Repeat, Rinse, Pout

Their goal is to tear down the Obama program, just as much as it is the Republican National Committee’s goal to do that. 

I think you underestimate the importance of intra-administration politics. Consider the New Deal. What was the Roosevelt program? It depended on who was in power in the administration. Swung right and left depending on which advisors had the upper hand.

Since Geithner and Summers are clearly on the right wing of the Obama administration. Bashing them is a tool we on the Left should have in our arsenal; unilaterally disarming ensures that all intra-administration squabbles will be lost by the Left.

Thank you so much Al for expressing my annoyance at that cabal of characters.  I still remember how Jane Hamsher and David Sirota went after Caroline Kennedy, sinking her candidature for senator, thus leading to the selection of a blue dog Democrat.  I thought it was funny that instead of a progressive senator, which Caroline would have been, New York ended up with a centrist.  That pick is on them.  I take everything this cabal say with a grain of salt, so I am not shock

What really galls me is how some are now making comparisions between Obama and Nixon over this. Huh? What planet are we on here? It is almost as if a lot of bloggers (and heavy hearted I have to include Josh Marshall in this group. For the past two weeks they were plastering the DOW falls on the first page and now that the DOW is up they are ginning up the outrage I really do not get it) want this to be a breaking moment for Obama. They are making it so by pushing the outrage non stop and actually framing it as a criminal act of some kind by Giethner. Sorry to repeat myself but huh? First they complaina bout the people he thought of hiring (not clean enough) then they complain that he has no one to staff up Treasury. Can they see how one makes the otehr impossible?  And who do they think will end up as treasury secretary? Kucinich? And have they thought of the political hit this would be for Obama? And his agenda? They seem not to think through or care.

In the meantime the Red Cross releases it torture report and from all these people we get.....crickets.

 

 

 

 

Whoa boy.  Hang onto yer hats.

Al, good job. Keep on this. Liberals love their memes, I've seen so much of this in the blogs these past few days. Blame Geitner, Blame Obama, Blame the current CEO of AIG, Liddy. I watched that AIG hearing yesterday and it was a complete sham they way the congessman went after this guy like he was the one responsible. I am tired of displaced rage. Those stupid bonuses are not the problem. Liddy is not the problem, he's getting paid $1 a year to do his miserable job. The problem is the greed that was allowed to flourish in an unregulated financial system.

Newsweek did a good job of talking about this shameless displaced rage towards Liddy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190013

I'll be damned if I am going to be part of a populist rage that blindly goes after shapes and colors with a pitchfork as Stephen Colbert says. Go after the real targets, liberal pundits, and then I'll join your mob.

 

Do they think Hillary would have done any better? Thanks for the refreshing view on this. I think Obama and his crew are doing an amazing job. Remember that Bush spent his first year on vacation in Crawford

As troubling as their over-the-top goofball blogs about Geithner, etc. is that they're also top advisers to a new group who have organized to defeat any incumbent Democrat in a primary who doesn't follow their absolutist line issues.  Greenwald & Hamsher are allied with MoveOn.org & others in their attempt to define the direction of progressivism... which more likely will help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the Democrats if they get their way.  Other than that, they're swell...

 

 

Al brings it. Let's watch what happens now.

Al,

Those of us who are organizers have BEEN off this train for some time.  I have organized a canvass of 25 people to walk the streets in Chicago on Saturday.  I need to get folks informed and activated to support the budget.

Greenwald and Sirota DO NOT represent me -- a working class black woman living on the Southside of Chicago.  To them this is all a game.  To me this is LIFE AND DEATH.  I have no time for their poutage.

 

Brilliant diary Al. This is one of your best diaries to date.

Slaney - With all due respect, I think it's far more politically naive to think that two very different personalities - Roosevelt and Obama - govern in the same way more than 70 years apart, in dramatically changed media fish bowls, when they do not. Decisions could be slow and plodding in 1933, and without much attention or media speculation. Today, any 15 year old with a modem has more information at his hands than the then director of US intelligence agencies.

What made FDR so empathetic to the underdog, in my opinion, but also less sure of his own decisions and more prone to be swayed by his gang of cabinet reindeer, was his long sufferance with polio and the paraplegic condition it brought him from the age of 39 (see the 2005 "Warm Springs" or books on the subject for a dramatic account of how it shaped his personality). A dozen years later he became president. There was always, with Roosevelt, a heavy-hearted element of self-doubt and even personal insecurity.

With Obama we have someone very sure of himself, physically strong and able (critics have called him overconfident or cocky, but it's a quality the electorate clearly likes), who - the evidence is already in - has caused cabinet members and staffers that previously disagreed with his policies (Clinton at State, Gates at Defense, Emanuel as chief of staff...) to become their strongest advocates. This is not somebody that gets led around like oxen by the nose ring. He's the one doing the leading around. Why anybody would think that's somehow uniquely different when it comes to young Geithner (or old Summers) is beyond me. That is a textbook case of the aforementioned "magical thinking."

If "bashing" the Treasury Secretary is a tool on your arsenal, that's your errant reading of the situation. But don't speak for "the left" because there are many if not more of us on the left that see it as childish and counter-productive. It has accomplished nothing so far except to feed right-wing faux-populist narratives and to fuel their goals of debilitating the economic recovery so as to be able to win back Congress in 2010, as they did in 1994. Those of you that are taking that tack are, I'm sorry to say it, being the aforementioned dupes of corporate sponsored "populism." Count me out. And even more so, count on me to get in your faces and block you at every pass.

I really hate to call out TPM on this but if you go over there now the front page asks Who is in Charge? The new line seems to be that Obama (Geithner etc) are no match for these institutions and are really wimps or something akin to that for not...doing what exactly? This is the point that gets me, they are all agog even implying this conspiracy between Geithner and god know who but do they have a way out of the crisis no? they just want their sacrificial lamb no matter what. So so sad. And infuriating.

For me what's always stuck in my craw has been Geithner's work ruining East Asia for the IMF. I spent a lot of time in Argentina in the late 90s/early 2000s (I'm sure you know the drill even better than I do) and I have a deep personal level of anger for anyone coming out of that institution.

That aside, is the present outrage cycle ginned-up? Yup. I don't recall nearly this level of noise over the Merrill bonuses. Since the "Obama is doing too much" line didn't work, this is the next thing in their lineup.

Still, I think there is strategic value in some members of the prog movement grinding their axes here. If Geithner and Summers are not painted as the Right Wing of the administration, they will be perceived by media default as the Center.

That means it will be politically difficult - at times impossible - for the administration to pursue more progressive courses of action. The way I see it, the narrative that Summers and Geithner are too close to Wall Street is a useful way of pushing the Overton window in a leftward direction.

