This is parallel to the debate about Obama that Richard and I have repeatedly come to on here. While that has helped us hone our arguments, and while I like to concede that we both have valid points, I am also very much in agreement with Gibbs -- both yesterday and today -- when it comes to the national level leading up to the November elections.
To make his case for supporting Obama, Gibbs laid out a list of accomplishments, as follows:
So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way -- since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure. Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn't come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand.Did Obama miss some opportunities? Did he do some things that we outright disagree with on principle or policy? Did he fail to use the bully pulpit or the backroom arm-twist as effectively as he might?But in 17 months, we have seen Wall Street reform, historic health care reform, fair pay for women, a recovery act that pulled us back from a depression and got our economy moving again, record investments in clean energy that are creating jobs, student loan reforms so families can afford college, a weapons system canceled that the Pentagon didn't want, reset our relationship with the world and negotiated a nuclear weapons treaty that gets us closer to a world without fear of these weapons, just to name a few. And at the end of this month, 90,000 troops will have left Iraq and our combat mission will come to an end. . . .
In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out.
So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now.
Yes to all of those. But could anyone else have done better, overall, given all the obstacles to progress? I don't know. but until somebody comes along that convinces me he or she likely would be better, I continue to cast my lot with Barack Obama and the Democrats, flawed as the are.
Ralph
Well said, Ralph. Who among us progressives hasn't felt disappointment, even discouragement from time to time with Obama. But Gibbs is right, and so are you. Put it into perspective! Given the ruthlessness of his opposition at every turn, what he's done is just about amazing. As you say, until someone more capable comes along, we're lucky to have him at the wheel. Woody
ReplyDeleteI can grant Obama credit for some things - the college loans, how we're viewed abroad. But, like most Progressives, don't believe the Wall Street or healthcare reforms are particularly 'liberal' in their changes.
ReplyDeleteI do try to balance all his policies. Yes, we're out of Iraq, but we're deeper into Afghanistan and Obama embraced the torture of U.S. citizens abroad on the 'suspicion' of collaboration. Yes, we didn't go into a Depression, but the effects of the stimulus plan are clearly still up for debate. The home mortgage plan is merely a delaying tactic, nto a true proposal to help those in need. I am unsure what the reference is to women's pay. But the notion that we have a clean energy jobs program is false. Instead of giving the bulk of the money, as he promised, to small entrepreneurial alternative energy companies, huge chunks of it went to big corporations like JCI and GE who slapped together proposals they admit won't create many jobs, but will bring in the dough.
We should've learned from Bush that just because a politician says something is so, that doesn't make it true.
On balance, I think it's hard to make a truthful case that this presidency has been good for liberals.
I think you could make an argument that Biden, or Clinton, may have been more effective than Obama. Arguments can be made, in retrospect, for Bayh, Feingold, Napolitano, Rendell. I stress in retrospect, because at the time we were all in love with Obama and he DID seem like the best candidate.
And who knows what 2012 will look like? Obama was pretty inexperienced when he ran. There could be someone out there who might do a better job.
My criteria for 2012 is this - I want a candidate who stands up for what he/she believes. I want a candidate who can lead and govern. Obama fails me on the first count, clearly, and is, for a lot of us, suspect on the other. I'd rather vote for someone like Wiener. He probably won't run, but at least he'd stay true to his values. Whether he can govern, who knows?
But I'm still shopping. I don't buy into the gloom and doom scenarios because I don't see that the Republicans have a particularly strong candidate, either.
richard
An NBC/WallStreetJournal poll out today had these results:
ReplyDeleteSelf-described liberals were asked whether they approved or disapproved of Obama's performance:
Approve 76%
Disapprove 15%
But will they go out and vote for Democratic candidates in House and Senate races in November? That remains to be seen.
Richard, the reference to women's equal pay was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which was I think the first bill that Obama signed into law.
ReplyDeleteWashington: Democrat vs Democrat
ReplyDeleteGeorgia: Republican vs Republican
...as it should be at this point. On the road back from the insanity of the Bush Era, there has to be debate and division within the parties instead of just people following the rigid party lines. Likewise, we could use some subtlety instead of just Liberal versus Conservative...
DNC head on Morning Joe quoted Addison as saying dissatisfaction is the beginning of change.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to see how the questions were phrased in the NBC poll, and what the options were for answers. Those numbers seem really high and don't mesh with any conversations I'm hearing anywhere. NBC/Wall St. Journal is not at the top of my list for accuracy in polling, but I've never found them to be way off, either.
richard
Also, keep in mind a majority of people in a recent poll said they believed Obama was not a legal U.S. citizen.
