Can he flippin' get into office first before we start saying how much of a failure he is?

I would like, for this short time, to be happy this two-year-and-too-damned long campaign is over. I would like, for this short time, to praise God that we made it through this reign of terror called the Bush Administration with our faculties more or less intact.

I want to celebrate something, because this economy is crap and both my Grandma and my FIL is in the hospital right now and I have about a million other responsibilities and things to do.

I am so sick of the defeatism and the pissy-ness until I could scream. I know shit is bad, and it's gonna get worse. I'll deal as I must--as everyone will deal as they must. But I swear to God, some folks just fucking insist on being the most petulant little killjoys ever, and it's played.

So I'll tell you what. In a few weeks, I want to meet up and celebrate. I want to eat something decadent and drink a little too much and look fierce while doing it. Boo, you're free to come down if we can find some room for you; I'll keep you posted. And then I'll get back to it. But I'm gonna carve out some time for being a little human, even superficial if you must, and I'm going to enjoy every damned minute of it.

Between now and then, however, I see I'll have to start watching a lot more Animal Planet to keep my sanity.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

Yes it's true: there is a difference betweeen a pragmatic centrist like Obama and a wack job like Palin. There is no doubt that what we averted would be far, far worse than what Obama will be. That is why I gave the man money, knocked on doors and made phone calls. At any point in the last eight years I would have taken Bill Clinton over George Bush any day of the week.

That doesn't mean we can't formulate an intelligent *left* critique of Obama.

The things you list are all good. The following is a starting list of things that  are not: Larry Summers and Hillary Clinton for starters.

Who the fuck is satisfied with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership?

That's easy to answer - the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership are quite satisfied with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership -- you know, people like Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle (and his wife) and Robert Gates.  

The people who supported the Iraq War and get fat of the bipartisan corporate/lobbyist/government pig fest are very happy with how things are going.

Telecoms are happy with it.  So is AIPAC, as they get to hear things like this liberal promise:  "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

Lots of people are happy with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and the Democratic Party leadership, and it looks like they'll continue to be.

Opposition to the establishment in DC is a given.

A given for whom?  Empowering the very people who run that establishment and feed off of it most is a really odd way to show opposition to it.

We are still in the "Pinch me, did it really happen?" stage.  Which leaves us emotionally open to folks who don't understand the euphoria and who have agendas, both from the right and the left.

And the frame that the media now is pushing is "Obama is the next FDR" not realizing that events more than anything else created the character of FDR's New Deal.

Leftier-than-thou's are beginning their usually application of Murphy's Law, seeking a positive mental attitude through negative expectations.

Righties are trashing FDR, repeating all the Friedmanite arguments about how FDR didn't end the Depression and how constitutionally, the upholding of the New Deal was based on legislating from the bench.

And everybody has gone all Kremlinologist, reading the tea leaves of appointments that have reportedly been "leaked" and jumping to conclusions or assembling ammo that the GOP can use against the candidates during confirmation hearings, dogging and slowing down Obama's first days.

The anxiety for the rest of us is not over Obama's proposed policies but his ability to get even his proposed policies through the "compromise grinder" of Congress, no matter how large the Democratic majority.  And the willingness of his appointees to go to the mat to ensure that what the people who worked hardest for Obama wanted to see.  And it is anxiety, not necessarily rational thought.  And it will persist until we see legislation actually making it to Obama's desk, reform actually taking place in agencies, and people actually being helped instead of being shafted.

And it is damn hard to actually get a response when people ask you to "talk me down" (to use Rachel Maddow's phrase).

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

But didn't Obama promise to marginalize everyone who in anyway disagreed with him? Didn't Obama promise to purge the party of those who opposed him? Didn't Obama promise to make the facts conform to his own preconceptions? Didn't Obama tell the world that they're either with him or they're against him? Didn't Obama promise to surround himself with a staff of sycophants?

No?

Then why would anyone in their right mind think that we elected a Democratic version of George W. Bush?

Stuck on stupid...

The Underground Railroad

I think I'm going to go back to my election mantra:

One day at a time.


Recommended by Hideo Kojima

I think it's just postpartum depression. I know I have it.

We are in that 'tween' stage. He is President ELECT, not the POTUS, and with all the bad economic news, and all the wanker pundits on TV with their 'center-right' BS, it's easy to get down on the whole situation.

