The year of living disconcertedly
I voted for Barack Obama after long months of supporting his candidacy - sending him money online and prattling about him in every kitchen I could invade, to every friend or acquaintance I could buttonhole.
I became impressed with him in February 2007, when I watched him announce his campaign on a cold Saturday to a small crowd at the old statehouse in Springfield, Il - where Lincoln once worked, pundits never tired of telling us.
I liked what he said. It was 180-degrees from the reality we were living, four years downwind of the Iraq invasion, 19 months from the meltdown plunge, six years into the meanest, most infantile administration of physical and moral cowards with which, thankfully, we've ever been burdened in this country's history. If ever we wondered how the country would fare should ultimate authority fall into the hands of obnoxious, coddled frat boys, we discovered, too late, that fate would be a disaster generations mending.
For simply not being Geoge W. Bush, Barack Obama will always have my affection and gratitude, both as voter and American.
Not to cheapen my support, though: I admired and heeded the message, aside from its incandescence in our political cesspit, well apart from the misery of our time. There was something in his words that strengthened, something that convinced me our collective vision could be aimed at a higher elevation. He sounded absolutely sold on liberal democracy, so I was, too.
I believed.
But judging him by two key indices in the year since his election, the first months of his administration have been disappointing. And the disappointment has been underscored by the grand hopes and blessed relief anyone with any regard for this country and basic human decency felt one year ago Wednesday night.
On the economy, his advisors and underlings, who seem to hail mostly from Wall Street in general and Goldman Sachs in particular, apparently are committed to reinstalling the crap-game eoncomy that failed spectactularly 14 months ago. On foreign policy, it now can be said: Nothing has changed, and there is little indication it will.
That second point has real resonance, since Barack Obama overcame both Hillary Clinton and John McCain by appearing, more than any other candidate, the president who'd end our pointless, quagmire wars. Up to now, he has not.
Obama has withdrawn some troops from Iraq - very few, not enough to matter - and seems paralyzed in uncertainty whether to beef up our presence in Afghanistan, or draw down and quit that fruitless slaughter altogether. He's urged to try a surge strategy, since such troop escalation in Iraq two years ago has attained such mythic - and utterly undeserved - status in our lickspittle media. Even the stupidest American notices that once troops withdraw from Iraq's cities, violence there spikes to pre-surge levels. If we deepen the commitment in Afghanistan, we deepen ourselves in that quicksand, as well. Time is on the side of the insurgents, or rebels, or terrorists... whatever they're called this week. The reason is simple: They're fighting close to home. In fact, they are home. Their countries are the battlefields.
His Secretary of State visited the area and managed to browbeat and insult our paid-off Pakistani "allies", reminding them they are corrupt lackeys, and at the same time disavow that we've been killing innocent civilians in our "surgical" killer-drone attacks:
Clinton told a group of journalists in Lahore that she found it "hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." Al Qaeda, she said, "has had a safe haven in Pakistan since 2002."
I understand the motive behind appointing a former opponent to office, but this arrogant woman, utterly callow to the life-and-death horrors she can help alleviate or intensify, seems hellbent on maintaining our catastrophic foreign policy.
John Bolton in a dress, indeed.
Speaking of patching up our worn-out, shabby status quo, no better summation of how toothless are efforts to re-regulate the financial industry than last Friday's Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan, in which he also pointed out the world derivatives bubble is worth about $500 trillion, while America's net worth is around $17 trillion. "So... you can do the math," he added as a post-script to a show that lambasted the re-establishment of a casino market that makes short-term side-bet killings on derivatives and other crap-shoot "financial instruments" rather than encourage productive investing. Remember that? Remember when investments actually provided capital to make things, or build them?
I guess it makes sense to hire insiders like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers and the rest of the "free-market" hacks. Maybe the thinking goes like this: We're so deep in the hole over these trillions in losses, we're just biding time until the other shoe falls. Maybe these money-out-thin-air alchemists can breathe some life back into this Ayn Rand nightmare before we crash through the 1929 floor.
Maybe they're like me, and just hoping for the best.
I'm not soured on Obama, in spite of all this. Dammit, I still believe. This I now know: Hope began a year ago, but change will take time.
















Here, I promise I will read this more closely...but I hereby award you the Dayly Title of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me. hahahahaha
Curt, when I am the most down, you raise me up.
For what, I have no idea. hahahaa
November 2, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for the "John Bolton in a dress" line.
November 2, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wish it was mine. It's Raimondo's, and it's very appropriate, given her soirees not only in South Asia, but Israel, as well.
