popcorn, and an ice-cold soda or beer, and join me here on the couch.

This is already gettin' good!

[Greyhound]

75. The same scam Raygun ran, expanded with even less accountability and even more blatant,

with a fresh coat of paint.

Pour a trillion borrowed dollars into the top of a (slightly) modified pyramid scheme, and pronounce victory because the rich get richer.

[Cali_Democrat]

79. Other

[MajorChode]

80. I'd say he's neither

Obama simply wants to appease certain elements of the right. I think his reasoning is that if he can peel off some of the right's support and still maintain most of the support on the left, he'll some how live up to the myth of Raygun. Where he fucks up is the myth of Raygun being loved by both sides is just that, a myth. Where he also fucks up is the right simply see him as someone who they can bend to their will and ultimately they have even less respect for him. Unless he gets behind a certain ideology and sticks with it, he's going to go down as a failure in the court of public opinion.

[GreenTea]

87. Both! He does see-saw!

[peopleb4money]

91. I'd say he's more people type than Bush or Mccain would have been

To me that's what matters. There were regulations that needed to be imposed on health insurrance companies that the healthcare bill accommodated for.If Mccain won, that simply wouldn't have happened. I think he's being pragmatic. Yes, he signed a bill that allows drilling on the southern east coast, but he did lift the ban on stem cell research, closed Guantamo Bay, and canceled land grants that would have opened up oil drilling to nature reserves in Utah. I didn't pick either option in the poll, because I think its over simplified. He may do things in favour of corporations, but he does do things in favour of people too, and it would be worse if Mccain won. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called Obama's oil proposal “a step in the right direction, but a small one that leaves enormous amounts of American energy off limits.” I'm glad he's in office. He might not live up to my ideals, but I'll count my blessings with him. Its like Teddy Roosevelt. He did do a lot of military expansion to provide servile states in the caribbean and central America for private industry, but he also created the national park system, passed legislation in favour of the labour movement, and created the FDA.

[EFerrari]

92. Guantanamo is not closed. n/t

[peopleb4money]

93. What i wrote is a cop out

I pick people's president. He may be a pragmatist and a centrist, but he's done more than any president has in the past 30 years by passing the healthcare bill. Insurance companies need regulation. They shouldn't just turn sick people away, simply for having pre-existing medical conditions. It might not even be much, but its something.