Obama misread his mandate.]/b]
Obama's 2008 victory was a personal one, says Bill Galston, an adviser to President Clinton. It wasn't a vote for a more expansive view of the role and reach of government. The stimulus, on it's own, wasn't the problem. It was the thousands of easy-to-caricature pages of new legislation that came on top of it, all of which revived the Republicans' big government narrative.
Obama's an overachiever, the guy who fills up a second blue book on the extra-credit question tried to do it all. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, eager to please the new boss, declared before Inauguration Day: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. There are opportunities to do big things.
But in doing big things, they failed to fully attend to (and be seen attending to) the immediate economic needs of the middle class. There hasn't been the laserlike focus on the economy there could have, and should have, been, says a top Democratic strategist who declined to be named criticizing the White House.
Take health-care reform. Ten years hence, perhaps, it will be seen as the signal achievement of the Obama years. But for now, it's an unpopular law that took a divisive year to enact, that liberals and conservatives loathe, that is full of bureaucratic and fiscal IEDs, and that drained attention from dealing with the economy. If you disagree, look at Obama's speech last week in Cleveland. In 47 minutes, he mentioned health care for about 25 seconds.
[b]Obama misread the clock.
Obama was warned before the election that Republicans would try to slow-walk his every nominee, but he never figured out a way around the problem. The administration was slow to staff up, which hampered everything, especially the impact of the stimulus. Shovel ready projects identified in the spring of 2009 are often still unshoveled because officials aren't in place to approve them, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. The fact is, he says, Obama never really ran anything, even legislatively. Neither has his closest adviser, message guru David Axelrod.
This might explain why Obama blew so much capital so quickly. In the spring of 2009, the White House strong-armed House Democrats into voting for a cap-and-trade environmental bill, even though it was clear the Senate wouldn't go along. With this one early vote, the president exhausted his chits with Blue Dog, swing-state moderates and the coal-staters, who were then reluctant to help him on other matters, like the tax changes he wants, and who are refusing now to defend him or the party back home.
Obama misread his surroundings.
The president is an agreeable guy, but aloof, and not one who likes to come face to face with the enemy. Sure, GOP leaders were laying traps for him from the start. And it was foolish to assume Mitch McConnell or John Boehner would play ball. But Obama doesn't really know Republicans, and he doesn't seem to want to take their measure. (Nor has he seemed all that curious about what makes Democratic insiders tick.)
It's the task of the presidency to cajole people, including your enemies, into doing what they don't want to do if it is good for the country.
Did Obama think he could eschew the rituals of politics that all he had to do was invoke His Hopeness to bring people aboard? The president hasn't invited the House minority leader over to talk, and Obama had his first private Oval Office chat with Mc Connell only last month. Better late than never, but too late to do any good this cycle.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/fine … ?GT1=43002
i think the overall problem with barrack o'bama is that everyone had it in their damn mind that voted for him that he was going to immediately fix everything. by fix, they probably expected him to swoop in like fdr or jfk did and fix things right away. the problem that most people don't understand here is that america is a beaurcratic government ran by capitalism. when you have something like that in place along with the two conflicting parties that are more concerned in accessing blame on each other, then you get to what we have now. a slow beaurecratic government where it'll take years before anything gets done. people who expected o'bama to fix everything that bush did within the four years he's in office is a freaking moron and doesn't know anything about politics. o'bama can only do so much, and it'll be years before we'll actually see the fruits of his labors. bear that in mind when you vote for a politician, as nothing ever really gets resolved right away as there's too many other factors and red tape involved.
"they probably expected him to swoop in like fdr or jfk did and fix things right away."
What exactly did either one of those men fix?
fdr came in during "The great depression", where there was also a very high unemployment rate and the nation was in poverty. Hence, when fdr took over for hoover, he managed to create various government jobs like people that get paid to mow lawns and stuff for businesses. generic stuff like that. he even set up social security. now, i know that's a problem for today's economy but bear in mind back then, it helped stimulate the economy alot, as we're based on capitalism. Hence, if more people have jobs, then they spend money and that fuels the economy. FDR had us moving in the right direction at the time to move us out of the great depression, and during a war no less too.
