Let Obama Be Obama - An Open Letter To the President of The United States

No more capitulating and efforts at across the aisle compromise.

What efforts? On his major domestic policy he has let congress take the lead and does not admonish them for their lack of bi-partisanship. He is not being a leader when he lets the kids squabble as he is doing. oh wait, he rails against the minority party... yeah, that's effective leadership.

Plus his whole "I won" attitude coupled with Pelosi's "we can do it without repubs" attitude that started after the election make any real attempts at crossing aisle (which haven't really happened) seem less than sincere.

Everything Obama has said is rhetoric. Really, look at what he says and what he does and you will find they are two different things. Most recent example was about not wanting to give money to fat cats after doing just that. other examples include not wanting to run banks or car companies but doing just that. not deserving the peace prize but taking it anyway. and on and on and on.

He needs to wipe that grin off his face and re-read his inauguration speech, among others, before it becomes rhetoric.

Exactly. He needs to go back to the only thing he knows how to do well. Speech, speech, give us another speach.

Here's a must read that hits the nail on the head.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

*************

......But come November 5th, both were banished from Obama's inner circle — and replaced with a group of Wall Street bankers. Leading the search for the president's new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama's biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters — chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout

I wonder when people will wake up.

All this complaining about what Obama hasn't done. What he has done is an excellent job. He is an administrator, not a legislator, and it's about time we had a President that put responsibilities where they belong, in this case with Congress and the American people.

I keep seeing people talking about 'since the campaign.' Just one question: are you knocking on doors, donating, writing letters, and making phone calls like you did during the campaign? If not, how can you have the nerve to complain?

Actually.. Hillary has more balls then Obama. That much is obvious.

Good article Killfile.

Obama needs to take the gloves off to tackle this kind of political maneuvering. His current strategy just isn't working

So many good points in your comment. It as does the article really lies bare so succinctly the situation. Obama's presence to me has never been that of a charging bull. I think his intellect will afford him the ability to see the need. However, he won't be a charging bull running everywhere trying to hit the red cloth. His intellect will help him move fast and strong where it is needed. He will be attacked even more vehemently than he is now, but his path is straight, true and desperately needed.

And with the straights our country is in, I think that, means more. I imagine though it is probably just as hard to have to play the stern father with a bunch of idiotic childish adults as it is to understand why they act this way creating the need in the first place.

Congratulations, conservatives, you're what's wrong with government

and more...

Sabastian..

it's time for Obama to decisively lead his party and this nation.

So well said.

The problem is you can not run before you can even stand up and learn how to walk. At least (I think he helps) a lot of people (to) benefit out of this situation. He doesn't have Hitlership or dictatorship like the others when the leader say NO and everybody say no. Now, who is Hitler, etc......

That is a scary thought

That was awesome!

Franken: I'm good enough, smart enough and doggon-it in my capacity as a Senator from Minnesota, I object!

Lieberman: "Really. OK. I don't take it personally."

LOL....Lieberman, you should take it personally. You've just been punked, Franken style!!!

SB, and don't forget his tone how he said it. We are not stupid and we can tell that's kind of tone. These old boy club members seem to forget that we are watching them like a hawk. If they think this is still 20th century. That means their time is OVER.

He said he'd figured (I think it was 60 Minutes) he'd start declining 6 months in. Wonder why? Is that how long he figured it would take for us to catch on to his true policy goals for this country?

I would assume because pretty much every President starts declining sometime in the first year, and he knew his poll numbers were riding higher than average on a wave of good publicity. But sure, see it through the lens of cynicism in which Obama cackles in a darkened room surrounded by hooded figures. Don't let reality stop you.

Steve---sure decline is inevitable......but this? Pretty bad.......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/

Considering that his approval rating rebounded almost instantly and now stands at 52%, I think his press secretary was right not to worry over it too much. My point isn't whether he should have experienced such a sharp drop. My point is that this...

Is that how long he figured it would take for us to catch on to his true policy goals for this country?

... makes you sound like you're wearing a tinfoil hat. Anytime you start spouting nonsense about "true policy goals" you put yourself in league with the nut jobs who aren't worth listening to. The economy is bad, it's a divisive political time, and his approval rating fell. He wasn't surprised by that fact. Somehow taking that information and concluding that he knew he'd be "caught" is just insane.

The economy is bad

Steve--yes, and it's his now.

delete me.

A year has come and gone, Mr President, and the post-partisan act doesn't seem to be working for you.

I must have missed the "post partisan act" that Obama has made to the Republicans, unless you count him saying "I won" as a post partisan overture.

Can anyone list all the examples (and provide the corresponding links) of Obama's or the House & Senate Democrats, reaching across the isle?

where's the European Style social reforms? Where's the White House's voice in the Healthcare debate?

