Can President-elect Obama deliver?

[DroppinScience]

Ok, I've been reading extensively on how activists (i.e. real lefties and some of them may actually be "socialists" like Palin was trying to call Obama, too!) have been reacting to Obama's victory this past week. I'll try to summarize what I've been reading.

As I anticipated, there is great relief, joy, and optimism. Nevertheless, this is also tempered with the fact that Obama is unlikely to deliver on the promises he's campaigned on since the very system itself is entrenched with big business interests, militarism, special interests groups, etc. Also consider the fact that Obama is also a politician, and no matter how interested and amenable he is in making some genuine changes, he is also thinking about his own political fortunes (mid-term elections, getting re-elected in 2012, etc.) before the interests of the people. This is true no matter what, whether you're talking about Lincoln, FDR, JFK or others. In other words, he's going to proceed cautiously.

Having said that, they DO see a great opening for the possibility of social changes: be it health care, education, foreign policy, human rights, economy, you name it. The conditions are ripe for great changes to happen, but Obama will need some help nudging him (and his fellow Democrats in Congress) in the right direction. In other words, the very same grassroots organizing that made Obama victorious in winning the Democratic nomination and later the Presidency also need to be working just as hard now as they did then for turning Obama's words into action. Obama has inspired so many people into thinking that anything is possible, there really hasn't been this same level of optimism since the days of Kennedy. To sum up, I think the best strategy for the PEOPLE is to rally behind Obama in everything that he does right and steer him back in the right direction if he starts straying from his ideals. Like Lincolm, FDR, et al., slavery was not ended and the New Deal programs were not implemented by the politicians alone, they got the overwhelming pressure of the people to help see them through. This kind of energy is equally necessary if Obama can ever live up to his potential. If the American people get passive, then they can prepare to be disappointed.

I won't go and post each and every article I've read in the past 7 days, but here's the last one I read and has the most clear strategy I've seen thus far.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/11-0

Thoughts on making the dream a reality?

I think the benchmark would be if sazi and others are even halfway pleased with Obama's performance, then I'm going to wager Obama's doing the right things. (y)

[roosta]

Im going to go out on a limb here and say no politician in history has ever lived up to expectations/promises, so regardless he's going to disappoint people.

But if we agree that no politician has ever lived up to expectations/promises then we can view it more objectively and realistically, however disappointing it may be to impose such limits on hope on ourselves.

Plus there's no way possible he will be worse than W.

[travesty]

I like the route he is going so far, with the lobbyists and all. I don't think he will get half the shit he promised accomplished, but if he gets the other half accomplished it will be a big step forward.

However, the stock market does not like him at all. Except for a small rally on Friday, the market has been down big everyday since the election. Barry needs to get some fingers in the dyke and soon.

As for the big three automakers, I don't like the idea of a bailout at all, no surprise to those who know me. But I'm going to be pissed if I have to buy Toyota trucks for my company....they are just horrible, horrible trucks. However i think foreign investors will snap up Ford and the others if the gubment decides not to help.

[ms.peachy]

However, the stock market does not like him at all. Except for a small rally on Friday, the market has been down big everyday since the election. Barry needs to get some fingers in the dyke and soon.


Depends on what you mean by 'soon'. There is nothing he can do until 20 Jan. Really, nothing. He has said it best himself - 'we have one president at a time', and this is why he is not attending the meetings with other world leaders in Washington next week. Frankly I think this is a good move on his part, and really the only appropriate action he can take at this point.

[Bob]

fingers in the dyke

hehe

[saz]

Nevertheless, this is also tempered with the fact that Obama is unlikely to deliver on the promises he's campaigned on since the very system itself is entrenched with big business interests, militarism, special interests groups, etc. Also consider the fact that Obama is also a politician, and no matter how interested and amenable he is in making some genuine changes, he is also thinking about his own political fortunes (mid-term elections, getting re-elected in 2012, etc.) before the interests of the people. This is true no matter what, whether you're talking about Lincoln, FDR, JFK or others. In other words, he's going to proceed cautiously.

you forgot to include that obama is a centrist, and is opposed to single-payer universal healthcare, gay marriage, publically financed elections, cutting the waste and pork out of the defence budget, investigating and impeaching bush and cheney etc.

