Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing Bologna to Kobe Beef.

Obama is no Reagan.

Probably not the comment you're looking for, but here's something I posted in the Bill Bradbury/Scott Brown hijack thread:

(and why still no thread on Scott Brown?)

I hope that progressives can break their addiction and stop enabling the Democrats. The party is broken, the system is broken, and it should be clear to all that any meaningful change cannot come from the party as it is now. We need to stop enabling them and build something independent--most importantly, a progressive movement not connected to a broken party and broken system. But we also need an independent vehicle for moving an agenda. I'm not sure whether that should be a third party, something like the Working Families Party, or something else entirely.

I fear though, that the analysis adopted by leading liberals, party strategists, and Blue Oregon types will be more of the same: rally behind the Democrats, even the crappy ones, because there is nowhere else to turn. The party knows that the party faithful, unions, enviros, liberals, etc. are unlikely to go elsewhere so there is no need to do much beyond lip service.

I'll quote Drew Westen

"It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year's time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against. ' here's the link to the entire piece on Huffington http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.html

”So, you know, all of these pronouncements about disappointment and so forth I think are crap.”

Disappointment in BHO’s first year is totally justified.

Nationally he tried to repair the economy with a Hoover-like scheme that favored Wall Street and Big Banks while ignoring the middle class.

He focused instead on a disastrously cobbled together health insurance bill that ended up being such a Frankenstein that no politician or group would support it unless they cut a special backroom deal.

Internationally he has no clue as to the nature of the terrorist threat facing this country. He gives civil trials to admitted terrorists that further threaten the nation while needing a near disaster in the air over Detroit before reconsidering closing Gitmo.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope BHO changes course before he runs his presidency full speed into that iceberg.

The rational side of my brain (I forget which side that is) says that Obama has done as good a job as possible considering what he had to work with.

The leftie-dreamer side of my brain is pretty disappointed in Obama's continued catering to the corporate-controlled middle roaders of the Democratic party. The middle class started with a little bit of folding money in their pockets, but now all they have is "change".

"...Obama has done as good a job as possible considering what he had to work with."

The last time Republicans had 60 seats in the Senate was 1923. No President in modern history has had the congressional numbers, personal popularity and urgent national environment that Obama had going into his first year.

He squandered the opportunity to be the "President of all the people" that he claimed to want to be. You can trace all of this back to the Stimulus. To spend $1 Trillion on a program that wasn't going to kick in anytime soon and growing state/federal government at the expense of the deficit and the private sector is what doomed him from the beginning.

This created an US (government) vs. THEM (the people) atmosphere, the likes of which I have never seen before.

Remember, the initial uprising of the Tea Party Movement was triggered by the stimulus. Health Care Reform had not even kicked off yet. It just added fuel to the fire.

Looking forward to year two.......

I'll always love the campaign. I went to 3 Barack Obama rallies and I felt something tremendous was happening. Yes, I'm disappointed, but I'm not writing anyone off after a year. By the way, President Reagan was not that great - he was just turned into a near-deity by a GOP spin machine run amuck. Now the Dems are reinforcing it and that's a shame. Reagan is a study in the creation of a myth - a myth so powerful even liberals bow down to it - or a lot of them do.

 Meanwhile, my hope is that Barack will improve and grow into the job in a way George W could never dream of doing. Our best hope with W was that he would lose interest.
  As a comedy writer, I can remember the standard riffs of the day, and I clearly remember a time when the idea of Bill Clinton getting reelected was a joke. So saying anything about Barack's chances of a second term is probably premature. These things come in focus more after the GOP drags up their sorry candidate. Please be Sarah Palin - we need you. 
  Maybe what happened in Massachusetts will redirect the Dems and save the Obama administration from what appears to be a giant sellout so far, especially with Wall Street, and against the anti-war movement. 
 After a year I still remember Aretha Franklin's hat and the way Sam Adams had to jump in that day and pretty much ruin it for Portland.
  One more day of shutting up to let us celebrate the end of Bush/Cheney was just a little too much for our Mayor Me to envision. I'll always resent him for that.

Further on in Drew Weston's Obama Finally Gets His Victory for Bipartisanship:

"With all its efforts to tack to the center, the White House missed the point. The issue isn't about right or left. It's about whose side you're on."