Essentially, I'm saying that it is strategically desirable for some progressives to be pillorying the Obama economic team and others to be defending them. If that's too cynical for your tastes I'd understand.

Personally, I'd like to hand both of them over to an angry mob in Jakarta or Seoul for their past malfeasance. But like I said that has nothing to do with the AIG issue.

As usual, Nate Silver provides the same type of perspective that we're getting from Al:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/why-aig-paid-bonuses.html

This was all out there for people to find long before it because the outrage du jour.

this stuff so bores Obama that he leaves DC any chance he can. I think he should leave for a few weeks to teach DC a lesson. let them vibrate in their own echo-chambers.

he just meets with we the people and they talk about reality and what matters. not the bull in DC.

Now this is outrage I can believe in! Well done, Al.

This crowd of Mr. and Ms. Magoos - bumping into walls week after week without ever acknowledging they can't see a damned thing - consistently infuriates. And I agree with the comments above that it is indeed a bummer that Josh Marshall has joined the myopic mob. Not understanding economics makes many of us overreach.

I haven't been able to read Hamsher, Greenwald, or Sirota since FISA - the subject of their collective and very public, attention-seeking fit during the campaign.

I agree with Al about Hamsher, Greenwald and Open Left. There's a kind of absolutist thinking that's counterproductive in the extreme and which, if successful, would undermine the Obama agenda, which is historic, visionary and progressive when one backs away far enough to get some perspective. We have to be careful to think strategically, which is what the left has traditionally failed to do, setting up circular firing squads rather than running interferernce. My sense is that Greenwald and Krugman are idealists who fail to think strategically; not enemies sworn to take Obama down.

However, I still think Obama, strategic thinker that he is, should have seen the outrage over executive compensation coming. It's a surprising mistake, and his efforts to get out in front of it have been barely adequate so far. "I have asked Tresury to do everything possible to reverse this" should have been a more resounding "THIS SHALL NOT STAND!" Push the Republicans back into the "defend the rich" camp. Even if whatever action is taken ultimately fails in court, so what?

Thank you Al... your bring me sanity lol.. please post this on dailykos, they need to wake up.

@ Roy Martin,

"Even if whatever action is taken ultimately fails in court, so what?"

Just how much would it cost taxpayers to defend this in court? Would we have paid out a chunk in lawyers and legal fees, only to have to let AIG pay the bonuses in the end, costing us MORE money?

Today, I was thinking how the so-called left bloggers appear to divide into two groups, with surprising frequency.

On the "rational" side, I include Al, Nate Silver and "Booman."  On the other side is Sirota, Greenwald and most of OpenLeft. Daily Kos kind of straggles the groups.

Then, I wondered to myself: is there any particular reason the groups seem to divide this way repeatedly, perhaps reflecting a certain point of view or experience.

But frankly, the only common thread I see is that the "rational" group keeps on insisting on looking at things, well, rationally. 

It's somewhat frustrating that the "irrational" group appears to drive so much of the MSM message, but perhaps that's to be expected also.

Still, I think there is strategic value in some members of the prog movement grinding their axes here. If Geithner and Summers are not painted as the Right Wing of the administration, they will be perceived by media default as the Center.

That means it will be politically difficult - at times impossible - for the administration to pursue more progressive courses of action. The way I see it, the narrative that Summers and Geithner are too close to Wall Street is a useful way of pushing the Overton window in a leftward direction.

 

I hafta say, this is utter b.s. You act like Barack is some idiot at moving people toward a more just and fair system of governance. Or, that he can't even work with the folks he selected. He's not an idiot. And neither are the great masses of people who freakin' voted for the man.

What really grabs my booty is that this kind of argument is totally based on some white middle class neurotic view of life in this country. It's an insular (to the point of great ethnocentrism), arrogant and highly patronizing view of people in this country. We're just too stupid to understand nuance and complexities of life and we somehow need interpreters of just what is left and what is right in this country.

 

Well, guess freakin' what? We don't need interpreters of who is centrist and who is truly left. We just need people to act and to help and to organize so that the quality of life in this country can improve so that most people living here can enjoy a basic healthful and sane life. If I needed interpretations of whether or not Geither or Summers are politically left or right, I would head right out to the heart of black communities in this country. Truth be told, people in the community are much more nuanced in their understanding of these situations because the long view is a cultural legacy of the black community in this country. And, most of the folks won't be screaming nor carrying on nor declaring that they have to  tell Barack which way is up.

 

Al,

I had no ideal that these cast of characters (progressives) are "Hoping that Obama fails", It seems that Obama can do nothing right in thier eyes. Obama battling "conservatives" I understand naturally and can see based on their twisted ideology would want him not to succeed. But progressives? Oh man, this is not good. So much for unity! I voted for Obama and even though I do not agreee with him a 100%. I want my president to succeed. The man has been working his ass off trying to undo eight years of Bush's crappy policies.

Excellent but eye opening post Al,

Go Obama!

 

 

I second the attention to complexity that Slaney Black suggested in the first comment in the first two paragraphs, but I'm going to include a link.

Here's a New York Times article from Feb. 19 that seems to document internal differences of opinion inside the administration. It incluldes these passages (among others):

The Obama administration’s new plan to bail out the nation’s banks was fashioned after a spirited internal debate that pitted the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, against some of the president’s top political hands.

In the end, Mr. Geithner largely prevailed in opposing tougher conditions on financial institutions that were sought by presidential aides, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, according to administration and Congressional officials.

Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.

He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid.

Because of the internal debate, some of the most contentious issues remain unresolved.

[snip]

Some of President Obama’s advisers had advocated tighter restrictions on aid recipients, arguing that rising joblessness, populist outrage over Wall Street bonuses and expensive perks, and the poor management of last year’s bailouts could feed a potent political reaction if the administration did not demand enough sacrifices from the companies that receive federal money.

They also worry that any reaction could make it difficult to win Congressional approval for more bank rescue money, which the administration could need in coming months.

[snip]

But officials said Mr. Geithner worried that the plan would not work — and could become more expensive for taxpayers — if there were too much government involvement in the affairs of the companies.

Mr. Geithner also expressed concern that too many government controls would discourage private investors from participating.

Al, you wrote:

The presumption that it matters that much who is Treasury Secretary – given that the President meets daily with that person and the rest of the economic team as the first order of business every single morning – is pretty silly, too.

[snip]

Any different Treasury Secretary would be following the exact same instructions as the current one. The suggestion that President Obama is somehow hands off on the economic recovery or the kind of weak mind subject to Svengali-like hypnotism by his cabinet members is the real "magical thinking" going on here. More "magical thinking"

To my eyes, you are presenting only two options for what goes on, when it seems that there are more than that. You write as if it's either Obama gives instruction, period, or he is being hypnotized by his cabinet.