nevertheless, i anticipate the obama administration to be kind of like an expansion of the clinton administration: appointing a ton of qualified and competent, but centrist and republican-leaning individuals to government departments, agencies and bodies, will seek to be fiscally responsible, get the economy back on track with a strong emphasis on a green shift or to green-collar jobs, with hopefully the hybrid/electric car market getting going (otherwise, the north american auto industry is finished) and starting a strong shift to alternative energy sources, ie wind, solar etc. certainly obama can clean up the bush admin's mess of appointing incompetent boobs and ammoral flunkies to various government departments (ie justice) and get them working effectively again. i'm sure whatever obama does, a large portion of the liberal intelligentsia will be gushing all over him and defending him, proclaiming him to be a progressive or whatever, despite his opposition single-payer healthcare and the aforementioned issues, they'll love him just like clinton. but others will realize what a disappointment he is, and that they can't really count on the dems anymore. i don't know, anything could happen. we'll just have to wait and see.

[DroppinScience]

you forgot to include that obama is a centrist, and is opposed to single-payer universal healthcare, gay marriage, publically financed elections, cutting the waste and pork out of the defence budget, investigating and impeaching bush and cheney etc.

That doesn't really matter because on positions like these, he can be pushed in the right direction. His leadership is known as consensus-building, so if he is shamed into taking action, than that is what matters. A historical example is FDR was initially only allowing defense industry jobs to just whites during WWII, but he was shamed by this discrimination and later opened up employment to blacks. So in other words, it truly is up to the people to decide what kind of president Obama will be.

[travesty]

Depends on what you mean by 'soon'. There is nothing he can do until 20 Jan. Really, nothing. He has said it best himself - 'we have one president at a time', and this is why he is not attending the meetings with other world leaders in Washington next week. Frankly I think this is a good move on his part, and really the only appropriate action he can take at this point.

It doesn't matter whether he is actually President yet. The market is reacting to what Obama has "promised" will happen. Namely increased capital gains, higher taxes for corporations and no, as of yet, clearly defined plan of attack for the economy. He can make a difference by appointing the right people and announcing a plan before he takes the oath. I am not asking him to rush into it, but he needs to get a move on, and I think he know that.

[ms.peachy]

you forgot to include that obama is a centrist, and is opposed to single-payer universal healthcare, gay marriage, publically financed elections, cutting the waste and pork out of the defence budget, investigating and impeaching bush and cheney etc.


I voted for him knowing that he is definitely much less 'lefty' than I am, but also feeling that he is a consensus-seeker and so although I know his positions won't always align perfectly with mine, I trust that he makes careful and considered decisions and that he will take numerous viewpoints into account. To be honest I would rather have someone like that, than someone who happens to agree with me 100% but who just pushes through his own agenda bullishly. I want someone who is a leader of all the people, not just of all the people just like me.

He can make a difference by appointing the right people and announcing a plan before he takes the oath. I am not asking him to rush into it, but he needs to get a move on, and I think he know that.

I agree, and I think it's pretty clear that he is seriously engaged in laying all the necessary groundwork.

[saz]

That doesn't really matter because on positions like these, he can be pushed in the right direction. His leadership is known as consensus-building, so if he is shamed into taking action, than that is what matters. A historical example is FDR was initially only allowing defense industry jobs to just whites during WWII, but he was shamed by this discrimination and later opened up employment to blacks. So in other words, it truly is up to the people to decide what kind of president Obama will be.

that's a good point about fdr, however unlike obama, roosevelt and lbj weren't bankrolled by big business, wall street, and the hmo's.


I voted for him knowing that he is definitely much less 'lefty' than I am, but also feeling that he is a consensus-seeker and so although I know his positions won't always align perfectly with mine, I trust that he makes careful and considered decisions and that he will take numerous viewpoints into account. To be honest I would rather have someone like that, than someone who happens to agree with me 100% but who just pushes through his own agenda bullishly. I want someone who is a leader of all the people, not just of all the people just like me.

