« Death and After-life of American Capitalism | Rutabaga Ridgepole's Blog | In Politics, Bullshit Kills »
Tom Tomorrow Skewers Obama
Could this be Obama's "Cronkite Moment," like when LBJ said...
"That's it. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
Except of course there is no middle America any more, and the Left already lost itself.
(Kudos to tokin woody on FSZ.)
Advertisement
You might want to reread that last panel. Those are his Repubs.
He is making fun of Obama, too, but I wouldn't say he's skewering him. If so, I think he's skewering the left, as much, if not more.
It's Tom Tomorrow. He's is an equal opportunity critic.
August 8, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lay off the koolaid, Chuckles. It's making you stupid.
August 8, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta,
Bwak's comment was valid and not deserving of your snide, disrespectful reply.
August 8, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you drunk?
Maybe you can help me out, Aunt Sam, and point out where Tom Tomorrow skewers the Left on this panel.
If anybody is skewered in the last frame, it's ludicrous apologists for Obama like Bwakfat.
August 8, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta
If you want positive discourse with me then you will be respectful and not resort to rude and denigrative statements in comments directed to me!
August 8, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disrespect intended.
You'll probably be sober in the morning, but Bwakfat will still be stupid.
And...
If you tediously check through Bwakfat's most recent comments on my blogs, you'll find nothing but disrespect, and as ye sow in the Garden of Rutabagas, so shall ye reap.
August 8, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just so you don't miss the background, Aunt Sam, here's a relevant sample of Bwakfat's previous comments on my blogs...
But I have to admit, even that wasn't any stupider than Bwakfat's ridiculous misreading of a relatively simple cartoon.
August 8, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rutabaga & Bwakfat: Can you two call a truce please? I kinda like both your comments, and it's hard to choose. Plus I hate liberal on liberal crime... :) (Can you tell I grew up as the peacemaker in my household?)
August 9, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That thread eventually narrows to about one letter on a line, and wouldn't it be nice if something similar could be arranged for squabbling parents and siblings?
August 9, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. If he wasn't making fun of the left, he would have used his liberals in the last frame. As he made the decision not to, he is making fun of the, er, "far-left whakos" for buying into what the 'right-wing-whackos' said about Obama when he was running.
Or do you truly have such a short memory? Apparently your source does.
At any rate, your interpretation isn't the only one out there, and although it might pain you, try to open your mind.
Thanks, veg.
BTW, I was an Edwards supporter, and didn't much care if Obama or HRC got the nomination, as far as I am concerned they're not left enough for me.
Capiche?
August 8, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I "capiche" is that you're a nasty little jerk, Bwakfat, and your typical comment on my blogs would be...
Remember those, jerk?
So take your ridiculous obtuseness about images and how artists use them and park it somewhere you can impress other ignorant jerks like yourself.
August 8, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta, are you the pot calling the kettle black? Too funny.
I'm afraid that wasn't a typical comment by me, but hey, thanks! Once again, you've managed to let everyone know you are incapable of any thought except a vegatative one. Also that you are incapable of rational dialog. Or defending any of you knee jerk reactions on their merits.
Bringing up one instance of me calling you out for being your typical asshole self to KateO isn't anything but a tantrum. It's what stoopid people do when they can't answer an argument on it's merits.
Now go ahead and make a fool of yourself. I'll remain unimpressed with your powers of logic as well as your maturity level. Along with everyone else, I'm sure.
Oh, and have a nice day.
August 8, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now you looked at that thread in my previous diary at least twice without noticing that KateO's first comment was...
This was my first interaction ever with KateO, on my blog illustrating a particularly miserable form of child labor, and apparently calling attention to this shit made me an exploiter of children and "part of the problem" of child labor, in KateO's demented estimation.
And this is the second time Bwakfat looked at that thread and also missed miguelitoh2o's warning that Bwakfat hadn't read KateO's previous ridiculously insulting comment.
I inevitably respond courteously to courteous commenters, but I also keep a bucket of shit at hand for jerks like Bwakfat, and about KateO I have no idea what she was thinking, because she never reappeared like Bwakfat, over and over and over on my blogs, and always with the same stupid inability to follow a thread or comprehend a simple cartoon.
August 8, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess I can do without reading your blogs, or rec'ing them either. You are a spiteful little fool. Maybe I'll give you another chance if you calm down and take your meds. Frankly, unlike you, I think grudges are pretty silly, and on internet boards, fairly ludicrous.
Oh and note to gasket, I was hardly using Edwards as a shield. I was pointing out that Obamas centrist governance thus far doesn't surprise me much. The vege--wrong as usual--accused me of being an Obama supporter. I supported Obama when he won the nomination, and obviously he's better than McCain/Palin would have been. That was my point. Yours is off the wall, and a disappointment.