JFK, he established many equal rights laws during the sixties that helped us grow as a society that desparately needed a change and unity between the various races of our country. Plus, he helped put us on the damn moon too for pete's sake. That in itself is a scientific achievement worthy of when the wright brothers created the first flying plane. Or when Franklin discovered electricity, or when man discovered fire.
FDR was elected in 1933 and the depression didn't end until the 1940's, I'll give you Social Security but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Brown V. Board of Education and MLK did more for Civil Rights than JFK ever thought of.
NASA was started under Dwight D. Eisenhower and has been continued by every President since.
JFK did nothing more than anyone else in order to get a man on the moon.
Pls place blame where it is due for all the things you think are going wrong under Obama's reign.
"We the people" vote! We are responsible for filling the political offices of the Pres, congress,the senate and the supreme court.
Obama is the "titular" head of the nation. He can suggest, offer, cajole, on and on, but the other facets of gov't I mentioned above, have the power for "control."
We are a republic! Pls review the definition.
Politics is controlled by money!...period.
He who controls money controls world economy.
Get on google and check on who controls the money on this planet.
It has always been thus.
I guess he would just be TOOO busy mopping up the shyte that good ole George left flooding the place up - war, banking system robbed blind, the US dropped to record lows in world popularity, China rushing up to ovetake the US as No1 anytime soon and no trade to fend it off - yeah, I guess he has under-achieved in a pretty desperate job.
Everybody should have just jumped on board with Obama's objective to "fundamentally transform" this country?
Yeah - I guess a bit of cheap cartoonery will do it, never mind the murderous crew he followed, just leave your guys out there in the bullets and bombs, let your former leaders salt waway their billions at your expense, a cheap piccy should do the trick. Please.
I don't think he has gone wrong. He has tried to do the things he said he would do. He has succeeded at more of them than I thought he would (healthcare for example). If he also manages to scrap DADT I will be more than happy with his tenure.
Thank you! It is so easy to join in with the other Billion Dollar Bullies, rather than stand up for the Good Kid!
President Barack Obama cares too much about what Americans have to say. He tries to fix everything that People cry out for, and many of the ones he has helped the most, are joined in a foaming at the mouth campaign to destroy him along with the America they say they are Patriotic toward.
Our alleged form of Government - Executive - Legislative - Judicial, is Gone. The 4th Estate - The Press is now owned by the same ones who want to go ahead and turn all of us peasants over to those holding the Notes on this Expensive and Deadly war that was Declared over in 2005.
Humans have such short memories, they Do Not Remember what the U.S. Christian Church was like before 2002. They Do Not Remember that in 2007 - It was coined "The Age of Silence". Our e-mails were being scanned, our Mail looked through, and people disappeared for disagreeing with the Ungodly Policies of Bushenem.
Most people cannot even remember if it rained a few days or months ago.
I will bet that in the South very few Remember that we had Over 110 Days of 100+ degree days, and in September we are still hitting the Mid - High 90's and this is Not Normal ...
It is now owned by Billionaires who make all the rules and decide how much each person will pay Them to have the basic necessities. The news stations and few remaining newspapers tell us How and What to think.
I miss my Country and have Sympathy for a Gift that was given to us in the Obama Family and Presidency.
Did Obama waste over one trillion dollars on two ill feted wars? This might have something to do with inheriting an economy with a hole in it.
Don't let little things like that ruin a one sided argument.
Cleaning up crap from another man's toilet is a dirty job.
As I recall Obama was a senator in Congress, a congress that the democrats controlled since 2006 and a Congress which voted time and again to fund those wars. I might add, that it is Obama that is expanding the war in Afghanistan and that it was Bush whose surge brought victory to Iraq and it was Bush that planned the pullout of combat troops from Iraq by 2011.
As I recall asking you how this war is being expanded and asking you who went to war was it Dubya or Obama you forgot to answer. Answer the question which govt spent over a trillion dollars on two wars that achieved nothing but death? Go on answer it as honestly as you can.
It is simply breathtaking that you can make Dubya a hero for bombing Iraq on the basis that terrorists from Saudi Arabia were responsible for 9/11. What bit of this do you not get?
There is no victory in Iraq.
At what point will you pop out of that shell you live in and face up to the carnage your precious rabid right wing governent has left scattered across Iraq and Afghanistan?
I really can't take you seriously at all.