November 2, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. My six-year-old just rec'd this psst. And I'll bet it's for the Raimondo comment, as well.
November 2, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaha. Your little boy has good taste. hahaha
November 2, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Girl. And she should have someone better than me showing her around a keyboard.
November 3, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a clear narrative of the history many of us have experienced, Curt. I still would support Obama over Hillary. I often have my hair on fire for the road he has taken, yet, dammit, I like the man, curse me. And I love his wife and kids.
My husband and I just watched Frontline's The Warning, again. Obama may not have known then what he MUST know now. It is simply inexcusable now. A new bubble is building now in the financial sector; Geithner's regs are so weak that 80% of the OTCs will not be touched by the new regs; Obama brought candy and flowers to Wall Street to request that the banks "be good."
Weak, ineffective, bi-partisan, who knows? The effects are the same to us. Geithner wants to fine some banks to pony up when the next bubble melts down; how sick is that? I am sick at heart, and have not the hope left you do. Which will not keep me from yapping my bleeding heart out.
November 2, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's take a ride in the WABAC Machine.
These are his policies and have been since he was campaigning in the primary. If Hillary's John Bolton in a dress, I guess that makes Obama Dick Cheney.
November 2, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're only saying that because the Yankees are down 6-2.
Look. If we're gonna tell the truth about Obama, it's gotta be said about Hillary too. That was some serious trash-talk she was dishin' out on that trip. I mean, from a nation with a recent record like it has, to be talking like that?
I'd be throwing shoes.
November 2, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Down 8-2 now; 2 homeruns in the 7th.
Go Phillies!
November 2, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkCvgOKwp4
November 2, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See you in Da Bronx :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjQTXYmEoJ0&feature=youtube_gdata
November 2, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
8-5 now, but I predicted a win in game 6 to break in the new stadium so I'm not sweating it :). Smokey on the other hand has serious catitude.
Anyway, I don't remember John Bolton or condi or anyone in the gwb admin having open dialogue with real citizens. Townhalls where they face uncomfortable questions and real challenges about the human toll of US policies. Obama gets to give some vague speech to the Muslim world and won't even acknowledge that he increased drone attacks. Who's got the harder job and has to take the backlash for carrying out his policies? Hillary.
So yeah, I was less than pleased with her recent tour, but that's our current admin policy set by the president. And the hypocrisy of someone attacking Hillary for defending drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan when Obama was more hawkish than Hillary in the primaries is just too much to let go without comment.
November 2, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama was more hawkish than Hillary in the primaries"
You're completely full of shit. This is another lame PUMA attempt to re-write history.
Only one Democrat was singing "Bomb bomb Iran" with John McCain, and it wasn't Obama.
November 3, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
:) I am having trouble figuring out how any Obama supporter could be so fucking dense not to know that Obama's policy was more hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan than almost anybody in the Democratic primary field. He got slammed on it by Hillary and Biden and the fucking George W. Bush Admin because he said he'd attack Pakistan even without the permission or assistance of Pakistan to get Al Qaeda targets. Increasing fundign for drone attacks was part of his policy from the giddyup. We've been doing more drone attacks not less since he took office. My God, he said this shit outright. Bejeebus I am really starting to think you guys just voted for him because he wasn't Hillary without any curiosity about his policies.
November 3, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really starting to think
Starting? C'mon dijamo, fess up. I know you saw the same thing I did on this site through most of 2008: quite a few self-labeled "Obama supporters" who not only willfully shut their ears to much of what he saying and promising (except for the Jon Favreau's magic speech and rally rhetoricals lifted from RFK and MLK,) but willfully pasted their own Obama creations onto his persona.
:-)
I am still constantly amazed at how honest he has turned out to be. The whole shtick he used to rise to the presidency still amazes--use fancy inspiring hope rhetoricals in rallies and speeches that are so vague they say nothing and can be taken all kinds of ways by all kinds of people, but in other venues tell people honestly straight out what your policies and politics are and only in a few instances waver from that. Tell people straight out what you honestly think, even when it gets you in trouble. And even tell people straight out that because of the nature of his speeches and his lack of record they might see things in him that are not there. But here's the kicker, the smartest move: if some people who believe in an Obama that they have created for themselves out of whole cloth, if those people want to donate time and money, it's not your problem to clear up the confusion for them, because you actually were honest about who and what you were, possbily more so than any other candidate before you, you even wrote two books about yourself, it's not your fault they were delusionally supporting you.