Really, Edwards affair discredited him? Really? Hoo boy. Weird and weirder.
August 8, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course Bwakfat can't deal with details, and after accusing me of dumping on KateO for no reason (just because she called me an exploiter of children and part of the problem of child-labor without knowing fuck-all about me)...
Now he runs away with a few wise words about grudges, although he persistently left insulting comments on my blogs over and over and over because of the same stupid misunderstanding about KateO, who later apologized for starting the whole mess.
So you're nothing but a liar and hypocrite, Bwakfat, and when it's demonstrated with your own stupid misreading and insulting comments that came out of nowhere with no provocation from me, you run away.
So good fucking riddance if you never comment on my posts again, and as far as holding a grudge is concerned, I never even bothered to comment on yourdiaries, while you persistently showed up on mine with stupid insults.
August 9, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't. No need to lie on top of being an asshole
August 9, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You lying jerk!
Of course you didn't leave other insulting comments on my blogs... according to you, you lying jerk!
And somebody else must have accessed your account to post this trash on my subsequent diary...
And...
So what's next, you lying jerk? Can you somehow make your own words disappear? Or will you finally keep one little promise, and
Fuck off.
August 9, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you haven't wrote any blogs since June 18th? How many of those did I comment on? I'll tell you: ZERO. I've rec'd several, but I see no reason to bother anymore.
You are a liar, you pathetic baby. You go out of your way to put people down, and that's because you don't have the wit to defend your ignorance any other way. You're hardly infallible, and you aren't anything special, unless being an unmitigated asshole is special. (it's not)
You are a bully, yet you can't take it when someone treats you the way you treat others, which is beyond pathetic. Figures you missed the point of that lil comeuppence but it was truly deserved. I don't need to find examples of your abusive brutality because they are everywhere. Common knowledge.
And BTW You did misinterpret that last panel. All your nasty whining and sophomoric ad hominem doesn't change that. If you want to get rid of me quit being an asshole and I'll leave.
I won't stand for your lying crap got it? As far as what I said it was surely mild compared to what you dish out on a regular basis, so get bent, you hypocrite.
August 9, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when I prove Bwakfat is a liar, with examples, all the little shit can do is come back with stupid and unsubstantiated insults, and the brilliant claim that...
He or she only lied a few times!
"Just a few lies! So what?"
And if I took the trouble to demonstrate a few more stupid lies from the jerk Bwakfat, he or she would return with more excuses, and more lies, and more unsubstantiated insults ad infinitum.
Pathetic!
August 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're still wrong about the last panel.
Me spanking you on one or two threads out of 100s is not typical, and that is what you are trying to assert. It's a lie and you are full of it, Jacob.
Your ad hominems are merely cover to hide the fact tht you're wrong. It's how you operate, and it's a shame. Once in a while you're actually intelligent. But it's hard to get past that signal-to-noise ratio, when you're the one that always introduces the noise.
August 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just like when KateO accused me of exploiting children, because I posted a blog about child labor, after zero previous interactions between me and her, and when you called me a parasite, and only kept adding insults for a few more blogs, when I had never made a negative comment of any kind to you anywhere.
But why bother with the facts, when you can always invent a little more pathetic bullshit and then a little more pathetic bullshit and then a little more pathetic bullshit forever?
August 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're still wrong about the last panel, and your hyperbole is just silly. Of course you made negative comments to and about me on your previous blogs, because that is what you do to anyone that calls you out on your misrepresentations of fact. I certainly have before, and if I see you do it in the future, I will again. Too bad, try to develop a thick skin, vege.
You really hate people who are as critical of your hyperbole and sloppy thinking, as you are on others, and your answer is to dump on that person 10 times as much and try to change the argument. It's not effective.
Maybe, it's time for a mirror check, Jacob.
Now go ahead and have the last, (ugly) word about whatever you can dig up to avoid acknowledging that you got the last frame of the cartoon wrong.
=D
Your nonsense is amusing, I will say that.
August 9, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said anything about Edwards's affair. I was thinking about his taking a break from his life's mission to protect the poor. But the poor can wait while he gets his shit together, I guess. They have nothing else to do.
August 9, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, frankly, he probably figured he'd do more harm then good being public. There's no telling what he does out of the spotlight.
He does have a terminally ill wife and small kids and some fence mending to do. I think the National dialog is much poorer for his absence.
No one else, really, that can replace him.
August 9, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never watch Oprah, but by some bizarre twist of fate, I did see her interview with Elizabeth Edwards. Elizabeth is amazing. (Oprah, on the other hand, was a nightmare.)
I think I can understand why John fucked up, but I'm totally pissed at him for the noticeable silence on poverty after he left the scene. Pledge? What pledge? Remember the big, fat anti-poverty tour that never happened?