The Iraq war didn't have to happen. All that had to happen was for Hussein to allow UN inspectors to confirm he didn't have WMDs. It was his stubborn refusal to allow this and his miscalculation on what the international community would do, notice I said international community, we didn't do this alone. And Afghanistan trained the militants that flew into our buildings. Payback for us helping them defeat the Russians? If it were me, I would have just nuked that whole bunch of backward barbarians out of existence.
Hussein didn't attack the Twin Towers. Iraq had Zero to do with 911. Hussein knew he had a Crazed Mob with Murder in their eyes set on him...
"...nuked the whole backward barbarians out of existence..." The world sees us a Barbaric and Backward. Worldwide we are the least educated, have some of the Worst environmental policies and have 6 million people in Prison, Jail, on Probation or Parole.
Russia has only 2 million in such circumstances...
After Hussein was massacred, then the War should have ended...hello...
Yet world wide everyone want to come here? I don't see any mass immigration to Russia! Really get for facts straight!
Oh gosh, lady, don't try using history on true believers! No one wants to remember that the narcissist, Saddam Hussein, was trying hard to convince he neighbors he was a dangerous man to be reckoned with. He intimated over and over that he had WMD's. Smiling and bragging like the thug he was. Liberals don't want to remember history. Ever.
That's why schools all over the country are limiting childrens exposure to the dreaded backward glance. Full steam ahead to participatory communism, comrades.
This will be the same Saddam Hussein that George Bush Senior was happy to do business with prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? The same George Bush Senior that bombed Iraq yet left Saddam Hussein in power until Saddam decided that he might not want the US to get their hands on his oil reserves propmpting dubya to bomb Iraq again?
You two really are pretty empty when it comes to anything below the surface. History? based on your idea of history this began yesterday and ended with you today.
I'll give this one a miss from now on I've had better and more intelligent debates with my 10 year old.
Right wingers eh? bless you.
Oh yes and you are so much better educated having studied Hufpo and Media Matters to firm your wrong headed view of history!
Bush one left Saddam in power, isn't that what you lefties were advocating of Bush 2? Now you want to criticise Bush 1 for doing what you wanted? The problem with you lefties is you'll do anything for power, lie, cheat, steal, twist history, and criticise your opponents even when they do what you want! You're all as transparent as glass in that regard! LOL
It is dangerous and ignorant to pile all people into one group and ass-u-me that they all think the same.
Turn off the television for a week, and check to see if you can think for yourself.
The problem with you lefties is you'll do anything for power, lie, cheat, steal, twist history, and criticise your opponents even when they do what you want!
Now that is true irony!! So beautifully Republican too.
One day you'll come out from behind the curtains and socialise with normal rational human beings who are not part of the battery chicken farm where judging by your incredibly narrow minded views you are strutting out in front of the others.
Breathtaking ignorance. I notice another poster has suggested you remove the second part of your name? Doesn't that tell you something?
Of course! My views are "narrow minded"! Typical leftist, you have no argument so just dismiss me as ignorant, or stupid, uninformed and narrow minded! Ha! One thing missing from all liberal thought is common sense! You're all for "common" everything else why don't any of you have any "common" sense?
Hey maybe you can get Obama to pass a law that makes liberal thinking equal to common sense! LOL!
He could always blame it on Bush or the party of no.
"History on true believers..." How about that savings and loan scandal? Then, whoop the same thing happened to our Banks and Retirements...Hullo!
The question presumed that there was a change of some kind. No, Obama is exactly who is was when he was campaigning, he did exactly as he was going to do, with few exceptions. Theres some evidence he backtracked on a few things, but for the most part, you got precisely what and who you voted for.
The problem is that you elected a statist to fix problems. Government does not, cannot, and will never fix problems. It can only create them. Any president who runs on fixing anything besides overgrown government is doomed to failure.
The mere fact the OP and others here hate him so much lets me know he is doing a good job! We suffered through their choice for eight years and now we have ours! I'm glad you guys are who you are! LOL! Keep up your normal bitchin' and moanin' cause you do it so poorly! You do have a problem with your memory, though! But you don't need to think anyway cause you have Fox News to do it for you! LOLOL! Taking points, remember?
You are not paying attention Randy, very,very few think Obama is doing a good job and the Dems will pay badly for his incompetence.
