Skip to main content

Angry Mouse has a good diary on the rec list right now asking that we not be blinded by "Hillary regret" and that, in our dissatisfaction with President Obama, we not say "I told you so".

But I think the diary overstates the role of frustrated Hillary support in the "disappointment with President Obama" phenomenon.

This diary started life as a comment in Angry Mouse's diary, but it got the better of me and ended up morphing into a diary-length semi-rant on a different, but related, topic.

During the primary, my friends said:

I can't support her, she's such a corporate shill.

I told my friends:

Senator Obama is every bit as beholden to corporate special interests as Senator Clinton...just check out his campaign donor list.

Nevertheless, we supported Senator Obama in the primary and in the general election. We are not HillaryBots.

And Secretary Clinton is doing a superb job at the State Department and on a worldwide stage.

Unfortunately, the Corporate Obama is the Obama that we have in the white house. That is not to say we wouldn't have had the Corporate Clinton had she been elected president; in fact, a President Hillary Clinton might well have had Chief of Staff Emanuel too.

But my disappointment with President Obama does not stem from disappointment that he isn't President Hillary Clinton. No, it is because he is President Big Pharma. President Big Insurance. President Wall Street.

How can anybody excuse the backroom meetings in the white house with PhRMA, The AMA, The hospital lobby, and the insurance lobby? You know, the meetings where deals were struck and promises made that destroyed any hope of health care reform before the first bill hit the first congressional committee?

It's too bad that we have to look to the Republican party for advice on how corporations, Wall Street, and the super-rich should be handled:

I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law.

If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. More direct action by the people in their own affairs under proper safeguards is vitally necessary.

One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.

It is no limitation upon property rights or freedom of contract to require that when men receive from government the privilege of doing business under corporate form ... they shall do so under absolutely truthful representations ... Great corporations exist only because they were created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.

Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly.

No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered – not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.

One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests. I believe that every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations; and a similar provision could not fail to be useful within the States.

People ask the difference between a leader and a boss ... The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert.

The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent, experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it, if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

The men of wealth who today are trying to prevent the regulation and control of their business in the interest of the public by the proper government authorities will not succeed, in my judgment, in checking the progress of the movement. But if they did succeed they would find that they had sown the wind and would surely reap the whirlwind, for they would ultimately provoke the violent excesses which accompany a reform coming by convulsion instead of by steady and natural growth.

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.

The vast individual and corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of capital which have marked the development of our industrial system, create new conditions, and necessitate a change from the old attitude of the state and the nation toward property... More and more it is evident that the Stateand if necessary the nation, has got to possess the right of supervision and control as regards the great corporations which are its creatures.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done ... Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a Democrat [sic] like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital than evil in the man of no capital.

We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.

And finally, a few special ideas:

Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.

That sounds all too much like the so-called "reform" in health care to which we may all too soon be subjected under this president and this congress.

And, of course, one that should be added to the dKos FAQ:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Yes...as you have probably discerned by now, dear reader...the words of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican president who not only understood the vast danger and evil of corporate excess, but who actually stood up to it and its practitioners, rather than cutting backroom deals with them and appointing them to his cabinet and closest advisorships.

Health care reform never had a chance in congress...not when the white house preempted congress and promised the evildoers that they would be well taken care of and that they needn't worry.

Why can't our Democratic president take a few examples of leadership from a Republican who held that office a century ago, and who actually did something...and forced congress to do something...about the evil that is American Corporate rule?

Originally posted to blue in NC on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:40 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

    by blue in NC on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:40:26 AM PST

    •  Shameful. President Obama is not Mrs. Clinton (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amk for obama

      If your decision to vote for then senator Obama over senator Clinton is regrettable to you now, then it is on you.

      President Obama did not force you to vote for him.  You willingly did.  Now, you are crying foul?  Why should I accept your arguments now, since you were so easily manipulated by a trickster?

      I am sick and tired of had I knowns.  Regretting decisions are for fools.

      Bush 2 said it in artfully, 'fool me once, fool me er, er, you can't get fooled again'

      President Obama is not a 'toy' that is exchangeable.  You made your bed, man/woman up and take your bills.

      So called progressives love to whine, talk, debate and argue endlessly amongst one another, meanwhile Not a single thing gets accomplished.  

      Get active or stop the complaining.  It is getting OLD.