August 9, 2009 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody can skip about the next ten comments since all they are doing is arguing about who has been more insulting to whom and avoiding Root's point which is that Obama's glowing promises misled the left into believing that he would act on them and that if you substitute for those promises what Obama actually has been doing the Republicans should be gloating.
Tom Tomorrow's point is in addition, I believe, that Obama's actions have deviate far enough from his initial promises that it is no longer fair to claim that the Left deceived themselves with wishful thinking. (Which many of them did in addition.)
So far nothing that Obama has done has surprised me much. I am a lifelong Democrat but chose to vote for McCain because global warming is the issue on which I am a single issue voter and I believed that McCain could obtain a solution based on nuclear energy since he would find it easier to get Democratic votes than Obama would to get Republican ones and that Obama in his drive to be loved would settle for a 'solution' to global warming that was so watered down that it would not work.
August 9, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this didn't get place where I thought it would but you get the point.
August 9, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it took Johnson 4 years and change to lose Cronkite.
August 8, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in four years, Johnson never came close to throwing away as much money in Vietnam as Obama already wasted on criminal bankers, and...
The war in Afghanistan only recently shifted into high gear.
Four years from now, Obama may look like Johnson without the Great Society, and without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965...
Which is to say, with nothing but the largest tax-cut and the largest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the United States.
August 8, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What year were you born in, my child?
August 8, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
744 BCE.
Like flights of swans above the River Cayster, the Achaeans emerged from their camp, and the earth rang like brass under stampeding men and horses…
August 8, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are too precious, you really are. So very special.
August 8, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you are very simple, you really are. But not special at all.
August 8, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very weird. It feels like the primaries again, and not just in this thread. In all of them.
I take that to mean that Obama is actually failing, and TPMers are reverting to their primary defenses, whether head-in-the-sand denial (I won't name names) or sexist slurs of female politicians (by so-called liberals who are just as ugly as their Republican counterparts) or Second Coming trolling from the graveyard of the banned (yes, I'm looking at you, jonnienohands, aka liam). Bwak just used John Edwards as a human shield! It was convenient to do that during the primaries, but Edwards is totally discredited now and doesn't provide much untarnished protection.
It may be too soon to accurately predict that Obama is failing, but he is certainly flailing in the deep end, and it shows in his supporters.
August 8, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on, as always.
"yes, I'm looking at you, jonnienohands, aka liam"
- how do you know these things? What happened to others from back then? billy glad, et al?
August 8, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am only guessing, L, from the things jonnie has said. For an alleged newcomer, jonnie lets things slip that he could only know if he had interacted here during the primary brawls (for example, he knows who all the Clinton supporters were and he stalks/harasses them just like liam used to do, calling them the P-word—I specifically remember one instance when liam commented on one of Billy's threads about putting out a dish of food for the PUMAs). There are a few idiosyncrasies (to be euphemistic and self-editing) and coincidences of habit/bias (again, a euphemism) that remind me of liam (like liam, he seems to have a lot of time on his hands). All I know is that it's someone who has been here before because of what he knows about us that he couldn't know any other way.
Billy Glad has a personal blog now. It's not strictly political.
August 8, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, cool. I always wondered what happened to BG.
August 9, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually a little weirder than the primaries, I think, because of previously unobserved phenomena like a tax-rebellion diary straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook, now appearing on the rec list with 10 recommends. Where did they come from?
August 8, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No idea, but I think TPM is particularly vulnerable to troll infestation because they don't screen Café bloggers. Sometimes during the primaries there would be waves of trolls scuttling through, yanking the natives' chains just like davidfarrar is doing now. For all we know, davidfarrar is getting paid to plaster the site with Limbaugh talking points. I expect we'll see an influx of new names and agitators for the entire month.
Another problem is, many TPM readers don't seem to figure out who the real trolls are right away or that they come from both political camps with different agendas. Tactics vary. For example, there's one relatively new but fairly entrenched blogger here who I swear has to be paid by the Obama team to sell the latest health care horseshit. While he tirelessly rolls out each new and inscrutable pro-Obama concept, he occasionally elicits spontaneous ire from dyed-in-the-wool liberals who suddenly notice he doesn't make any sense. I try to steer clear of him myself.
August 9, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting your usual sane and intelligent comments, gasket. I'm afraid the signal-to-noise ratio here is about to dive into static, and it's really too bad, because with you and quinn and Desidero and miguelitoh2o and Obey and dijamo and even (rarest of the rare) an intelligent commenter from the right in the form of Lalo35adm and a hyper-intelligent space-cadet from the Sixties like PseudoCyAnts, and other unnamed co-conspirators, for a while it was really fun.