I haven't forgotten that the President hails from the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, which believes that they can feed from the corporate trough and still serve labor interests. The way campaign finance is currently structured makes the DLC the only viable faction of the Party come campaign years, but when called to govern their divided loyalties cannot but make them fail.

The only hope I have is that Barak Obama will have an epiphany and turn away from his corporatist advisers. His campaign showed he knows how to connect to grassroots supporters, but if he waits any longer to reconnect it will be too late.

So much for my crap pronouncement...

The difference between Obama and Reagan (in just one aspect here for discussion) on communications.

Obama is a Good Communicator. He is pleasant to listen to and can inspire a sense of goodness about himself.

Reagan was a Great Communicator. He was able to change public perception and demonstrate leadership through his communication.

Isn't this what Democrats have been bemoaning all year. That Obama isn't leading on the big issues? Isn't that why HCR is now dead?

Jeez I hate hearing lionizing of Reagan's presidency on a progressive blog! Reagan did not have the conflicting motivations that President Obama seemingly has limiting his advocacy for his constituency. You sound like you've been listening to Dick Cheney, dammit... They sold their souls completely to "the Dark Side" and were free to be zealous advocates for their corporate masters. Accepting that as the modus operandi of a successful presidency is a terrible mistake.

Barack at Year One?

Carter II. Campaigned as an outsider. Hired and listens to incompetents. Let a vile and corrupt Congress drive the policy agenda. Brazenly broke every promise he ever made, from governmental openness, to reining in lobbyists, to closing down Gitmo, to being a "new style" national conciliator. All that and he's the weakest foreign policy president in an age.

He's a flat out liar, even CNN's McCafferty has called him out on that, so that is not my accusation alone.

One term and done at this point. So much potential, so little wisdom, so little sense that he'd eventually be sniffed out as a fabulist by anyone paying attention.

Kari Chisholm commented: 'The thread on Scott Brown is over here.'

heh... different state, same diatribe-

I'm still trying to size up the impact of the loss in Mass. (including re: Oregon) and so I'm mostly just listening at this point about that.

But--it's coming clear that Obama is a kind of intellectual that I saw a lot in academe. He confuses his idealistic words with actions. Considering the mandate, imagine the presidential leadership both in public opinion and in congress that we would have had over the past year from FDR or Truman or Lyndon Johnson!

I think Obama has some progressive goals--could he still find political leadership skills within himself? Perhaps it would help if he would just assume he has one term and would try to make the most of it by leading toward what the Repubs used to call "peace and prosperity." That would be courageous. It might even lead to a second term.

I have heard that for his handlers, a second term (for themselves, of course) is already dominating their moves.

Unemployment in Oregon stays high at 11% in December.

I think Obama will fairly easily win re-election in 2012. It will be a lot like Clinton in '96- the re-election of a DLC Dem, whom a lot of wealthy interests who also happen to be socially liberal will see as a good thing, from their point of view. Along with most Dems again voting for him.

Anyway, GAUZE NOT GUNS- what the heck is the U.S. (Obama) doing sending 12K U.S. Marines to a country (Haiti) that's already militarily occupied? And gumming up the works of the aid effort by insisting in "total security", when there is not a state of rampant disorder currently extant? (Although you couldn't blame the Haitians for taking revenge on the UN and the US and France for the destruction of their democracy and the mass killings and repression and disallowance of the majority Lavalas Party to participate in elections).

Bring back Aristide and let Lavalas participate, Obama! Aren't you allegedly supposed to stand for democracy?

So now the meme is "Yes Obama's bad, but he's better than Reagan".

He's also better than Hitler.

"Even though the U.S. military budget is almost ten times that of China’s (with a population more than four times as large) and Washington plans a record $708 billion defense budget for next year compared to Russia spending less than $40 billion last year for the same, China and Russia are portrayed as threats to the U.S. and its allies." (U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow, http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/)

paul g, if your aim was to turn my stomach, then congratulations! Thanks especially for raising the specter of assassination as political effector.

What parts of Reagan's personal style would you hold as example for President Obama? The successes you cite have done immense harm to the country. In the end the man was almost entirely a befuddled figurehead. Nice role model.

For facts about Obama Politifact is a very good source.

"I hope that progressives can break their addiction and stop enabling the Democrats."

There are two types of progressives - those that stick with the Democratic party and claim to be progressives and those that left the party a long time ago or are still in the process of leaving.

counterpunch dot org and John Nichols at thenation dot com and alternet dot org and William Greider at thenation dot com and commondreams dot org have very good articles on the Brown victory / Coakley-Democratic Party defeat.

Bill, the Democratic Party may not be living up to one's ideals, but surrendering it to those betraying those ideals is cowardice. The two-party system may be an anchor dragging democratic governance down, but it is the fact of political life that cannot be denied, and will be changed only at the cost of political upheaval.

So rather than face the unpleasant task of tackling the rotten state of affairs in the Party, which do you prefer: political upheaval or exile to political irrelevance?

Kari, One way you could look at this is by what your post doesn't say. If President Obama had done a bunch of things that Blue Oregon was excited about, I bet you'd be right here spinning them even harder - and this post would look a lot different. Instead, you avoid all that and remind people that Reagan's reelection looked dubious at this point as well. When you say, "Let's talk about it" and immediately go to Bob Woodward on Reagan, aren't you really saying, "I don't want to talk about it"? That's damning someone - not with faint praise - but with no praise at all.

Very courageous to lick your lips, open the can of worms and announce, "bon appetit"!

I find him pretty cut and dried. He has done a stellar job of delivering exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail. Go back to whenever he was pinned down to gory details, lists, specific changes, and he has done those things with more vigor and completeness than any President in living memory. Independents track these things; go look.

On the other hand, if you had asked 99% of those that voted for him, on election day what they expected, they couldn't have named practically one of those things he's done. They would have talked about the impression, the feel, the political values, the change in direction he was bringing to Washington. He has delivered almost none of that. He did what every con artist does and relied on people to hear what they want to believe. And that's the other side of the coin. The weak enslave themselves.

The exception to those election day warm fuzzies were, of course, the TEA crowd that thought they knew precisely what he would do that they would hate. He's done less of those things than Shrub did. Shrub stabbed the far right in the back on a few occasions, but BHO has not.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 20, 2010 12:57:46 PM

I'm certainly not arguing that Reagan was a good president policy-wise -- but from a political standpoint, you can't argue with a 49-state landslide.

Actually, I can. When one candidate says to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get over the malaise that infects America, and the other says that it's morning in America, and people vote to feel good and do nothing to address the systemic rot...

I guess lynch parties could be said to be politically much more successful than city councils! The American public were idiots to vote for Reagan. Only within the ethical confines of a pure hack mind could that be admirable in any way. I know that wasn't an insult, and it wasn't meant to be, but that is why a lot of progressives don't appreciate the hack mind. I read an essay in 1972 that said that if you combined the Wallace rednecks with the Nixon vote, you would have a possibly permanent Republican advantage. That is what Reagan through all the Shrubbery was about. Maybe we should have paid more attention to those Wallace principles! Dems lost then, because they wouldn't go there. Then corporate America made sure that those were rich Dems that got elected, and the differences have slowly melted away. Look at the personal wealth of members of the Congress, by party, by year. By 1992 you had Al Gore creating the Willy Horton ads. After another round of low balling in 2000, you see Dems going from outrage to purest imitation. You're just jealous. Real progressive are still disgusted.

Back, exactly a year ago, when your little attack dog told us that Rick Warren wasn't worth expending the political capitol over (say piggy bank and it's cute and doesn't sound like we were talking about just having suffered anal rape- at least that's what it felt like), t.a. promulgated the following: let's not forget how massive his election is. when Barack Obama becomes President Barack Obama -- the world changes.

we were clueless 2 years ago what an Obama candidacy would mean. imagine how clueless we are about the actual presidency.

I hear Paulie saying that we're probably still clueless. One question. How long? I predicted 14 months ago that we would be hearing that line about why we should give him 4 more. That's one done. Three to go. The only way the world changed is now that everyone knows it's stupid to ever expect the world to change.

"The two-party system may be an anchor dragging democratic governance down, but it is the fact of political life that cannot be denied, and will be changed only at the cost of political upheaval."

Check your history. You'll find parties in the past that were replaced by another. If I recall correctly there was neither a Democratic Party nor a Republican Party when this nation was founded.