      •  I AM active. (0+ / 0-)

        Since you can throw out a flame like that without any knowledge of how "active" I am, you're a disgusting whiner and your personal attacks are the words of a self-righteous fool.

        Are you saying I should have voted for Senator Clinton in the primary? Are you a PUMA?

        President H. Clinton would have been the "Progressive Savior"?

        Yeah, I'm stuck with what we've got. I don't have to like it. Maybe I'll support a primary challenger in 2012; I have no way of knowing yet if that would be a good decision. In any case, I will have no choice to vote in November 2012 for whomever the Democrats nominate.

        •  I could careless to whom your vote was cast. (0+ / 0-)

          It is immaterial to me.

          I am not a PUMA.  I travelled to IA 4X b/4 the primary for senator Obama from MN in 2007/2008.  I gave money, phone banked, knocked on doors, and walked the walk.

          I made my decision.  Mr Obama was elected, I am letting him to govern.  This is a democratic republic of which I am reminded periodically.

          Now or going forward, whomever you choose to support or not is your beef.  Crying over spilled milk, life is not as I want it, is not my thing.  The more I see the so called Progressives do it, the more I question their motives.

          Activism is what this country so desperately needs to really make a change in DC.

          Daily evaluation of this president and Constance dehumanization of him is inappropriate and wrong.  My opinions, you may disagree and that would be just fine.

          •  Oh, so your "activism" (0+ / 0-)

            takes the form of "hero-worshiping" everything the president does and says, no matter how far from his promises and so-called "ideals" he strays, and flaming anybody who dares to criticize him when he sells out.

            Message received, loud and clear.

            •  Once again, your beef. I wrote my commentaries (0+ / 0-)

              not to solemnly bury yours but to express mine.  I do not do 'hero worship.'  I believe in our democratic republic.  It is an inconvenient truth.  When some folks have weak constitutional legs to stand on, assertions of Obama-bot and 'hero worship' and other descriptions are thrown in.

              I understand.  You called me a PUMA earlier now I am a hero worshiper.  Please, spare me.  It is illogical and borderline comical.  But I thank you very much for the contradictions.  If humans did not contradict, it would be a boring universe.

              •  Based on this ridiculous assertion: (0+ / 0-)

                I believe in our democratic republic.  It is an inconvenient truth.  When some folks have weak constitutional legs to stand on...

                you have a pretty poor grasp of constitutional principles, so perhaps you should be pitied rather than criticized.

                I have yet to find any explicit or implicit statements in the US Constitution or any other of the founding documents that "democratic republic" means that, once somebody is elected to the office of president, those that elected him or her must thereafter STFU and make no criticism or "daily evaluation" of that president.

                •  To you that will be every 2/4 yrs. Election (0+ / 0-)

                  cycles.

                  I am so poorly educated and I appreciate your superior medulla, it simply overwhelms me.

                  I need Zero pity from  name callers.  I choose to engage not to disparage.

                  Your right to characterize however and whomever you wish.

                  I however, do reserve my rights to disagree.  I know that I lack the constitutional principles to even articulate so, as you have kindly informed me.

                  I do appreciate you tutorial.  I could not have done it without you.  Obrigado/da.

  •  What is with all the block quotes? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    "Most fools don't understand my worldview." - Ignatius J. Reilly

    by impygirl on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:46:09 AM PST

  •  Look. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, maryabein, DRo

    The problem is the overwhelming influence of wealth that has distorted the political process on all levels in the United States.

    TR's beliefs and ability to influence reforms,
    FDR's beliefs and ability to influence reforms, and
    even LBJ's beliefs and ability to influence reforms were made in a fundamentally different country and different government -- one which was not owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate "free speech by money" and a Congress controlled by their biggest donors.

    Just changing the cast of characters doesn't change the underlying structure.

    Oh, god.  I hope I'm not turning into a naderite.

    "With all the wit of a stunned trout, prodigal stumbled clumsily into the midst of a discussion . . . " -- droogie6655321

    by prodigal on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 04:47:01 AM PST

    •  In the days of TR, FDR, and LBJ the country (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, historys mysteries

      was owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate money.

      So was congress.

      Those presidents saw corporate evil for what it was, took it on, and slapped congress upside the head to get them to take it on.

      Letting coroprate lobbyists through the front door of the white house, let alone the back door, is NOT the way to accomplish reform...unless the purpose is to shoot them, and I'm not advocating that.

      •  That's not entirely accurate. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        prodigal, DCJackass, amk for obama

        Corporate money is a bigger factor now than it was back in the day. Corporations and Lobbyists spend way more money on capitol hill today than they did during the times of LBJ and FDR.

        •  And so therefore the president should just (0+ / 0-)

          roll over, take the money, and not slap 'em upside the head?

          •  No. (4+ / 0-)

            But in addition to fighting battles over the symptoms of corporate influence and distortion (like health care mandates and no usury laws and Blackwater and military-industrial complex, etc. ad infinitum), we also need to turn our attention to systemic reforms like explicitly eliminating the right of corporate "free speech," create constitutional authority to regulate campaign contributions and regulate lobbying, truly "independent" regulatory authorities, etc.

            I think we need structural and systemic reforms before we'll really be able to get meaningful change.  

            "With all the wit of a stunned trout, prodigal stumbled clumsily into the midst of a discussion . . . " -- droogie6655321

            by prodigal on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:11:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  People of good faith disagree with you. (0+ / 0-)

              Your fellow citizens disagree with your green party positions, and they're not corporations.  IOW, minimizing corporate influence doesn't mean that all of a sudden people are going to take the wrong position that credit card rates should be capped at 15%.

              Revolutionary Road was an awful, awful film.

              by burrow owl on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:28:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  And since corporations control congress (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              historys mysteries

              and, as far as I can tell, they also control the Supreme Court, is there any hope of

              explicitly eliminating the right of corporate "free speech," create[ing] constitutional authority to regulate campaign contributions and regulat[ing] lobbying...

              in our lifetimes, or in our children's lifetimes?

              How would we go about it?

              Not disagreeing with you, just admitting to a bit of discouragement right now. :-(

        •  Actually, I think that you may be wrong here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue in NC, DCJackass

          Corporate money is a big problem today, but there have been many other periods of history when corporate power owned Washington as well. Each generation faces unique problems. Corporations did not have to hire lobbyists during the times of FDR and LBJ because back them they could just pass along bags of cash to Members of Congress to get things done and they did. Our current problem with lobbyists grew out of an effort to reform the system in the 1970s and 80s. Historical analogies only go so far.

          Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

          by dengre on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:14:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The dollars spent isn't relevant; (0+ / 0-)

          what matters is corporate dollars as a portion of total dollars.  So, with that said, can you evidence your claim?

          Revolutionary Road was an awful, awful film.

          by burrow owl on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:26:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We are here because of Nader (7+ / 0-)

      He worked his ass off in 2000 to put Bush in the WH. He took funding from Republicans and only actively campaigned in competitive states. Nader and his supporters are responsible for the capture of so many systems of America by Corporate raiders. And now these same folks want to ensure that the GOP returns to power ASAP just to teach Democrats another lesson.

      Spare me.

      It will take years to untangle the corporate capture that has already occurred. It will not happen like magic and I'm a little tired of folks who expect it would happen like magic if President Obama (or anybody else) would just follow their advice. It will not. Only hard work will fix this. Our systems of government need to be repaired and that means this is a step by step process.

      The progressive movement is being captured (once again) by single issue groups who care more about their talking points and fundraising than they do about fixing the problems facing America. As these groups grow in power the strength of the progressive movement dissipates. This is a sad thing to see, but I hope it is only temporary.

      Nader? One might as well just embrace Cheney 2012 and cut out the middleman.

      Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

      by dengre on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:09:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never did and never would vote for Nader. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries, blue in NC

        But I do see "naderish" attitudes slipping into my thinking (the old "not a dime's worth of difference perspective.)

        "With all the wit of a stunned trout, prodigal stumbled clumsily into the midst of a discussion . . . " -- droogie6655321

        by prodigal on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:13:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a single issue... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries

        the removal of evil, corrosive, corrupting, parasitic corporate control of OUR government.

        It becomes very difficult when, for example, both presidential candidates are corporate puppets.

        Having said that, I still can not bring (and never have brought) myself to vote for, say, a Nader, thereby establishing another Rethug victory theft; but this voting for the lesser of two ideological evils (but corporatist equals) is getting old.

        So what is the first step of this "step by step process"?

      •  It's not Nader's fault. (3+ / 0-)

        Nader and his supporters are responsible for the capture of so many systems of America by Corporate raiders.

        Corporate control of the White House didn't begin with Bush II in 2000. It was there from 1992 to 2000 and it was there under Reagan. Did they get worse under Bush? Certainly. But who was Gore's VP choice in 2000 after all?

