I want him to stop listening to Rob Emanuel and David Axelrod and all those who advise him to move to the center. Balderdash. Republican-light, as Truman so forthrightly stated, will always lose to the genuine article.I fear that his self-confidence has become hubris.
I wonder if he pictures himself as the American incarnation of Mandela. Does Obama envision himself as the Great Conciliator, the Great Collaborator? Does he imagine that he is He-Who-Achieves-Dominion-over-the-Rampant-Congressional-Divisiveness-&-Corporate-Greed that currently infects Washington, DC.?
Last November, when I voted for him, I believed Obama had the intention to speak to his fellow citizens regularly about the massive problems he inherited from Bush-eney, keeping us informed and involved. I also believed that he had the cajones to name the lies, the mis-statements, the fabrications, and the incessant fear-mongering that so poisons our nation's political dialogue - to speak the truth to the American people.
Instead, Obama has abdicated his role of teacher-in-chief while pandering away his "political capital" chasing impossible fantasies of winning over corporations and Republicants.
I want him to talk to us like he did as a campaigner. I want him to be the open, honest, transparent leader he told us he would be - the President who tells it like it is; the President who educates us about the multitude of complicated issues needing our attention, who lays out the pros and cons of possible solutions to those problems, and then who LEADS - who tells us why he favors the solution he believes will be in the nation's best interest. I want the real Barack Hussein Obama back.
I voted for BHO because I knew he "GOT IT!" I didn't vote for Rob, or David, but for BARACK.
I want the real deal - the beef - I want Barack to return to his own inner convictions, find his own courageous voice, and acknowledge the lessons HE has learned. I want him to return to inspiring those of us who voted for genuine change! Not pseudo-change, but Real Change - as he promised.
Again, a timely post, Emily. I have taken liberties to add graphics. Hat tip to Bildungblog, permission pending.
ReplyDeleteGraphics appreciated, Vig! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteHoward Fineman, talking with Rachel Maddow tonight, gave an incisive analysis of Obama's behavior as President. He commented that Obama has turned over the fate (the success or failure) of his Presidency to the Congress - that body of legislators most of whose votes have been purchased by the corporate lobbyists who outnumber the actual members of Congress, which accounts for the current impasse on healthcare reform.
He also pointed out that no explanation has been given by the Administration for why job creation is so difficult, noting that In the absence of an identifiable culprit, Obama gets the blame.
Fineman reminded Rachel that, in the past, successful Presidents could smile at recalcitrant legislators while wielding verbal swords that effectively forced the legislator to publicly declare him or herself. He mentioned that Obama could offer just two healthcare-related "bills": no denying coverage to people with "prior existing conditions" and: no "Denial of Care" to individuals once they developed a serious illness, thus forcing ALL members of Congress to put themselves on the record.
Fineman also pointed out that the Obama Administration never mentions what it HAS accomplished, noting who, if not members of the Administration, is going to draw the voters attention to what has been achieved.
Now, how do we get Obama's attention?
Vigil,
ReplyDeleteObama needs to grow a pair, and fast. And then once he does, he needs to bowl over the lying obstructionist Republicans and weak-kneed Blue Dog Dems and teabag them all!It's far past time for no more Mr. Nice Guy!
I'm thinking there are two archetypical model for presidents:
ReplyDeletePresident as Political Leader
President as Presiding Officer.
Obama talked the talk of leadership, but walked the walk of one who just aspires to 'preside'.
In a way, I wish Hillary had won. At least we would have known what we were getting. I said so at the time. Many times.
I'm thinking Rahmmy E is a big part of the problem. Replace that conservative with someone who gives a mouse's fart about the working class and you might see positive change.
ReplyDeleteRahmmy E is the head of the Republicant wing of the Democratic party? I should have paying more attention....
ReplyDeletespeak to his fellow citizens regularly about the massive problems he inherited from Bush-eney, keeping us informed and involved. I also believed that he had the cajones to name the lies, the mis-statements, the fabrications, and the incessant fear-mongering that so poisons our nation's political dialogue - to speak the truth to the American people.
ReplyDeleteAgree! It's one way to get things in proper perspective, a good tactic if you will for Obama to put things in proper perspective; tell people that he cannot solve the mess created by Bush, the 8 years of mis-governance that caused US economy to virtually collapse, the disastrous situation he's inherited, in just one year, not even in 2 years without the cooperation of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
Sadly, we all know that whatever effort Obama makes will fall on deaf ears. For some reason, seems to me a good chunk of the American population wants him to fail.
Rahm Emanuel is just the chief of staff. He has an opinion of course, as do all of the president's advisers, but he doesn't run the country. The buck stops with the boss and the boss knows it. The president needs to start kicking ass and I have no doubt that he will. I suspect, given his intelligence, that there are a lot of red herrings in this White House, at least I hope so. We need something to fool the Republicans...
ReplyDeleteRahm Emanuel, as "just" chief of staff, is a key source of advice and direction. He's also a thug inclineed to punish those who don't toe the line. And he's a conservative who takes liberal Dems for granted. He's gotta go.
ReplyDeleteStimpson I know that RE wields a sharp blade but I don't think I would call him a thug just because he has balls. If the assumption is that the president is "weak" then why would we want to "off" the one guy who can convince him that he needs to find "his" balls? A major contradiction here methinks...
ReplyDeleteI didn't call the president weak, so I don't see the contradicion.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the US president we all are waiting for!
ReplyDeleteJust as we here were all getting desperate for a tough US president who had promised to tackle head-on the 8-year mess left by Bush and cronies, i.e., change, President Obama declares war on Wall Street:
“We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers,” he said. “My resolve to reform the system is only strengthened when I see record profits at some of the very firms claiming that they cannot lend more to small business, cannot keep credit card rates low and cannot refund taxpayers for the bailout. If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.”
That banks should have the nerve to reward themselves fat salaries and bonuses after they were bailed out by taxpayers is downright obscene.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that "you" called the president "weak" Stimp. I was drawing a broad comparison :-)
ReplyDeleteVigil,
ReplyDeleteIs Sir Madam your new title ? Lawrence seems to think so!
Yeah, Oso, this was spam, and 3rd rate, boiler-plate spam at that. I will nuke it.
ReplyDelete