November 3, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may have been delusion, but not to the point where I, and I think most Obama suporters, ever believed he would work miracles. Obviously, it's a tough course - overcoming pushback not just from the GOP, but from his own party, as well. Health care is still in play; I believe that. But the window to re-regulate and pull out of the quagmires is fast closing.
November 3, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response to dijamo (and by extension, you) is posted below.
And, please, enlighten as to what criteria you were using to support (presumably) Hillary. Chapter and verse, please, no weak-brained reliance on her being a "fighter," on her "knowing how Washington works" and the like. Because I'm sure you knew every position taken by every candidate down to the smallest nuance, and made your decision based on a computer-like analysis of each candidate's positions as filtered through your own crystal-clear political preferences.
That's how you and dijamo, and apparently no one else in America, knew Hillary was the peace candidate in last year's primaries, her constant iteration of hawkish positions in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Israel/Palestine notwithstanding.
November 3, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak for dijamo.
I myself felt that Obama and Hillary were about the most identical candidates as to policy that one could imagine (just like they had nearly identical Senators as to record) there were little differences here and there on this and that which when balanced out made for equivalent candidates. The only difference I could see was that Hillary gave wingers a leg up on the attack stories and attack scenarios, but guess what, Obama suits them just fine on that front, they managed to get him to an equivalent number of nutsos freaking out and frothing at the mouth as with the Clintons in only a few months.
The whole ridiculous primary race with two groups going for the jugular struck me as ridiculous bread and circuses, I couldn't believe so many supposedly politically intelligent people on this site were falling for it, and I said so on this site more than a few times.
(The anti-Iraq thing was just nonsense, as she and he were at the same place on it after the milk was spilt, struck me that to make him into some dreamy liberal dove because he said he would have voted against Iraq but was not anti-war just anti-dumb war, and to make her into a neo-con because she voted for it but consistently and strongly criticized Bush's handling of it for years and felt it had become a dumb war.)
Not really interested in revisiting it, it still hothers me to this day that so many people can get their juices so riled about two nearly identical candidates, waste so much energy and vote based on such illusions. It bothered me a lot to see Josh Marshall et. al. feeding it, looked to me like they were doing it because it was bringing them a big audience. The whole thing was awful, and I don't feel any satisfactions from people realizing their folly.
I saw people here do stuff like make up tons of ridiculous posts about Hillary and the Obama's hating each other every day, all nonsense, then when she is appointed his Sec. of State, they disappear.
Meanwhile once in a while I would try to post something that said "hey look at this on his economic policy, do you know he's not a liberal just like Bill Clinton wasn't a liberal"?" Those kind of posts were ignored for "Hillary evil, Obama good, truth and the light" stories.
Do I have to say it simply: I don't think Hillary would have been a better president, I think she would have been equivalent. Thought I thought she might have taken a stronger role in leading health care reform, I also thought that could have backfired big time with her history, and we would likely be in the same place as we are now--the signs would just say "Hillarycare=socialism" instead of Obamacare=socialism" maybe a bit earlier. She knows the wonkery up down and backwards but that doesn't help you sell it politically...
I think him winning did the country's image a bit more good than her winning simply because he has black skin, African heritage and a name that is recognized as Islamic, that trumps a woman as president, since women leaders are not uncommon even in societies like Pakistan. That's about it.
November 3, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair response. It doesn't jibe very well with your comment to dijamo, however.
And the constant slaps at Obama supporters for being naive, and seduced into thinking they were voting for some combination of FDR, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King is just obnoxious and offensive at this point. I supported Obama because I thought he was the best candidate in the race. I opposed Clinton because of her and (unfairly, perhaps) her husband's records. Starry-eyed idealism didn't really play into it.
Furthermore, as you assert, there wasn't a hell of a lot of policy differences between them, although I thought Hillary staked out a belligerent posture regarding foreign affairs that was truly tone-deaf after eight years of the swaggering idiot cowboy.
I'll be happy to stop refighting the primary just as soon as the onstensible liberals in the blogosphere now trashing Obama stop insulting his supporters by implying that they were just rubes seduced by a smooth-talking con man, and that the realists who knew the score and supported HC are therefore justified in issuing their "I told you so's."
November 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm not crazy :) There were some explicit promises that Obama made about lobbyists and changing the way things were done in Washington and civil liberties issues. I can understand where people might be disappointed in those areas. But this willful blindness to what Obama explicitly said about Pakistan just makes me nuts. If people really cared about anti-war and peace issues, you'd think they would have taken the time to figure out where their candidate stood.
November 4, 2009 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. You've summarized my feelings to a tee.
I would prefer to see Bolton in an "iron maiden" rather than a dress, however.
