During the campaign, John McCain made it quite clear with his obsession on earmarks that he understood next to nothing about the subject of economics or the depth of the economic problems he would be facing as president, and that he would not be sufficiently curious or perceptive to acquire this essential understanding. Subsequent events have proven that to be the case.

I had some concern during the campaign that Barack Obama may have a few blind spots in this area as well, although certainly not anywhere close to the extent of McCain’s. Furthermore, Obama seems to have the requisite curiosity to explore all options, including, imo, the issues Mr. Lind raises so well.

However, Mr. Lind has hit the nail on the head about Obama’s seeming reluctance up to this point to go after entrenched financial interests such as the banking and insurance industries, which in many cases ARE the problem. After eight years of political polarization from the right under Bush/Cheney, Obama sees himself more as the Great Conciliator (a concept Lakoff greatly promoted in his piece) who apparently identifies our problems as stemming more from a political imbalance than simply bad policies perpetuated by entrenched financial and political interests.

And, btw, I thought Lakoff’s piece suffered from the same misplaced focus: being more about finding the middle way than finding good policies.

Blase01 wrote: According to Mr Greider who writes for the Nation Magazine Obama has made a deal with the ruling elite to gut social security to pay for the stimulus plan. Check it out.

I did. I simply don't buy that Obama would be so stupid, obtuse, brain dead or whatever you choose to call it - to bite on this. Recall this is the same guy who promised during his campaign to eliminate taxes for all seniors with income $50k or less. He cannot possibly now start raiding SS or making significant cuts to appease fiscal hawks or Wall street (the same scheisters he rightly blames for the credit mess and market meltdown)

IF he DID attempt such a farcical, bone-headed move, he'd meet the same fate as Bush, only worse. In this case not only his whole Left base would revolt and sit home or go Nader (or anyone else in '12), but he's lose a lot of moderates too. Does he want to be a one-termer that badly?

Don't think so!

I agree Obama is in the pressure cooker with the deficits and mounting costs but that doesn't mean he just goes nuts, commits hari kari by touching and manhandling the third rail. Greider does make some valid points concerning the eocnomic pressure on Obama but I dispute he will cop to it.

Believe me, people now having lost jobs, health ins. and most of their 401ks are in NO mood to even remotely see or hear that more of their support is to be cut from under them.

And I believe Obama is certainly intelligent enough to appreciate that.

Is it too much for the Obama Administration to ask for a little more support from the left? There is just about no one to work with on the other side and that still matters in the Senate. My political heart is probably to the left of Obama -- and was all the way back through the primaries when I supported him. But, most people just are not where I am on the spectrum. It is very useful that the Obama Administration attempts middle ground pragmatism and outreach to the right. Furthermore, as others have noted, that sincerely seems to be where he comes from politically. Our side (broadly defined) looks reasonable and theirs looks Limbaughtomized. The legislation that passes may not be "perfect" from our perspective but it is a lot closer to what we want than what the right wants (whatever that is - I have a hard time understanding what they really want beyond tax cuts for the wealthy and homeless poor people without healthcare driving cars bought on sale at Wal-Mart imported from China that run on coal and are built out of spent nuclear fuel rods). As important, for the purposes of sustainable political success, most Americans will support what we do after a process that attempts to include perspectives beside ours. Do we have all the answers -- every time? A little humility wouldn't kill us, and we've seen what political hubris did for the other side.

Man you guys are the best economist in the world.LOL!

President Obama understands he is in this for the long haul. Thus, he knows because the political will is not there from Harry Reid to force a filibuster he needs help from Republicans. Until, he gets that sixty vote margin he has to be pragmatic. Just as the nay-sayers said he did not have chance in the beginning of his campaign he will surprise and beat the negative nay bobs on this site who are hoping he fails.

The Hillarybots are just as bad as Rush Limbaugh who would rather he and the country fail because they did not win. So every miss step or his not moving fast enough for them is an excuse to bash him. In one month he is suppose to use all his politcal capital to please so called liberals.

If some of the blue dog democrats turned on him the very liberals complain that he is moving fast enough or bold enough would have said he was not smart. Hillary and Bill tried to move to quickly on healthcare and it blew up in their face.

Obama is not going to make the same mistake and I believe the Clintons are advising him to build his consensus. The health care meeting he had yesterday was great.

I too was hoping he would remove our troops out faster and not leave so many troops but I believe the President knows more than I do. His great planning and ability to brige diverse groups is going to pay off in the long run. You Hillarybots and Rush ditto heads will just settle for gnashing at the teeth.