Tonight’s installment begins with an op-ed at EIN by Joe Rothstein, that asks a question and then leaves it unanswered, hanging like the iconic kitten from a tree limb. Food for thought, as it were, served up with a healthy dose of 1968 parallels that cast Rothstein as the kind usher with a flashlight showing Obama the way to the exit door before someone yells “Fire!” in the crowded theatre.
Will Obama Be The Democratic Candidate In 2012? Probably. But…. (Joe Rothstein’s Commentary)
August 18, 2011
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.comWill Barack Obama be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2012? Probably. But don’t bet whatever’s left of your bankroll on it.
As unlikely as it may seem, President Obama could decide not to run for a second term. Sound far-fetched? Particularly since a formidable and growing campaign organization has his back? It’s worth considering.
The President is clearly vulnerable to a Republican challenger. Well, yes, you might say, but to who? Everyone currently running for the GOP nomination has seemingly fatal flaws in hoping to appeal to a predictably moderate electorate. Sorry, Democrats, that’s not a given. I’ve been around long enough to remember how hard Democratic insiders rooted for Ronald Reagan to win the Republican nomination in 1980. No one that extreme could win in November, could they?
Far more potentially explosive is Bruce A. Dixon’s entry at Black Agenda Report . Using one of my favorite movies as a backdrop, Dixon enumerates reasons why we should all be less concerned about Obama, his family, and his legacy, and more concerned about our own families – from youngest to oldest. Now I understand that he is addressing the Black community, but what he is saying should resonate beyond racial borders, which is why this white chick is using the first person plural here. We are a plural nation. Dixon’s message should resonate beyond the borders of the naib. (Yes, I am a white chick who lives in the naib because during the boom I bought where I could afford to rather than in the astronomically priced suburbs. Even at that, with a secure job, I worry about those mortgage payments.) Here is the eminently reasonable treatise of Bruce A. Dixon whose voice should be heard by all and sundry.
Published on Black Agenda Report (http://blackagendareport.com)
It’s Too Late To Save The Obama Administration. Can We Still Save Ourselves?
By Bruce A. DixonCreated 08/17/2011 – 12:59<By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
Two and half years into the Obama presidency, some of us spend more time mooning over pretty pictures of the First Family, their beautiful kids and regal mother-in-law than we spend publicly worrying over the fates of millions of families, children and elders we personally know. Why are some of us still trying to “save” the Obama administration. When will it be time to save ourselves from endless war, climate change, joblessness and the other ravages of late predatory capitalism?
It’s Too Late To Save The Obama Administration. Can We Still Save Ourselves?By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
Back in the summer of 1996 I saw the movie Independence Day in a Chicago theater where two thirds of the audience was black. The scene that got the audience on its feet cheering was one in which aliens hovered over the White House, and blasted it to matchwood. I’ve often thought that if that same flick were released in 2009 or 2010, that same mostly black audience would have gasped in horror.
Wrapping it up tonight, we have an an incisive, bullet-style blog post by my friend John Smart that he simply copied into a comment thread here on a prior post. It deserves better. He also uses one of my all-time-fav pictures of Our Girl Hillary!
10 reasons Clinton would have been a better President
Posted on August 18, 2011 by JWSThe NY Times, hoping to tamp down the Clinton bubble that that keeps on bubbling published this dribble. It is warm, steamy horse shit, suitable for the paper that only a few years ago gave us Judith Miller and her yellow journalism.
There is AMPLE evidence that Clinton would have been a better president.
1. Experience matters. Have we not seen how damaging Obama’s lack of experience and judgement is? July 2011 is all one needs to prove this.
Tacking this, from Barb, on. Heavy.
Oval Office Appeaser
Aug 14, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
Obama likes to think of himself as a successor to FDR. But this former supporter sees a different—and much less impressive—resemblance.
When Barack Obama was inaugurated, a Republican president had taken the peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses of the Clinton years and given us two wars, a devastated economy, and an almost trillion-dollar deficit. Obama was going to be our Franklin Roosevelt, our Winston Churchill—a visionary leader who would give America hope again. Instead, he has turned out to be the Neville Chamberlain of American politics, drifting toward national catastrophe, one compromise at a time.
Thanks for adding the last, Still . . . I was shocked to see that article, but in a good way. If a former BHO supporter can say that now, and see the parallels, and say it _in Newsweek_, my goodness, what does that say about the rest of the country?
John Smart’s article I really enjoyed, too . . . read some of ’em to my Mom, and she was very amused, as was I.
We HRC supporters know that the better person and candidate is our current Secretary of State, not the current POTUS. I will give BHO a lot of credit for good intentions and, because my late husband met BHO in ’04 when then-IL state Senator Barack Obama was running for the US Senate, I believe the current POTUS wants to do the right thing.
But the main problem is exactly how the guy in the Newsweek/Daily Beast article put it: Obama is maybe too nice of a person to be President (not that you can’t be nice and still be tough; that’s absurd — but I’ll give the writer the benefit of the doubt), definitely didn’t have anywhere near the experience in DC to know who were the real dealmakers in both parties and who were the known obstructionists, and then had to deal with the Tea Party. I think HRC would make common cause with the Tea Party in two areas; she’s definitely as big on the Constitution as the grassroots Tea Party folks (many of whom are very good people; I know quite a few), and she’s always been against needless waste in government spending. And because HRC has been in Washington for quite some time now in various capacities, I think she could probably figure out ways to make deals with the folks like the guy in IL (forget his name; the freshman guy who needs to pay some back child support?) because she could explain what in his district needs to be fixed with real federal money, what is _not_ waste, and what she would be willing to give up (something real, but not anything crucial like Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid).
Anyway, the real problem was lack of experience for Barack Obama in ’08 and we HRC supporters knew it then; only now are the pundits starting to catch up, but at least they have awoken from their “cult of personality” stupor and have realized that _how_ you govern is much more important than whether or not you have a “rock star” persona. Granted, Bill Clinton had that same sort of charisma as the current POTUS but Bill C. had so much more executive experience . . . that’s why him being a “rock star” was not detrimental to the country as a whole. And goodness knows, no media pundit took it easy on him, either.
So many problems have been exacerbated in this country simply because Barack Obama couldn’t wait to serve one full term as a US Senator before running for the highest office in the land. Had he done so, we’d be in a better place even though it still wouldn’t be great. Many would criticize a HRC Presidency for some of the same reasons, but certainly many things would’ve been handled differently and that might’ve made all the difference.
Finally, I think Reid and Pelosi are tired of dealing with a President who, while intelligent, doesn’t seem to have the right instincts for the job. While in many senses they’ve reaped what they sowed back in ’08, maybe they’ve figured out that what they did then for the sake of expediency had enormous consequences they didn’t see at the time — but many of us warned them about, and were right.
Keep up the great work, Still. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, Barb, for the article and the kind words. It’s a shame that the DNC did not have the foresight to see that making history can go two ways. If they had analyzed their candidates correctly – content over style – they could have predicted this mess as we did. In their blind frenzy to create history they sold America’s middle class down the river.
LikeLike