i find that stance rather ironic, that some democratic supporters are all for this bi-partisan approach, when meanwhile over the last fifteen years or so, republicans have waged non-stop, systematic warfare on the democrats, doing everything in their power to destory them: from trying to destroy bill clinton, to waging an all-out media war on then first lady clinton's universal healthcare reform, to questioning the dem's patriotism, to accusing them of defending and associating with terrorists, to wanting to see america lose, etc. etc. both fdr and lbj didn't really push through their agendas in an overly bullish manner, except for lbj when it came to civil rights, and i think we can all agree that civil rights is an issue well worth fighting for. in fact, all issues and beliefs that you hold dear or in great importance are worth fighting for. politics is a blood sport. if you're not prepared to fight for what you believe in, if you're constantly going to give in and let the other side bully you - as the democrats have been so easily bullied over the last eight years, ie funding the iraq occupation - then really you're not going to accomplish anything and you're going to lose. the democrats have the white house, with majorities in the senate and house of representatives. considering what the republicans have done to them and how they've treated the dems over these last two decades, ie zero attempts at bi-partisanship, the dems should steamroll an ultra progressive agenda over them and bring about true change. if not, and if they're going to give into right-wing and republican demands and really compromise, then really that's just a cop-out. i like candidates and platforms that speak for and defend the average person, and not for corporations.

[DroppinScience]

It doesn't matter whether he is actually President yet. The market is reacting to what Obama has "promised" will happen.

Do you know what was the LOWEST point during the Great Depression? It was the transition between Hoover and FDR in 1932-33 (in those days, it was between November to March... they had to quicken the transition period to 2 months thereafter because of what happened) where things really hit rock bottom. So with that context, it is hardly surprising that these two months of transition between Bush and Obama will STILL be very tough economic times indeed.

January 20th cannot come soon enough.

[ms.peachy]

considering what the republicans have done to them and how they've treated the dems over these last two decades, ie zero attempts at bi-partisanship, the dems should steamroll an ultra progressive agenda over them and bring about true change.

See, to me what you're suggesting isn't 'true change' at all, it would just be very tit-for-tat, partisan BS, and honestly, hasn't there been enough of that? The "it's our turn now, you did it to us, we'll do it to you" juvenile bollocks?

[jennyb]

He needs to open Obama Motors Inc. in Detroit manufacturing electric vehicles and hire a shit load of peeps to build/design these things and they need to be sexy looking vehicles, America does have some great designers within it's borders... American vehicles and industrial design is all so butt ugly anymore, ok that's just my 2 cents. The American people need to start making things again. Seeing as I've drank the kool-aid a while ago I'd be one of the 1st in line to get me a BarryO electric car. (y)

ok ok so maybe the government shouldn't be manufacturing stuff like this but could lay the groundwork to make this easier for Ford or Chevy to get rollin' I'd rather give my tax dollars to a factory of hard workin types than AIG to splurge on a 5star resort...

[DroppinScience]

that's a good point about fdr, however unlike obama, roosevelt and lbj weren't bankrolled by big business, wall street, and the hmo's.

Did FDR run a campaign in '32 completely independent of Wall Street and big business in general? My understanding of FDR is that he was a member of the super-elite, super-rich who came to understand that those far less fortunate than him need a helping hand, particularly with the economic crisis he inherited. His critics at this time blasted him for the "betrayal" of his class and big business in general. Going by this, one would think he was cozy with those types and then broke free of them. With that context in mind, there'd still be an opportunity for Obama to break free of those interests, too.

Perhaps what you're telling me is that it's more challenging today than FDR's time, but I'm going to stick by the conviction that's it's within the realm of possible.

[saz]

See, to me what you're suggesting isn't 'true change' at all, it would just be very tit-for-tat, partisan BS, and honestly, hasn't there been enough of that? The "it's our turn now, you did it to us, we'll do it to you" juvenile bollocks?

no, it's called growing some balls and standing up for yourself, for those you represent, and the agenda you want to implement. you see, it doesn't matter if the dems continually play nice with the republicans and treat them with the utmost respect and courtesy, because they're on the red team, and will only look out for themselves and who they represent: the conservative republican agenda. the republicans don't represent the blue team, nor the people who the blue team represent. if you are in an opposing party, it is your job to do just that: be the opposition. the bottom line is that you're not going to get single-payer universal healthcare, true and real action on climate change, a complete withdrawl from iraq, alternative energy and hybrid/electric cars by playing nice with the republicans. if democrats truly want these things, they are going to have to fight for them.



