I suggest everyone listen very carefully to the segment on sanctions. The Obama administration may be headed toward a colossal mistake here, perhaps achieving what even Bush managed to avoid -- war with Iran.

Quoting Wonderment: I suggest everyone listen very carefully to the segment on sanctions.

The Obama administration may be headed toward a colossal mistake here, perhaps achieving what even Bush managed to avoid -- war with Iran.

After the West Point speech and the Nobel Speech it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will make a colossal mistake with regard to Iran, aided and abetted by AIPAC.

Who are the people I saw on MSNBC in the government-approved demonstration against the opposition? Are they coerced into demonstrating?
Are they paid? Or are the people deeply divided?

The French Revolution took a pretty long time to be diagnosed as a "revolution," too. There was no single leader dictating the forms of resistance--Lafayette played a symbolic role very similar to Mousavi--and the Court maintained a show of having everything under control for about two years. Only when the King attempted to flee the country (June 1791) did things really start to unravel. I wonder at what point we will see Ahmadinejad broadcasting from Turkmenistan.

After the West Point speech and the Nobel Speech it is almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will make a colossal mistake with regard to Iran, aided and abetted by AIPAC.

It's interesting that all of Obama's broken promises are to his progressive base. The latest is a sell-out of gay rights on the Immigration Reform bill (not that it will pass anyway). O's handlers are counting on the base to dutifully campaign for him again in 2012, as if we still believed all the hope and change hype. Won't happen. Obama is in trouble. Plus, how much does his re-election matter? He can't deliver even with huge majorities in House and Senate. That will undoubtedly get worse by 2010.

Quoting Wonderment: It's interesting that all of Obama's broken promises are to his progressive base. The latest is a sell-out of gay rights on the Immigration Reform bill (not that it will pass anyway).

O's handlers are counting on the base to dutifully campaign for him again in 2012, as if we still believed all the hope and change hype. Won't happen. Obama is in trouble. Plus, how much does his re-election matter? He can't deliver even with huge majorities in House and Senate. That will undoubtedly get worse by 2010.

That's right, he's history's greatest monster. The only way to advance progressive causes is by blaming Obama for everything:

Attacking Obama and calling his administration corrupt, owned by corporations, and dishonest ***HELPS*** him! You see, when liberals lob character attacks at a liberal President, they are making him seem more moderate, reasonable, and mainstream. That makes logical sense.

When the left pushes for investigations of vague conspiracy theories against political hands that they don't like ("RAHM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in Shatner voice), they're making the President seem reasonable. After all - "middle America" and the beltway elite LOVE Presidents who are dealing with a corruption scandal that was started by members of both

Quoting Wonderment: It's interesting that all of Obama's broken promises are to his progressive base. The latest is a sell-out of gay rights on the Immigration Reform bill (not that it will pass anyway).

O's handlers are counting on the base to dutifully campaign for him again in 2012, as if we still believed all the hope and change hype. Won't happen. Obama is in trouble. Plus, how much does his re-election matter? He can't deliver even with huge majorities in House and Senate. That will undoubtedly get worse by 2010.

Can you imagine a realistic scenario in which you'd get more of what you want? I was never on the Obama bandwagon, even if I voted for him. The only trouble I see him in seems to be related to the unrealistic expectations of people who don't seem to want to acknowledge that theirs isn't the only view to be reckoned with. He can't deliver huge majorities? On what, health care? We're on the brink of a bill - arguably one as liberal as it's possible to get through the Senate. Is the politcal composition of the Senate, and its structural limitiations (filibuster, etc..) the fault

Quoting AemJeff: Can you imagine a realistic scenario in which you'd get more of what you want? I was never on the Obama bandwagon, even if I voted for him. The only trouble I see him in seems to be related to the unrealistic expectations of people who don't seem to want to acknowledge that theirs isn't the only view to be reckoned with. He can't deliver huge majorities? On what, health care? We're on the brink of a bill - arguably one as liberal as it's possible to get through the Senate. Is the politcal composition of the Senate, and its structural limitiations (filibuster, etc..) the fault of Obama? Do you blame him for political calculation? Can you imagine a successful candidate who wasn't also fundamentally a political compromiser?

I think you hold him to an impossible standard. And I think that strengthens your real political enemies.

What do you make of the notion (forwarded by Bob, among others), that had Obama taken more a of a strong stand on health care from the git-go, we'd have a considerably better bill? What if Obama had, at the very least, come out in favor of the public option? BTW, even if I think

Quoting nikkibong: What do you make of the notion (forwarded by Bob, among others), that had Obama taken more a of a strong stand on health care from the git-go, we'd have a considerably better bill? What if Obama had, at the very least, come out in favor of the public option?

BTW, even if I think the means (compelling people to give money to private insurance companies - basically transferring federal and private money to insurance companies) suck, I still think that the ends (making sure every American has health insurance) are a great victory.

