Where is the Vision, Where is the Leadership, and Where is the Movement?: The Mutual Failure of the Obama Administration & The American Left

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?scp=2&sq=Bill Clinton&st=cse


All,

Oh No! This is yet another blatant political disaster for the Obama Administration which is sadly turning out to be one of the most strangely incompetent, inconsistent, and clueless administrations in modern American political history. I've never seen a so-called "liberal reform" administration grovel and consistently act as childishly defensive and petulant about its own policy/strategic positions on issues. It's nothing but rank political cowardice and WEAKNESS on Obama's part and it makes him look very bad. In fact he looks like a LOSER despite the fact that he won more popular votes and a higher percentage of the overall vote than ANY American president since 1984! It's really pathetic. I've never seen a national politician outright SQUANDER as many great opportunities to truly transform and change the direction of the country in practical, concrete terms than Obama. It's astonishing how many clear cut political advantages this man had when he came into office and yet he has WASTED every single one of them! There's NO EXCUSE for it whatsoever. It's certainly not courageous or even mediocre leadership. It's inexcusable FAILURE and not only is Obama and his cowering yet arrogant "we don't play to win, we play not to lose" strategists and advisors like Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Valerie Jarrett responsible but a host of others in the Democratic Party who essentially either advises the President to "do less and avoid taking an independent stand on principle" or simply look away when the President allows his own self serving "caution" and timidity to substitute for bold vision and political/moral courage.

The bottomline is that like MANY progressives throughout the country (and millions of other now thoroughly disillusioned and disappointed young people who fought and voted for him) I am utterly DISGUSTED at the mealy-mouthed direction this presidency is going in as the vicious rightwing wolves and sharks sit back licking their bloody chops waiting to completely take this President and administration apart for good as he caves in and punks out on every major issue facing the American people. I know this all sounds harsh but it's the TRUTH and we all at least need to admit the obvious as we try to turn this way off course ship around before 2012. But until Obama himself learns how to be a REAL LEADER and not simply an opportunist CHUMP always begging for and demanding CONSENSUAL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND APPROVAL FROM EVERYBODY (how delusional can the President and his "advisors" be?) and we on the progressive left stop merely whining and petulantly complaining about the Obama administration's abysmal performance and actually begins the hard and crucial work of organizing, educating, and mobilizing millions of U.S, citizens in a national movement to demand political, social, and economic justice and real substantive change across the entire country I'm afraid things are only going to get much worse real soon. Stay tuned...

Kofi


White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race
By PETER BAKER
New York Times


President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, the White House said on Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton last summer to explore “options of service” on a presidential or senior government advisory board with Mr. Sestak, the White House said in a statement. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week’s primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House disputed Republican claims that the conversations might be illegal or improper. “There was no such impropriety,” Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, said in a memo released to reporters. “The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the congressman vacating his seat in the House.”

Mr. Bauer went on to say that such horse-trading has been commonplace through history. “There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations – both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals – discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office,” he wrote. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.

While many have speculated that the White House offered to appoint Mr. Sestak as secretary of the Navy, Mr. Bauer said that was never the case. The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because Mr. Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat, so he considered “uncompensated advisory board options.”

The White House did not disclose what those options were, but people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment to the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of prominent Americans outside government who provide independent oversight of the nation’s spy apparatus and advise the president. But White House officials discovered that it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress.

In a statement Friday, Mr. Sestak said Mr. Clinton had conveyed Mr. Emanuel’s suggestion that he join a “presidential board” while remaining in the House, but he declined. “I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer,” Mr. Sestak said. “The former president said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.”

Mr. Sestak first mentioned publicly in February that he had been offered a job but provided no details, and the White House for three months had refused to discuss it, generating intense criticism from Republicans who accused it of trying to bribe a congressman and deep consternation among Democrats who called on the administration to answer questions.

Mr. Emanuel was eager last summer to clear the way to this year’s Democratic Senate nomination for Mr. Specter, who had just left the Republican party, and to bolster Democrats’ majority in the Senate. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral and two-term House member, was already planning a run.

In tapping Mr. Clinton as the go-between, Mr. Emanuel picked the party’s most prominent figure other than Mr. Obama and someone Mr. Sestak had worked for on the National Security Council in the 1990s. Mr. Sestak endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton against Mr. Obama in the 2008 presidential primaries, and Mr. Clinton was one of the first to call to congratulate him on his Senate victory last week.

Mr. Clinton was at the White House on Thursday to have lunch with Mr. Obama and join him in greeting the American men’s World Cup soccer team heading to South Africa.

As chief of staff and previously as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mr. Emanuel has not been shy about trying to steer party nominations to those he considers the stronger candidates. The White House under Mr. Emanuel has also leaned on Gov. David Paterson of New York to drop out of this year’s gubernatorial race, which he eventually did under a cloud of scandal. Mr. Emanuel’s deputy, Jim Messina, suggested a possible administration job to Andrew Romanoff to get him to not challenge Sen. Michael Bennet in a Colorado primary, The Denver Post has reported, citing unnamed sources.

