Mr. Obama. Thanks for schooling Sen. Lincoln -- But it's not just a "ten year" problem

[Armstead]

Good for President Obama for pushing back against Sen. Lincoln's whining about the lack of predictability and the "extreme" branch of Democrats.

However, he keeps repeating something that is misleading. He says we can't go back to the policies of the "last ten years."

That's a partisan answer, and may make some political sense against the GOP.

BUT, the problem has been going on since the 1970's. The US bought into a shell game and a massive con job of ultra-radical right-wing, "free market" policies and the inevitable growth of massive corporate power that it brought.

Yes, the GOP are the worst offenders. But President Clinton and the centrist Democrats were part of it, by ignoring the increasing centralization of the economy and the takeover by large corporate interests and the wealthy while the middle class was being systematically gutted. The centrist Democrats not only ignored the underlying economic cataclysm, but they actively supported it (no anti-trust enforcement, NAFTA, repeal of deregulation, etc.)

He also repeated the embrace of corporate "free trade" that helped to undermine the US economy since the 80's. He repeated the cliches about the US having the best labor force, etc. and that the only real problem is that otehr countries do not respect trade agreements. NO, NO NO. There is NO WAY the US can compete against overseas sweatshops if we continue to allow US companies free rein to take advantage of cheap labor, no environmental or safety regulations, etc.

Yes, it is a global economy. But we cannot repeat the same approach that has encouraged the "race to the bottom" and undermined the US as a producer of products for our own population as well.

Bush and the GOP may have put the final nails in the coffin, but Clinton and the centrists handed them the hammer and nails to finish the job.

So please, Mr. President, while you are rightly fighting the GOP, please get real. Take on the real problems and go after the Corporate CONservative nonsense that both parties have supported.

Reagan was a transformational president, in a negative way. He may have compromised along the way, but his message and framework was clear. He did not dilute his basic agenda to placate the otehr side.

If Obama wants to be more than a caretaker of a failing system, he has to go after the nonsense for real, and not just blame everything on those bad old Republicans.

[quiet.american]

1. Interesting you bring this up, because later in the session he did say problem extended to 70's. nt

[Armstead]

2. IMO the message should be clear and unambigous, not mixed.

[quiet.american]

4. Yes, that's always a good idea. nt

[mkultra]

5. its really just a comprehension issue on your part

no offense, but the use of the discussion dynamic referring to the last ten years is meant to illustrate to those who are NOT deeply aware what these policies lead to. The last ten years were bush years in which we saw the worst of these policies to date, ergo the economic collapse which everyone is keenly aware of.

He explained that it is an extension of what has happened since the seventies(and in my opinion, the 60's). You essentially disagreed with him and then said the same thing. If your intention is to claim greater written or verbal clarity than Obama, you should seriously reconsider.

[Armstead]

7. It's more a difference in what I believe needs to be hammered home

Reagan, for example, didn't just blame it all on Carter. He was going after what he saw as the dominant trend (liberalism) of the previous 30 or 40 years, and making a clear break from that philosophy.

In my opinion, a reverse version of that is what is needed now, to swing that pendulum. If he insists on being too either too centrist or partisan about it to the exclusion of the need for a basic change in ideological assumpotipons and values, Obama will merely bring another version of Clintonism (except that we're poorer than in the 90's). Rather than truly being transformation, that will make him merely another caretaker of a decaying political and economic system.

As to your final sentence -- I would be a lousy politician. I am NOT claiming I have greter clarity. I greatly admire Obama's political skills. However he does not have a monopoly on written or verbal clarity. Many people are equal to or better than him on that score.......I would suggest that you reconsider the notion that his expressive ability is far beyond those of mere mortals.

[mkultra]

11. again...comprehension

i did not say his communication skills were better than anyone's, I simply said that they are clearly better than yours.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. You wouldn't be pleased if he were screaming it.

Your problem would then be that he didn't have it emblazoned on the moon for all to see.

[Armstead]

9. That's an idea

Naw, too expensive.

But as to your point, I just get nervous and frustrated when I feel like I'm listening to a rehash of Bill Clinton.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. But it's most definitely not a rehash.

Listen, he's obviously not going to be exactly the guy you want him to be. Never promised that he would be. But Clinton was a triangulator - he'd do anything depending on which way the wind blows. Obama, on the other hand, simply tries to do what is possible under his belief structure given the circumstances. He's not, to my understanding, done any complete reversals on any of his policy agenda. Has he compromised? Of course, but we didn't elect him because he was an uncompromising asshole like Bush was.

[Windy]

3. Yes, he did...he said the problems dated back to the 70s and even the 60s. nt

[BlueIdaho]

6. Adam Smith would have hated what America has become.

Today's corporations and their republican henchmen are the furthest thing from his philosophies.