November is gonna be bad for your team.
So you are glad the Bush policies may be returned to? They really worked well as shown by the condition of the country when Obama was elected! Perhaps you would point out the great achievements of your former favorite president and how he improved the situation of our country after Clinton left office!
Sorry Randy I wont get caught up in the Bush blame game.
We were talking about Obama and as much as he would like to change the subject he wont be able to.
BTW I didn't vote for Bush.
So you don't blame Bush for the mess we are now in? Perhaps some of the naysayers who did vote for him would be glad to tell us how the republican majority congress, along with the republican POTUS, weren't able to do anything to help the economy? If the Bush administration was so great, you remember the rubber stamp, why was the country in such a mess when Dubya left office?
Oh that's right, no one here actually voted for him! Maybe the election was screwed up and he got no votes at all! Either time! LOLOL! Why are so many cons afraid to admit they voted for him if he was so great and did such a fine job?
Obviously, it was all of those independents. Let's blame them.
If I had voted for him I would admit it.
I blame Bush,Clinton and many others including the "Vacationer and Chief" (Obama) for the current financial mess.
Obama was right there voting for the proposals that got us to this point and now with his direction we are more worse off.
It seems you are the one not willing to put blame where blame is due.
Are you saying the dems always voted along with Dubya? I don't think Bush needed them to push his agenda! He was able to pass all of the great things he wanted and still ended up with a mess! Yep, all of the bad stuff which happened under Dubya's 8 year fiasco was Obama's fault. Don't believe it? Tell him about it, Teapartiers! LOL!
So you voted for Gore and Kerry, I suppose?
Say what you will but Obama voted yea for every spending increase with exception of the surge, I may be wrong about the surge.
There were other candidates other than Gore and Kerry.
But yes I voted for Kerry, a protest against Bush and the out of control spending.
Where do you get the figures for this - or is it just another pack of lies made up on the spot as seems to be the manner of the cons on these threads ?
Very, very few people in Jim Hunter's world think Obama is doing a good job. The real world is different.
I didn't offer any figures.
But a quick check of any of the major polls should paint the picture.
Very few? I think his ratings are pretty normal for a mid-term president. People are fickle and poll approval numbers don't predict voting numbers. If you think most people are regretting voting for him, this thread suggests you have it wrong.
The main thing that went wrong with Barack Obama is that he thought he could work with Republicans. He has done remarkably well moving his agenda forward, given that there has been almost zero cooperation from Republicans, and given that there are enough conservative Democrats to make passing controversial legislation pretty tough.
Fixing the mess we're in is going to take time and I'm not willing to turn the country back over to the party who got us into it in the first place.
Meanwhile back in the real world, Obama with Dem majorities both in the Senate and the House had to trick, bribe, and threaten to get their bills passed which then made them so unpopular that support for government including the Annointed One plummeted to low levels from its peak. But hey, it's your fantasy, spin away...
I'm not spinning. This is how I actually see it, just like you see it your way. Believe it or not, if you go outside your little circle, you will find others who think like me.
Congressional Democrats are no more unpopular than Republicans, in case you haven't noticed.
Yeah but I was talking about the real world
The polls show it our way.
Even if the pollsters think they are being lied to, which they do.
The real world?
"you will find others who think like me."
Yes we know there are others who think like you.
They all seem to be confined to hubpages forums.
Meanwhile in the real world you are sad minority.
LOL! This only shows how you limit yourself.
Sad minority? Hardly. Looks pretty close to me, as is typical for this stage in the first term of most presidents.
Democrats Re-Establish Narrow Edge in Party AFfiliation
The difference is in the middle.
They count too.
They are not happy with Democrats.
Combined we control a majority.
Sorry, delude yourself all you want but the game is over.
Like you said, we will see. I have never said the Dems won't lose seats in Congress in November. I'm sure they will, as is typical. None of this is anything new.
Who do you think the anger that will cost Democrat seats is aimed at?
If you can't figure it out I will give a clue.
Last name starts with an O followed by bama.
Its a beautiful thing when Dems have complete control, they always go over the top and we get rid of them for a long time.
Yes, the anger is aimed at Obama. That's obvious. However, not everyone is angry with Obama. Some people are angry with the Party of No. We just show it differently.
The party of no has no power.