Whether that constitutes ordinary political horse-trading or crosses a legal line has been debated in Washington for months. Democrats and some Republicans have said it is hardly unusual for presidents to offer political appointments to clear the way for allies. But Republicans have suggested such actions may constitute a crime.

Mr. Issa and all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor. The Justice Department wrote Mr. Issa last week that it did not need a special prosecutor to investigate if it chose to do so. Government officials, who asked not to be identified discussing legal decisions, said that neither the Justice Department nor the Office of Special Counsel, an agency that looks at violations of the Hatch Act governing the political conduct of federal employees, is investigating.

While declining to discuss what happened, Mr. Obama on Thursday said, “I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

Michael Barbaro contributed to this post.

The Abject Failures of the Obama Administration and the American Left's sullen complicity in them

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-becker/28905/a-loser-white-house-guilty-by-association

A Loser White House, Guilty by Association
by Robert Becker
May 20, 2010
Smirking Chimp

Long before Year One ended, progressives understood President Obama's focus was routine wheeling and dealing, not regrowing the New Deal. Between victory and governance, Obama "reform" switched from promises to make government serve people to insure government serves business. The result is mounting guilt by association as Obama got himself entrenched only months into power, a speed record for a reform guy, now the establishment president defending every party incumbent. Does this White House think that's the reason it won?

This week's election miscues only reinforce Obama's larger dilemma, once captured perfectly by Naomi Klein, favoring "the grand symbolic gesture over deep structural change every time." As in the gesture tossed off to Diane Sawyer in January, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president," he said, "than a mediocre two-term president." If you can keep backing losers, Mr. President, with a tin ear and tinsmith staff work, you may end up a mediocre one-term president. Your allies, like Arlen Specter, are toast, and Blanche Lincoln teeters on the edge, a likely run-off loser.

Nor did many on the left imagine the Democratic Party would abandon its "play it safe, don't rock the boat" game plan. In retrospect, candidate Obama's "anti-war" credentials (vs. the "hawkish Hillary) look thin, like wishful thinking driven by spin: we're still waist deep in the big muddy. Ditto with business subsidies, repairing Constitutional violations, or systemic energy reform - no easy task when Obama touts ethanol, offshore drilling, and nuclear power. Yet, who imagined this "Anti-Bush" candidate, as Michael D. Green put it, would qualify in office as "one of the most conservative presidents of the last century."

Incompetence Inheritable, too

Yes, serious disasters came with the office, as my defensive Obama friends repeat, but how does that explain enduring White House incompetence - at times merging the worst of Bush's cockiness and fortress insularity with Pollyannish myopia. It's like Rose-colored, Rahm Emanuel Blue-Dogism dominates all tactics - and remember, Rahm came on board well AFTER a brilliant campaign ran its course.

So, excuse me, but I don't see how Obama defenders can explain away second-class performance, as distinct from strategy errors, say, over health insurance reform - the message, the timing, the compromises and the missed educational opportunities are now classic "what not to do" models. Puzzling indeed is how Obama's team 1) totally missed the Mass. senate fiasco, 2) weakly backed two losing governors' campaigns, and 3) now goes down in flames, as if White House endorsement is the kiss of death for vulnerable two senate incumbents.

Not only did Obama misread the Joe Sestek revolt, but stumbled trying to buy him off, despite Specter's utter weakness in the primary and vs. the Republican challenger. What made Rahm's White House imagine the aged, unhealthy, unprincipled Specter had any remaining constituency, having offended conservatives, independents and Democrats.

One senses, just as its campaign promises were so many words, this administration took the challenge of governance with the same wing and a prayer. Forget the policy disagreements and disappointments: despite fine speeches and being unsullied by scandal, Obama has offended millions of his most fervent supporters, with nothing progressive to show for it - PLUS infuriated the right, PLUS alienated the center. Now, that trifecta takes some doing by a politician dying to please everyone.

Like Bush, Unlike Bush

Reluctant to compromise, Bush drove away the center but never his base support, despite abandoning abortion, its most fervent issue. For six years, Bush-Cheney mastered political procedure, passing its key agenda (all but privatizing Social Security). However limited and unprepared, W. agreed to advisers, strategies and allies who made him appear a winner, garnering all the wars money can buy, concentrating executive power, abuse of law and agencies, wholesale deregulation and regressive, and budget-busting tax cuts for the rich.

For many, Obama peaked around inauguration, and my savvy Hyde Park, Chicago observer has given up, "Obama would lose in 2012 if the Republicans didn't have to name their candidate." Absolutely right: if Obama had to run only on his under-achievements, he's be underwater to any decent opponent. His main ploy will parlay his upbeat personality while targeting the designated rightwinger as a scary dinosaur who favors the rich, the banksters, and extremists keen still to privatize Social Security. Of course, in 2012, one can't count on a senile opponent self-destructing or another Sarah Palin outlier selection.