"... the Democratic Party may not be living up to one's ideals, but surrendering it to those betraying those ideals is cowardice."

In other words, no matter how one's party (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, whatever) fails or betrays the people its members should stick with it? It seems to me that both the Democratic and Republican parties are doing the betraying with their pre-election promises and post-election sellouts or reversals.

An interesting view from a Brit who has been a long-term observer of American politics: Americans are disillusioned with how government works

"Nowhere is the resentment greater than among independents, at the fulcrum of US politics, whose support sent Mr Obama to the White House, premised on the belief he would fulfil his campaign promise to change the way Washington – ie government – worked.

"It hasn't happened. The climate has grown even more venomously partisan, preventing anything being done. There's the old stench of corruption too. Ms Pelosi promised to clean things up. Instead Americans are offered the unedifying spectacle of New York Congressman Charles Rangel, head of the hugely powerful House Ways and Means committee – the main tax-writing body on Capitol Hill – entangled in ethics and tax avoidance allegations.

"Then there are the flaws of the system itself, that can make the US seem ungovernable. The most glaring is the filibuster rule in the Senate (nowhere in the constitution) that allows a minority of 41 senators to block the will of a 59-strong majority. With Brown, the Republicans once more are up to 41."

Zarathustra, Way to bring the assured confidence. Now if you could just get the facts straight you'd have something. President Obama did exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign? Start with the open healthcare debates on C-Span, then...well, actually, by then your argument is finished because you boldly write "exactly". It sounds so impressive at first 'til you think about it. By the way, the line I used throughout the campaign was, "I just want to be disappointed by someone I like this time." I was hopeful but realistic, so that part about the weak enslaving themselves? It's weak. The key point is that after Bush/Cheney, America couldn't afford another failed president, so it made sense to feel a little hopeful, because if this fails it's over anyway.

Danny Schechter asks "Has Obama become Bush II?"

"Perhaps the disillusion now building on the left, will lead to more direct challenges to the Obama style and approach. On the other hand it could lead to fatalism and a dropping out of politics by people who were mesmerised by his charisma and naïve about how politics really works.

"If that happens, the right will dominate the discourse and try to retake congress.

"We have seen this before - with Lyndon Johnson forsaking butter for guns, with Bill Clinton taking refuge in the corporate centre."

...

"So a new strategy is needed, to remake the Democratic party into something more democratic, to resist the power of big money in politics and to readopt a populist message along economic lines to champion the millions out of work before they become millions out of hope."

"remake the Democratic party" is the antithesis of "my party right or wrong" unless people mean they are with the party when it is right and working within the party to do what is right when it is wrong.

"The two-party system may be an anchor dragging democratic governance down, but it is the fact of political life ..."

And as long as the majority of people believe that then all the right-of-center and the far-right wings on the corporate bird of prey have to do to win is pose as the lesser evil. You vote for the lesser evil, you get evil.

Obama is the best president of USA. I salute. Joliese tan

Bill M, that was exactly the point I was making. On touchy feely interviews, the impression he delivered, he's done zip. I'm talking about those few really concrete things he said he'd do.

Sorry to overstate the point, but it seems to keep getting missed.

Actually, not so few, for one year.

"The Democratic shtick is to market the PROMISE of change while making sure it doesn’t happen.

"Barack Obama took this to a high art while selling himself for the presidential nomination. Once he secured it, he abandoned any commitment to real change and moved to the corporate right. " From The Weimar Democrats by Harvey Wasserman.

Here's a good indicator of how Obama is doing as regards the great humanitarian crisis, which may become to be known as "Obama's Katrina": this from the Quixote Center:

"Ten days into the crisis in Haiti, the Quixote Center, partnering with KONPAY and others, has helped get urgently needed medical teams and supplies to the city of Jacmel on Haiti's southern coast.

...Your donations helped bring three boatloads of doctors and supplies directly by sea to Jacmel.

...Supply lines are beginning to open to Port-au-Prince, Jacmel and elsewhere, but aid is still backed up throughout the country as the U.S. and MINUSTAH remain focused on security and concerns about Haitians leaving the country for the U.S."

<h2>The gist of your posts is ineffable, parca.</h2>