They are constantly blamed by the people with all the power.
After awhile we start seeing that democrats are dumbfounded by why they were elected and we get our fill of incompetence.
Yes Obama is the where the anger is directed, by a MAJORITY of Americans.
Its not really hard to see whats coming.
"Some people are angry with the Party of No. We just show it differently."
Yes we know you show it differently, you continue to blame others rather than hold the real power accountable.
Its a running theme with liberals.
Jim, surely you know that the Democratic party embraces a wide variety of beliefs; some are economically and socially conservative. It isn't easy to get every Democrat to vote for every legislation proposed by the majority. I know that might seem strange to you, given that the current set of Repubs tend to vote uniformly no on everything, even if it is legislation that was previously proposed by Republicans.
Yes, if my Congressperson doesn't vote the way I like, I will blame him and vote him out. Isn't that what voters do? That is why I rarely vote Republican.
You keep stating the obvious.
The Democratic party embraces exactly what American voters don't.
That is probably a wide variety but when you're the only one who likes it you tend to get overruled.
Yes it should be very obvious why can't the dems see it?
You seem to have completely ignored the link I provided that shows the American public is currently pretty evenly divided between the two parties.
I didn't ignore it I said in a previous post that the difference is in the middle.
The two parties have been close for a long time.
I understand your point, but again, this is nothing new. Independents swing with the prevailing wind. I fully expect Dems to lose seats in November.
However, you said the Democratic party embraces exactly what American voters don't. That is not a true statement.
Obama never thought he could work with republicans and never tried! Unless you mean by working with Obama republicans were just supposed to agree and accept everything he proposed! I mean relly the only bipartisanship in congress was in the opposition to Obama!
Obama proposed many solutions that were originally offered by Republicans. Many were included in the health care legislation, as well as other legislation. Republicans still voted against everything, even though many concessions were made just for them. This, probably more than anything else, is why the Democratic base is less than satisfied with Obama. He compromised and gained almost nothing. Still, we would rather go forward slowly than backward.
All the concession that were made in the health care bill were to get all the democrats on board!
And that explains why all the democrats that voted agiainst health care are being re elected! LOL
AnnCee: excellent, outstanding, the president should read this hub.i think he would agree with a lot your insights. he will need good advisors going forward. it's a job.
Nothing went wrong with Obama.
He is doing thwe best he can to get us out of the mess that Bush and the republican's got us into for the 8 years of hell previous to Obama.
Don't believe half of the crap that you hear on the news. This is the exact same kind of BS they tried to kill Bill Clinton with, and it totally backfired. We had a great economy while Clinton was President, and old Bushy boy came along and screwed us all, while giving favors to all of his buddies, and kicking out anyone who didn't agree with him.
This is one reason why the republicans are so terrified of the tea party. Because the tea party is basically made up of mostly former repulicans who want to distance themselves from their parties former lies, so they can safely run for office and have a chance of winning without having the parties history to trash their chances of getting elected. And, having their precious votes go to this party makes them nervous.
Obama has tried to do a lot, and every time the republicans try to block everything he is trying to do. So to say that he alone has failed or is failing, is a bunch of balony. Our entire system is at fault, and it has been at fault for decades. That is the reason why so many people voted for Obama, but, we all learned quick who really has the power in the country.
If the president truly controlled everything, the world would have ended with Reagan, as he was so eager to wipe the Soviet Union off the face of the earth. That was a time when I was thankful that we had some balance, and people in our government who were brave enough to stand up and say...HELL NO!!
This country is screwed up. And it's never going to change.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that...
by crankalicious4 years ago
I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're...
by AnnCee6 years ago
Hawaii won't release Obama birth infoJanuary 22, 2011 1:49 AMTHE ASSOCIATED PRESSHONOLULU Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie will end his quest to prove President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because it's against...
by WeStand4Freedom7 years ago
Approximately 7 months ago I posted this forum " Impeachment of a President. Although I received a few followers that agreed w/ my chosen topic, many scoffed. Who is laughing now? Are you all seriously STILL...
by My Esoteric3 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
by Jimbo'daNimbo5 years ago
We have two major political parties that would seem to stop at nothing to get or keep power. This was highlighted to me when my son and I went to see The Campaign. Who do you feel is the least scrupulous? Please...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.