I am not at all happy with some of his appointments, but I have to keep it all in perspective.

It could be a LOT worse!

http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2008/11/screw-it-ahm-of.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfK98Dg5UYI&feature=related

nalbar

Damn, I'm with you, Boo. I certainly don't think we should all nap until Jan. 20, or till his 100 days are up, or any other time, but whenever I get frustrated with this cabinet pick or that, I just remember two words:

Supreme Court.

These are good positions, BooMan, and, naturally, I support all of them. But, they are hardly the core of the matter and as several members of the Frog Pond have already argued the business of money may be the critical issue if we are going to have that vital health reform.  Just where are the necessary funds going to come from if we don't do something major about the industrial-military-wall street-pharmaceutical=insurance complex?

Likewise, since LBJ the conservatives have drifted more to the right so centrist and moderate don't have the same implication they did forty-five years ago. I think it's time that progressives fight in the linguistic war and not allow the conservative definition of liberal, left, welfare et al to go unchallenged.  I think the country is fed up with  Republican programs with all their emphasis on social class and aid for the rich.

In the coming maelstrom, I think progressive politicians will have considerable support from the masses. What is essential is leadership.  Hopefully, Obama will provide this, ushering in a remarkable period of national progress.

Once again let me cite FDR's remarkable speech in accepting the presidential nomination in 1936.  His scorn of the moneyed classes is a classic example of a leftist position.

http://www2.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

Suppose you scrub your ethical skin until it shines, but inside there is no music, then what? Kabir

Don't mind me, BooMan.  I agree with you that Obama trying to make the best of a bad situation, and all of those pieces of legislation just goes to show how much damage has to be repaired from Bush.

But little of that is going to matter next to the economy.  I can guarantee you that Obama will gladly take those victories, because it's all downhill from here.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

Well you are arguing with a strawman, and I don't know why?

We are concerned about Liberal Hawkishness, and neoliberalism on the issue of free trade.  We never said anything about his abortion policies, or his record on the environment, and Clinton had a good record on those things as well.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

Oh, Amen, Booman! I am already sick to death of the naysayers who, for whatever reason (wah, Hillary didn't get a fair chance!) are trashing Obama before he's had a chance to get into the White House. gah!

If I hear one more time that he's simply rebuilding Clinton's cabinet, I will shoot lightning bolts out of my eyeballs. I refuse to have my victory buzz killed by these whining, depressing crybabies. I am patient, and I am going to let the man prove my vote of confidence in him.

I won't be satisfied until Obama wears Birkenstocks to the SOTU address, Priuses replace all official vehicles and organic veggies displace the current residents of the White House rose garden.  ;-)

Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

And we sit here like a bunch of purity fucking trolls counting progressives.

WAKE UP FUCKING MORONS!  THE HOUSE IS BURNING!  STOP FIGHTING!!

I kind of wonder if people don't feel frustration because the far right has been governing for the last eight years. The frustration comes from, I think, a sense that the far left won't govern at all.  

Visit me at Tunnel Traveller

Boo, you're writing about Obama's intentions as if he's accomplished any of them -- as he obviously couldn't, since he's not even in office yet. The problem, I think, is that DLC-tainted appointments and statements -- like the one announcing that he may put off his modest tax hike for the richest -- makes it harder to feel confident that he's going to stay the course you so admirably summarize. And the need is so great that any hint of backing off will understandably be met with something approaching instant despair.

Meself, I expected disappointment even as I was being elated the night of Nov 5. While Obama is extremely hard to predict on specifics, I feel that his core instincts are strong and clear, and have the potential to lead him to a good or great presidency. I'll continue to bitch about the details sometimes, but I'm still expecting great things of him. What worries me most is that I don't see the so-called progressives organizing around promoting our issues the way we organized to work for Dem electoral victory.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

Thanks again, Booman.

Let's all recite together now:  The perfect is the enemy of the good, the perfect is the enemy of the good, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  This should be taken up as a mantra by all those who feel that the only way that Obama can accomplish what he needs to accomplish, and what this country needs him to accomplish, is by appointing progressives.  We elected him because we had confidence, despite what the Clintons told us, despite what McCain/Palin told us, despite what Lieberman told us, that he had the resources to do the job, to save us, as it were.  He told us from the outset that he was not an ideologue, that he wanted to get things done.  Didn't you believe him?  Are you so used to the lying that you didn't recognize an honest man?