August 9, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 9, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was accused of being a paid Hillary shill in the primary so I'm usually hesitant to guess about the motivations of other posters... but you are so on the money with that observation :)
August 9, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've should have been paid, as hard as you scrambled to justify the laughable assertion that Hillary Clinton was somehow more progressive than Obama.
Hard to believe that a spoilsport PUMA like yourself would reappear the minute the going got tough and start "I told you so"-ing every chance you get.
August 9, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here they are again, with their "PUMA" label!
And the delusional brewmn61 still thinks it reasonable to call Obama more progressive than anybody, with the largest tax-cut in the history of the United States, a bigger and bigger war in Afghanistan, a humongous and unaccountable upward transfer of wealth with the ongoing bailouts, which have already given away at least $2 trillion to Obama's little friends at Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.
Obama is more progressive than Hillary if by "progressive" you mean sold-out whoring for international banks, but otherwise...
Not.
August 9, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the claim that Hillary would have done a damn thing different than Obama has is an easy assertion to make because their is no way to prove you're wrong. But Hillary's legislative record and the general tenor of her campaign strongly suggests you're the delusional one.
But I was of age when Bill Clinton was president, and I was as vocal a critic of his "centrism" then as you are of Obama's now. And the general apathy surrounding me and everyone to the left of George W. Bush resulted in the most destructive presidency in modern times.
Nearly everything you rip Obama for on a regular basis are his reactions to very serious problems he inherited. By adding to the perception that he is reviled as much on the left as on the right, you are contributing to the perception that he has lost whatever mandate he had as a result of the election, and only weaken his effectiveness.
And if you honestly think he is so bad that you're willing to elect a Republican in his stead, then I'm guessing that you really were born in Greece 3000 years ago, and were dead long before 2000 A.D.
August 9, 2009 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rather curious to know if you had any hint Obama would appoint Hillary Sec. Of State.
I have a strong suspicion you would have emitted a great deal of static if any one had suggested this before the election.
On the I told you so front I told many of my friends that Obama was at least as far right as Hillary on the war and peace front and probably far more of a hawk. I've seen no reason to change my mind.
August 9, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to review history and bone up on reading comprehension. Dija was never a PUMA, she's been here all along, and she's not in any way saying "I told you so." She's merely agreeing with gasket that people from the Obama campaign could be posting pro-healthcare messages on TPM. I'm a die hard Obama supporter and I think that's probably a pretty credible suggestion.
August 9, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been here longer then either of you, and my reading comprehension is just fine, so you might want to bone up on a big case of shut the fuck up.
August 9, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy asshat, then you should know that a PUMA is someone who didn't sign on to support Obama in the primary. That obviously wasn't me. I haven't been I told you so-ing, though I have every reason to re: the stimulus, foreclosure policy, health care reform. It is what it is. We are where we are. I just expect Obama to be the person he said he would be in the primary and the general election, and where he falls short i am not going to be defending him like some mindless bobbing head doll (like you).
August 9, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We didn't hear squat from you re Obama until the tide here at TPM turned against him. And I think you're and the amen chrous of malcontents that you're a part of are all idiots for believing things like he could have gotten a bigger stimulus through a Congress that, on the average, is far to his right politically.
You accuse others of stupidity, sycophancy, and lazy thinking, but you're the ones living in a fantasy land where entrenched, extremely powerful opposition to progressive policies was going to melt away when faced with Obama's good looks, charming personality and honeyed words.
August 10, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're way off base. Dijamo was one of the first Hillary supporters to immediately support Obama when Hillary conceded. While I and other Hillary supporters were still struggling with it she posted her total support.
August 9, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of money, dija, I wish I had gotten paid for the work I did to defend HRC. Hey, did you know she paid off her campaign debt? I remember clearthinker and many, many others were quite perturbed about it, so I hope they can sleep easier now. Oh, wait. Has it been reported on TPM? No? OMG! I'm so shocked!
Probably paid trolls accused us of being paid trolls. ;-)
August 9, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that :) All settled minus the 13 million and change of her own money that she invested in the campaign. More importantly she's rented her campaign list to democratic candidates and fundraisers that will help strengthen the party for years to come. :)
August 9, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, you beat me. Furthest I ever got on the "paid troll" cant during the primaries was someone saying I should have been paid by the Obama campaign.
August 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said that. You still should be paid, NCSteve. You're good enough to be paid for what you write on Obama's behalf. Why don't you find out if you can be paid for it? Select samples of your best work and send hardcopies and/or links to someone in the administration. I'm not being snarky. I'm being completely serious.
Just because I often give you a hard time doesn't mean I can't recognize good writing when I see it. :-)
August 9, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. From you, it was a compliment, which I appreciated.
Not so much from the person who said it during during the primaries.
August 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with gasket's comment, and IMHO NCSteve certainly belongs in a very tiny elite of the most intelligent (but still koolaid huffing) Obamabots, and he is undeniably a writer who can make a complex argument with clarity and concision.
August 9, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-signing the Gasket and the Baga. Steve's a good writer, debater and more importantly has a good sense of humor, so he was always one of my fave Obama peoples even in the primary days. Though eventually I have secret plans to enroll him in dijamo's NOW sexism recognition seminar.
August 9, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who?
August 9, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think, because of previously unobserved phenomena like a tax-rebellion diary straight out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook, now appearing on the rec list with 10 recommends. Where did they come from?"
Probably the same place that your followers come from.
August 9, 2009 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a follower of Rootie, I am offended. I quite like the prick.
However he is definitely pretty sensitive tonight, not sure I get that. Bwak totally rocks in my book (Aside from that poor Edwards dalliance). She and Rootie are two that I count on for fighting for the truth. They both want to hang Goldman and make our system truely equitable, so I don't really get this spat.
Nice dig on the PUMA's, don't disagree with your sentiment (Hillary=more progressive, ha!), just don't really get the relevance.
But whatever, as usual Tom Tomorrow is right on.
August 9, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"However he is definitely pretty sensitive tonight"
Tonight? Are you new to his blog?
August 9, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touche.
But generally his attacks and gratuitous mockery are directed towards lazy thinking. This one is completely feelings.
August 9, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I take that to mean that Obama is actually failing, and TPMers are reverting to their primary defenses, whether head-in-the-sand denial"
Yes, that must be it. We're all in denial.
On a totally unrelated note, are you aware that Presidents actually serve for four years, and not just seven months?
August 9, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Four years" is an excellent prediction of exactly how long Obama will "serve."
August 9, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you'll be happier with Mitt Romney?
August 9, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I supported Kucinich, moron!
August 9, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whooo. There's a pipe dream.
Srsly though, who do you see emerging that will mount a credible challenge? As much as he's pissing me off with the Bushlike execution of his executive duties (state secrets, abuse, etc.) - I still don't see him losing reelection at this point.
August 9, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it all depends on what sort of projection you make about the next four years. Now all the arrows are pointing down, while the media keeps celebrating curious statistical factoids like decreases in the rate of decreases in payroll numbers.
Hurrah?
With all this crap in the air, I might as well invent my own projection, which I call...
Continuity of Disappointment!
Ta-dah!
This predicts that Obama will continue to disappoint more or less everybody, even while expectations decline, and by the end of his term, even the few remaining Obamabots who only expect their Dear Leader to... wear pants and stop giggling through press-conferences... will be just as disappointed as progressives are now.
August 9, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They keep reporting declines in absolute numbers. I've been wondering for some time whether there is any source for the decline as a percentage of the remaining jobs?
Unless things change -- the economy improves, Obama chooses a coalition that could win and focuses on pleasing it rather than everybody, Al Qaeda implodes -- and they are certainly trying by committing atrocities every where -- Obama will be a one term President.
I dislike him on several grounds and did not vote for him but I expect to be campaigning vigorously for him in 2012 because I am totally unable to picture the rump ReThuglicans coming up with a candidate who is ever remotely acceptable.
August 9, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say it wasn't depressing, but IMO we're gonna have exactly this Obama for 8, not 4. Disappointment only loses elections if there is an apparent better alternative. At this point, I don't see the GOP producing one - the window to pull their heads out of their asses for 2012 is rapidly closing.
August 9, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think that Obama's failure will result in the election of Kucinich, and I'm the moron?
August 9, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this may be a teachable moment. I hope Obama's success will create the possibility of a Kucinich presidency; you think Obama's failure will.
August 9, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, brewmn61, you're the moron. You can't even read, and don't even try.
August 9, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're pwned and you know it, motherfucker.
August 9, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you "pwned" me by deducing that because I supported Kucinich, therefore I believe Obama's failure will somehow elect my candidate.
This is just too tedious for a real...
Harharharhar!!!
August 9, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"therefore I believe Obama's failure will somehow elect my candidate."
Well, if not, I guess you're bitching just for the sake of bitching.
Thanks for clarifying.
August 9, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Tomorrow is hardly Walter Cronkite ... but I like his comic.
The interesting thing is how everyone is interpreting it so totally differently. Some seem to miss the irony in the first panels, others miss the irony in the conclusion.
August 9, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's this about missing the ironing?
I used to have a housekeeper who ironed my shirts, but due to the recession we had to let her go. Now that's the ironing I really miss.
Oh, irony, never mind.
RIP, Gilda Radner, we miss you.
August 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"his attacks and gratuitous mockery are directed towards lazy thinking"
Oh, please. His sole method of argument is to set himself up as oh-so-much-more enlightened than us poor schlubs, set up a strawman in place of the actual arguments presented in opposition to his pie-in-the-sky, holier-than-thou bullshit, and then accuse his opponents of bad faith or stupidity.
And being against bailouts for Goldman Sachs and against offensive war doesn't really enhance your leftist cred; it's a minimum requirement.
August 9, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly Obama does not meet that minimum requirement.
August 9, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, unlike us, he actually has to govern. The lesson supposedly learned from the Great Depression was "don't let the banks fail."
If the investment banks went down, they would have taken much of the banking system with them. We would, the argument goes, be facing a repeat of the thirties. Blaming Obama for the bailout also ignores the fact that the bailout happened when George Bush was president.
Plus, there is some good news in the economy. But I'm guessing Obama won't be getting any credit from any of you for that.
As to "offensive war," I presume you are referring to the escalation in Afghanistan. While I don't agree with it, it still raises the question of how do you remove yourself from an intractable war started by our predecessor? I think that precipitously withdrawing would please many on the anti-war left, but would potentially cause havoc in the countries we're currently occupying, and would destroy Obama's relationship with the military. You may think your concerns are more valid, but again, you're not sitting in the Oval Office weighing these considerations.
I also have to add that O's critics on the left accuse his defenders of being naive, delusional, et al. yet invest him with the almost godlike ability to cleanse American government of corporate influence, impose a Pax Americana across the globe (wihtout the use of military force), pass legislation unilaterally, and transform the country into Sweden, all in seven months.
Who's really being naive here?
August 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama for making false promises.
Saving the banks did not need to include enabling them to continue to hand out bonuses with taxpayer money. They justify this by the need to retain talent -- given the position said talent left them in the banks would be ahead if they paid this talent to work for the competition. Yeah, Bush started but Obama took few steps to fix it.
And, no, I don't think it takes 6 months to decide to conform to the Constitution.
Prior to the primaries I judged that Obama stood a pretty good chance of (further)destabilizing Pakistan by his public disdain for their sovereignty. Given that much of Pakistan probably feels about the Taliban the way we would feel if C Street were enforcing its dogma with guns, it is not clear how things will ultimately shake out there but there is a clear chance for complete chaos. It is one thing to send in drones knowing that both parties want them used and another thing to announce that you will do so even if an ally protests. No wonder our standing with the Pakistani public cratered. And yes this matters because they are a prime Al Qaeda recruiting ground.
August 9, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'll let Paul Krugman respond to your comments on the banking bailout:
"You can argue (and I would) that the bailouts of financial firms could and should have been handled better, that taxpayers have paid too much and received too little. Yet it’s possible to be dissatisfied, even angry, about the way the financial bailouts have worked while acknowledging that without these bailouts things would have been much worse.
The point is that this time, unlike in the 1930s, the government didn’t take a hands-off attitude while much of the banking system collapsed. And that’s another reason we’re not living through Great Depression II."
You choose to highlight only the negative aspects of Obama's seven-month tenure. Fine. But I have been living with the horror show of a conservative Republican goverment for almost thirty years, and am willing to be glad for half-a-loaf right now.
August 10, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, good grief, how many ineterpretations of the cartoon can there be? Tom is using reverse history and re-engineering Obama's campaign promises to reflect that what he HAS done is almost the opposite of what he promised in many areas. The mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy quotes are hilarious! And of course he is skewering anyone who defends him without critique.
Yes, he was always a centrist, but I admit to liking the man, even now, but feeling "punked" by him on many issues, the first of which was the Super-Wall-Streeters he named as his economic team. I tried hard to hear it when one of the economists, Stiglitz, maybe, said "In theory, I have no problems with the hunter turning gamekeeper, but..." in regards to Tim Geithner, but when he added (for godssake) Larry Summers and kept Ben Bernanke, my hopes fell down around my ankles. In terms of Gitmo and wiretapping and secrecy vs. transparency, my crest keeps falling more each month.
I disagree that the media are trumpeting the signs of economic recovery at aid and abet The President; I think they just want to signal that, "Hey, there's no need for reform in the financial industry. We are really good at making money out of thin air, and as long as we can do it better than other nations, and keep selling bonds to China, it's all good." ("If those lazy bums would just get to work, and buy some shit, now!)
The last frame is poking fun at those of us who are being noisy in our criticism, reminding him of his promises. Every time his die-hard supporters tells me to remember that Obama is smarter than we are (no disagreement there, for myself), and that he is all so full of feint-and-parry moves (as in the campaign), I have tried to listen. But on some issues he has just plain lost me.
It is why I have wondered if there is a cast of characters who have him by the b***s somehow, making him some offers he can't refuse, preventing him from keeping some of the common-sense changes he promised. We all know that there have to be wholesale changes in the way this country is operating just to survive.