Did FDR run a campaign in '32 completely independent of Wall Street and big business in general? My understanding of FDR is that he was a member of the super-elite, super-rich who came to understand that those far less fortunate than him need a helping hand, particularly with the economic crisis he inherited. His critics at this time blasted him for the "betrayal" of his class and big business in general. Going by this, one would think he was cozy with those types and then broke free of them. With that context in mind, there'd still be an opportunity for Obama to break free of those interests, too.

Perhaps what you're telling me is that it's more challenging today than FDR's time, but I'm going to stick by the conviction that's it's within the realm of possible.

yeah, fdr was a member of the elite and was very wealthy, but he wasn't raking in millions and millions in campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists and the like. he also was the target of a fascist coup plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). yes, it is much more challenging in the contemporary political world, not only because the government is essentially run and controlled by lobbyists and corporations, but also because obama is beholden to them, and has never subscribed to the aforementioned issues, ie universal healthcare. it certainly is possible that obama could do a complete reversal and implement true change by implementing a singer-payer system. who knows what will happen. but i'm not holding my breath.

[travesty]

I'd be one of the 1st in line to get me a BarryO electric car. (y)

Obamsmobile
Obamillac
Barrantiac
Barrackury

And of course the "Big Three" would become "The One"

[ericg]

first. 911 was point blank an inside job. then, bush kills or at best destroys and destablizes millions of people and puts them out of work where the only place for them to go is out in the desert to die. he guaranteed an insurgancy by doing this.

obama wants to withdraw some of the troops which is good.
but that's not the idea though. how are we going to leave now that we did so much damage beyond repair. we need to stay and change our reason for being there with reconstruction and restoration.

and everybody go sign the impeach bush and cheney petitions. wtf.

and ... i've been trying to get electric cars out on the streets for years with a plan i still believe in.
check my par post at the bottom for current electric vehicle manufacturers.

[Bob]

that's a good point about fdr, however unlike obama, roosevelt and lbj weren't bankrolled by ... the hmo's.

but i thought you just said obama was opposed to gay marr...wait, never mind

[Documad]

you forgot to include that obama is a centrist, and is opposed to single-payer universal healthcare, gay marriage, publically financed elections, cutting the waste and pork out of the defence budget, investigating and impeaching bush and cheney etc.

nevertheless, i anticipate the obama administration to be kind of like an expansion of the clinton administration: appointing a ton of qualified and competent, but centrist and republican-leaning individuals to government departments, agencies and bodies, will seek to be fiscally responsible, get the economy back on track with a strong emphasis on a green shift or to green-collar jobs, with hopefully the hybrid/electric car market getting going (otherwise, the north american auto industry is finished) and starting a strong shift to alternative energy sources, ie wind, solar etc. certainly obama can clean up the bush admin's mess of appointing incompetent boobs and ammoral flunkies to various government departments (ie justice) and get them working effectively again. i'm sure whatever obama does, a large portion of the liberal intelligentsia will be gushing all over him and defending him, proclaiming him to be a progressive or whatever, despite his opposition single-payer healthcare and the aforementioned issues, they'll love him just like clinton. but others will realize what a disappointment he is, and that they can't really count on the dems anymore. i don't know, anything could happen. we'll just have to wait and see.
I agree with most of what you said except that I don't know whether democrats will continue to support him. I hope so. He has so many problems to face and he can't do everything at once. I'm further left than Obama on some issues and further right on others. I know that were I disagree with him, I also disagreed with McCain, so if Obama only delivers a few of my issues I'll be pretty happy.

I was disappointed with Clinton early on because he seemed to take a poll before he made a decision and he seemed to work on little unimportant issues instead of facing big issues. And of course he cozied up to big business and supported deregulation of our financial industries.

I'm pretty sure that Obama will be the subject of massive criticism fairly early. He isn't going to end the Iraq war and he can't change all of Bush's policies overnight. It wouldn't be responsible to come in and wipe everything out. For instance, the issues regarding how to run the CIA and the FBI. While he probably disagrees with much of what went on before him, he has to appoint people to jobs, then get briefed on all the secret stuff. He has to give careful thought and hear the various positions before he decides how to proceed. After they scare him with top secret scary stuff, he probably won't go as far left as people want. That goes for every big agency. Everything is more complicated when you're actually in charge of it. I've never held a job anywhere near that important, but whenever I get on the inside of a big organization and hear the secret stuff, it tends to change the way I think.

