Some wise ass said that "we are Republicans now" and boy was he right.

Some wise ass said that "we are all Republicans now" and boy was he right.

I think he writes for Salon.

I am a liberal. That is why I voted for Hillary.

Boy, JW just can't get over Hillary losing, can she? How many more of these limp attacks coming?

DEVO

'bout Bill Clinton..that he was a 'publican.

Not that he's a coward! But imagine what might happen if he attempted to follow Roosevelt's example, or Truman's, when *already* the Right is screaming violent rhetoric about "Socialism", threatening armed uprisings, assassination, and a Military take-over of the country.

Its not surprising he wants to hold on to the Unitary Executive power left him, like a delicious alluring poison, by Bush & Cheney. Public figures, backed by major corporations, are threatening Civil War. A radio personality of dubious intelligence or morals challenges the President of the USA to a "debate". Millions believe he is the AntiChrist.

I'd tread very carefully if I was in his shoes.

that Obama was never a liberal. He was always a neoliberal centrist. What he did was to superbly use the lingo of liberalism to make half the population believe he really was (something like a political Rohrschach). The most we can do is to help him along and at least try to be more left of center than right of center in his policy positions.

Michael Lind's analysis of Obama's "timid liberalism" is strikingly redolent of ideology about what liberalism should be, and sadly misses the boat when it comes to Obama's dedication to liberal objectives. The problem is that this ideology is hardly applicable to the times; it is no longer 1935 and we are not dealing with the problems of 1935. It's not 1965 either, and we're not trying to put a man on the moon.

We are no longer in the age of monolithic problems with singular monolithic solutions. Our government & society is hardly equipped to handle all the complexities of modern education, global warming, or modern health care.

Maybe Obama is a timid liberal, as defined a generation ago. But he's an audacious, awe-inspiring progressive. He certainly believes in the public sector, in that his focus is on what benefits the public sector. But his key emphasis is on WHAT WORKS, not how it's done. He has consistently approaches issues with a moral imperative that matches most of our dreams of a more progressive society, but has also thought long and hard about what he needs to do to achieve them. I see this in Obama, and this is why I think he holds so much promise for bettering our society.

The idea that we should try to solve the problems according to the presumption that "government management = good" without regard to what works to be irresponsible, baffling, and dangerous. We "liberals" should be mindful of making this distinction between liberal goals & aspirations, and the ways in which we make those things happen.

I think George Lakoff (republished on fivethirtyeight.com) hit the nail on the head when he tried to identify the traits of Obama that make him so appealing to those of us who seek a better, more just society.

It isn't primarily about ideology. There was a strong labor movement when Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Johnson were Presidents. Workers could strike, make demands, be educated via their own educational channels, elect liberals (as long as any issue that might create controversy among the union members such as race, womems' rights, or gay rights were suppressed).

Obama has nothing but a victory in a popularity contest to work with. If he is able to ally with pragmatic corporate leaders to get a bit of health care reform and some modest financial controls while the market rebuilds itself, that will be a miracle.

Don't blame Obama. Suggest to us on the left what we can effectively do.

The man just GOT settled IN to the WHITEHOUSE!

Why should it be foreign to spend public tax money on directly benefiting the general public?

Rather, the govt would rather cater to the interests of a small group of wealthy individuals ...... individuals who want to increase their wealth at the expense of the general public.

Well, it turns out that the large private banking institutions and manufacturers have turned out to be greedy, selfish bastards who have no concern for others and don't even want to accept responsibility for the financial collapse they have created.

If you think that small 5% to 6% of the population whose asses you have kissed are going to spend enough of their money to keep the economy going ...... you're as crazy as the Congress.

The fact is that the same people who created this mess are in control of the so-called recovery.

And not only have they not been forced to give up their ill-gotten gains (the profits they made while destroying the system), but they are receiving tax moneys from people without jobs to divert into their pockets.

Garry Shandling last night on the Tavis Smiley show called these people "money addicts".

Why was Obama or anybody else surprised that these people continued to give themselves bonuses after receiving public money ?

If you give a cocaine addict a big pile of cocaine, do you think he/she is going to share it around with their family, friends and neighbors ?

No, they're going to keep it all for themselves to shove up their own noses.

Wake up .....

There are people who know what to do ...... for example Nouriel Rubini and Nassim Taleb (author of the Black Swan) ....... but doing the right, rational thing for the public, the country and the world economy goes against the interests of a small group of people who put us in this mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk4TgUxX0fQ

The govt's approach is wrong and things will continue to get worse.

propaganda campaign. Or a lazy and ignorant public that believe everything on TV.

Population control is totally effective today. Until the public actually studies the issues, which would be a first in itself, we can't expect politicians to devise effective policy.