You'd think even the Corporatocracy, which includes both parties, would understand that. But, sadly no.
Here's Frank Rich on feeling punked:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09rich.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
(Sorry, I don't know how to do a hyperlink in the comments; you'll have to cut and paste.)
August 9, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an incredible relief to encounter qualified, intelligent, and yet ongoing support for Obama on TPMCafe, and now would wendy davis please clone herself 10,000 times and turn the political blogosphere into somewhere worth a visit?
Thanks for the link to Frank Rich, who (almost) manages to remind us who has really been "punked" by Obama...
But it isn't really disappointed voters and left-wing critics who have been "punked"...
It's the millions of unemployed workers who will probably never have another job even nearly as well remunerated as the job they lost, and the millions of foreclosed home owners who have not much chance of ever owning another home.
Obama's feeble stimulus and astounding preference for relieving bankers instead of ordinary citizens has "punked" millions of unfortunate people in a way that makes whining on the blogosphere look like meaningless noise... or a probably futile attempt to give a voice to our destitute and disenfranchised fellow citizens.
The unemployed and partially employed will probably be forgotten as younger and cheaper workers are hired in the next "recovery," and the category of "former homeowners" won't be included in the next or any future round of headlines celebrating yet another economic miracle in the endless cycle of boom and bust, where most of the real victims are always forgotten.
August 9, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crikey; I can't grasp if you are offering me praise or sarcastic condemnation; or maybe both at once. On some other post ya dissed the doink otta me, and I couldn't get your drift.
There are plenty of Cafe-ers whose writing I can't understand, as though I learned to use language a different way, but I keep trying. I often haven't a clue, for instance, what you're trying to put forth, but at least you declare it vociferoul! (smile)
I get venting, I vent a lot. (Hell, the government PAYS me to smoke cigarettes, just to keep me from murdering people), but ya just can't vent all the time, and name-call, and hyperbolize (is that a word, or did I make it up? I do that a lot, sometimes on purpose.) and whatnot. The message gets lost in the noise.
Please do tell what your avatar is; even though it's blue, but electric blue, I'm betting it's not a Smurf.
August 9, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
My avatar is artwork that didn't quite work out, but reduced to 100 x 100 pixels, its inadequacies aren't so obvious, and it was originally a screaming orange, which freaked out so many commenters here that I changed it to the beautiful shade of blue which you now observe.
My reply to your previous comment was sincere, and if you carefully examine our previous exchange on Desidero's blog, it isn't exactly disrespectful, or even personal, and merely disagrees with your kudos for Desidero's blog about tasers... although I admit that it's very easy to misinterpret a comment which includes the word "doodoo."
August 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
wendy davis: Thanks for the Frank Rich link. I was goign to link to the same. Rich uses words to do what Tom Tomorrow also did above.
General comment to whoe post: I love Barack Obama. But he needs to be attacked from the left on a daily basis. Add up Tom Tomorrow, Frank Rich, and the #1 financial comentator of all time MICHAEL LEWIS, and that's what Obama should be doing. Throw in Bob Reich and Barbara Eherenrech for good measure too. And Bill Moyers.
August 9, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the TT, Rootie. It's spot on. Obama ran as a centrist, governs as a centrist, talks like a centrist, and yet somehow progressives keep groping in his pants to find that true blue progressive soul. There ain't no secret of lifer in there.
Interesting thread. Don't know who these supposed Obama-plants are, y'all are talking about. But if it's who I think it is, they should be hiring better writers. There have always been voices of Egregious Moderation around here: there's something very comforting about believing that wherever the political winds blow, that is where you already wanted to go...
August 9, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just quote your insightful remark, Obey, with only the additional note that it reflects more credit on your degree in philosophy than any number of trendy and inbred niche-blogs devoted to what used to be "philosophy."
August 9, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beat down that strawman, purity troll. Beat it to fucking death.
August 9, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy for you, being so validated by a deep thinker and revered philosopher.
Since the GOP calls Obama an ultra-leftist and you call him centrist (not to mention various unmentionable names along with con-man) can we conclude his policies lie somewhere between those points? If a simple average, he would be a simple left-wing Dem. Being generous (or is it conservative?) He is still left-of-center. The horror!
August 9, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think his heart is left-of-center, and his knowledge and his smart brain lead him there, too. That's what upsets me about his reneging on so many well-constructed progressive stances and promises.
I do remember when he praised Roanld Reagan fairly lavishly as a "transformative President," and actually backed up his choice. A "yikes" moment for me; I still utterly despise the man, even dead and gone. He tore us apart, and His Myth still does.
I email the President a lot, though I know that staffers just enter comments into little boxes on forms. Still, I critique him and praise him both, in hopes that we can still make him do what his heart tells him his right, and his advisors tell him is not expedient.