I don't believe it. Lieberman was, I believe, inevitably going to take a stance based on his ties to the insurance industry, and his putative status as the sixtieth vote - for example. The state of the game in the Senate was fixed by the structural limitations of the body and by the razor thin margin (at 60.) Obama was playing this to get a bill passed, not to draft a great bill that wouldn't pass; I see no other rational approach. I don't think this bill is ideal, in fact it pisses me off. But, I agree that it's a victory; and to the extent that it sucks, I don't blame

Can you imagine a realistic scenario in which you'd get more of what you want? I was never on the Obama bandwagon, even if I voted for him. The only trouble I see him in seems to be related to the unrealistic expectations of people who don't seem to want to acknowledge that theirs isn't the only view to be reckoned with. He can't deliver huge majorities? On what, health care? We're on the brink of a bill - arguably one as liberal as it's possible to get through the Senate. Is the politcal composition of the Senate, and its structural limitiations (filibuster, etc..) the fault of Obama? Do you blame him for political calculation? Can you imagine a successful candidate who wasn't also fundamentally a political compromiser?

Legitimate points.

I think you hold him to an impossible standard. And I think that strengthens your real political enemies.

Maybe, but what do you propose? That the left NOT criticize Obama? That when he breaks a promise, we should ignore it? That we should blindly support him no matter what he does because Republicans would be even worse? If all criticism of Obama merely "strengthens [my] political enemies," I might as well just shut

Quoting nikkibong: What do you make of the notion (forwarded by Bob, among others), that had Obama taken more a of a strong stand on health care from the git-go, we'd have a considerably better bill? What if Obama had, at the very least, come out in favor of the public option?

From Obama's address to Congress:

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. (Applause.) And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They

Quoting Wonderment:
If all criticism of Obama merely "strengthens [my] political enemies," I might as well just shut up, obey and toe the party line, right?

No. Work to get more and better progressives elected. Obama + 62 Democratic Senators is a lot more progressive than Obama + 60 (or 58) Democratic Senators.

Quoting Wonderment: Legitimate points.

Maybe, but what do you propose? That the left NOT criticize Obama? That when he breaks a promise, we should ignore it? That we should blindly support him no matter what he does because Republicans would be even worse?

If all criticism of Obama merely "strengthens [my] political enemies," I might as well just shut up, obey and toe the party line, right?

I propose that we be rational. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to try to undermine. Adjectives like "sellout," implications that he's not on your side, attempts to weaken him with rhetoric rather than maintain a fraternal level of respectful disagreement - these things aren't calculated to maximize your (or my) broad interests. This is probably as good a leader the left is likely to see - isn't it better to try to work to get what's attainable and attempt to move the Overton Window, than it is to lash out and weaken him, and the cause generally, because you can't have everything?

...isn't it better to try to work to get what's attainable and attempt to move the Overton Window, than it is to lash out and weaken him, and the cause generally, because you can't have everything?

Need to unpack that one. First, "lashing out" is your characterization. Second, you're presuming that criticism will weaken him. Why? Couldn't criticism actually influence him in the right direction? Third, it's unfair to suggest that critics are big babies who have tantrums when they "can't have everything." A more accurate picture is that many smaller constituencies are deeply disappointed because they're getting nothing. Let's take the example of immigration rights for gays. Suppose you are a gay man who was promised Obama would deliver full equal rights. You have a Korean husband or life-partner. Now suddenly the Immigration Reform package slams the door on gay rights. What is your appropriate response to Obama? Should you say, "I understand that you need to compromise with homophobes and bigots who support you. I have no problem seeing my husband deported to Korea, while all the husbands of heterosexual people get Green Cards and a path to citizenship. I understand we can't have everything and

Quoting Wonderment: ...
What is your appropriate response to Obama? Should you say, "I understand that you need to compromise with homophobes and bigots who support you. I have no problem seeing my husband deported to Korea, while all the husbands of heterosexual people get Green Cards and a path to citizenship. I understand we can't have everything and that to question you on this only strengthens your enemies."

Yeah, in a nutshell. I have to assume that Obama is no homophobe, e.g., and has the interests of gay man and women as a priority. Why? Because I believed him when he said so. Are those interests better served by Obama watching his own interests and enhancing his political strength, or by weakening him and increasing the odds of another Republican administration on his heels? And I do think "weakening" is an apt verb. Whether or not "lashing out" is an overly tendentious characterization (I'd say only a little), parts of the left seem to be aligning themselves explicitly against this administration. I really don't think the best way to achieve an agenda is to treat the people most likely to enact any portion of it at all as enemies.

Government workers and people bussed in from rural areas. Are like the diavloggers said, perhaps people afraid of another "revolution".

Quoting Wonderment: we should blindly support him no matter what he does because Republicans would be even worse?

Sounds like a party motto all right: Democrats - we suck less than the Republicans!

Quoting cragger: Sounds like a party motto all right:

Democrats - we suck less than the Republicans!

What's the converse of "sucks less?"