ReplyDeleterichard
Did you see this? It responds to Gibbs' remarks by emphasizing why he should've been criticizing the Professional Right, not the Professional Left.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/olbermann-takes-white-hou_n_678155.html
richard
Ralph, can you point me to the poll you cite? I can't find it on Google or the Wall Street Journal. All the poll data I'm finding is at least relatively negative, with Obama gaining support only with Democrats making over $150,000.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt your accuracy, more my googling skills.
richard
I took the info from a blog on Huffington Post and didn't save the source. But I went to the WSJ site and found this blurb: "Poll: Obama Meets Expectations, Congress Not So Much."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't break it down to categories but cites only the overall results, which are:
58% said Obama had done just about what they expected
29% said he had done worse than expected
12% said he had done better than expected
At the bottom of the blurb is this: "For more on the poll, check back at Washington Wire at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The poll will be released at 6:30 p.m. EDT at www.wsj.com."
And this is dated today, so that's why you haven't found it. It has not been officially released yet.
Thanks. I didn't do a search for today's paper. Duh!
ReplyDeleteBut 58% said he had "done what they expected" does not necessarily mean they approve of what he has done. A number of those could have been progressives who voted for him as the best choice but didn't really expect him to work for a progressive agenda. For example, my son voted from Obama but he told me from the start I was being starry-eyed and that Obama wasn't going to be the Great Liberal Hope. So he would be in that category of Obama did what he expected, which wasn't(from his perspective) much. The question, in its lack of precision, can be interpreted in many ways.
richard
I agree. The meaning of poll results is all in how the questions are framed. And then people sort of morph one meaning into another. I'm not sure at this point whether it was the HuffPost blogger who morphed "expected" into "approved" or whether that was me. It'll be interesting to see if the breakdown that gave the results for self-identified liberals was from the same question or actually had another question about approval.
ReplyDeleteSo how would you have answered the question of whether he had met your expectations, Richard?
I would actually have trouble, because I'd want to qualify -- say I'm disappointed that he hasn't been able to do more, but given the forces he is up against he's probably at least as well as could be expected. So which category does that fit?
The WSJ did not, after all, publish the details of the poll, or at least I couldn't find it. But Nate Silver has the entire poll, with the wording of the questions, and all the answers.
ReplyDeleteYou were right to question what I quoted from the HuffPost blog, Richard. You just can't trust people quoting stats accurately.
The numbers were correct, but in fact this was the overall rating of everyone in the poll, liberal and conservative combined. The self-identified categories of respondants were: liberal 23%, moderate 38%, conservative 35%. But the answers were not broken down along these lines.
So your point about Obama meeting expectations does not imply anything about approval.
To the question "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president?"
approve 47%, disapprove 48%, don't know 5%.
Again, this includes all categories of liberal to conservative.
Congress' approval 21%, disapprove 72%, don't know 7%
All of this and more on Nate Silver's web:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/Aug%20NBC-WSJ%20Filled-in%20_for%208-11-10%20release_.pdf
Ralph
To belabor the point further:
ReplyDeleteHowever, if 47% of everybody approves of the job Obama is doing, it's not unreasonable to think that 58% of liberals would approve, no? 58% being the number that say he has met their expectations.
If 47% approve, then 58% of liberals isn't a stretch. But that still leaves a big chunk - 42% - of liberals who don't. I happened to have dinner last night with a political activist from NYC and an Obama County Organizer.
ReplyDeleteBoth are disgusted with the way things have turned out and are looking for alternative candidates. The guy from NY make a case for voting for the Green Party because you have to start somewhere and if it Obama loses, it's his own fault. He felt it was better to start to build a base that might reach fruition down the road than to vote for a compromised candidate.
I would definitely - to get back to the poll(sorry, adult ADHD) - put my vote in the 'worse than expected' category. I might've been swayed if either healthcare or Afghanistan had been handled well. But since I feel he botched both, and those are arguably the two biggest issues, how could I not be disappointed?
richard
No, actually, the thing I quoted from first off said that 76% of liberals approved to 15% that disapproved. OK, I still don't know where that came from, because Nate Silver's reporting didn't turn that one up.
ReplyDeleteThe 58% number was the overall number of those who said Obama had done what they expected.
If somewhere they did break down to liberal votes and 76% approved, then of course it still leaves 24% who disapprove.
The point is the same with either number -- a lot of liberals are unhappy. Me included. Our difference is more in who we blame and what we think can be done about it.