Because big pharma and insurance companies don't want those reforms. They are fueled by greed and profit. Also too many damn lobbyists are paying off our elected officials and influencing the White House to not do a good plan. If big pharma and insurance companies back a health care reform plan.... then its pretty safe to say it isn't going to be good for the American people. Like I keep saying... model the system off of Germany's.

Is healthcare a single payer universal program? No? I wonder why...

Obama through Reid & Pelosi is having to compromise on single payer and abortion funding with Democrats, not Republicans to get the 60 votes. They just bought off Nelson, last time I checked he was a Democrat.

Was the stimulus 40% Tax Cuts? Yea? I wonder why...

And what input did Republicans have in the porkulas bill?...none thats why only three (now two) Republicans in both the House and Senate voted for it...very post partisan LMAO.

And where are your citations to back up your "opinions"? Not that I'm surprised you didn't offer any, here are mine.

Six months into the president’s term, you don’t read much about this post-partisan future anymore. It may be because on almost every big-ticket legislative item (the stimulus, climate change, and now health care), Mr. Obama has been pushing a highly ideological agenda with little (and in some cases zero) support from across the aisle. Yet far from stating the obvious—that sitting in the Oval Office is a very partisan president—the press corps is allowing Mr. Obama to evade the issue by coming up with novel redefinitions.

The redefinition started during the stimulus debate, but it really picked up steam late last month with David Axelrod’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” There the president’s chief strategist explained that a bill didn’t need Republican votes to be “bipartisan”; it was enough if Republican “ideas” were included. A few days earlier, Rahm Emanuel had offered reporters another redefinition, suggesting that a bill was bipartisan if people merely “saw the president trying” to get Republicans on board.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574301103588765812.html

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.kYDWV9erc

They just bought off Nelson, last time I checked he was a Democrat.

Andy---yes, with some sweet medicaid funding for Nebraska costing we the taxpayers big time.......who will bail out my state I wonder? It is TIME FOR moderate democrats in the House and Senate to be KICKED OUT of office by we the people. They cannot be trusted to standup against the labor left/big govt Obama agenda. I must say though I'm so very proud of Olympia Snowe for saying NO GO to Reid's Bill.....even I was surprised by that. I slammed her good firing off a letter to her when she voted to take the Baucus bill out of committee. I'm glad to see rino or no that she's finally listening to all of us who were so outraged by that. I'll have to send her a nice happy holidays note and encourage her to keep up the good fight!

dwillie, good comment.

President Obama, being who he is, has had to learn how to maneuver around obstacles rather than butt heads. I believe his accomplishments show that he has mastered this capability.

Many of us have not had to acquire this ability, do not understand it, and thus lack patience. I think this ability is what is disconcerting to his adversaries and is, quite possibly, what many of his supporters have forgotten or perhaps never recognized as an advantage.

Impatient gardeners put little food on the table. I will patient a while longer.

More explicit about his goals and more aggressive with his agenda.

dwillie, I have been disappointed that he has not been more specific about what he wants in health care reform, among other things.

I am personally in favor of single payer/universal coverage where there is one set of expenses, one set of medical claims, one set of back office infrastructure and one set of management, the cost of which is spread out amongst all citizens, thus minimizing cost and maximizing coverage. While we have not gone far enough, we have gone too far to start over again from scratch.

Do you think that the current bills that are being discussed will lead to single payor coverage?

Eventually, perhaps. I do believe that single payer is slightly closer with the current bills than without them (the House version more than the Senate). But even if that is not the case, denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and other provisions in the legislation are still worthwhile. Beyond that, it is still on us. We know for an absolute fact that the republican party will not even consider single payer and neither will certain democrats. As long as they are in office, single payer will be an dream deferred. So to have single payer, then our fellow Americans who are the constituents of those legislators need to be convinced that single payer is better.

I am dismayed by the handwringing on the part of progressives, so despondent over the slow pace of or lack of "change" that they would rather sacrifice absolutely any and all gains made so far and go back to scratch. Last time I looked, change required sustained effort over time - a lot longer time than one quarter of one presidential term. And it won't happen at all if those who want it simply throw their hands up, take their ball and go home. It is that lack of sustained determination, that lack of patience, that lack of diligence that malevolent special interests count on. Lobbyists are paid to fight so they'll fight as long as they get paid. As long as we keep rewarding creeps like Joe Lieberman with continued employment, even as he carries the water for private insurance interests, the lobbyists have someone to deal with and the American people are completely shut out of the dialogue.

I too have been disappointed by the President's reticence to be more out front on his domestic agenda. Perhaps it is a personality quirk. I suspect, however that there is a larger strategy at work and that health care legislation is simply one component of a larger agenda. There is still so much more to do. But if the despondency among the base compels them to sit on their hands in 2010 and 2012, we will see the return of the troglodytes with potentially far greater negative consequences than we've experienced to date. Frankly, I'm eager to see what the President does when he doesn't actually have to run for election again.

Last time I looked, change required sustained effort over time - a lot longer time than one quarter of one presidential term. And it won't happen at all if those who want it simply throw their hands up, take their ball and go home. It is that lack of sustained determination, that lack of patience, that lack of diligence that malevolent special interests count on.

Great points. I too think that preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is definitely progress.

Dear Mr. President,

You are living proof that it don't matter how bad things are it can always get worse.

2010 & 2012 can't come soon enough!

Is it April 1st already?

SR wrote: Is it April 1st already?

Not even close, my friend. Not even close.

Not joking, just old enough to realize things take time and knocking heads together won't hurry anything.

"Put up in a place where it's easy to see,

The cryptic admonishment: T T T.

When you feel how depressingly slowly you climb,

It's well to remember that Things Take Time."

Written by someone named Piet Hein, I think.

Kathleen, I think that too many people expected instant results. Someone on Newsvine said that the other day.

Kathleen, I think that too many people expected instant results. Someone on Newsvine said that the other day

OH puleeeeeeeeeese...

Not one mature, intelligent person would be expecting a Miraculous fix on the issues that were already present when He took office.

However, there has been a down-slide and a huge difference of his promises in the campaign, and his actions in office.

I don't think people expected the Islamic connections to become so prevalent, I do not think they expected in SUCH a recession, to have a President gallivanting all over Europe. I don't think they( the NON-supporters) expected a FLady that was so arrogant and cold.

I don't think they expected to ADD to the troops in the war, we expected to have them coming home. and letting them sort out their mess.

We did not expect the breach of protocol, similar to back-wood hicks, but when one has a 26 yr old protocol adviser, wellllllllllllllll.....................

Nor did we expect Obama to bow to a Islamic King, or NOT bow to the Japan properly, or turn the AF-One into a Bad version of the European Vacation Farce.....

WE did expect him to stay in the USA to put his money and actions where his mouth is, by putting the unemployed to work, and help the homeless, (not serve a meal, flaunting 500.00 pair of shoes) or have the food run out at the shelters giving out turkeys, on Thanksgiving.

That is not even mentioning the political agenda's that have had people resign when he took office, availing him the right to put in those that share his agenda.

So instant results?

No

But we did not expect it to turn into an ongoing trainwreck picking up speed.

obama is the leader of the democratic party, and has a majority in both houses of congress. Nice of you to excuse his complete LACK of leadership as a virtue, but the american people see through that rhetoric. obama should have stuck with handing out sandwiches as a community organizer. He has zero leadership, executive or legislative skills and is a complete failure as president.

Hate to say I told you so... but I was shouted down very loudly on nv in july 2008 for saying obama was an empty shirt -- unprincipled and with no leadership abilities.

DScott: Unfortunately....he is not the only one who is an empty shirt. I think after experiencing so many Presidents over the decades, I have finally come to realize that the people actually running Washington and making the decisions are the criminals sitting in the Congress and Senate. The President is pretty much a figure head who provides "we the people" with the illusion that our votes really matter....they don't.

I have lost all respect I had for Barack, which was a lot. His lack of real leadership is why this health care bill sucks so badly and (if it shows up on his desk as it's coming out of the Senate) it should be vetoed. Sadly though it would seem that he'd sign it and then try to claim some sort of victory. This is not the Barack I voted for and unless he does an about face I won't be voting for him again. He's losing the base and so far deservedly so.

So glad I was sitting down firmly in my chair when I read this.

Wow!

I won't say I told you so, cos I didn't... I will say I thought so though!!!!

Um no, the Democrats do not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. There are 58 Democrats and two independents that caucus with them, but one of them is a republican pretending to be a Democrat. Also, just curious, I know about the House and the Senate, but what is the third legislative body?

Um yes, admit it; the left has it all but are complete failures, no one to blame but the fact that far left social policies have not been embraced this country. Sorry to break to ya Snyd.

but one of them is a republican pretending to be a Democrat.

Who's that?

Numbers don't lie, they do not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, no matter how you'd like to spin it. Also, I'm still wondering what the third legislative body? Perhaps you have a problem with numbers in general?

Come on SR, who damned well know who.

Seriously I'm drawing a blank.

Joe Liberman.

Oh yeah. That switch hitter. Forgot about that.

The problem is maybeblu that too many think that government is there to "help the average citizen". There are no guarantees in the Constitution for a good salary, a nice home, free health care, vacations at Disney World, or a well funded retirement. Those are things you are supposed to provide for yourself. You are fortunate to live in a country that allows you the freedom to become whatever you have the desire and will to be. But that is not guarantee that the rest of us have to pay for, you get to go out and EARN IT.

Corporations are not human, they are bricks and mortar. People invest their money in a business in order to get a return on their investments. They hire execs. to run companies for the purpose of making profits and to grow those companies. If you don't like a particular company you have the obvious choice of not doing business with them.

Peter, I think that too many think that the government is there to help corporations. As you said,

They hire execs. to run companies for the purpose of making profits and to grow those companies. If

If the execs fail then they should be fired, not bailed out by the government.