Eric Alterman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Obama's First Year
Bill Moyers sat down with Eric Alterman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell to discuss President Obama's first year in office. This portion is where they get into his attempts at bi-partisanship and the fact that it's not working out very well for him and the failure of the media to paint Republicans as the obstructionists they are. I will disagree with Alterman on one point. I don't excuse any of the mainstream media for their behavior and I think it's ridiculous to assert they don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing and it's pushing a corporate agenda that's good for their bottom line. Being not as bad as Fox is a pretty low bar to hurdle. Sadly many of them are barely hurdling it and right behind them with being a propaganda machine for anyone looking out for corporate America's interest, whatever letter is behind their name.
Good stuff all in all. You can watch the entire interview at the Bill Moyers Journal site.
BILL MOYERS: Is it the problem that we lay too much on any President? It's only been a year this week that he was inaugurated. And yet, one year after he took the oath of office, he's being repudiated. Repudiated for what?
ERIC ALTERMAN: Well, it the narrative of the media go from one form of hysteria to another. And what you need if you want to be an effective President is a theory of change. How do you move the system? I thought Barack Obama had a brilliant theory of change as a candidate. He said we're all friends here. We're all Americans. We're all basically interested in the same thing. Let's stop fighting with each other the way the Bush Administration wants us to do. And this nasty Dick Cheney fellow is always trying to get us riled up. Let's find what we agree on and move forward.
And then I thought that once he became President he could say, okay, I tried. I tried it the nice way with these people. But they just won't cooperate. Now it's time to slap them around a little and get something done. He hasn't taken that step. He's giving the impression that he can be pushed around. And I think he needs to push some people around, even at a short term political cost, just to show that there's something to fear with this President.
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: I don't know. I mean, I hear you. But I keep having to remind myself that I'm committed to the particular social contract that is democracy with a little "d" in the U.S. And so, what that means is the messy hard work of recognizing that winning an election is not the same thing as staging a coup. And that even if the other side does it ugly and bad and mean and dishonestly, that the rules of the game are at least as important as the overall outcomes. And so, the plodding, difficult, bureaucratic, listening to people who you disagree with and who you think have ill will, is part of the democratic process. But it is that difficulty of governing together in a country where we don't agree with each other that is the work of democracy.
ERIC ALTERMAN: But in this case, he's playing tennis and there's nobody hitting the ball back. The Republicans are not playing. They're saying-- they're waiting on the sidelines, criticizing his performance and he keeps pretending that he's in a tennis game with two sides. And the question is what can you accomplish under those circumstances? Well, you can accomplish a health care bill that is okay with Joe Lieberman and Senator Nelson. That's all you can accomplish. But it turns out you can't even do that. Because of this vagary that took place in Massachusetts. So, what's the plan now? In other words, the Democrats are so committed to being reasonable, to doing all the things that you just described, as if there were another party that were behaving responsibly. But the Republicans are not interested in behaving responsibly.
BILL MOYERS: What has he gotten for his bipartisanship? I mean, he heavily weighted the stimulus toward tax cuts, against the advice of many Democratic economists, hoping to win some Republican votes, and got none. He ruled out a single payer system ahead of time and then refused to be strong for a public option, hoping to get Olympia Snowe and one Republican vote. Didn't get a single one. He got labeled instead for all of this as a socialist or worse. Does he really know who his opponents are?
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: The question is why is it that the American public doesn't notice this? So, I just want to be careful that we don't play the game the way that our opponents play it, simply because that's how are opponents are playing it. You don't cheat because you're playing with cheaters. What you hope--
ERIC ALTERMAN: Yeah, but you call them cheaters.
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: No, possibly, but-
ERIC ALTERMAN: You say, "You're cheating."
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: But I think part of what you hope is that by demonstrating reasonableness in the face of unreasonableness that a democratic system of observers goes, "Wait a minute. They've turned the water hoses and dogs on people who are fighting back with nothing. That's not acceptable. That's not American. And therefore, we're going to get on the side of the people who are playing fair."
ERIC ALTERMAN: How is that working out?
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: Well, but I think that we have to be really careful about this incredibly short term vision that says, "What we do is fight as nasty as possible to win the policy we want, because at least then we will win the policy we want at the cost of who we are together in a democracy."
BILL MOYERS: But listen —
MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL: This is a long term game.
ERIC ALTERMAN: No, but really what are we talking about? Barack Obama has the largest majority of both houses that any President has had in 30 years, and yet he's governing as if he's- it's 50-50 or even he's in the minority. Now, he should be willing to take some hits for what he strongly believes in, and the American People will respect him for that, even I think, if they disagree with what — that's the way it was with Reagan, and that's the way it was for a long time with Bush. Instead, he's managing the fight between the two sides. He's not leading the fight. And it's a strategy. It might have worked. But it hasn't worked. It's clearly not working now. And it needs to be rethought.
BILL MOYERS: It is working for the Republicans. I mean, they refuse to go along with his hand out. They slap it away. They don't give him a single vote on anything. The Republican strategy has set that up. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Then go to the country and say, "The country can't get anything done. Let's send a Republican to Congress."
ERIC ALTERMAN: This is the failure of the ability of the President and his party to tell their story. It's a Republican story being told. What is the Republican health care alternative? There is none. What is the Republican alternative to the country almost going bankrupt before the stimulus plan? There is none. They have no serious governance strategy right now. They have slogans and they have anger. And the media are allowing the part where "Okay, what's behind the curtain?" to go untold.
Do you know who the most frequently booked guest on "Meet The Press" was this year? Ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Do you know how often Nancy Pelosi, the actual Speaker of the House was on "Meet The Press" this year? Zero. Do you know how many times all the other living ex-Speakers of the House were on "Meet The Press" this year? A grand total of zero. Newt Gingrich has no position, and yet the mainstream media has embraced him as a responsible spokesman for a position where he says the President- This is not Rush Limbaugh. This is not Bill O'Reilly. He says the President of the United States cares more about the rights of terrorists than he does protecting the American People. Now, does any sensible person believe that? No. But that is driving the narrative in the mainstream media. Not on Fox.
BILL MOYERS: Give me your explanation of why you think NBC, GE, and David Gregory constantly ask Newt Gingrich on and not Nancy Pelosi?
ERIC ALTERMAN: I think because the right wing media, Fox, the "Wall Street Journal", "The Weekly Standard", et cetera, et cetera, the Heritage Foundation, they have been so successful at defining the terms of the debate that the mainstream media accept their definitions of the issues and the parameters of discussion without even knowing they're doing it. And this infection has been going on for decades. And when the White House tried to take it on, in the form of taking on Fox, the media reacted, "Oh my God, you're attacking a sister network." That was the phrase of one of the ABC correspondents. They should recognize that there are some people doing honest journalism and some people doing propaganda. And those people doing propaganda should be shamed.
the media constantly attacks. unlike Carter, there's no integrity. the DLC, DSCC and DCCC have no integrity. Otherwise, the bo0$h regime would have been impeached en masse.
Some stuff you can't make up!
That was a good debate and discussion. I agree with da bofe a dem.
Just once I'd like to be addressed as Sir. Without the "You are creating a scene"
That was a good debate and discussion. I agree with da bofe a dem
Just once I'd like to be addressed as Sir. Without the "You are creating a scene"
I looove Melissa's little lisp.
Just once I'd like to be addressed as Sir. Without the "You are creating a scene"
F**k the GOP media, f**k Obama, and f**k congress and the 5 fascists of the apocalypse who sit on the SCOTUS!
Give someone like Alan Grayson the keys to the White House and lets see what he can do. Betcha those 59 Senate votes would be plenty. Of course, Alan - like Dr. Dean knows how shitty it is for the american people right now, and they would never be so clueless as to think the folks would go for DLC republican-lite at this point.
When I was growing up - like tens millions of americans; we remember when there was no bullshit phantom filibuster, and a small minority was NOT granted the opportunity to stall and obstruct the wishes of most of the country.
Like Alan Grayson said, the democrats shouldn't need 60 votes to pass their agenda. The phantom filibuster, is nothing but the ultimate gift that a handfull of super rich fascists could have dreamed of.
But then again, Grayson wouldn't have a team of Rahm, Timmy and Larry either.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Of course being Obama relies mostly on advertising people to advise him what is one to expect?
sunshine. Forgot your happy pill again?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
on pills to cope I guess.
Yeah, we know, it really sucks to be you...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
One MUST take happy pills to be happy with Obama.
I don't take mine either.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
assign the blame for government dysfunction where it truly lies with the House and the Senate and it also helps to have started with some sort of realistic expectations of what any president can achieve in one year.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
FDR had Glass Steagall, the FDIC, the SEC and the Pecora commission. His first one hundred days set a record for bills introduced, all passed.
Clinton passed NAFTA which was a Republican plan.
Obama bailed out the banks and sanctioned the stealth Section 382 two hundred billion dollar tax giveaway which hardly anyone mentions.
One is correct to observe that the President proposes and the Congress disposes.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
who post here think, bailing out the banks was absolutely necessary. A brief review of the history of the depression and the failure of the banking system then should be lesson enough. FDR did not have to deal with a largely moribund Senate either. Nor did he inherit two wars. Now how many bills has Obama signed and how does that stack up against all modern presidents? I'd like to know, Alice, who you think could have done better and you need not restrict yourself to candidates for president.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The bailout of the banks was NOT necessary. The credit crisis was a myth. Lending was contracted in risky sectors. the only way to continue the mirage economy was to encourage banks to lend dollars to risky areas such as credit card customers or businesses that were in sectors that were tanking.
Even if it was necessary, why weren't any strings or conditions attached to the money. Why did investors get paid 100% of their investment in AIG?
And why isn't the economy on the mend today? The system was severely broken and all the bail outs did is enrich a few and delay the inevitable collapse.
the bailout was handled flawlessly. Nor would I suggest that the fact that the first tranche of the bailout came from Bush lessens the Obama administration's culpability for those errors. The only people who think there wasn't a credit crisis, and a world wide one at that, were'nt trying to make payroll or finance a business. The markets were as frozen as a bunny staring down a tractor trailer. Why isn't the economy on the mend? It is. Slowly. And a recession that may last a few years is not a depression that lasts a decade and which would have, had it occurred, utterly destroyed such social safety net as exists.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Our problem is that American's have been throwing a party for the past decades and now they want to avoid a hangover so they will allow their congress to give away billions of dollars just in case that helps us avoid the mess we got ourselves into.
Personally I think they should have let it all collapse. It would have been really painful, like severing an infected limb. . . but we would have been much healthier and stronger in the end. Right now we are giving a horribly infected limb antibiotics and asprin to hold it off from killing us for just a little longer.
You just keep telling yourself that, Peter...
Our nation has never been in this particular crap hole before... Our planet has never been this overpopulated before...
And, semantics will not mask the continued disintegration of our world economy as the infinitesimally tiny fraction of this planet's population I call the "Corporate Megalomaniacs" continues to solidify it's rock-solid grasp on the vast majority of this planet's resources. When the vast majority of the people on this rock finally address this inequity, the results will NOT be pretty.
In discussing FDR and his successes, I think it is important to understand that FDR had to battle SCOTUS repeatedly to keep any reforms. He even played some hardball:
I can't imagine Obama taking such a hardline stance, can you?
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
I proposed exactly such a cure a few days ago. Congress decides how big the Supreme Court is. The same technique was used by the Labour Party in Great Britain to deal with an obstructionist House of Lords. They just added as many members as required to get the job done.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I had no idea that the President and congress could add members to the court. Do they need 60 votes to do it?
Damn . . oh well. . . lol
Can we add Senators too? Now THAT would be useful considering 50% of the entire US population is in 15 states.
Obama's diplomatic approach was a bad move. Now the republicans don't have to solve any problems or figure anything out. All they have to do is talk trash about Obama or simply say "I'm a man of the people." to get their way.
That's the problem with not clearly stating what you want on policies, otherwise others can say this is what you want and hold you accountable to their charge.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Indubitably, rahm thinks by saying a little you can take credit for a lot.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Obama tried to spit the difference and compromise. Now we don't know what he represents. He alienated himself from the democrats in the senate/house, he alienated himself from the people who voted for him, and he's sucking up to the GOP.
The Great Compromiser was a great great great great grand uncle of mine.
I'm not sure of the number of greats
Another as Sec. of State bought Alaska for the US
You betcha...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I'm sorry. .. Rham may be a boy genius in the house where he can skulk around in obscurity manipulating people but he is clueless about the strategies needed for the Presidency. . . an office that is in the spotlight even when it is taking a dump.
have very little to do with the Republicans. They are mostly about the parlous state of the country as he came into office and a divided and ineffective Democratic party.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
The filibuster is a major part of Obama's problems. Period end of story. 60 votes is not a given. . it is an exception that has become the rule. It has only become the rule because of Republicans.
Senate rules give tremendous power to individuals but it is on an honor system. It is expected that the rules will be used appropriately. It is a sacred responsibility because the rules are so powerful that using them inappropriately would allow minority members from states with 300K people to stop all progress in the USA for nothing other than to secure their own party's political power.
Obama, and America's, problem right now is nothing but Republicans who are SHAMING and DISGRACING the US Senate, in a time of major crisis.
Maybe if the Republicans gain control of the congress again. . . Obama can veto every bill from now to the end of his term and we can all talk as if the Senate needs 65 votes to get anything done and how the Republicans are a failure.
Do you mean perilous? If so, on that we can agree.
We are living in perilous times... Someone upthread made reference to our species having to pay the piper (I'm paraphrasing), and I can only hope that those among us who are entrenched in greedy grasping, denial, resentment, and hate will be among the first to fork over their fat purses...
Obama's problems have everything to do with the Republicans.
He doesn't carry a card but he is a republican just the same.
It is the Republicans who do not permit that.
The Democrats and Republicans are two ends of the same snake.
We have the greatest inequality of wealth in the history of the country.
In the richest 1%, the lowliest of them has 10 million dollars, it goes way way up from there.
I don't begrudge them their ten million as much as I do their thinking that it isn't enough. After ten million what need is there?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
is only half the story. Similar levels of inequality have existed in the past but then there wasn't any social safety net. There was no welfare, no social security, no unemployment insurance. During the heyday of the robber barons the difference in purchasing power between the bottom and the top ten percent of the population was vastly greater than it is even now. The enormous productivity of the US economy has made a vastly greater pie to be divided and if that pie is not shared as fairly as we might like the situation is still better now than in the past.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Income inequality is more disparate now than ever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/inco...
Looking solely at productivity as a measure of economic health is a red herring. It is the stuff the Heritage foundation likes to whip out to say that we're all doing great and we don't need change.
is even more important. And the US has a history that predates 1913. Furthermore the measure of wealth has altered substantially. The market value of stocks that Bill Gates owns and what they would be worth if he dumped them all on the market are two different things. What really counts is what you can buy with the disposable income you have. That dictates how you live. If you are going to suggest that poorest are worse off now than during the Great Depression I'm going to have to dispute that.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I have something to do so I won't argue the individual points here.
I use two metrics:
1 - Wealth
2 - Income
Emmanuel Saez has good work on the inequality of income here
Work on the inequality of wealth is a little more difficult to come by. William Domhoff UC Santa Cruz here.
Contrary to your previous accusations that I cherry pick links to support my statements, this on the surface does not do so, as far as the top 1%. For the top 20%, it is another matter.
Another reference is here.
I invite you to do some research and provide some links, I would like to see as much work in the area of wealth distribution as I am able, which is more extreme than income inequality. The wealthy have many tools to shield (and thus in appearance lower) their incomes.
You are suggesting a third metric: purchasing power. I don't dispute that this would be interesting to have information on, but it invites yet more historical comparisons of what is being purchased.
And yes, social safety nets make a considerable difference.
The conservatives however are always chomping at the bit to do away with them.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
that it is the erosion of purchasing power that is adversely affecting the the middle classes and the poorest among us and the principle cause of that is price inflation. Among the most damaging of these increases is the steady rise in the cost of health care. The cure for that ill is entirely in the hands of politicians but it is also why I think a strong and ndependent central bank tasked to keeping inflation in general under control is essential.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
supposed to ignore advancements in technology when looking at income disparity?? It's so hypocritical how neo-capitalists make the argument about how well off the US poor have it despite the fact that real indicators, like food security and infant mortality show upward trends. You can't argue context only when it fits your argument.
Your classical and conservative views of economic markers are outdated and quite frankly disastrous when looking at the sociological and ecological policy analysis.
in that assessment. I quite like the idea of reducing income disparity. I live in a country with universal single-payer health care and I wouldn't trade it for the world. I like Keynesian economics and I look forward to seeing what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire. That doesn't mean I am prepared to ignore the obvious which is that emerging technologies and companies that didn't exist twenty years ago have produced a lot of wealth, much of it on paper only, which is concentrated in the hands of a few. That means that income disparity means less than it did a generation ago. The more recent deterioration in purchasing power since Clinton is of greater worry.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
People can't eat 'wealth,' Peter, paper or otherwise. Just because the M$M isn't covering those among us who are barely getting by--asking family members or charities for help--our numbers are increasing steadily and relentlessly... (The number of children in the world going to bed without a single, solitary meal is my 'marker' for how bad things are getting, Peter--do you have a frame of reference for that statistic?)
BTW, I am working three jobs--two related to public education as I struggle to get certified--and none of them pays enough money for me to cover just my basics! I have asked my family members for help (like they have anything to spare...), and will now be asking local charities. How demoralizing, Peter.
I am fully capable of teaching (in fact, I am an exceptional teacher, according to my students), but I cannot get a job! Nearly every school district in my state is operating in the red, or close to it... Staffs have been slashed, those teachers who still have a job are required to have more students in their classes. There are countless other people in similar dire straits, Peter, and our numbers are growing daily!
If you're sitting there thinking, "well, she has a computer and internet access--things can't be that bad..." then you need to know that one of my 'jobs' is selling stuff -- MY stuff -- on eBay. All of my antiques and valuables that I've acquired over the last fifty years are going on eBay. Just another of the sacrifices I have to make because of the wealth disparity about which you seem to be in denial. My contingency plan is to move in with my sister, in her modest home that's already paid for. So, I have options, and I'm not starving, but I sure do get that there are lots of people who are in far worse situations!!!
What will it take to get you to open your eyes, Peter?! Playing the blame and shame game--or wearing blinders--is NOT going to change the fact that our species' is facing a catastrophic economic event! I would not call it a depression or a recession or anything that our vaunted economists might invent to describe what we're witnessing. We've never been where we currently are, and NO ONE can predict the outcome, no matter how comforting it might be for you to try.
things that make you say...... WTF!?!?!
The problem is one really can't judge a person's record prematurely.
I never thought Obama was particularly liberal, so I'm not surprised.
We can't say a man's a failure because he's not Santa Claus.
I suspect Obama won't be remembered well, but I don't know.
My surprise is that he's turned out to be a Milquetoast.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjnFjf5GSM
Milktoast. I think he may have erred in expecting people to be more rational than they have been and that includes the Republicans and the Democrats. From the outside it looks to me as if there is some profound belief in those politicians that the US is invulnerable and that they can therefore indulge themselves in the usual political kabuki dance that is solely about getting elected or re-elected and has precious little to do with governing effectively. Yet the perils are real and they may yet bite you in the ass and that will adversely affect the rest of the world.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If the thunder of global terrorism don't get you, then the lightning of economic collapse surely will. Or the hailstorm of climate change, or the dry rot of aging infrastructure, or most likely the jackboot of rising corporatism.
Still they play out their parts as if it didn't mean anything. Which is why having Obama in the lead role spells imminent disaster. I think it was Thomas Paine who said, "lead, follow, or get out of the way." PresBO better take that one to heart, and soon.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
Will President Obama expect any gifts for his first anniversary?
How about:
http://www.mygtv.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That was a great conversation. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Alterman is one of my favorite progressives, and Melissa Lacewell Harris is quickly becoming one. I wish Alterman would get more air time. He does great work on the "role of the media". RM should have him on. Dems seriously need to do a better job of managing the narrative, instead of cowering when they're attacked.
..with Melissa Harris-Lacewell's performance in this clip. She was basically arguing that Obama should just give up and let the Repugnants run things - just so he can continue to look 'reasonable' and conciliatory.
Uh huh. And George Washington would have been a much better President if he'd gone along with the British and helped them round up and hang all the rebels.
Up until now I would have agreed with you on Ms. Lacewell-Harris as a favorite progressive commentator. I've seen her a fair bit on The Rachel Maddow Show. After this, not so much.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
She is hot in a very intelligent way I don't know how her students concentrate
Politics is ugly
not to let the substanial hotness there to influence my perception of her arguments. Difficult. Very difficult.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
never mind my posts herein above, Peter. I can see now exactly how tiny is your mind, and exactly where you keep it...
Yes, let's take a look at Obama's first year. In one year, this administration has succeeded in making the extremely popular cause of health care extremely unpopular, in reviving the corpse that was the Republican Party, and in demoralizing the Democratic base. Obama bent over backwards to pander to the financial sector, and continued Bush's no-strings-attached giveaway to the banks, but walked away from amending the bankruptcy laws to allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages. Similarly, his approach to civil rights has been a continuation of the most toxic policies of the Bush Administration. His proposed health care reform bill is another corporatist piece of rubbish which would compel individuals to purchase crappy insurance from the corporate entities that created the problem in the first place, without a public option or realistic cost-containment, but leaving in place the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust laws. It has taken Obama only one year to go from the "audacity of hope" to the mendacity of nope, from transparency in government to secret deals secretly arrived at, from "yes we can" to "well, it's better than nothing." There isn't a single promise he hasn't broken, not a single principle of the Democratic Party that he hasn't betrayed, and not a single constituency that he hasn't thrown under a bus. This failed presidency has been one long exercise in preemptive capitulation, and his response to the loss of a critical Senate seat in a traditionally "blue" state has been to lead the Democratic Party into a full-blown collective PTSD meltdown. One year into his first term Obama is already a lame duck, a political reality reflected in his free-fall approval numbers as well as the right direction/wrong direction poll numbers. Wow, we have a real winner here, folks! BTW, as a former Congressional staffer, I can tell you that anyone still talking about "bipartisanship" -- including Melissa -- has no understanding whatsoever of legislative politics or of the current political environment.
Obama is the first President to really be operating under the harsh unrelenting glare of 24/7 media.
(Technically, Bush was the first, but he got a virtual free pass for most of his first term thanks to lk9/11). With its need for a "scandal a day" story line. It's hyper critical cynicism, it's strange obsession with appearing to be too "positive" towards an administration (I speak of the MSM here, since we know where Fox News stands). And this is even more emphasized by the blogosphere and the cacaphony of voices there. Then throw in the chorus of right-wing talk radio hosts, and its evident that any Democratic President will be drowned under their partisan rantings.
Which has also contributed to creating the most rigid partisanship Congress has known for a very very long time.
Prior to this, Presidents and Congress were judged over a longer period of time. They weren't micro-evaluated on a daily basis. Results were reported and counted, not process.
The ultimate result is that we looking, perhaps, at yet another failed Presidency. Not surprising, since our whole political process is on the verge of becoming dysfunctional. Both in terms of the system, i.e. the Senate and the daily 60 vote requirement, and of the spotlight described above.
I guarantee you that if the Constitutional Convention had taken place under similar circumstances as today, we'd have never gotten the Constitution that we have.
It was the 24/7 cycle that gave us tweety and faux....He was impeached with the collusion of faux. Linda tripp was on with larry king and told him she went to tony snow, a close personal friend with the info she heard from lewinsky, he sent her to lucianne goldberg and the rest was the pathetic history of the 90's. The fact was, faux HAD the goods on clinton from the beginning, circumstantially, and drove the sound machine echo chamber to froth up congress.
...I was annoyed at both Mr. Alter and Ms. Harris-Lacewell's too-kind assumptions about Obama. Alter said at one point that "Obama is the best possible President we could have at this time," or words to that effect. He also expressed mystification at why Obama has behaved as he as, even relying on the pathetic rubric "he's extremely intelligent, maybe he knows more than me, has information I don't have, etc."
There's no mystery. Obama is, as the right wingers say, an empty suit. He has no convictions, at least none so deep he will fight for them. In fact, fighting for any particular policy initiative seems anathema to him, as he seems to want us all to "just get along." Morever, he fatally compromised himself from the outset with his refusal to propose daring, even radical initiatives, then possibly dealing down to more realistic but still transformative bills. He fatally compromised himself by retaining members of the Bush administration and by adding to his staff many Wall Streeters and old hand Democratic deal makers.
I didn't vote for Obama, (but for Ralph Nader), as he revealed even before his election that he had no spine and no will to vote contrary to establishment Washington in his disgraceful betrayal of his promise to vote against--even to support a filibuster of--the revised FISA bill that gave more leeway to the government to perform electronic surveillance without oversight, as well as gifting the telecom companies with retroactive protection against legal consequences for their participation in Bush's illegal wiretapping.
Alter and Harris-Lacewell need to face facts: Obama is not who they imagined or wished him to be; he a solidly center-right politician, unimaginative and feckless. I suspect he may well be a single term President.
Perfect! Those involved in PROPAGANDA need to be called out and shamed.
Is that happening? NO.....instead we allow them to pretend they are "fair and balanced".
You CAN'T play with cheaters. The game is no longer a game. It is theft, stealing, a crime. THAT'S what we are up against. And it's high time people start calling these right wing voices what they are....PROPAGANDA!!
Hurray for Representative Alan Grayson and David Kucinich. But hey...the right wing tries to put them in the same pot with "Mr. 'you-lie'" and the rest of the idiots on the right.
WRONG!! Time for a new strategy. It isn't like we have nothing to lose. We are taking on water fast. One year down in the administration, and already he is being labeled a "lame duck". How f*cked up is that??
Melissa Harris-Lacewell also has a really cute stuffed animal collection that she likes to practice interviews in front of.
Eric Alterman has it right. You don't squander a mandate like the one Obama received from the American public a year ago with some pretend version of bi-partisan reasonableness. Not when the opposition is committed to obstruct literally every single bill. He was essentially ordered to take action by the country, and he's shown almost no leadership. Manners have nothing to do with it.
If only they had the capacity to feel shame!
All this energy expended "grading' Obama's first year...
While we're so busy blaming and shaming--literally feasting on the bipartisan red herrings promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs who gleefully watch us bicker over inconsequential crap while they continue to bend us over and f**k us up the a** (without even kissing us first)--our entire species is witnessing what overpopulation and relentless hedonism means for our rather tenuous future.
We are rather like Sisyphus, doggedly pushing our boulder of blame back up the slippery slope of our own teflon-coated narcissism. "Not my fault!" we screech, as we scramble to survive...
Comments are closed on this entry