        The progressive movement is being captured (once again) by single issue groups who care more about their talking points and fundraising than they do about fixing the problems facing America. As these groups grow in power the strength of the progressive movement dissipates.

        There's probably some truth to this. There are a lot of professional left wing activists who are bitter that that Obama campaign poached on their donor base.

        Nader? One might as well just embrace Cheney 2012 and cut out the middleman.

        But if Obama is different from Cheney than he has to show he's different from Cheney. And so far he hasn't. All his Nobel Prize speech was was Cheneyism dressed up in slightly prettier language. Guantanamo is still open. We're still torturing people. We're increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. The blockade of Gaza is still in place.

        I voted for Obama in 2008. But if there's a McKinney/Sheehan ticket in 2012 it will get my vote.

        •  I rec'd this, but the last sentence (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          historys mysteries

          scares me.

          I mean, the names "McKinney/Sheehan" strike such a resoundingly positive chord with me, but I don't quite share your willingness to exonerate Nader. I'm afraid that voting McKinney/Sheehan in 2012 could cause the country to see a Palin/Beck victory.

          Which is pretty much the source of my frustration. I voted in 2008 for "Change [I could] Believe In", and - to be sure, I wasn't expecting a pony - I just expected change.

          Silly me.

          •  Not necessarily. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue in NC

            I'm afraid that voting McKinney/Sheehan in 2012 could cause the country to see a Palin/Beck victory.

            I doubt a McKinney/Sheehan ticket will get over 1% of the vote in any case. It would just be my own little protest vote. Most people would just register the disgust thing by staying home.

            At this point, Beck and Palin are tools in the hands of both liberals and conservatives. For liberals, they're bogeymen used to scare the base into voting for another corporate shill. For conservatives, they're front people to get the base out.

            Look at New Jersey. That's the template. The Republicans ran a Beck/Tancredo bigot in the primaries named Steve Lonegan. There was no way he was going to win but he got the base out. In November, the Republican base was still fired up and the Republicans won with a no charisma Bushite hack named Chris Christie.

            Same thing could happen in 2012. The Republicans will use Palin to fire up the base. Democrats will use Palin to scare people to the polls. But, in the end, if the only reason the Democrats can give you for voting for them is "we're not Palin" most Democrats will simply stay home on election day.

            And, in the end, Romney, or Pawlenty, or David Petreus will end up in the White House.

            •  Well yes, I DO agree with most of that (0+ / 0-)

              analysis, and the Palin/Beck suggestion was (mostly) a joke.

              And as a native Garden Stater, I believe you're correct about the gubernatorial strategy. It didn't help that Jon Corzine was as unpopular a governor as the state had had in a while (through little fault of his own); even McGreevey was popular, he was just crazy.

              And remember, the Lonegan-type strategy backfired on the wingnuts a few years earlier, when the Republican party nutcases pushed Schundler in the primary over the more "moderate" Republican and Schundler actually won. That helped McGreevey get elected.

              But back to your original premise: if things in Washington keep going the way they're going now, less than 1% might be the margin of victory in 2012. No way I'm gonna risk putting Mittens or RawLoser or BetrayUs or their ilk in the white house. I'll hold my nose - firmly - and vote for President Obama.

              I know that makes me complicit in what keeps people like Obama from honoring their base, but I still just can't stomach the fundamental ideology of a Rethug in the white house, even if the Democrat is functionally the same on policy.

              •  I don't think it was Corzine. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blue in NC

                And as a native Garden Stater, I believe you're correct about the gubernatorial strategy. It didn't help that Jon Corzine was as unpopular a governor as the state had had in a while (through little fault of his own); even McGreevey was popular, he was just crazy.

                There's been a right wing upsurge in the state I don't think I've ever seen.

                The problem is that when Obama decided to run for president as "The First Black President" there was a risk involved.

                Put a black man in the White House and you risk stirring up a racist backlash. The only way to counter that racist backlash is to mobilize the liberal base.

                Obama has really given us the worst of both worlds. He's a corporate shill. And he's black. That means business as usual in Washington PLUS a massive racist upsurge out in the suburbs and exurbs.

                Had Hillary been elected, the only people who would have cared would have been hard core wingnuts.

                BUT, with Obama acting like just another corporate shill, it allowed a lot of marginally racist white people to say "hey look. Black people are just as bad as white people so I might as well put on the sheets and get the cross and the gasoline out."

                •  Hmmmmm...that's not out of the realm (0+ / 0-)

                  of possibility, but I've tried to avoid the racism angle. Maybe it's the elephant in the room that shouldn't be avoided; the comments that I read on, say, the local newspaper's online site are just over-the-top racist all the time. It's sickening.

                  So, you're going against the premise of Angry Mouse's diary that I referenced; you have presented a possible reason why Hillary would have been "better" even if her policies were 100% identical to President Obama's, though.

                  I just don't like to think about such sickening things. :-(

                  •  We don't know. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blue in NC

                    So, you're going against the premise of Angry Mouse's diary that I referenced; you have presented a possible reason why Hillary would have been "better" even if her policies were 100% identical to President Obama's, though.

                    Had Hillary gotten the nomination, McCain would't have picked Palin in order to get the votes of angry white women. He might have picked a less frightening VP candidate and might have won the election.

                    But say Hillary had won the general election in November. Well, the Republicans would have had toat have worked up a strategy to disrupt her administration. It wouldn't have included racism. It probably would have included mobilizing the religious right and stirring up misogyny and homophobia.

                    So my guess is that it would have worked better in the South than in New Jersey (where there's a lot of racism but not a lot of evangelicals).

  •  Pharma (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCJackass

    HarrynsdLouised Clinton's health plan to death. Obama white house made the calculation that they aren't going to get anything passed unless they get as many powerful groups on board as possible - AARP, AMA, Unions, Big Pharma etc.

  •  Have to disagree. (0+ / 0-)

    And Secretary Clinton is doing a superb job at the State Department and on a worldwide stage.

    Her tenure is little more than more of the same, with a different voice.

    Where's the change?

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 05:22:49 AM PST

    •  I really didn't want to say it, (0+ / 0-)

      because I don't want to do a "pile on Obama" here, but isn't it possible that the problems with foreign policy originate in the White House and not in Foggy Bottom?

      As I said, I'm not a HillaryBot, but I think she's head and shoulders above that idiot Rice.

  •  Why not go back to Lincoln then. (0+ / 0-)

    The situation is different. Doesn't make sense to compare Obama's policies with Theodore Roosevelt's.

    More interesting would be to analyse
    in what way the situation has changed. Why are the big corporations so powerful today?
    Alas this has got little to do with who is elected in office. This has little to do with what happens in one single country, be it the US. Corporate interests rule the world and use governments and international agencies to achieve their means, bypassing the democratic process. Public opinion is being manufactured into whatever suits these interests.

  •  Today's Republicans have (0+ / 0-)

    absolutely nothing in common with Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, most of today's Democrats have little in common with TR.

    "Well, you've got to understand, they're Republicans. They're just doing what comes natural." -John Dingell

    by happy camper on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:07:26 AM PST

  •  I agree with the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue in NC

    diarist that the deals made between Obama and the insurance industry and Pharma before legislation even began made this entire process a farce.

    Obama should have explained to the people and Congress what was agreed to, made a case for it, and asked for their support.  Instead it's been a shell game with the fix in for the pre-determined result.

    Now we have a bill with no public option or Medicare expansion (both currently supported by over 80% of Democrats), and opposed by approximately 70% of the people of this country.

    And now Obama is taking his weekly address to "publicly" blast the insurance companies again, while asking for an up or down vote on a bill after everything the insurance industry opposed was stripped out.

    The dishonesty of the process, and that fact that Obama is pushing an agenda supported by only 20% of his own party, is what really makes me angry.

    Obama was for the middle class before he was against it.

    by nandssmith on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 06:21:06 AM PST

    •  Thank you for getting to the heart (0+ / 0-)

      of the problem.

      How any self-respecting Democrat can stomach those backroom deals that predestined any bill to uselessness is beyond me.

      Now the excuse is always "he's just the president...he can't help it if (Lieberman) (Baucus) (Nelson) (Fill in Name) suck"; why do people forget that it was the white house that gave away the store before congress ever got involved?

  •  Where is Obama's line in the sand? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue in NC

    Worrying about Obama v. Clinton is futile now.  My questions are far more basic:

    1. Is any deal a good deal for him? Sure seems like it . . . see health care, see Copenhagen, .. .
    1. Is there a bedrock principle/issue on which he will not cave?  I don't know what it is.
    1. In short, where is his line in the sand?

    Zirc

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site