[ToucanSpam]

The biggest question I have is this: is he going to abolish the Patriot Act on his first day. If not, well, he is going to disappoint me just as much as the man who passed the bill.

[Bob]

The biggest question I have is this: is he going to abolish the Patriot Act on his first day. If not, well, he is going to disappoint me just as much as the man who passed the bill.

yeah man, i'm right with you, if obama doesn't repeal the patriot act on his first day (presidents can do that in our form of government) he's as bad as bush. worse maybe.

[Documad]

It's not nice to make fun of Canadians.

[DroppinScience]

It's not nice to make fun of Canadians.

Haha! (y)

Anyways... anyone want to enlighten me on how the PATRIOT Act works? My understanding is that parts of the Act are up for review every year or so and Congress can vote on whether or not to renew or repeal said amendments each year, yes?

A bunch have already been reviewed in the years since 2001... were they all renewed? When is the next review scheduled? And if you want to repeal the PATRIOT Act is that even likely or do you just have to wait for parts of it to come under review and take it one step at a time?

Lawyers and lawmakers... I'm all ears.

[roosta]

first. 911 was point blank an inside job.

you had me right up until 'inside'

[DroppinScience]

Ok, good things I'm hearing with Obama's plans going by the latest headlines...

-Plans to put Guantanamo prisoners on trial
-Driving Lobbyists out of Washington
-Climate Change
-Reviewing some 200 Bush executive orders and determining which of them to immediately reverse

A good start.

[ericg]

really? the puzzle's been put together on this already buddy. come on.
get your chickens in order.

the world isn't the way it is because there's a trustful, honorable presidency...

a word to the wise should be sufficient.

[DroppinScience]

I think you're wearing your tinfoil hat a little too tight there, my friend.

[ericg]

what's wrong with you people?

[Laver1969]

Not sure if this is relevant to this thread...but rumors are swirling that Hillary may be under consideration for Secretary of State.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/13/hillary_clinton_secretary_of_s.html?hpid=topnews

[ToucanSpam]

yeah man, i'm right with you, if obama doesn't repeal the patriot act on his first day (presidents can do that in our form of government) he's as bad as bush. worse maybe.

The Patriot Act's very existence disgusts me. I will be incredibly concerned if Obama does not take action to abolish it as soon as possible.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

AN ACT

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.


The Wikipedia version of this very lengthy, detailed piece of legislation:

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.


There's plenty of literature out there that criticizes the temporary suspension or obstruction of civil liberties granted by the state. I'll leave it in everyone else's hand to decide for themselves whether this is something that should be top priority to abolish.

[ericg]

Not sure if this is relevant to this thread...but rumors are swirling that Hillary may be under consideration for Secretary of State.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/13/hillary_clinton_secretary_of_s.html?hpid=topnews

that'd be terrible.
ican't stand it.

[Bob]

AN ACT

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.


literally every bill says "for other purposes" generally

you don't need to convince me that the patriot act is bad, i'm just saying that you're being melodramatic. also presidents can't repeal laws

[ericg]

i know he won't deliver. he'll give the half ass dems something to talk about, but nothing real will change. people just don't know.

911 should be thoroughly investigated. the bush admin should be impeached. we should convert our military to reconstruction and restoration. halliburton and co should be liquidated. i could go on and on, but that would get people in the know and our country back online.

oh, and the federal reserve should be made federal.

i'm not asking too much am i? just what's obviously correct. sometimes you have to go for the people to follow. it's a catch 22 though where the people need the government to go in order for them to follow. if none of this is done, no one will be free.

[DroppinScience]

sazi, THIS quote right here is exactly what I'm talking about with the potential for change during the Obama era.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/piven

The parallels between the election of 2008 and the election of 1932 are often invoked, with good reason. It is not just that Obama's oratory is reminiscent of FDR's oratory, or that both men were brought into office as a result of big electoral shifts, or that both took power at a moment of economic catastrophe. All this is true, of course. But I want to make a different point: FDR became a great president because the mass protests among the unemployed, the aged, farmers and workers forced him to make choices he would otherwise have avoided. He did not set out to initiate big new policies. The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.

If the Obama presidency delivers on any of their campaign promises, it will be through the grassroots organizing.