Nor do I question, echoing Professor Green, what Obama shares with Elena Kagan: well-protective covering, high ambition, and a deficiency of principles, both "bloodless careerists." But set Obama against a vacuous demagogue, like Palin, even more transparently ruthless, incompetent and unstable - and Obama gets a second term. However remote, painfully on display day after day as the Gulf get badly contaminated, Obama calm plays better than foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans coming across as predatory and blood-thirsty. Compared to an open-mouthed shark, a chicken hawk is reassuring. And Obama will still be a war president with Pentagon support, and who wants to switch chicken hawks in the middle of such endless streams.

Incompetence did in Bush

Recall what reduced Bush wasn't a repulsive ideology but massive incompetence, dismissing the tragedy of drown citizens swept off rooftops, even if poor and black. Two botched wars, atop incredibly deceptive explanations, ultimately defined a major league loser, here and overseas. Unrestrained by Congress, Bush extremists overplayed their hand, with Cheney alternating between from Darth Vader and Chicken Little, a curious mix. Whatever his flaws, Joe Biden is "likeable enough," though Obama would do well to find a more strategic V.P. choice the second time around.

Americans, above all, want to identify with winners, and Obama's dramatic election, persistent legislative wins and overseas gestures, however modest the results, will keep his popularity from hard descent. But misreading political earthquakes, or merely associating with Specter, is contaminating a cock-sure White House, screw ups and all. Like Bush's the Obama crew appears not to learn from failure. Passing unpopular bills is one thing but consistently offending your base and the center is even more serious. Note how Palin keenly avoids seeming the loser, blaming McCain's blunders, then quitting a bad scene rather than "lose." She's happily getting rich, running for nothing, the party's unelected prom queen.

So, as long as Obama has a real, readily attackable rightwing opponent in 2012 - and no major scandals or monumental failures occur, even a compromised, establishment president is re-electable. This week's election, especially with Dems holding John Murtha's seat, suggest no Midterm deluge. The cat-like Obama only has so many lives, yet Rahm's operatives keep backing losers, bad can go to worse. Political misgivings, even downright disappointments, are like oil leaking in the Gulf: what matters isn't how they got started but how long the disasters last and what tar balls stick to what shores. Even the Obama smile, his great asset, will fade, like the Cheshire cat, if people increasingly conclude there's no there there.


http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/04/19/whats-wrong-with-the-financial-reform-bill/

MATT TAIBBI
TAIBBLOG
Apr. 19 2010

What’s Wrong with the Financial Reform Bill

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s financial “reform” proposal (Barney Frank’s wasn’t much better) won’t change the nature of anything Wall Street does. Dodd’s needless watering down of a proposal to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency has been well-documented, so here is a list of 10 other problems Dodd’s bill will not fix:

via Speculating Banks Still Rule — Ten Ways Dems and Dodd Are Failing on Financial Reform | Economy | AlterNet.

Friend Nomi Prins, who in a former life worked for Goldman, this weekend sent along a link to an article in which she outlines the gaps in the current version of the financial regulatory reform bill. Given that the bill is sometimes being pitched as the answer to some of the problems underlined by the Goldman case, it’s a very sobering read.

My favorite is the halting, incomplete attempt at a rollback of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, i.e. the pseudo-restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act known as the Volcker rule. Nomi writes:

2) It won’t reduce the economic danger from rampant, overleveraged trading activities. The bill would restrict certain banks from having proprietary trading operations (trading with their own capital) under the “Volcker rule,” but it’s full of problematic exemptions:

a) Banks that claim they trade on behalf of their customers (which they all say they do) escape the rule.

b) Banks that trade for “market-making” purposes (i.e. Goldman Sachs betting against its own clients) are home-free.

c) Banks aren’t required to itemize their trading operations to regulators, so they get to decide what they consider trading for their customers and what they consider proprietary. I wonder how that will work out.

Then of course there’s the treatment of hedge funds, also relevant given the business with John Paulson:

5) It won’t contain the risk to the shadow banking system from hedge funds, private equity firms and venture capital funds. Venture capital and private equity advisers still won’t have to register or report to the SEC, though hedge funds with over $100 million in assets will. There’s also no statutory definition of what actually constitutes a hedge fund, and the bill doesn’t close the tax loophole that allows fund managers to be taxed at the lower capital-gains tax rate of 15 percent, rather than the higher income tax rate of 34 percent. If it sounds crazy to you that the richest people in America are being taxed at the lowest rates, it is: the loophole cost taxpayers about $5 billion this year alone.

There is some good stuff in the bill, but it is riddled with loopholes. Far more important than the actual bill is the effort to actually enforce existing laws. While it is true that the near-complete absence of a regulatory structure to oversee derivatives trading is problematic, there is a lot the government could have done still, if it had wanted to, to prevent catastrophes like AIG and Lehman Brothers.