He should listen to Michelle more; his nature is too much the bi-partisan peace-maker. Though that will surely help in foreign affairs; not so much for the domestic agenda. Dang it!
August 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I note the lack of solid progressive majority in Congress. Surely Obama would prefer accomplishing something instead of nothing.
Can we also note that the cool, accommodating Obama style may correlate with a generally reduced violent crime rate? War is kinda messy, and we are a very polarized country (death threats, birthers, etc.).
August 9, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harharharhar!!!
Forget that almost none of Obama's ridiculous stimulus got anywhere near a school, forget that social programs for teenagers and working families are being gutted every day in bankrupt states that got no help from Obama, forget that cops are getting laid off in half the cities in the USA...
Not to worry!
Obama looks cool on TV, and that fixes everything!
But shouldn't you be hanging out at a mall somewhere, Tom, with your pre-adolescent brain which was accidentally parked in a boomer body...
Shouldn't you be hanging out in a mall somewhere, Tom, instead of leaving dopey comments on my blogs?
August 9, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trolling malls for children, isn't that your baileywick.
August 9, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should post under your real name, jonnie, so you would be accountable for what you post.
So what's your real name? Are you afraid to post it?
August 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what liam would say.
August 9, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who feels "punked" by Obama had their head in the sand, head in the clouds or just sitting there with their hands over their ears going "la, la, la, la".
Anyone who thinks voting for candidates who have no chance in hell of winning are also clueless. By all means, exercise your right to vote, but don't think that you are showing Obama anything.
Anyone who thinks their preferred candidate would be any different or better than Obama once they have the power and the responsibility of governing have their head in the sand, head in the clouds or just sitting there with their hands over their ears going, "la, la, la, la."
I'd bet a million dollars that if your preferred candidate were to be elected president, we could just easily recycle the same criticisms and insults that were made about Obama or any president or politician that became a "centrist corporate whore" once in office. Or you could end up with a president who stuck by his principles but couldn't get a damn thing done - completely ineffective.
Stop the fucking yearning, get back to reality and work with what you have. I didn't say accept it, I said work with it.
August 9, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bots must be getting really desperate if the only way they can still defend Obama is by claiming that anybody would have been just as bad.
Welcome to Cafe Obamabot...
"Yes, that is dog-shit on your plate, but every other restaurant in the world also serves dog-shit and nothing but dog-shit!"
Harharharhar!!!
August 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but our dogshit comes on a lovely hand painted plate and with a very nice parsley garnish.
BTW, Ruta, what wine goes best with dogshit? Perhaps a nice solid, but not too pretentious claret, say a Ch. Lynch Bages 2000.
August 9, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only wine this dipshit knows anything about has an "h" in it.
August 9, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schlitz tastes best with dogshit
August 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like the way TT subverted the campaign image in the first frame.
Yes, confidence is eroding in Obama's performance. I am not expecting a sea change, but what he and the legislature can deliver on they should deliver on. At the very least shut Gitmo and explain health care in a more convincing manner.
August 9, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
About Guantanamo, there's always a little more bad news...
August 9, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Jesus, the coverup continues unabated.
August 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I can't imagine what excuse they could make for refusing access to UN human-rights investigators, except the familiar argument that revealing abuses in detail would endanger national security by inflaming public opinion in the Islamic world and generating attacks on American targets.
At some point that argument will probably turn around and bite us, because there isn't really much difference between knowing that our closet is full of horrible secrets and actually looking at the pictures.
Or maybe they just assume that muslims don't have enough imagination to fill in the blanks, based on what has already been published, and in some horrible way they may not be completely mistaken. A normal mind naturally recoils from images of torture, and most of us probably couldn't have imagined those crazy scenes from Abu Ghraib, if we hadn't seen the pictures.
August 9, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed Tom Tomorrow's cartoon Rootie. It's obviously more difficult to interpret than I ever would have guessed, so I'll just say that I like it and your post whatever it is that they mean. Agree with whoever it was who said that perhaps Tomorrow's not Cronkite. Perhaps when Jon Stewart definitively criticizes the Kool-aid™ drinkers... :)
August 9, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This thread is the apotheosis of crap blogging. Don't you people ever get tired of hating each other?
There are so many unnecessary transgressions against basic social norms in this thread that it pollutes even the Internet.
The half of you that have something to say shouldn't talk to the half of the idiots on this thread who don't, you're feeding their pathology.
And Dijamo's not a PUMA. Whatever. Hate is more fun to type for some of you, and easier than thinking.
August 9, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hate is more fun to type for some of you, and easier than thinking."
There's far more hate coming from RR and his circle jerk than any of his critics. If you had a functioning brain cell in your empty head, that would be obvious to you.
August 10, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a peace-loving and thoughtful comment, articleman.
August 10, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink