Comments

1
No, you're stupider than Bush.
2
Charles Mudede calling President Obama "naive". That's so ironic, it hurts.
3
I don't see how the president can be blamed for the Republican's complete insanity. How a congress, run by people who hate him so much they are willing to destroy this country's economy to destroy him, is not responsible for their constitutional duty but the president is?!? He needs to do the one thing at this moment he has not done: loudly blame the Republican run house for the economic turmoil.
4
It's naive to believe that people elected to "govern" would actually do their jobs??
5
Obama is not naive. Obama is a collaborator.
6
He and Boner, along with their corporate handlers, were "naive" about how much racial hatred would stop the tea bag caucus from going along with the neoliberal shock "grand bargain". They got everything they wanted but it must be socialist since Obama supported it. Like many in the progressive wing of the Democrats, the tea baggers just can't get their heads around the fact that a black president could be as corporate, neoliberal, and war mongering as every other president(and final candidate from each party) since Jimmy Carter.

The Republican alternative is obviously worse, but we've learned that Obama has no more important item for his presidency than ending Social Security and Medicare as we know it. He is just hell bent on sacrificing every tool of the presidency to get this done. Every "misstep" he makes "forces" him to "give up" more to Republicans. He's not doing anything he doesn't want to; if you think otherwise you're the one who is "naive".
8
well chuck, i guess we can blame the rude urban folks who voted him in.
9
It's pretty fucking bad when the best thing you can say about the guy is that he's "naĂŻve."
10
It makes me sad to say I wish Hillary would run again.
11
He's not naĂŻve...he's just framing the narrative in an attempt to assign blame (deservedly) to the Republicans for a potential default or credit downgrade. When he says "nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse," he means nobody *should* be willing--and by implication, if they are, that they don't deserve to govern. We'll see how effective that framing has been during the 2012 elections.
12
I think the main problem is that Obama is totally tempermentally unsuited to the needs of the American presidency at this particular time. Obama is a competent technocrat, and in normal times, that would be fine (not particularly inspirational, but fine). Now, however, we desperately need an FDR-style fighter, someone who is happy to be despised, and prepared to ram legislation through Congress if that's the right thing to do for the country. Obama is just comepletely incapable of doing any of that. It's quite the tragedy, really.
13
@12-Completely agree. It's possible that if he gets re-elected he could become that firebrand in his second term, but I kind of doubt it.
14
I'm not a fan of Charles. But he's right on about Obama. Ouch.
15
THIS astonishes you? What astonishes me is that Americans continue to vote for presidents based on the fact that they want to have them over for barbecue (Bush) or have a beer with them (Obama). Why on earth would anyone vote for someone to run the most powerful country in the world with one-and-a-half-years experience?!? (and then boo-hoo when it becomes evident he has no idea what he's doing.) That's what's astonishing.

16
What Eckelman said.
17
nah, i think i'll blame the "current economic turmoil" on the real estate bubble, banker greed and recklessness, over-reliance on financial sector profits, the global recession, bad european debt, peak oil, and the dawning realization that infinite growth is an illusion that has irreversibly poisoned the planet's climate instead of obama's naivete.
18
Many Americans are naive ABOUT Obama, It all started with the brain washing "Yes We Can" bit that was more like a Gap commercial than anything else.
19
@12, he's far from a technocrat, in that his greatest strength is as a speaker and he could be persuasive....if he knew anything about the subject matter at hand, namely economics, finance and history. He's picked the most incompetent advisors (Summers, Geithner, etc) to boot. That said, this economic and budgetary problem is at least 30 years in the making, and it just happens to be coming to a head on his watch.
20
@12
I agree. Obama simply was inexperienced as a legislator. His tenure in the Senate was a mere 3 years. He never held an executive position (governor) prior to the Presidency. Heck, he's a young man (only 50 y/o a week ago). I do believe his frustration and greeness is showing.
21
Either way, he sux.
22
You chest-thumping, bubble-dwellers have no appreciation for Obama's subtleties.

Every moderate in the country is having the same reaction to his statement that liberals are - "What is he talking about? The Republicans are literally insane! They can't be trusted!! Boehner's word is mud!!"

And that's exactly the reaction Obama wants middle-Americans to have.

If, on the other hand, Obama started angrily trashing the Republicans like Keith Olbermann with a hangover, moderates would dismiss it all as politics as usual and assign the blame for this mess on both parties.

2012 is going to be a landslide for Obama. Obama owns the middle ground like Shaquille O'Neil owned the paint. And thanks to him, Dems are going to take back the house.
25
For all you FDR lovers, remember that FDR was attacked by the left-wing of the party for capitulating or not going for enough. Most notably, Huey P. Long (Sen LA). Many historians claim that without Huey Long, social security may not exist.

History repeats itself. Except today there is no politician like Huey P. Long to force Obama to the left.
26
@23 - I'm not disagreeing with your points, however in a gross and pedantic simplification:
neocon= using military power to serve corporate interests
neoliberal= using economic policy and tax revenues to serve corporate interests

Obama is repeating the same neoliberal talking points.

Obama, our last four presidents and their opponents in the final elections all qualify as both neocons and neoliberals.. Neither term is mutually exclusive and neither has anything to do with where a politician stands on social issues.
28
@17 I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, regardless, I completely agree except I'll add "gregarious deregulation" to your list.

Economic problems this deep aren't created in two years.

@22 not enough Shaq analogies around here, keep em coming.
29
"You chest-thumping, bubble-dwellers have no appreciation for Obama's subtleties."

Oh, I have appreciation for Obama's subtle conservatism while he relies on his right-wing friends to be just a pinch more to the right so Obama can follow them. What does Obama love more than the middle? He loves that people think he's in the middle while he's really to the right of GWB and Reagan. He loves that he can say small donations fund his campaign while he bundles millions from rich donors. He loves that people call him socialist while he institutes the most TeaBaggy, rightwing, neoliberal economic policies that will enable his owners even more. He loves to promote piddling, incremental adjustments like "patent reform" as a jobs program! He loves to decry the dictatorial policies of other countries while the US systematically attacks the rights of many or deprives them of their life. Oh, and he also loves to talk in a twangy voice and say "folks" when he wants to appear down-home. The list of subtleties goes on.
30
@27, assuming you are correct about 100% neocon administration (which you're not see: Clinton, Panetta, Sebulius), it still begs the question as to why he would do such a thing. I submit that it's because there is no real left-wing/progressive candidate to pull him to the left.

Kucinich is a joke with no power. Who else is there?
31
neoliberal= using economic policy and tax revenues to serve corporate interests

Here, precisely, is why the American left has become so marginalized - it doesn't even understand how socialism works.

For a socialist government to redistribute wealth, there has to be wealth to begin with. Socialist governments can not spin tax revenue from straw, they need a strong economy, jobs, and a market where people can freely and fairly exchange goods and services. These days, a strong economy needs corporations to create economies of scale, tackle problems that are simply too large for small business, and compete on the global market.

Capitalism in general, and corporations in particular, are not the antithesis of socialism, they are prerequisites.
32
@31 Total red herring. BTW, you're wrong about the left. No one's saying that corporations should be banned or killed. Although, I'd claim that the state should have the right to end their charter just as it used to be able to in the 19th century. I'd rather we just get back to having them ALL taxed at a fair rate, that if they are in the US that they make jobs in the US. I don't care if we have to subsidize them or give them benefits. They just need to be prevented from participating in politics to the extent they have been and pay their share.

It's really interesting you want to defend neoliberalism, which has devastated other nations and is doing its number on the US in the name of supposed prosperity and unlimited growth.
33
@32 Also, ever hear of Mondragon? There are alternatives that are profitable and make jobs without being soul-sucking, zombie organizations.
35
@ seandr,

If the Obamar team's sales pitch is that he's playing eleventy dimensional chess that's far too complex for ordinary hewmahns to understand, don't expect a lot of support from people who worked their asses off to get him elected in '08 only to see themselves get violently fucked over afterwards.

He'll still win next year, but only because the RepubliKKKans will put forth a candidate so repulsive that people will be forced to vote for Obamar out of disgust. There is no representation of the "Left" in our politics, except for Bernie Sanders. Are you voting for the right-wing party or the neo-fascist right-wing party?
36
@35: I've outlined Obama's strategy in @22. If that's too complex for you, well, enjoy thumping your chest inside your ideological bubble.
37
I wonder how naive this former constitutional law professor was when he institutionalized Presidential assassination orders against US citizens and permanent detention without trial into our “justice” system.
38
@33 soul-sucking, zombie organizations

LOL! Perhaps you meant to say job giving, employee stock plan providing, tax generating, health care funding, rent paying, donation-matching, technological envelope pushing, immigrant hiring organizations?

As for Mondragon, make it happen, no one is standing in your way.
39
@ seandr,

It's not too complex for me--it's patently false. Obamar is neither naive nor stupid. The right-wing policies he's pursured (ex. war escalation, disastrous budget cuts, the insurance company driven healthcare farce, + infinity) are part of his agenda and he actually agrees with the Republicans on most issues.

Even voters who are inclined to believe the eleventy dimensional chess bullshit won't find it palatable because they've been economically devastated and neither the Dems nor the Reps have any intention to change that.
40
@38 Tax generating companies like GE?
41
@seandr: Actually, I'd venture to say you're the problem with the left. You want to line up and be a neo-royalist for the corporations while a few of them rape and pillage democracy but don't include me as your kind of bullshit "leftist." Corporations are institutions that have to varying degrees helped us organize, yet I think it's insane to start spouting shit said in The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged about them--and from a supposed left-winger! And things are stopping co-ops or small profit corporations from taking hold here--starting with your Mammon-fellating attitude and ending somewhere around the LAW!
42
Apologies to everyone I argued with when I said in the '08 primary that Hillary would be a worse pick than Obama. Can't believe we didn't spend more time discussing, considering how strong a negotiator our next democrat president would be when up against these mad dog republicans
43
I have no doubt that I was one of those who argued with you. Apology accepted, but you guys sure did fuck up.
44
If you go to youtube, click share, then click options, you can set the start time. It gives you a fancy link:
http://youtu.be/KrTKUEfnegE?t=22m50s
The More You Know (TM)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.