But the Times article suggests a third possibility that also fits with what I have heard and read when it comes to President Obama's style: what if at least some of these meetings are also a place to hear people out and sometimes even decide between different approaches to the same problem. None of the approaches would be outside where President Obama is coming from (he is very stobborn that way and I think this accounts for the Clinton situation) -- but inside of that there can sometimes be different ways to go.

My perspective is that there are real complexities inside the administration that are based in real complexities in the larger situation. Whether the Left likes it or not, whether I like it or not (and I don't) this is a capitalist nation with substantial threads of power and control given to corporations and substantial cultural support for greed and self-interest. This is part of what the President has to deal with; his non-radical-ness on certain elements of this is part of why he got elected in the first place IMO.

My perspective is that if handled correctly by the administration, the current situation could be advantageous to future policy approaches. This is what I wrote in a dkos diary last night:

I'm not into making Geithner some sort of uber-villain because ... I just don't have it in me to go there, for some reason.

I'm really more interested in this unresolved struggle that went in one direction and now has clearly backfired on the side that prevalied (Geithner's argument) and shown the wisdom of the side that did not prevail (Axelrod/other aides).

In particular, I'm interested in how this current situation offers an opportunity for some the Obama administration -- say, the David Axelrod/other aides side mentioned in the article -- to use this current situation as an "I told you so" moment to push for their perspective(s) to be more strongly reflected in policy from here on out.

I know some observers are saying this whole situation is bad for the Obama administration. Myself, I see it another way. I am less concerned with that and more concerned with how it might affect what the Obama administration actually does from here on in relation to policy on these issues.

I think that this current situation gives weight and strong permission to a perspective in the administration that might otherwise get argued away by the "well, that's nice but this is how things are done" uber-capitalist voice of pseudo-reason.

I think the Obama administration is capable of running with whatever they get broad popular permission to run with that fits with their perspectives. I think this current situation gives permission for some stuff that might not otherwise have been quite so possible.

We'll see.

 

"Since Geithner and Summers are clearly on the right wing of the Obama administration. Bashing them is a tool we on the Left should have in our arsenal; unilaterally disarming ensures that all intra-administration squabbles will be lost by the Left" (emphasis mine)

What battle are you fighting, friend?  I thought the point of having a progressive administration in office during this time of trial was about having a chance to implement change in a certain way with a certain goal (a fairer economic system) in mind.  I thought that we would be invested in supporting this administration, criticizing of course, (constructive) when necessary -- but not as part of some set of bashing or you win/we lose war.  WTF is happening out there in some of the left?

Me thinks there has been too much reality tv watching or the like -- too much thinking in frames of people being "voted off of the Island" -- too much of a frame of some sort of contest where a group of talented people compete against each other and someone gets "eliminated" each week -- usually using fairly drastic language -- the point being to send the poor contestant back home with his/her head hung low or in tears..

Also, its hard to get people to read your column if you really don't have anything to say unless its a critique.  The burgeoning of blogs in the last 8 years followed the need to vent from an unhappy and incompentent political reality with Bush running the country into the ditch and left/progressives needing to get the word out around an MSM that clearly blocked critique of the administration and avidly promoted its lies.  Now that this raison d'etre is gone for some on the left, they must eat their own to survive.  They donot have enough to say of any importance apparently, unless its negative..

It is really sad because they could be a real instrument of teaching Americans about the patience and process of forming good policy -- of the give and take of politics and how to work with and evaluate the real trade-offs that are necessary part of any public policy development. 

Instead, we get "Survivor - Vanuatu"

 

President Obama just did two town halls in Calif. and no one asked him about AIG and the bonuses.  Gee, where's all that outrage?

I think this comment from someone on that dkos diary I quoted also adds an important layer -- this excerpt in particular:

My thoughts have always been that what changes come to the country have to be forced by the people's will.  Not just President Obama's will.

Even though in the scheme of things...the 165 million dollars is just a drop in the bucket compared to the massive bailout we have seen happen, I think this AIG outrage will make it easier to implement some of the more strict rules.

Now, I myself personally don't see "the left" as the same as "the people's will."  (In fact that thought just makes me laugh and shake my head.)

But apart from that, I do think there is complexity here that will likely yield interesting results over time -- in the hands of this administration with its very real talents and sensitivity to nuance.

A very thorough and balanced analysis reflecting the acknoledged complexity of reality -- not some manufactured, faux hysteria heeped with admonitions and self righteousness.

I enjoyed reading it and thing that your take on how the complexity may influence policy decisions in this administration.

 

Bravo!

If those folks get what they're asking for -- the head of the Secretary of the Treasury -- don't look for them to take any responsibility when the consequently weakened administration is forced to make more compromises with congressional Republicans. Just like when they joined forces with the campaign to oppose Caroline Kennedy, they won't take any credit for what they did their best to bring about. "We're just bloggers." So it is that I couldn't help but find Sirota's headline, "lying or incompetent," more than a little ironic. It's not just the perfect, but also its apostles, the sanctimonious, who are the "enemies of the good."

the dominant narrative was that we needed "to run government more like a business."  Remember that?  The majority of people I ever spoke with would say that.  Now, with AIG, Citi, Merrill, etc, I'd be willing to bet many of those same people would think government needs to run these businesses.

This massive shift in public sentiment is very promising, and it's really gaining steam over the last few weeks.  We need to catch this wave and ride it into single-payer healthcare among other things.  This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for most of us, which is why I think the messages of Al and others about picking battles wisely and organizing are so important.

I try to make points similar to this at some of the above mentioned blogs, but now in the comments sections just get shouted down as "naive" or simply ignored.  Meanwhile, post after post is filled a 100 comments or more of the same choir singing the exact same song over and over again.

Damn, we got a Prez that's saying, "C'mon people, we can do this.  Make it happen!" literally every day in some form or fashion.  We cannot squander this opportunity.  We all need to find a way to apply our experiences and talents to make this happen.  We can fundamentally change the way America operates...right now.  It's up to each one of us.

Michelle - I would caution against taking a New York Times report that does not even cite its sources as being necessarily accurate. I've covered hundreds of stories over the years in which a Times reporter was also there and when I read his or her account, wondered if they had attended the same event that I did. 

I think you can also look at Axelrod's own words (generating the usual from the Poutrage Club today) from yesterday's Washington Post. He said: "People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG. They are thinking about their own jobs." That does undercut the suggestion in the Times story that he supposedly fought against a supposed Geithner position over that very matter. (Related is that Axelrod has access to the most penetrating and up-to-date polling and focus group data that anyone in the country has; he doesn't make such claims without first having tested them.)

During the presidential campaign, many reports claimed to know what went on inside the Obama organization; there were predictions that inside sources supposedly said that Evan Bayh was a lock for VP or that there were disagreements or power struggles, all of which never bore out). There was a credo then that I think is worth repeating now: "Those that speak, don't know, and those that know, don't speak." The "no drama" organizing style means that anybody who would tell, for example, the NY Times what supposedly went on in an internal meeting would be pushed outside the circle instantly. The Times story may be based only on suppositions from people who weren't in the room. It seems very unlikely to me therefore that it is an accurate portrayal. I, for one, am not going to base my analysis on it. I think we have to be as skeptical of big media (especially when a report isn't sourced) as we should be of AIG or government officials.

And so, in sum, I don't think the regular public tantrums from the bloggers I mention above have succeeded in "making Obama do" anything at all. I don't think they have moved him an inch. It's the argument - not who is making it - that wins over a leader like that. And if the NY Times account was accurate (something I, again, doubt, based on my own lived experience regarding the Times and its reporters) and if Geithner hadn't been in the room, somebody else would have made that argument, and I believe it still would have won - and yes, with the proviso that those are a lot of "ifs."

In other words: If you didn't believe the NY Times when it insisted there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, why should you believe them now?

 

Thank you for this piece.  I have been fuming for the past few days because of the non-troversy being stoked by so-called progressives. I expect it from the the MSM and the GOP but I admit that I expected more from my fellow progressives and liberals.  For weeks, I have read articles from various sources (Rich, Dowd, Hamsher) talking about the coming populist revolt and I must admit that I was somewhat perplexed about their assertions that it would be Obama who would bear the brunt. (And please don't get me started on Sirota and to my utter disappointment, Cenk Uygur.)  Then voila, we have the AIG scandal helped along by an overly aggressive TPM and banner headlines at HuffPo (not to mention the Kos folks) for the past three days and I feel like I've been duped.  I have gone to these sites for a long time and I have never been more disappointed than this week.  The reporting has relied heavily on innuendo and a feigned understanding of the issue of the bonuses and repeatedly calls for the heads of Summers and Geithner.  As soon as Republican congressmen began echoing Hamsher et al, I knew we were on opposing sides of this issue.  It has become clear since Obama won the election that those progressive forces who opposed him during the primary began to re-boot to derail his agenda and to usher in their candidate in 2012.

It's the argument - not who is making it - that wins over a leader like that. And if the NY Times account was accurate (something I, again, doubt, based on my own lived experience regarding the Times and its reporters) and if Geithner hadn't been in the room, somebody else would have made that argument, and I believe it still would have won - and yes, with the proviso that those are a lot of "ifs."

I agree with this. To my eyes, it's not about specific people, but rather having more than one perspective. I don't trust the NYT necessarily, but that description rang true to me at some level. I would see it along the lines you wrote, that it is about the argument more than the specific people.

And so, in sum, I don't think the regular public tantrums from the bloggers I mention above have succeeded in "making Obama do" anything at all.

I don't think so either.  I see it terms of a larger narrative where AIG is a villian symbolizing corporate greed.

I read the comment about the will of the people as being about the "us" in the Obama narrative, rather than him alone -- not about bloggers making Obama do things. The more Obama can do by the will of the people, the more his critics are positioned as narrow, greedy, divisive etc.

Thanks, Al, for keeping us sane. And thanks, too, to Jed Lewison, who put this up a few hours ago:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/19/710606/-There-was-no-secret-prov...

P.S. Shouldn't it be "Pout, rinse, repeat?"

@Michelle: My perspective is that there are real complexities inside the administration that are based in real complexities in the larger situation. Whether the Left likes it or not, whether I like it or not (and I don't) this is a capitalist nation with substantial threads of power and control given to corporations and substantial cultural support for greed and self-interest. This is part of what the President has to deal with; his non-radical-ness on certain elements of this is part of why he got elected in the first place IMO.

It is the apparent lack of awareness of the complexities of the entire situation that disturbes me the most. It is too easy to pick at this or that and not see the whole picture. I think Obama [and his team] are trying to do that. The picture is still developing. Why any Democrat wants to attack Obama is beyond me.

I submit this election began shedding light on "substantial cultural support for greed and self-interest" to opening minds to changing that culture to being our brother's keeper - and we are all in this together. The paradigm is changing and the old guard is reacting.

Thanks again Al for you light on the picture.

 

Lucidamente - I was wondering if anybody would notice that! It would be "Pout, rinse, repeat" in a wash cycle. But when meant to slime and muddy things up, instead of cleaning them, the cycle goes in reverse!

To Michele, and Elie --

 

I also agree.  FDR once said, "I want to do it.  Now make me do it."  President Obama pointed out many times during the campaign that this election was about us.  And it is.  All throughout, the pundits' predictions bore little resemblance to poll results.  President Obama had the will of the people behind him. 

And he surprised people time and time again with his supple thinking and his political agility.  I think he'll have the will of the people behind him.  Anyway, I certainly hope so.

We live in interesting times.

Seems to me that the real outrage that occurred and is being pushed to the background is the 350 BILLION dollars that Sec. Paulson let slip through his fingers.

The Usual Suspects of hyperventilated outrage in the lineup above appear to have forgotten that the aim of a permanent campaign (aka governance) is not intrinsically backward-looking but rather forward looking. The key to Al's excellent post is for me the calling of the bluff that these jokers are committed to ending the suffering of real human lives in this country and around the world as a result of the economic paroxysm we are witnessing. AIG? This momentary twitter of self-righteousness from the Right makes perfect sense (though they are so disorganized and unsure of themselves that they have blown any ability to use the current media drama to their benefit), but from so-called progressive bloggers it smacks of reactionary tactical games absent any forward-leaning strategic thinking.  The key to their backward-leaning thinking is that they are still fighting the Democratic primary.

And that's the beauty of Al's post: it says what too many bloggers and pundits have refused to acknowledge even as it stares them/us in the face. Certain Clintonites and Edwardsites are still frothing at the mouth and joining with the truly rabid Right to try to tarnish Obama and his operation. That their candidates have proven them to be fools is no matter because in the end it was never about those candidates anyway; it was always about the egos of these political savants who have been proven so empirically wrong countless times just in the last two years. 

Their rejoinder is that even saying this unsayable charge is a version of their own "Dear-Leaderism" cliche, which they trot out with abandon to try to maintain some self-affirming notion of their own radicalism and brilliance. When Obama makes a misstep, he or his Administration must obviously be criticized. Their enthusiasm though is not criticism but self-affirmation. The funny thing is--what did Obama say yesterday? I am responsible; if you have a problem, criticize me. And, what did Geithner say today, clearly acting in synch with his boss? I am responsible. If there was a real error regarding AIG, responsibility has been taken, Congress and the blogosphere has gotten itself off on the matter, and the Obama team has enjoyed a bit more seasoning for the real battles ahead: keeping the public component of the Health Care legislation and comprehensive Climate Change legislation--not to mention the card-check bill--all the while fixing the global economy. When was the last time an American president took responsibility for his or his Administration's actions? I can only imagine that Obama's actions of late only further strengthen the loyalty those great egos/rivals feel to Obama the man and his vision of his team.

It's entirely plausible to me that there would have been a vigorous discussion between Geithner and Axelrod. Naturally, Axelrod, being the communications guy, would advocate on behalf of what would make Obama look best in the eyes of the public. Geithner, being the finance guy, would advocate on behalf of the most effective way to turn the economic ship. It comforts me to know that, in making decisions about the economy, Obama--unlike Bush--gives greater weight to the policy expert rather than the political expert. And because Obama would have made his decision with full knowledge of the potential PR pitfalls, there would be absolutely no need for "I told you so's." The insistence that Obama is some kind of naive pup being led around on a leash by advisors--in spite of ample evidence to the contrary--is becoming unseemly.

Even before I read your post yesterday and today, I went to check all Jane's blog's on HuffPost and they are all negative towards Obama. As for Sarota, I never trusted anything that came out his mouth.

Thank you Al.

Generally, I agree with you that a few folks on the left blogosphere have been demanding a little too much perfection from Obama -- but in this case, your analysis leaves out two very critical detail that, I'm afraid, makes me side with those "shrill" bloggers like Hamsher and Sirota. 

One of those details just came out this afternoon: Geithner's own admission that it was in fact he and not Dodd who asked for the relaxation of the bonus rules. Just as Firedoglake and Sirota and Open Left (and even some more left-to-center bloggers like Josh Marshall) have been writing about for a while. Dodd himself always admitted he let the change happen, the problem - again as the folks you criticize noted - was that it was the White House that was trying to deflect attention from Geithner. That's not really something I want to see happen if the guy being defended is really doing a good job.

The second, and far more critical, error of omission you commit stems from your use of the AIG memo from November that allegedly "proves" that everyone "knew" about these bonuses. The issue as the lefty bloggers have been noting isn't that people didn't know about these bonuses, it's who got them. And here's the critical thing you fail to admit: Geithner -- and Larry Sommers -- were intimately involved in the negotiations between the government and the Treasury under Paulson. The charge, which has yet to be refuted, is that Geithner knew back in September and October about these bonuses because, if he didn't negotiate them himself, he was in a position where he almost had to know they were in there.

This is one of those rare times that you don't do the job of calming me down. I'm more and more disenchanted by Geithner - I think he's clearly in over his head, as evidenced by his dithering about a bank plan and his inability to staff Treasury - and I have always been puzzled and discomforted by the presence of so many ex-Wall Street execs who helped create the situation that Bush then exploded that resulted in this meltdown. And it is the Hamshers, the Greenwalds, and the Sirotas that have kept the story out there.

I think Geithner -- and more importantly Sommers -- will have to go, sooner rather than later. Nice try, but you didn't relieve me of that suspicion.

But I'll still read you!

Edgewater Joe - You based that entire screed on a CNN report that portrayed Geithner's words as saying one thing when in the unedited transcript he says the opposite.

Funny, again, how quick you and some others are to go into a seething fit of poutrage based on statements by media that you should have learned long ago not to trust!

Jed over at DKos has published the full transcript. Read it and then eat some crow for making such loud and aggressive presumptions and jumping into the cesspool with those aforementioned assholes before you investigated the true facts. Here they are.

CNN claimed:

Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole

(CNN) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

But CNN based that on this statement from the interview, which said nothing of the sort:

Velshi: But inadvertently, might somebody at Treasury have told Sen. Dodd to do something that has now resulted in these payments not being able to ...

Geithner: No, again, what we did is just express concern about the vulnerability of a specific part of this provision, the legal challenge, as you would expect us to do, that's part of the legislative process...

Now, do you really think CNN's first statement accurately portrays the interview it was based on?

(Read the entire Jed report, linked in this comment, if you still have any doubts.)

And if not, do the honorable thing and take it back.

And be more careful next time before you believe everything the commercial media tells you!

- Al

 

Thanks Al. Another spot on post about the latest iteration of the fear, whines and silliness of the Right's Left flank.

It is a tonic to read.

I thought of you as I listen to President Obama as Organizer and Chief during today's Q&A in California. His answer to a question posed by one of his former campaign organizer was very good and in line with many of your posts.

Thanks for the dose of sanity.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't really care about the bonuses nearly as much as I care about the FACT that Geithner and Summers are neck-deep in the Wall Street trough. These guys have not shown me anything that makes me think that they care about the country more than they care about their friends and associates on Wall Street. They have intertwined the financial health of bankers and the banking system, and have bought into the sense of entitlement that the Wall Streeters have. 

I'm willing to pay to rebuild the banking system and to even save AIG if that is what's necessary -- but I can't for the life of me understand why some of the fucktards who got us into this mess should ever have a job anywhere near Wall Street, much less be in the president's cabinet. I hope to hell I'm wrong about Geithner and Summers, but I fear I'm not.

I hardly think what I typed could be called a screed. I simply pointed out that I'm disagreeing with your analysis. Regarding the Geithner/Dodd kerfuffle, why should I take back something that Geithner himself admitted doing? I went to a transcript posted on Huffington Post that reiterates the Geithner mea culpa (that url is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/geithner-treasury-pushed_n_177016.html), so if the man himself is admitting that he and his department made that admission, I don't think I need to take back anything. Where we can debate, and where I'll let go a little in this debate, is whether Geithner's admission is as damning as Hamsher/Greenwald/Sirota et al are claiming it is.

Having said all that, I notice you continue to skip over my other point, that as head of the New York Fed Geithner was in fact a party in the original AIG negotiations back in October. That is far more problematic to me than the Dodd issue because it indicates he may have had some hand in whatever agreements AIG was working under these past few months. That, along with the Sommers/Rubin connections to banks getting massive bailouts, is what is scaring me the most about Geithner - and yes, there I give credit to the folks you criticize because they're the ones who are keeping those questions (correctly in my view) alive. With all due respect, you don't address any of those issues at all.

I'll concede the Dodd point if you concede the NY Fed point.

I have some issues with the way Geithner's presenting whatever it is he's doing to the public, but holding him responsible for Congress' foot-dragging on confirmations is absurd.

I actually differentiate Glen Greenwald from Sorota and Ms.Hemsher – I think Greenwald has legitimate ideological disagreements with the president and I would give him a pass because he fights the good fights. As for Sirota, I am so sick and tired of his hysteria.  What worries me is that he gets recommended diaries at Daily Kos – I don’t get that. For people who see themselves as politically savvy they are very naïve. Do they think Obama will survive the firing of his Treasury Secretary or the economy would survive the uncertainty? I am disheartened these days, I feel like the worse days in the primary because as liberals we are our own worst enemy.

 

Thanks Al, for keeping us sane.

Is anyone watching? I learn so much when I hear him talk, he has a way of breaking things down so that I can get my brain around them.

Al, I think you're spot on with your commentery about certain lefties/progressives looking to do damage to Obama. I've always known that he would have to fight both the right and the left for the next 8 years. However, I have a question about that AIG Nov. 08 press release. If it were public for all to see, why did Obama and Geithner express outrage as if they just found out about it?

I've been disheartened as well but I was reminded of two things -

1. I'm not sure why but Obama, in playing the strategic game and not the tactical one, always (every few months since he announced his candidacy two years ago) finds himself in such a spot - with the media shouting at him, some of his supposed allies hurling rocks at him, etc.  Somehow he finds his way out, and is stronger for it.

2. I was talking with Jed about this today, and he made the point that Obama is doing a press conference on Tuesday, which means that the administration is probably confident that they'll have this resolved by/on Tuesday.

Yes, I watched the Tonight Show. Awesome.

Yet, most on Kos are feeding a new "crisis" about a 129 bowling score and a response to Jay's teasing with a comment using the words Special Olympics. Reminds me of the old saying: Small minds gossip. Large minds talk about solutions.

 

Did you actually follow the link and read the press release? If you can find any clear mention of the current situatioon in it, you're a lot smarter than I am.

My understanding of the situation is that AIG was paying out a total of some $400 million in bonuses throughout the company. The part that people are upset about is a smaller sum of $165 million to the Finanical Products group. Apparently, the rest of the bonuses are OK!

The press release mentions no performance bonuses:

AIG's Senior Partners will not earn long-term performance awards in 2008. Furthermore, they will not receive salary increases in 2009, and their 2008 and 2009 annual bonuses will be limited. In addition to Mr. Liddy foregoing any severance payments, there will be restrictions on severance payments to members of this management group, which exceed TARP severance restrictions.

However, the bonuses in question were "retention bonuses" that were negotiated in spring 2008, apparently because the Financial Products group knew it was likely they would not be eligible for performance bonuses so they wanted their retention bonuses to be equal to what they would have gotten if they had been entitled to receive performance bonuses.

If you did not know that these retention bonuses existed, you would not guess it from the press release.

I haven't had a chance to really dig into this but I would not be surprised if people outside of AIG, up to and including Geithner either did not realize that part of the whole package of bonuses included retention bonuses or they knew that but had no idea they were so large. Unless they knew of the existence of this contract, they would have no reason to guess they were that large.

This whole "what did he know and when did he know it" is ridiculous and overheated, IMHO. Geithner has had a lot more important things to worry about than finding out that some contract exists to pay overly-large bonuses.

... just like many Democrats. You think that it serves Obama if everyone to the left of him shuts up, so that the only voices heard are the Obama defenders and Limbaugh. If that happens, it just means that the very moderate Barack Obama becomes the leftmost fringe of what can be expressed politically, and it means that any outcome gets negotiated rightward with the Republican extremists.

It serves Obama to have people to his left yelling at him; it makes it more likely that eventual compromises line up with what he wanted in the first place. He's a compromiser; if the only voices he hears are people who agree with him, and people to his right, he'll split the difference.

 

 

Al -

I believe your characterization of Obama's current lefty critics is preposterous. None of the sites/writers you've cited want Obama to fail. And that's exactly the attitude they are criticizing. I'm not claiming Obama is stupid. I'm not claiming he's been "hypnotized" by a modern-day Svengali. What I am claiming is that Obama isn't an economist, and most of his recent exposure to economics has come from the Chicago Boyz. It is *their* system, the entire "rational actor"/"free market" philosophy, that is rotten to the core. As long as Obama is listening to Summers/Geithner he will have a hard time understanding, or beginning to fix, the situation. Has he been listening to others? I hope so, but Reich is outside looking in, as are Krugman (boo-hiss), Galbraith, Roubini, etc. Baker's on the inside, at least with Biden. 

So, granted, Obama is calling the shots. But where is he getting his options? If it's from people like Geithner, then the options he's offered will be bad, worse and terrible. Maybe he's hearing all the options ... in which case I'd like to know why he keeps picking ones that haven't, and I don't think can, work: supporting the original bailout, picking Summers/Geithner, shorting the stimulus, opposing nationalization, supporting the "public-private" plan, supporting more bailouts. Some of these decisions I understand in isolation, but in total they point in only one direction.

Are there motivations and good reasons to follow this path? I'm sure there is a good reason for each one. For example, I think the fact that foreign banks had such a large exposure to AIG has affected how the administration has dealt with the situation, given the possible foreign policy impact - something that hasn't been widely discussed. But the official explanation for most of these moves borders on the insulting. We can't follow the Swedish model because they only had a few banks to nationalize? The American people are somehow constitutionally opposed to the government "running" banks? Business tax cuts are stimulative? None of these explanations is reasonable.

Obama's day is only 24 hours long, and he's got a lot on his plate. If his economic advice is coming from Summers/Geithner, then he isn't being exposed to the people who tried to sound the alarm and have a more complete understanding of the problems we face. And if he isn't listening to the people who understand the problem, what chance is there for it being fixed?

"People are not sitting around their kitchen tables thinking about AIG. They are thinking about their own jobs." That does undercut the suggestion in the Times story that he supposedly fought against a supposed Geithner position over that very matter. (Related is that Axelrod has access to the most penetrating and up-to-date polling and focus group data that anyone in the country has; he doesn't make such claims without first having tested them.)

 

Or else he's loyal, the decision's already been made, and he's defending it. Badly.

If you think people aren't paying attention to AIG by now, then you think the media has zero capability to pass on information about events. And how the h*ll do we know what polling data Axelrod has? Did he get allocated $100 million for polling in the FY09 budget and nobody told me? The only polling data I've seen suggests he's completely wrong. So does my Facebook feed, nonrandom sample that it is.

Whether or not Secretary Geithner needs to or should be canned, Obama and his entire Administration are being made to look like powerless dupes at the beck and call of a wealthy financial elite. That is a very, very bad thing. I don't think that Secretary Geither's axing could do any more damage to the Administration than that above fact. David Sirota did not invent that perception. That perception is inherent to a situation where bankers destroy their industry, we give them a trillion dollars in taxpayer money, and they pay themselves bonuses with it. I'm nominally on your side in this policy argument, here, to the extent that there is one at all, and that fact still makes *me* feel used.

Has it occured to you, Al, that Obama could spend 1.5 trillion dollars on bankers, "save" the economy to the extent that we pull up from a crash to a Japan-style stuttery limbo, do the right thing, etc, and still be intimidated/distracted/prevented through Congressional defections from passing the progressive agenda, precisely because of that money? And still lose Congress in 2010? And the presidency in 2012? Have you considered that the Brilliant Geither Plan may still leave us all completely f*cked?

In that case, we will genuinely have been dupes in the service of amoral tools. And it will arguably have been better to pass health-care reform this month, while the economy goes to h*ll, instead of a massive financial bailout. Especially if the doomsayers are wrong and the non-Geither / bailout / crash is, say, 2% worse in GDP / unemployment / etc than the Geithner version. And we'll never know.

 

 

 

Thank you for being a voice of rationality in a sea of raving lunatics.  I made the mistake of watching cable news for a few hours yesterday and was astonished by the level of panic and hysteria among the pundits. Everyone wants something done NOW!  They want to know exactly when the economy is going to recover.  And they want to know NOW!  There seems to be an expectation that a complex crisis that was years in the making should be neatly solved, tidied up, and tucked away by the administration in a few short weeks.

The AIG bonus is a sideshow.  In the best tradition of Washington, a small issue has been blown totally out of proportion by the chattering class who have a limited understanding of the larger issues (in their defense, the number of people who have an understanding of the larger issues is pretty limited in this particular crisis).  But the bonus issue is something they can understand.  Scapegoats must be found!  Heads must roll!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In their blind crusade to dump a Treasury Secretary that is, after all, only fifty-something days into his gargantuan mission to bring about economic recovery.

 

Please can we not keep our eyes on the main game, which is turning around the American economy?

Can we not at least give the Obama economic team a year before braying for resignations?  The unwarranted, gratuitous, forced resignation of Geithner now would seriously undermine confidence.

There is some evidence that they may well be successful, in which case they will be regarded as saviours in a year or so.

I think Geitner let the bonuses stay in for a very good reason:  he knew that if the AIG and banking individuals involved didn't get their bonuses they would blow up the whole bailout.  Yes they are that rotten, they would let their companies and the whole economy collapse rather than give up their money.  I think Geitner even said something to that effect shortly after he was confirmed.  He knows these people better than we do and he doesn't trust them to behave like human beings.

The point about the Overton Window is NOT specious.  There does need to be a far-left to balance the far-right for the news media.  They like balance that way.

I strongly disagree with casting any of the above bloggers with Limbaugh and Hannity et al. who have from time to time inserted actual calls for violence in to their harangues.  None of the mentioned left-wing bloggers have ever done that.  They may be unproductive, but they're not violent or hateful.

"The only player missing from this dance is Paul Krugman, who had the good luck to have his Monday Times column come out before he could jump on the three-wheeled bandwagon before another wheel fell off."

Spoke too soon Al. Paul Krugman is back and more chicken little than ever. Here's his latest:

"This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers."

Sadly, the people most responsible for creating that (false) impression are Krugman and his cohort of cry babies. Krugman's latest proclamations about the end of the world here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/aig/

Thank you for saying the thing that has been knocking around my brain for over a month.  While I won't go as far as saying the gang at FDL and Open Left actually "want" Obama to fail, they are surely acting like they do.  When the right is after him big time, obviously doing what ever is necessary to bring him down so they can get back in power, some big players on the left - are busy helping them in their efforts. 

 

I loved FDL.  I don't go there any more, can't stand the negativity.  Actually, this blog has taken their place on my daily cruise through my fav blogs.  I don't think Obama is perfect.  I'm not real thrilled with Geitner either, he seems to have a tin ear on things political.  But, I still trust the Prez... I still support him.  And I'm more than willing to trust his judgement on Geitner.  My hope is, as things get better economically, a lot of the uproar on Geitner will pass.  Biggest complaint is the lack of staff at Treasury.  But that is a consequence of the screening rules - which I agreed with before the election. 

Joe Buck - Had you been a regular reader here you'd know that I, too, criticize the administration at times. But I think there's an abyss between smart criticism and the predictable self-indulgent tempter tantrums that have become the signature of the aforementioned bloggers.

The kind of defense you offer of it is fairly common, and revealing of a certain mindset: the misguided idea that it's all about how loud one shouts, rather than the content of said shouting. Here's a clue: those three bloggers have failed to move Obama or his administration to the left on any of their pet issues. Greenwald completely failed when it came to his crusade on the FISA vote last year. Hamsher's so inept that she hasn't even participated in a victory since Ned Lamont's 2006 primary defeat of Lieberman (and she wasn't responsible for that, and it turned out to be Pyrrhic anyway when Lieberman got reelected). And Sirota's just a circus clown, imagining himself and his "nationally syndicated column" as at the vanguard of a non-existent "uprising" (if the uprising didn't happen under Bush, what makes anybody think it's going to become a reality under Obama? And there's something inherently racially discriminatory about that concept, by the way, in that it ignores the needs for multi-racial movements and puts all its eggs in the shrinking basket of working class whites).

These are the folks that got the presidential campaign wrong fifty times in a row: in primary after primary, caucus after caucus. I may be, in your words, "politically foolish," but I get it right more often than not, and the historical record exists to back up that statement. What makes anybody think that those that have gotten it wrong again and again are somehow now getting it right is a mystery for Aristotelian metaphysics.

I do think well placed and well stated criticism of the administration and the President can be effective. I just haven't seen it from these folks in their clown shoes. And by confusing all criticism with smart criticism, you've fallen into the same trap.

You can't show me an iota of evidence that their daily tantrums have moved Obama to the left on any matter, now, can you? Well, if the formula doesn't work, but some keep repeating it, who is being politically foolish?

JWC - Thank you for your kind words, and welcome.

It's totally true that if and once the economy begins to rebound, Geithner will be received as a national hero. His geeky qualities (that Camille Paglia and others seem to equate almost in homophobic fashion as somehow indicating a lack of manhood) will become cute and endearing and he'll be a media sensation. And he'll be able to walk into any working class bar in the nation and never have to buy himself a drink. (I think Krugman, in particular, fears that scenario on a pure ego and career basis.)

And I think on a certain level his critics get that: There is a desperate and rushed tone to their crusade to tear him down now, before economic recovery kicks in. Because if and once it does, they're really going to seem sillier even than they do now.

Thanks for the clarifiction, Laura.

 

Jeez, Al. It seems like you are being unneccesarily nasty here. All this "poutrage" and "temper tantrum" stuff. OK, you disagree with these three particular bloggers. Fair enough. Why do you have to personally ridicule & belittle them? Why can't you just note your disagreements and leave it at that? This seems kind of mean-spirited and bizarre. Just my two cents.

Jason - Seriously, if you don't like negativity, have you read those clowns? Daily they hurl invective as negative (usually more so) as I've boomeranged back to them. They toss it at Geithner this month, Emanuel last month, next month it will be somebody else on the Obama team (only because what they'd really like to do is throw mud at Obama, who had the audacity and skill to defeat their favored primary candidates and they made themselves look foolish as they declared, while it happened, that it wouldn't happen - but their own readers would revolt if they were more honest about their real target).

Ridicule only cuts if what is being ridiculed is ridiculous. And they are consistently ridiculous.

As both Saul Alinsky and Abbie Hoffman noted: Ridicule is a potent weapon for an organizer.

I think they're clowns and to the extent they keep up their antics, I'll be on them from here on out. One problem is that I'm associated with "the Netroots" and so are they: therefore, before anybody gets a false impression that I somehow endorse their nutty counter-productiveness, I'm exercising the right of public disassociation. If that's not your cup of tea, that's fine. There are many other stops along the Internet highway for those that don't care for this one. But those who dish it out - like the bloggers in question - ought to be able to receive it, too. Don't hold me to a standard that you clearly don't hold them to!

best,

Al

@Al - Well, fair enough. I didn't mean that as a blanket exoneration of the bloggers you mention, or to suggest that you don't have the right to speak your mind about them. It just seemed, to me, that you were being overly personal in your criticisms, as opposed to just saying what it is you don't agree with in their respective takes on the Obama administration - which is a criticism more on style than sustance, I suppose. I will agree that all three of the folks you mention are periodically wrong (occasionally glaringly so) about various matters that they comment on. I guess I feel that you are ascribing some sort of maliciousness to them - like they are trying to tear down Obama's adminstration because they're jerks or egomaniacs or what have you; I don't feel that that's neccesarily the case. Greenwald's column today, for instance, is full of praise for Obama's recent comments on Iran and his willingness to engage them diplomatically. So, I'm not arguing with you, or defending these folks, per se, I just felt that your take on the foks you mention was harsher than it maybe needed to be. Just my opinion. However, I do very much appreciate your thoughtful response - it's pretty cool being able to debate stuff with someone as smart and interesting as you!

I find this side of you, Al, absolutely fascinating! When you hit the ad hominem button, you're brutal.  I read psychology in there too -- not only Alinsky strategy ... as in your own psychology leads to this reaction. I charge for a further assessment.

I hope your read on the AIG/Geithner/press situation is correct.   I have said this before on here back in the day ... but I don't buy that Greenwald has sour grapes due to the primary.  The other two snores I rarely ever read. So dunno.  Greenwald does right as an American.  I mean, I would hate to be caught in some dive with him, having to share a beer or two.  I do so prefer humour. But he needs to keep doing what he's doing. And you do what you do. Everyone is contributing to the great web. Everyone's in show biz, ya know. 

On organizing, I have to agree that many people see it as "beneath" them.  They are more accostomed to wielding "perceived influence" than getting out there and getting their hands dirty. After all, it is the great democratizer ... to be canvassing, phonebanking or organizing. Our egos don't really handle democracy that well. 

Your comments on "Repeat. Rinse. Pout." are totally insightful and absolutely outstanding.  I've just e-mailed this page to all of my political friends, Obama supporters all.  Thank you.

Take the rest of the day off!

Most of the left-wing blogosphere has been itching to write Obama's political obit ever since he was elected in 2004 and refused to kiss their ring/ass afterwards.

Then, to make things worse, he organized the grassroots more effectively and on a grander scale than any of them dreamed possible. For all their talk about being the "real grassroots", Obama was the one that built a movement; Kos et al could only build an ATM. So there's a lot of professional jealousy there.

The reactions and reasons have varied of course. Certain bloggers, like Bowers and Stoller, desperately want him to fail ("Obama is Done" lol) so that they can say "I told you so" because they're purer than anyone else. Others, like Jerome Armstrong, are pissed that the Obama campaign wouldn't pay them thousands of dollars a month to blog and have thrown a temper tantrum ever since. Some, like Kos, still hope that Obama will pay attention to them again so they pout (Remember how "Dodd is now the go-to guy?) but never try to do any real damage.

I thought after 2006, the netroots had a chance to be real players. But instead they pissed it all away thanks to their egos. They truly have become the Beltway pundits they despise.

I agree that Krugman seems to have a personal animus against Obama, based partly on his support for Hillary and (I'm guessing) partly on the presumption that he'd be the best at calling the economic shots.  So he gives Obama very little slack and exaggerates their policy differences.  I still feel he's a very useful gadfly because he has real technical knowledge to impart that Sirota, Hamsher et al do not.  I hope the Obama admin ignores the barbs and general ill-temper and listens to the substantive economic points Krugman has to make. 

@evets

I think in Krugman's case it's more him being upset with Edwards losing than with Clinton losing. I've heard some former Edwards supporters complain that without Obama in the race, Edwards would've tapped into all the latent anti-Clinton vote that Obama was getting and won. I could write a bunch on this, but long story short, if Obama hadn't been in the race, Edwards might've won Iowa and possibly won his home state of South Carolina (though I sincerely doubt it) and then would've gotten his butt handed to him on Super Tuesday.

With that being said, I generally agree with what you say about Krugman's demeanor, he's bitter and has a superiority complex.

and the rest of the post too!

well said, Al.

 

 

 

for the observation that everyone seems to forget about -- our President didn't get to BE president without being the smartest and toughest person in the room. 

What in the world are people thinking? That Obama just lucked into the White House 'cause he had Axelrod and some internet money? How soon do people forget the last two years! That's the only frustration I've had so far -- to read and listen to a bunch of crybabies who have too little trust in Obama and even less understanding of the American people at this point.  Obama gets it, and he'll be the winner again. I'm going out to see my neighbors ASAP, and we'll all get a chuckle when these so-called experts eat their words again.

YES WE CAN!

This is slightly offtopic but I was reading the criticism of the house bill passed recently, about how it was too broad in some ways and too punitively narrowly focused in other ways, and and how the tax code is the wrong tool for doing this kind of thing, and how firms could just raise salaries to get around it. And I agreed. Then I realised there was a kind of perverse genius to this method. AIG and the other firms have just had real wages slashed across the board, they now have the option of renegotiating wages with valued employees on a case by case basis. The others can take the pay cut or go pound sand, AIG has all the leverage. Liddy can start paying people what he thinks they are worth now without taking the political or legal hit for it, and Geithners hands are clean too.

Nate Silvers blog says this law is wrong because valued employees are being punished along with the paper shufflers, but genuine innovators can just ask to renegotiate using one of the many loopholes. For the rest, we can repeat the mantra we have heard so much this week,  "contracts are sacred, our hands are tied" :-)

Does anyone agree with my thinking? Any chance of a post on the intended/unintended consequences of all this?

As far as the rest of this thread goes, shine on you crazy diamonds.

Also, wouldn't it be funny if the debonused employees formed a union. Just to see Hannity's head explode defending it.

Thank you for this Al. 

I can't even read FDL anymore, and TPM is quickly turning into No Quarter as well.