November 2, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama team whooped the Clintons. In politics, that had to tell you that this wasn't soft ball. To me, the Obama administration has all of the symptoms of a typical cluster f**k, but remember...Obamas' team decked the Clintons! The GOP couldn't hold a candle to the Clinton machine. I'm keeping the faith. The web is being weaved!
November 3, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some unsolicited advice, Curt: Get over yourself.
If you didn't hear Obama spanking Pakistan during the primaries, then you are selectively deaf.
If you think Hillary (or anyone else in the administration) is acting without Obama's consent, then you are selectively retarded.
Obama is the fucking president of the United States. If you regard his power as so puny and Hillary's as so fearsome, you have major issues. Try paying for therapy instead of soliciting free support for your misogyny on a blog. John Bolton in a dress? Fuck you.
FYI, David Plouffe recently admitted Obama very much wanted Hillary for his vice president.
November 3, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider your gasket blown.
November 3, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider your cover blown, Curt.
Here, read this: The War We Need to Win by Senator Barack Obama, August 1, 2007. Obama mentions Pakistan 13 times. How the fuck did you miss it?
There is no excuse to be so ignorant about a presidential candidate, Curt, and then indulge yourself in the misogynistic cattiness of an openly gay, openly conservative fucktard like Justin Raimondo. Maybe you need to start thinking for yourself. Justin was a little "off" in his judgment of his man-crush.
November 3, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure Clinton IS on the same page as Obama. Juan Cole says she favors nation-building, and Obama maybe not so much. He has reactions from different newspapers in response to her comments, including, "the white goddess."
Now if Curt is a 'selectively deaf" and 'selectively retarded', he must be 'selctively misogynistic.' He always has responded to me in civil ways with no hint of misogyny.
Obama-the-uniter probably did favor her for Veep, but he construed Bill as a potential hassel. She shoulda dumped him years ago.
November 3, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just talking with a friend from England about the 'Bolton in a dress' remark. She is a card-carrying feminist (I don't carry the card, myself.) ;_} and we were both in agreement that the comparison to Bolton was the diss, not so much the dress.
November 3, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not clear from your comment that you were referring only to the Af-Pak border issue.
And if you think that waging lower-level attacks based on "actionable intelligence" in areas where people who previously attacked us are known to reside is more hawkish than unprovoked, large-scale bombing of a country that has engaged in no action against this country or its legitmiate interests (which Hillary voted to do in one instance, and threatened to in a second), than you define "hawkish" differently than I do.
The anti-war people almost unanimously preferred Obama to Clinton. I guess we were all hoodwinked by Obama's pledges to scale down Iraq and engage with Iran, and Clinton's pledges to do exactly thr opposite. Stupid us.
November 3, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew this was going to be controversial.
Obama was more hawkish on Pakistan. He was the only candidate who stated that he would approve cross border attacks if actionable intelligence existed that revealed the location of Osama bin Laden. I mean, McCain said he would follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell," which could mean the same thing. Who knows. The question and answer were both ridiculous and says more about our media and government culture than about foreign policy. What it says is that the media is free to ask ticking bomb hypotheticals and candidates feel compelled to respond with hypothetical machismo.
David Gregory: Which is cooler, robots or ninjas?
Candidate: That depends on the war. A large scale invasion of Iran, for example, would require the nigh invulnerabillity and shoulder-mounted lasers of robots. In the case of a guerilla war like Afghanistan, ninjas would provide the stealth and hypnosis skills that would bring terror to its knees. Can't I choose both?
David Gregory: One or the other.
Candidate: I would have to say ninjas since we are currently at war with the Taliban.
(Next day's Drudge Headline)
CANDIDATE X WEAK ON IRAN AND DISPARAGING TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
Candidate X issues a statement that afternoon:
I regret that I was not more specific. I would be more than happy to send robots to Iran. Iran is a menace on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. I only specified ninjas because of our current war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The other candidates would rather send flowers and candy.
November 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a great parody, Zip, of the Continuous Horserace handicapping that masquerades as news. I heard Gregory and Andrea Mitchell question each other recently about THEIR thoughts on what the President should do. Wow.
November 3, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mara Liasson, commenting on today's elections, just basically said that these off-year elections have historically had no predictive value for mid-term election results, yet "everyone" (in the media, I'm assuming) will be assigning such value anyway.
And people complain about the occasional "meta" post here on TPM? I mean, for crying out loud, do the Liassons, Mitchells, Gregorys, et al's ears ever stop ringing from spending every waking moment in an echo chamber?
November 3, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink