Skip to main content

When you read this from former Senior Adviser, David Axelrod it is statements like this that just makes you shake your head:

Axelrod blamed Republicans lawmakers in Washington for taking partisan lines and preventing Obama from accomplishing major initiatives.

"We honestly thought when we got to Washington, we'd get some cooperation from folks across the aisle," he said.

He then called the current field of GOP presidential candidates “the most ideological, partisan group of Republicans in my lifetime."


Again, you did not know what you were up against from the get go?

See it is statements like this from Obama's so called, "inner circle" that keeps me parked in Missouri, the "Show Me State".

While Obama is now getting fired up, since his poll numbers have cratered, he still has these "smarter than smart" advisers running around out here saying shit like this.

Do you read how out of touch that statement is?  I mean really.  What kind of planet was Axelrod and crew on during the 8 years of the Bush Regime?  I mean really.  Did they really think that these corrupt, crooks who lost power would be all nice to the new guys in town?  This speaks volumes on how the Obama White House Political Team continued to get everything WRONG.

Bush and Co., did not give a mickey-fickey about the Democrats while in office.  The Democrats were IRRELEVANT to these power mongers.  In fact, Bush and Co. treated the Democrats like they were Cinderella, until Cindy's shoe was found in November of 2006.  So in a nutshell, Axelrod and the smartest guys in town were totally clueless what happened during that time, but more importantly how corrupt, immoral and power hungry the Republicans were that they would do and say anything to get power?

Sorry, folks these individuals hanging around President Obama is the reason why he is out trying to shore up his depressed base.  A base that has been hungry along with independents for this White House to act on issues that matter to them (like JOBS, real HEALTHCARE, FORECLOSURES, just shit that impacts families), but we have idiots like Axelrod living in deficit fantasy land.

This is why Obama is in the dumps in the polling.

Until Obama changes, it will stay the same.

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

  •  It's not naive if it's really what you want (8+ / 0-)

    Obama's cabinet and staff appointments were not made out of ignorance.

  •  My first instinct was to HR the tip jar. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kat68, LynneK, allergywoman, christine20

    Meaningless, negative nonsense.

    It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 06:53:31 PM PDT

    •  Hide rate it from the truth? (15+ / 0-)

      Because you don't like reading the truth?  You can easily, MOVE ALONG.

    •  Come on, Timaeus, this is a direct quote from (19+ / 0-)

      an Administration insider that sheds some light on Obama's baffling deference paid to the anarchists on the other side of the aisle for the first 2 1/2 years.

      Let's not get so rah rah about the coming election that we can't even discuss this sort of thing.

      "I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues." Uh, Mr. President, and if the bill DOES raise "serious revenues"?...

      by WisePiper on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:01:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Discussing it is fine -- (6+ / 0-)

        I just think it's fairly silly to think that campaign strategists present honest discussions of political strategy with political reporters, as opposed to say, presenting what they want political reporters to report.

        That's not 11 dimensional chess - it's just common sense.  People like Axelrod win races when they drive the narrative, and this precisely the narrative they want to drive.  I mean, the whole 'earthy tones' nonsense in 2000 didn't come up because Donna Brazille was discussing it with political reporters nor did the whole 'Can you believe Mark Penn doesn't know how delegates are allocated?' thing in 2008.

        It's the things that don't come directly from a campaign strategist that one should be concerned about.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I absolutely agree with most of your comment. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, lunachickie, Lucy2009

          I take what Axelrod's pushing with a grain of salt. I personally think Obama is far more ideologically conservative than most kossacks are willing to admit.

          That said, I think Axelrod's attempt to shape the narrative is, in itself, worthy of exploration.

          I was merely objecting to Timaeus' attempt to shut down discussion.

          "I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues." Uh, Mr. President, and if the bill DOES raise "serious revenues"?...

          by WisePiper on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:20:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  weak narrative (5+ / 0-)

          "we misread the lay of the land, and we didn't accomplish major initiatives."

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:30:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To the few thousand people (0+ / 0-)

            that religiously hang out here or bother with cable news maybe, but not to the 10s of millions who find politics a distasteful exercise that's forced upon them evey couple of years

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:59:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Coming election? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WisePiper

        It's far from "unity time" yet.   If we can't speak of the flaws of this Presidency when we're not even yet in the YEAR of the election...

        I know YOU weren't saying that, but furthering idea that there is an election that's upcoming in any sense of the immediate is drivin' me nuts around here.

        "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation..." JFK

        by Rick Aucoin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:13:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why would anyone in Jan. 2009 have thought (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        that there would be the level of obstruction that ensued? Never before had the opposing party acted with such disregard for our political system. Record level of filibuster threats, record level of every single member of the minority voting against every bill. The minority party had never behaved anywhere near this level of obstructionism before.

        Of course, the Obama administration expected that a few Republicans would be patriotic adults and try to do something for the country. That is what had always happened before. But in this case, only Snowe, Collins, and Spector (before he switched parties) were willing to go along with anything and the two senators from Maine were only reasonable a couple of time; otherwise, they joined the Party of No.

        I did not foresee the level of hatred and vitriol coming from the Republicans and I bet none of you did back then either - if you are honest with yourself.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:42:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I absolutely did (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin

          Abso-f*cking-lutely I saw it coming, and I talked to my political friends about it.  Specifically I foresaw that without a filibuster-proof Senate majority, the Obama agenda -- or rather what the Obama campaign claimed was their agenda -- was dead.

          Although there was a record number of filibusters in the 111th Congress, the previous record was not that long before -- it was in the 110th.  In other words, as soon as Democrats regained control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the RepubliCons ramped up the filibuster machine.  So it was ridiculously easy to see coming, to anyone who had actually been paying attention.

          That's why my 2008 election efforts and cash were focused largely on the Congress.  

          If you believe that the POTUS, the admin and the rest of Team Obama couldn't possibly have foreseen this, then you're also ready to believe that "nobody could possibly have foreseen" the 2008 financial meltdown (except that sane economists had been writing about it for months), and that "nobody could possibly have foreseen" the Sept. 11 2001 attacks (despite little teeny clues like that Aug. 6 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.").

          Even if you swallow that the POTUS, the admin, and the rest of Team Obama couldn't possibly have seen this coming, then you still have to explain why they didn't get a clue during all of 2009 and 2010, and why Obama continued to try for "bipartisanship" with people who were clearly, transparently and obviously out for his political destruction -- all while trashing and bashing everybody to his left in his own fucking party.

          I did not foresee the level of hatred and vitriol coming from the Republicans and I bet none of you did back then either - if you are honest with yourself.

          What hogwash.

          •  Well, I knew that they would block some things, (0+ / 0-)

            but I never thought that they ALL would be such shits. While I have  certainly never voted for either of my two Republican Senators (Alexander and Corker) and worked against their election, I was surprised when they went all radical right wing.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:59:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then I suggest, WADR, (0+ / 0-)

              that you weren't paying attention.  Especially not in 2007-08.  

              Did you click the link?  Did you see how much stuff the Rethugs were blocking in 2007-08?

              And that was before Obama got elected.

              It was childishly easy to foresee.

              •  Nonetheless, I've been around a long time, and (0+ / 0-)

                I remember when I did not agree with Republicans but could respect many of them. I remember Ev  Dirksen and when the Republicans in TN were of that mold, and that actually was not so long ago. There used to be both moderate and liberal Republicans and that was not so long ago. You can think I'm stupid or naive or whatever, but I did not expect all Republicans to turn  into unpatriotic assholes.

                And yes, I was aware that they filibustered (or what counts for a filibuster these days) in the last congress,  but it was not to this level of obstruction, when every single Republican votes against everything.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:30:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My first campaign was in 1980 (0+ / 0-)

                  so I've been around quite a while myself.  The POTUS is only a year older than I am.  I remember the same things you do, but that was one hell of a long time ago, especially in political time.  I haven't been asleep for the last 30 years.  Have the POTUS and Team Obama been?  Based on comments like Axelrod's, perhaps they have, and the consequences of that will cause great and lasting damage to our country.

                  Your answer on the filibuster question is a bit disingenuous.  You said "I was aware that they filibustered" but you carefully avoid noting how much they filibustered  -- already, in the 110th Congress, before Obama's election.  Again I ask: Did you click the link and look at the numbers?  Did you look at the percentage jumps?  Did you notice that cloture motions jumped 71% from the 109th (Rethug controlled) to the 110th (Dem controlled) Congresses?  And did you notice that they only jumped 11% from the 110th to the 111th -- partly, no doubt, because there just wasn't that much more room above the previous number?  But be that as it may, it's evidence that, to people paying attention, the Rethugs in the 110th were already just about as obstructionist as they could possibly be.  Did you somehow think it was magically going to get better after November 2008?  

                  Most Rethugs in Congress have been unpatriotic assholes since at least the early 1990s.  Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  And Team Obama should have realized that and not gone in thinking that his election would magically stop the Rethugs from being unpatriotic assholes, that he could just Reach Across The Aisle and everything would be all better and everyone would get ponies.  Thinking otherwise is, in fact, hilariously (and tragically) naive, and in people at the highest levels of government like the members of Team Obama, constitutes gross and reckless political malpractice.

    •  For...? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens, blueoasis, TheUnknown285

      "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage." - Confucius

      by IndieGuy on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:03:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Meaningg, negative nonsense is really (2+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      kat68, hardart
      Hidden by:
      pot, Rick Aucoin

      all icebergslim does.

    •  It's good. (7+ / 0-)

      Axelrod's statement is idiotic, given the performance of the GOP when Clinton was president.

      They blew it - if indeed they wanted to do good things.

      That chance won't return until 2015 at the earliest.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:09:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree that it should be HR'd (6+ / 0-)

      But I sure agree this is "meaningless, negative nonsense."

      •  This info is neither meaningless, (11+ / 0-)

        nor is it negative, nor is it nonsense.  The Democratic Party is going to be hitting us up for our money and time for the 2012 election season.  We have a right to know what kind of clueless people are KEY advisors to this President as he runs for re-election.  Axelrod is not some no-name guy with no influence on this President's campaign.  

        That said, I really wish that SOMEBODY in this President's political advisory group and/or SOMEBODY in the DNC with clout would have a sit-down with Axelrod and other key political advisors and if the issues can't be cleared up, then new ones need to be brought in and some of the current ones rotated out.  The present advisors are clearly superb at running election campaigns; they are also clearly failures when it comes to guiding the President through the mine fields of holding office.  Their advice has been worse than lousy during the 3 years he's held office.  Political advisors are a dime a dozen.  NONE of them is irreplaceable.

        We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis D. Brandeis

        by 3goldens on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:31:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I get that and I don't disagree. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LynneK, sewaneepat, JTinDC, missLotus

          But THIS diary is calling out Axelrod for THIS particular statement, which I really can't find an issue with.

          This non-controversey over Axelrod's perfectly true statement reads to me like an excuse to gin up outrage over other issues entirely.

          This is what I object to. If we're going to have a bitch session, let's find something legitimate to bitch about.

          •  Maybe you're assigning intentions (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IndieGuy, blueoasis, pot, Rick Aucoin

            to the diarist that aren't there.  And there do seem to be others commenting who don't see it the way you do at all.  And maybe, sometimes, criticism (as in the example in this diary) is justified and it's not "bitching" to do so.  

            You think it's a "non-controversy".  Others can and do disagree with you.  I don't think it's necessary to categorize the criticism of others as "bitching".  That's a red-flag word and is designed to stoke anger.  You've made your points.  Maybe it's time to move on rather than let your own anger build.

            We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis D. Brandeis

            by 3goldens on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:51:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Perfectly true statement. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            It's perfectly true that the President and his advisers went into the White House expecting the Republicans to work with them.

            Gotcha.

            So, they truly are idiots.  

            No controversy there.  Just a sad statement of fact I guess.

            "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation..." JFK

            by Rick Aucoin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:16:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's not an issue (0+ / 0-)

            with Axelrod's statement.

            It's an issue with the absolute fucking cluelessness of this Administration, from day one and extending for thirty goddamn months, about what the Republicans were all about, and the utter, senseless, tragic waste of two and a half years in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the GD while the POTUS was trying to be "bipartisan" with people who sought nothing but his political destruction, even if they had to destroy the country to do it.

            That's what we have an issue with.

            Thanks for playing.

    •  And you'd be engaging in HR abuse. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Aucoin

      Also, how come one side keeps whining about not being a dick in other peoples houses yet they come into diaries and be a dick? They want the rules to apply in their favor and no one elses.

      #occupywallstreet "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." - The Matrix

      by pot on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fascinating (0+ / 0-)

      The one thing Timass couldn't say, while contemplating his "instincts", is that it's "not true."  Because it is true, of course.  So he falls back on "negative."  

      Say only happy, positive things! Mentioning the elephant in the room is so negative!  Maybe if we ignore the elephant, it will go away, the Republicans will become nice, and everyone will get a rainbow-farting pony!

      There is meaningless nonsense in this thread... and it's right here.

  •  more like (10+ / 0-)
    Until Obama changes, it will stay the same

    Until Obama changes advisers and cabinet members (I'm looking at you Geithner and Bernanke) he will get bad advice and lame policy.
  •  You know, I don't think you might be seeing the (6+ / 0-)

    silver lining in this.

    Let's stipulate, for a moment, that this is the truth... Axelrod believes this to be how they actually felt.  The result is that he shows that the GOP were not at all interested in working across the isle... read getting anything done read do-nothing congress.

    That is good.

    Then stipulate, for a moment, that this was NOT true and they never believed it.  Problem is, it has the same end... do-nothing congress.

    That is good.

    Regardless of what we believe about what they SHOULD have done (as in spilt milk), perhaps we should look at what he is actually saying... do nothing congress.

    It's all good.  It's all true.  And republicans own it.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

    by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 06:55:23 PM PDT

    •  But look what political capital, (11+ / 0-)

      it cost.  The enthusiasm gap is REAL, not fake, but very REAL.  Obama needs some real changes in that White House, or it is just lip service he is giving.

      •  There's no question that there is an enthusiam (10+ / 0-)

        gap.  

        But I would contend that is because most people do NOT understand that the President doesn't just write and pass laws like a king.  

        There is a congress.  There are committees (e.g. rules which determines what goes to the house floor... OR NOT) and Ways and Means which deals with tax revenue spending...) that people don't know exist let alone their functions.  And with the GOP holding the house, what goes to Washington can stay in Washington (at least in the forever hold pattern never to see daylight).

        I place the blame where it belongs, I think: the GOP and low information voters.

        Let me add that I have not been uncritical of the pres.  But I am also a realist when it comes to HOW things get done.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

        by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:03:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Customer Is Always Wrong, Eh? (9+ / 0-)

          It's the job of ANYONE who needs the public to perform to understand the public, motivate them to show up, and then motivate them to demand an encore. Politician, entertainer, sales --it's all the same.

          If you blame voters it's the same as a business person blaming shoppers.

          Right or wrong, you and your cause are DEAD.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:13:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It may be his responsibility. But since when (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizenx, LynneK

            have a majority of Americans, for instance, thought Sean Penn the cat's meow... let alone President Obama.

            Get them on a game show and maybe I would agree.  Politics doesn't work that way in reality.

            Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Sarah Palin; the epitome of an empty vessel worshiped by empty vessels.

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

            by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:17:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              those empty vessels aren't the majority they're ascribed to be, either.  Those insisting otherwise are, by and large, the same entities who helped shape Sarah Palin's image, such as it is.

              Glad to see you seem to get this part, though:

              It's the job of ANYONE who needs the public to perform to understand the public, motivate them to show up, and then motivate them to demand an encore.  

              Among other things, blaming the voters makes the assumption that all votes are counted correctly in each and every election.  And you know what they say about assuming things...

              REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

              by lunachickie on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:32:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Do u blame the GOP for the focus on Deficit? (6+ / 0-)

          President Clinton had an excuse, as the bond market went against him.  He had no choice.

          But over the last two years the bond market has been as friendly as any president has had in over five decades.  Today, the bond market is pricing 10-year US debt at below 2%.

          So why does President Obama continue to focus on it.

          Eighteen months ago, why did he insist on convening the Deficit Commission, a commission, which to his dismay, was filibustered by the GOP (and I applaud the GOP for saving the Dems from the Dems)

          The only thing that makes sense is the following.

          Obama actually thought that the independent voter wanted his Safety Net to be radically reduced, and he was going to comply.  He realized that most Dems were opposed, but believed that the independents and Republicans, along with a sizable fraction of Dems, would support his numbers.

          Who would have guessed that after 15 years of stagnant wages, there is little support for the "Grand Compromise" he so assiduously sought.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

          by PatriciaVa on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:18:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, his political team MISREAD THE PUBLIC. (6+ / 0-)

            Period.  Which is why he has cratered to the independents.

          •  Because long term problems with Medicare in (0+ / 0-)

            particular necessitate doing something before it is an immediate problem and a GOP President is in power. Because the deficits are a problem in the long term if nothing is done.

            I bet you have not read the actual draft report from S-B. There are many good things in there. I also suggest you take a look at the SS-MEdicare Trustees' report.

            I, for one, am glad that there is a President who tries to change the way things are done in Washington (leave any hard choices undone and unlooked at until there is a crisis.)

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:58:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  There are plenty of us who know well that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KJG52, Rick Aucoin, mightymouse

          Obama isn't a king, and we are still totally demoralized, and disgusted.

          I'm sure there are some who don't know the deal with govt, but plenty of us do. It is NO excuse for the way this President has conducted himself. NONE!

          I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

          by Lucy2009 on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:10:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Love that framing. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, Lucy2009

            Only the ignorant and lazy are demoralized.  They think the President can just write laws, don't you know.

            Bull.  Bull squared.

            "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation..." JFK

            by Rick Aucoin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:18:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  political capital? (6+ / 0-)

        the only way he could have had "political capital" was to get "cooperation from folks across the aisle" and you just scoffed at that idea as being naive.

    •  and Dems own non-accomplishment 2009-2010 (8+ / 0-)

      not enough - not nearly enough - was done to fix the economy, bring accountability to bankers, make life better for the average person.  

      Many voters will conclude there is no point in voting at all.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:12:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There you are sort of right but the Pres still (0+ / 0-)

        wasn't Pelosi or Reid.

        Right?

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

        by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:18:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  President was the most important player (4+ / 0-)

          The failure is spread among many, esp the Senate. But Obama and his team bear a lot of it as well.

          If the Dems had gotten their act together they could have ensured voter loyalty for a generation. But no. Now we have to scramble, without much hope

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are ignoring that the President (6+ / 0-)

          has the power and authority to set a course with respect to the programs he wants to influence or put in place and he also has responsibility for and accountability for establishing how to get his plans through Congress.  Pelosi did her job with a Democratic House.  Reid and the President both failed in dealing with the Senate.  The President had many options available to him as to how he chose to deal with the Republicans in Congress.  EVERY President has the same situation.  We'll never know what would have happened IF the President had chosen to be less rigid in his complete devotion to "bi-partisanship".  When it was clear to just about everyone else that it wasn't working, he still would not stop depending on it as his "method of choice".  Had he been a CEO in a large corporation he'd have been fired for that intransigence. IF this President wants a successful second term, he needs to re-examine how he deals with Republicans and he needs to get advice on that from somebody other than Bill Clinton.

          We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis D. Brandeis

          by 3goldens on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:40:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The President may be able to set the course, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cany, allergywoman, sewaneepat

            but he can't force Congress to follow said course, and it is CONGRESS, not the President, that makes the laws.

            "Truth never damages a cause that is just."~~~Mohandas K. Gandhi -9.38/-6.26

            by LynneK on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:58:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This isn't about who makes the laws. (5+ / 0-)

              The President AND the Congress as equal powers work together to get the laws in place (or changed) as the party in power (in this case, Democrats) wants them to be.  

              This isn't about the President "forcing" Congress to make the laws he wants either.  It IS about the fact that the President's job is to find the ways to cajole, persuade, or trade with Republicans in order to get his agenda accomplished. This expectation of President Obama is no different than what is expected of every President.  As politicians, anyone who holds the Presidency is expected to use his/her political powers to get accomplished what he/she wants done.  It's the bedrock of how politics gets played out.  Some Congresses are more challenging to deal with than others, but EVERY President has to face that reality and deal with it because it goes with the job.

              We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis D. Brandeis

              by 3goldens on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:13:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well tell me this: When the GOP has said that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kat68, allergywoman

                they will oppose EVERYTHING the president wants to do and that is mandated by leadership (completely), HOW CAN the president cajole?

                If you are talking about compromise, yet we had it.  That resulted in the healthcare bill.  

                Look at the backlog of judges.

                He can't stomp on them until they cry uncle which is about what it would take.

                I just don't get what he could have done that would have ended in a different result.  Really, I don't.

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

                by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:09:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, he can. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens
                  He can't stomp on them until they cry uncle which is about what it would take.

                  President Obama in Boener's district giving speeches on jobs, in Cantor's district pointing at falling down bridges, as two examples.

                  Doing the same to the intransigent Democratic Senators during the Health Insurance debate would have accomplished something.  But they didn't even try.

                  Hell, they gave those people money, and cut ads for them to help them beat other Democrats in primaries.

                  "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation..." JFK

                  by Rick Aucoin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:23:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I don't disagree with a lot of this. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, allergywoman

            I also don't believe HE had all the support he needed.  Remember the horrid BDogs and healthcare?  There was little hope in the pres reigning that back.  I blame Reid there.  It's Reid's baby.

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

            by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:58:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  oh, he's lying (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndieGuy, mightymouse, kat68, Pluto, KJG52

    he's saying that for public consumption, although what "public" he has in mind, I couldn't tell you. Some mythical centrists, probably.

    "Things are never so bad they can't get worse" - Dallasdoc

    by Shahryar on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 06:59:33 PM PDT

  •  David Axelrod is the best strategist... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Dancun74

    there is, he has helped numerous candidates win elections.  

    "Congress has not been able to fix these flaws so far, so I will." - President Obama, 9/23/11

    by BarackStarObama on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:45 PM PDT

  •  Count me in if Axelrod is blaming Republicans for (13+ / 0-)

    for keeping Obama from accomplishing his agenda.  It is the truth.  

    Also count me in as not believing he is really naive in saying so.  

    You have to remember that his remarks were intended for a specific audience.  Hint.  It wasn't us.  

    •  Exactly. nm (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, hardart, LynneK

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

      by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:08:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who Were They Performing For Last Fall? nt (7+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's loser talk (6+ / 0-)

      Voters sent Obama and a Congress full of Dems to get stuff done. Not a lot happened.

      Blaming the GOP is not a great sales pitch.

      I guess it's all they have, but it's stupid - electing Dems didn't help in 2008, why should 2012 be any different?

      By this point Obama and the Dem congress should have been pointing to a resume of accomplishment. But even their one signature accomplishment, the health insurance bill, they don't campaign on it.

      Axelrod puts forward a very negative view - misread the situation, get little done, blame the other guy. That's pathetic.

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:38:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mightymouse, it is not Axelrod that is putting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kat68, allergywoman

        forth a negative view, it is you and sorry to say the diarist.

        Again, who is Axelrod speaking to?  It isn't me or you.    

      •  I consider a LOT of what he has done great (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allergywoman, sewaneepat

        accomplishment including DADT, women's parity in pay, etc.'

        Gee, the president hasn't done anything meaningful in three years?

        Are you sure we are living in the same country?

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

        by cany on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:11:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  as far as addressing the economic crisis (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheUnknown285, erush1345

          that faces working Americans, they did not get nearly enough done.

          that is the core issue, and that is why his re-election is in doubt.

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:25:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you consider that there are currently (0+ / 0-)

            14 million unemployed, and that the stimulus either saved or created 3 million jobs, then that is approximately a 20% reduction in what the unemployment rate would have been. That is quite comparable to what the New Deal did in 8 years (going from a 25% unemployment rate in 1932 to a 20% rate in 1940.) And after 8 years of an Obama administration, I expect that the job situation will be better than what FDR accomplished in 8 years. FDR did not come close to turning the economy around in 3 years, yet many seem to expect Obama to have done so.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:09:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  and Mr. Axelrod cops to non-accomplishment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cany, TheUnknown285

          in the article ref'd in the diary:

          Axelrod blamed Republicans lawmakers in Washington for taking partisan lines and preventing Obama from accomplishing major initiatives.

          i.e., major initiatives did not get accomplished.

          Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

          by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:26:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  come on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      Axelrod is surprised that Republicans are preventing Obama from accomplishing things?  They're the opposition, for crying out loud!  That is what the opposition is supposed to do. Oppose!

      The statement is just about as nonsensical as Rumsfeld's statemetn that Iraqis were going to welcome the troops with flowers.

      Maybe it is the truth that Axelrod is surprised, but as a professional in this business, he sure as hell shouldn't have been!  I suppose it is only non-controversial if you think that Team Obama were a bunch of newbies.  Frankly, I'm really surprised by the statement, especially in light of the new tone.

      Intelligent, passionate, perceptive people will always disagree, but we should not let that disagreement, however heartfelt, lead us to become deaf to those better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:31:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What was he supposed to say? (8+ / 0-)
    "We knew they'd be a bunch of dicks, and yup, they sure proved us right," Axelrod said to the horrow and shock of the assembled press corps.

    This is politics and sometimes you can't say exactly what you mean. You say things to make a rhetorical point.

    I'm really perplexed at you jumping all over this.

    •  Perplexed? (4+ / 0-)

      Why would Axelrod make a statement like that in the first place?  Do you see how stupid it is?  In fact, they ran after the Republicans repeatedly and was rebuffed repeatedly that by the time of the debt debacle Obama was almost destroyed fucking around with the GOP.  When you get burned once, you make sure you don't get burned again.  And Axelrod is one of the reasons that Barack Obama's polling numbers are in the dumps, he directly advised him to where he is at now.

      •  So what did you want Axelrod to say? (6+ / 0-)

        What exactly did he say that was not true?

        Personally, I assumed the Republicans would be more cooperative myself at the beginning, considering Obama began with near 75 percent approval ratings on Day One. Did you really predict way back then they would stamp their feet and yell "no, no, no, HELL NO!" to absolutely everything?

        If so, you were quite the psychic.

        •  It was even the common wisdom after 2008 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kat68, LynneK, cany

          that in view of the Democratic wave, the 2nd wave after 2006 that the Republicans would have to move to the center or become irrelevant.

          Unfortunately, we got the Tea Party instead.

          I don't think Axelrod or Obama were naive to believe this for ... say through the summer of 2009. They may have been dumb to continue to believe it past that.

          Help us to save free conscience from the paw Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw. ~John Donne

          by ohiolibrarian on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:46:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  why did you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheUnknown285, mightymouse

          expect the Republicans to be more cooperative?
          After the first couple of months, it was pretty clear their entire strategy was to obstruct everything the WH wanted to do. Unfortunately, the WH didn't figure that out until now - and I'm still not sure they believe it.

          (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

          by PJEvans on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:00:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  what he should have said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Aucoin

      "We knew coming in the GOP is opposed to doing anything to help most Americans, and so we ignored them completely and achieved our goals."

      Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

      by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:36:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I know if I was a political strategist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PatriciaVa, 3goldens, LynneK

    The last thing I would do, if I wanted an underlying theme of being the "adult in the room" fighting an obstinate opposition party, would be to say something like this to the political media.

    Now, being honest and open about political dealings and strategy while I'm gearing up for reelection?  That - I'd do.

    ... I wonder if this is why I'm not a political strategist?

    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

    by zonk on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:10:48 PM PDT

  •  Iceberg...... (9+ / 0-)

    The country was near disaster when Obama took office.  Was it naive to believe Republicans, who constantly tout their love of country, would help?  They should have.  But obviously, they didn't.  They had no intention of helping pull this country back from the precipice.

    Did Obama try to work w/ them too long?  Yes, of course.  As for his polls "being in the dumps".  How are Republicans faring?  Last time I checked, Congress had a l4% approval rating overall.

    Today 72% of the country is supportive of the "Buffet Rule".   As you may know, that was introduced by President Obama.  His "inner circle" probably had a tad to do with that, as they have w/ the "American Jobs Act".

    In the meantime, how many jobs have Boehner & his "inner circle" brought to this country?  One job.  And that one job was the attorney to defend DOMA.

    •  Look, (4+ / 0-)

      Barack Obama and Company knew 2 full years that the number one issue for voters was JOBS.  During all this time what the hell was he talking about?  Deficits and his grand bargain.  Those folks he has in the White House are out of touch, period.  Why do you think he scrambled for this jobs bill?  A bill that I like some pieces and some I don't.  And where is the President at saying, "Americans, I am waiting for the Republicans to bring me a Jobs Bill?"  And I mean, saying that for 24/7?  For the life of me the WH do not know how to frame shit.

      And when you continue to get burned, do you continue to believe what the one who is burning you say?  It took the deficit mess to scare the shit out of this President because he really thought he was sitting up in that WH and folks loved everything he was doing.  He got a rude awakening with these poll numbers.  And we all better be damn glad it is 2011 and not 2012.

      Obama has a lot of work to do.

      •  Agreed..... (6+ / 0-)

        He does have a lot of work to do.  However, I've never had the impression Obama was "sitting up in that WH" thinking people loved everything he was doing.  I doubt he ever thought that either.  The man can read & hear.

        The first years he went for the stimulus,  healthcare, terrorism, START, the 9/ll Responders Bill, & the repeal of DADT.  Should it have been exclusively jobs?  I'd say so, but then he could have used less obstruction & filibustering from Republicans to get that done.

        •  sure, he went for those (0+ / 0-)

          and every one of them was compromised and watered down to nearly nothing before it even got to the floor of Congress, just so he could get some non-existent votes from Rs.

          (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

          by PJEvans on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:03:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What More Did You Want.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kat68, allergywoman, missLotus

            from START & the 9/ll Responders Bill?  Sooner?  Bigger?  

            Actually he did manage to get 3 Republican votes for the stimulus.  If Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins didn't exist, there would have been NO stimulus at all.

            In a perfect world legislature isn't watered down.  But Congress ain't no perfect world.  Not by a long shot.  

    •  Given that initial TARP vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      that had Paulson on bended knee in front of Speaker Pelosi...yes, it WAS naive to expect the Republicans to cooperate.

  •  I mean, quite a few Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    didn't want to cooperate with a Republican President on TARP or immigration reform.

    And they're going to vooperate with a Democratic President on...what exactly?

  •  Centrism Has Maintained a Fundamentalist Faith (7+ / 0-)

    about the nature of the electorate. Reality does not shake the faith of true believers, and every sign says these are all true believers.

    They've realized they'll have to fight for the conservative moderates they seek, rather than just wait passively for the Republicans to drive them in panic to the Admin. That's something. I hope they've realized more, but the fact that anyone could've slept through the last 20 years this soundly is a tragedy for all humanity.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:25:03 PM PDT

  •  Obama isn't going to change (11+ / 0-)

    and its probably going to take the next decade or two to fix what is wrong with the Democratic Party that makes it an impotent foil to the Right.

    I hear you. I do. It's gobsmacking. My own personal creedo is that you only have to call me Hitler once before I get a clue and stop thinking you are somebody I can do business with.

    But we simply do not have an Obama or Axelrod problem, it's too late for them to re-invent themselves or to become people they fundamentally are not and can't become except as a facade to save their administration at this point.

    When we vote, many many many of us will be voting mostly because the Movement Conservative alternative is so much more terrible an alternative to contemplate than because we still hope for change.  

    We have a "Democratic Party problem", and it's going to take gutting out the party and rebuilding it from the inside to end the tyranny of another generation of Republican Lucy with the Football. Again-ism.

    You can feel it. See it. To me it has a metallic taste like a copper penny under my tongue.

    Each and every hippy punch. Each and every time the voters get stupidly blamed for the shortcomings and sins of the party. Each and every 'we suck, but they are worse' election cycle is another sign of a party without a collective clue chasing the same fail expecting different results.

    Hell, so many Democrats are so desperate to find an alternative to having to confront just how brutally pathetic the party is, and how much shit is going to have to be slogged through to fix it, that they will cling to the absolutely absurd notion that blog commentary and a handful of professional commentators being critical can actually make the difference and turn a national election cycle one way or another. Like Obama could win if the cheering is universal, or lose if the criticisms are too widespread online. I doubt 1% of 1% of the popuation could name twenty blogs.  

    The Democratic Party status-quo simply cannot effectively counter or rollback Movement Conservatism. It can only serve as a Movement Conservative Implementation Buffer. Slowing the worst stuff down, spreading out the pain over time.

    I can't live in denial. It would be so easier to be a Democratic voter if I could. It's going to take years to fix this mindset that allows Democrats to be deluded into thinking that there is any good faith to be had on the American Movement Conservative Rightwing, and that compromise and bipartisanship can be had with legislative terrorists and policy hijackers.

    As far as Obama goes, he is going to win or lose based on if the GOP nominates a crazy person or not, and not on 2008-2011. It's largely the GOPs race to lose, and damned if they aren't hell bent on losing it by going all Sharron Angle on themselves nationally.

    I say this as somebody whose Dirty Fucking Hippy status is something that I am completely proud of. Obama isn't going to change. This is him. He ran in 2008 as a tranformational figure, and, because that won't get him re-elected in 2012, he's running against Washington DC via populist rhetoric and a more confrontational campaign style. All of which will end the second he is re-elected. If and when he is elected to a second term, he will do exactly what he did in his first term in terms of trying to find compromises with the GOP no matter how many times we see signs waved of him as Hitler or the Joker at Tea Party rallies, no matter how many times he gets called a 'radical' or a 'socialist' on Fox News, no matter how many times his hand gets chopped off when he reaches it out to John Boehner or Mitch McConnell in sincerity.

    We have a hugely bigger problem that the Obama administration being filled with examples of Pollyanna-ism. That problem is that they are just reflecting the norm of the whole topside of the institutional Democratic party.

    But there is hope. Real hope.

    Elizabeth Warren is going to be a total rockstar in our party should she get elected in Massachusetts saying what should be mundane amongst Democratic office-holders. The brutal truth.

    She's not a radical. She's not far Left. She is articulating the most mainstream of mainstream non-Movement Conservative ideals and positions and she is getting talked about like she is doing something unheard of because the Party has, to my shame and frustration, agreed across large swaths of itself, to be ashamed of making a proud partisan ideological argument against Movement Conservatism and for the Democratic Party as the ideological answer to our national problems.

    Elizabeth Warren simply isn't going to go off to DC and Jim Webb or Jon Tester us and proudly become a part of the problem. Al Franken. Sherrod Brown. Bernie Sanders. There's hope here because these people get it. They understand exactly why you are pissed off right now as a partisan Democrat and the next generation of Democrats isn't going to be DLC or ThirdWayers, they aren't going to be a majority of people coming in who are ashamed of partisanship, want bipartisanship at all costs, are willing to cripple Social Security and Medicare because a Republican cons them into it, and can be tricked into navelgazing at the drop of a hat.

    The key to change is to put people who actually believe they can change the party and that it will do the country a world of good no matter what they naysayers say in office.

    Even in the most abusively partisan, most undeniably extremist era of far Rightwing Movement Conservatism this nation has seen since the Gilded Age... there are still Democrats in utter denial about the depths and breadth of the bad faith and 'whatever you have to do to win is always morally justifiable'-ism of the post-Rove/Atwater GOP.

    I would argue, as cynical as I usually am about the Democratic Party, that we are looking at a generation where we have a real chance to change the culture of the Democratic Party longterm.

    Part of that, and it burns inside of me until I feel utterly hollow, is that, because of just how fucked and just how entrenched the self-defeating
    'Democrats who Hate What Makes the Democratic Party Worth Voting For In the First Place' some of us, maybe a lot of us, we might not get to enjoy the fruits of our labor.

    I can live with that if the country I leave behind is better than the one I was born into.

    •  An Obama-specific comment (8+ / 0-)

      Obama runs for office brilliantly, but in a way that trades shortterm gains for longterm resentment and frustration.

      In 2008, he, brilliantly, ran a sweepingly big-themed but vague in general and short on specifics campaign that allowed people of all sorts of ideological stripes to project their specific policy positions onto him.

      Genius. But with a price.

      Somebody. Or rather, a lot of somebodies, were going to be royally pissed off when they discovered that they believed that Obama agreed with them on x, y, and z and that were really, really wrong.

      He's doing it again.

      Obama is running for re-election by positioning himself, now that the possibiliy of legislation has passed into the 2012 election cycle, as a far more passionate and confrontational populist sort of candidate.

      It's brilliant. It's probably his most effective shot at reelection, but it is going to come with a price. His own version of Lucy With the Football.

      He's not that guy. He never will be.

      When he goes back to the status-quo of before, he's set himself up to have millions of people who feel conned and duped. And some of them burned twice.

      If he wins the White House again, and I believe he will because the GOP seems hellbent of fumbling this cycle away, he's going to go right back to being exactly who he was before. Compromiser in Chief.

      And his second term is going to be as big a mess as the first, maybe more, if there are even modest GOP gains in the Senate and a 15 seat Democratic gain in the House to offset each party being able to take a commanding position in government.

      Essentially, a brilliant short-term strategy that, if it works out in the best possible outcome, will leave a huge number of people feeling conned and lied to.

      Barack Obama has come up with not one, but two, brilliant short-term strategies with horrible longterm pitfalls built into them.

      Only, after 2012, there will not be a honeymoon period with anyone, and he might not get anything done in term two other than whatever maintenence he can get to preserve what he got in term one.

      •  I would like to correct one thing here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse
        In 2008, he, brilliantly, ran a sweepingly big-themed but vague in general and short on specifics campaign that allowed people of all sorts of ideological stripes to project their specific policy positions onto him

        I've seen this sentiment so many times since the last election I wanna scream.

        The Obama/Biden Health Care Plan is a good place to focus on.  It was detailed, it was specific, it wasn't vague and blurry, set up so anything they got through would fit in the box so that they could call it a campaign promise kept.

        No, they were quite specific in the proposal, and in many others.

        And that's why any Campaign Promises Kept List that includes health care reform on it is nothing but propaganda and lies.

        No, we voted on specific proposals with specific ends in mind, spelled out in detail in many cases.

        Then after they won election, they sold us out.

        THAT is what happened.  Not the "blank slate" candidate meme that's been floating around since 2008.

        "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation..." JFK

        by Rick Aucoin on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:32:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know users often tell you this, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, TheUnknown285, HCKAD, mightymouse

      but I can't help, but repeat the wish that you would write more diaries, but as comments they are still very excellent, well-worded summations of reality.

      It is not all books that are as dull as their readers. Thoreau

      by blueoasis on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:55:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What an interesting comment, LeftHandedMan (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheUnknown285, HCKAD, mightymouse

      It really encapsulates exactly the forces at work in the political dynamics of the party -- and hints at the brutal realities we're facing as a Democracy. Also liked the way you wove your own philosophy at the end into your narrative.

      You might consider copying and pasting this into a Diary of your own -- inquiring into how reality based the community actually is about what we are engaged in and who we are dealing with. And how it might turn out for us.

    •  Wow! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HCKAD

      Amazing comment.  Please diary this.

  •  He did in fact say he felt that way (7+ / 0-)
    when we got to Washington

    He did not say "and one of these days, it will happen, just you wait!" and then go on to talk about how the republican candidates were the equivilent of sparkling ponies shitting gold bricks in his back yard.

    Not sure what you mean by "until Obama changes". Obama has been smacking republicans upside the head since Labor Day and has shown no sign of stopping.

    R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
    October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

    by SwedishJewfish on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:37:34 PM PDT

    •  Look how long it took him to say, Republican. (5+ / 0-)

      And I am glad that he is smacking them around, but he has to do more than talk at this instance.  Folks, need to see action and repeated action from him.  Besides, he is trying to keep his job and knows that many are not pleased with his performance, thus far.

      •  Fair enough... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dancun74, cany, allergywoman, JTinDC

        It did take him an awfully long time, but I don't think that quote is quite so damning since it is talking about the very beginning of his presidency. He does seem to have finally gotten it, and he's on a roll lately. I do not see him changing course, I think the debt ceiling debate finally pounded it into his head that the republicans despise him and will fuck him over any chance they get.

        R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
        October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

        by SwedishJewfish on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 07:51:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  After (0+ / 0-)

          thirty fucking MONTHS in office?

          Just how long does it take to get a clue?

          •  Thirty fucking months (0+ / 0-)

            apparantly

            R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
            October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

            by SwedishJewfish on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:23:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which is about (0+ / 0-)

              twenty-nine months too long.

              If not thirty.

              Anybody who was actually paying attention could easily have seen this would happen.  As I note here and in comments in the same subthread, not understanding this is gross and reckless political malpractice by Team Obama, with lasting damage to this country as a consequence  -- damage compounded by their lack of ability (or desire, or will) to call any Rethugs out on this behavior, while relentlessly bashing and trashing people on the left in their own party.  As if it were the left, rather than the Rethugs, who were fucking things up.

      •  I think it is past silly to keep harping on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        whether he said "Republicans" vs "some in Congress" (we all know who those "some" are). Before campaign season, he said "some in Congress;" after Labor Day and the start of campaign season he said "Republicans." That is the difference between being President and being a candidate. "Some in Congress" put the blame on the right people also.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:18:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What a steaming pile (0+ / 0-)

          He doesn't even bother to say "some in Congress."  He just says (consistently, over the last thirty fucking months) "Congress" or "Washington."

          An example (from just last month, btw -- oh, you mean that wasn't election season yet?), which I rant about here.

          Correct.  And presumably the POTUS and the rest of the Democratic Party know it, and have known it.  Yet they're not hammering this message.  Why the hell not?

          Case in point:  The Republican shutdown of the FAA, costing thousands jobs, costing millions (approaching billions) in tax revenues, stalling needed airport improvement, and more.

          The message from the White House?

          "It's another Washington-inflicted wound on America," Obama said Monday.

          Washington-inflicted, Mr. President? Really?

          Same message from WH spokesperson Jay Carney.

             "We will look at the measures the president may be able to take," Carney said. "We are intently interested in assuring that these 74,000 Americans who had jobs get them back." He said since they were essentially "thrown out of work by a failure of Congress to act," the simplest solution was for lawmakers to come back to Washington and fix the problem.

          A failure of Congress to act, Mr. Carney? Not a conscious effort by Republicans to hold FAA funding hostage to their union-busting agenda?

          (the above quote from wjla dot com -- google a phrase to bring up the story -- I'm not going to get this comment disappeared because of some BS TPM/disqus link limit)

          IT'S NOT "CONGRESS", MR. CARNEY.
          IT'S NOT "WASHINGTON", MR. PRESIDENT.
          IT'S THE REPUBLICANS.

          WHY THE F$¢K AREN'T YOU SAYING SO?

             If anyone—from the media to the president—implies that the blame is to be equally apportioned, they're basically saying that Democrats should immediately cede any role in governance, that as long as Republicans are willing to cause damage to get their own way, Democrats should just get out of the way or be held equally responsible. Of course there are going to be idiots in the media who don't know better. The president and his administration should.

          Good God, talk about a message fail.  But this is consistent practice from the WH.  Again, I ask: WHY?

          Now, aside from not calling out the people responsible -- you know, THE REPUBLICANS -- for their conscious, deliberate efforts to destroy the Obama presidency by means of destroying the economy and the country -- you do understand, don't you, how chalking up all the problems to a generic "Washington" or "Congress" doesn't exactly move forward the central liberal/progressive message that government does have a proper role to play in our society?  You do get that?  Or do I need to explain it?

          And just who exactly are the "we all" who "know" who he's referring to when he says "some in congress" (when he even bothers to add the "some in" part)?  Here's a hint: low-info swing voters don't read DKos.

  •  This diary is naive (7+ / 0-)

    because the author clearly believes that she knows more about how to "shore up a base" than Barack Obama or David Axelrod.  

    Keep in mind that in 2007 at this time, no one (myself included) even thought that Obama would get the Democratic nomination, let alone win the Presidency. He was trailing Hillary by double digits. And his team certainly was not listening to the author of this diary for "advice" on how to get people to pay Obama any attention...

    Do you know why the GOP party is floundering right now, so much so that they are pleading with a morbidly obese, poorly polling governor in his own state to be their savior? Let me tell you why - and NO one seems to realize this. It's because of President Obama's style of governing. I will explain just what President Obama has done to the GOP party in a diary one of these days soon. I just don't have the time right now, but I will say this: Any blogger on this site who thinks they are a better or smarter strategist when it comes to politics than Barack Obama is a FOOL.

    •  His great strategy hasn't done much for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheUnknown285

      his polling numbers.

      •  Yes it has (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC

        It has kept his polling numbers consistently higher than that of congress and his GOP contenders. You keep focusing on the polling numbers as though they exist in a vaccum and that's all there is to it. And his numbers are not even as bad as some of you keep claiming - unless you're taking the media's approach of focusing on just one or two that confirm your desired narrative, while ignoring everything else.

        At the same time in his Presidency, 57%of Democrats wanted Bill Clinton to be reelected. The corresponding number for Barack Obama has NEVER fallen below 70%.

        And As I said, there is a reason that the GOP is STILL floundering in terms of finding a viable candidate for 2012 - and if the President's numbers are so poor and his base is so depressed as some of you keep claiming, it should be quite easy for the GOP to find any candidate to trounce him in 2012...they have at least 9 candidates and they are still clamoring for someone else - a governor who already has a lot of baggage (low poll numbers in his state, known interactions with the Koch brothers, problems with teachers/unions, etc, and a girth that signals poor health).

    •  I think it's just easier to look (0+ / 0-)

      ...at which candidate Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street is dumping their money on -- and go with that.

      That's how you know who's gonna win. It works every single time, and 2012 is no exception.

      Any blogger on this site who thinks they are a better or smarter strategist when it comes to politics than Barack Obama is a FOOL.
  •  Senior Advisor. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Pluto

    Ironic.  Especially in Spanish.

    Ordinary political process is dead. The Supreme Court killed it. In Chambers. With a gavel.

    by Publius2008 on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:04:27 PM PDT

  •  tremendous messaging (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, KJG52

    "vote for us - we're helpless."

    Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

    by mightymouse on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:49:32 PM PDT

  •  I'll use age (5+ / 0-)

    rather than media/electronics/spinmeisters as my compass.

    I don't give a shite what Axlerod says.  I do give a shite what Romney or Perry or Rove or Koch are saying.  Maybe it is dementia as related to the younger generation -- but I'm still in this for the long haul rather than being pissed in the short haul.

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 08:59:44 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Axelrod has an overly optimistic view (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KJG52, mightymouse

    of Republicans? Ds and Rs do play golf together, after all. But how they manage to call each other friends, as Obama has said of Tom Coburn, is beyond me. I personally do not call people "friends" if they believe in things that would demolish me and other people. Maybe that's just me.

    When statements like Axelrod's are made, it's hard to recall that he was part of the team that got Obama elected.

    Maybe pipe dreams of compromise are good for campaigns, but when it's been proven over and over that one party is unwilling to compromise, that strategy must be abandoned.

    Here's a new one: Obama can do whatever is legally in his power to do, and let the Repubs smolder in their resentment while the rest of us cheer. Remember Bush's "midnight regulations" that were designed to make it hard for Obama to correct? Remember the conversion of Bush appointees into civil service employees so that they couldn't easily be replaced?

    Republicans have no qualms about fighting dirty. I'm not saying we should fight dirty also, but on the other hand we shouldn't let an opportunity go by to put the Rs in an awkward situation with the voters...as in pointing out their obstruction and their favoring of the wealthy repeatedly, ad infinitum, until people wake up to their demagoguery and manipulation.

    Obama's recent straightforward plain language speeches are great. My personal wish is that they are sincere.

  •  Axelrod is out of his depth outside of Chicago... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    the blatant mismanagement of messaging and the misprioritizing of economic versus healthcare policy is totally the fault of Obama and his core advisors. The president has a chance to redeem himself and win if he doesn't go all wobbly on being a Democrat, but, this little whiney non-apology, apology, by Axelrod is not a good sign. Winning is not about explaining failure, it is time for Axelrod and his compatriots to claim success on what has been accomplished, and then put forward a new vision for America that addresses the problems of Americans: jobs, housing, economic anxiety, trade inequality and war.

    Changing the Democratic Party from the not-Republican Party, to the party of progressives is going to take another ten years, and we don't have that luxury. We have to work with what we have now and simultaneously push for the change that is needed. Obama is a place keeper we need, to hold off the Republicans until we can effect change in our Party and move a proressive agenda.

    Axelrod is a hack, and not much of a strategist, the reason the Democratic presidential platform was so crowded with entrants is that everyone knew the likelihood of a Republican successor to "W" was highly unlikely. Republicans had lost control of Congress in 2006 and were very unpopular in a war weary and economically anxious country. Axelrod may be good at beating Democrats in primaries and local ward heeling in Chicago, but it didn't take a brilliant strategist to win the 2008 election for a Democrat. This election is different, we're not talking about primary strategies and caucus counts, we're talking about re-electing a deeply unpopular president, with right direction/wrong direction  numbers worse than Carter's and an economy that is generally viewed as on the way to a second recession.

    The president has a chance, he's personally more popular than all Republicans, but this sorry whining emanating from the campaign has to stop. Message discipline has to be rigorous and positive, the election has to be about what he is going to do, not what the president hasn't done. The message has to be about Obama's solutions to the country's problems, the intransigence of Republican opposition and the culpability of Republicans for the mess we are in, not how the White House miscalculated in the past.  

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:59:29 AM PDT

  •  any word on the numbers in the crowds (0+ / 0-)

    the prez is pulling?  are the venues half-filled or over-flowing, like in 2008?

  •  If Obama loses in 2012 it will be because of (0+ / 0-)

    liberals who have spent too much energy on crap posts like this one. Way to work toward depressing the vote.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:20:57 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site