The end of Obama's presidency?


The tax-cut deal with the Republicans is almost unfathomable. It's the most dramatic sign of President Obama's failure as a leader, his refusal to stand up for the platform he ran on -- and it could mark the end of his presidency. I mean, he'll still be in office for two more years -- but now that he's rolled over and given the Republicans everything they want, he has no moral or political authority left, no national constituency to back him up and he might as well be a lame duck. He's certainly finished as far as most of the progressive movement is concerned. Kos:

This shouldn't be worrisome to the White House because these people won't vote for him in 2012. They probably will. But will they give money and knock on doors and make phone calls and drag their social circle to the polls? Nope. They didn't in 2010. And at this rate, they sure as hell won't in 2012.

Already, some Obama supporters are starting to ask whether we all should have backed Hillary Clinton.

So far, Nancy Pelosi is standing up to the "compromise," which essentially gives the Republicans everything they want. And the House can still call the GOP bluff: Refuse to reauthorize tax cuts for the rich -- and force the Republicans to vote to raise taxes on the middle class and deny unemployment benefits to a few million Americans. That's the only way to salvage the situation.

The Dec. 7 press conference was terribly disappointing. Obama said, in effect, that he -- the president of the United States -- is powerless against a Republican minority in the Senate. "I have been unable to budge them," he announced. He's decided to negotiate with terrorists, to let a few right-wingers hold him and the millions of unemployed Americans hostage. The polls are on his side, the public sentiment is on his side -- and he's acting as if he's being forced to negotiate from weakness.

The real-time Washington Post poll shows that 66 percent think Obama made a bad deal. 

The big problem here is that Obama looks shaken, doesn't look tough, is on the defensive. A very sad moment.  






Actually, it is very easy to fathom. The GOP can block anything they don't like, and the public always come out on the side of lower taxes, meaning it would be the Dem's who'd look bad if they tried to riase taxes in a recession.

Moreover, it is not true the Dem's got nothing here. They got an extension of unemployment benefits, which the GOP opposes. So it's a genuine compromise.

What worries me far more is that in giving both sides what they want, the deficit will get worse. Keeping the W tax cuts will make the deficit worse and paying out more in UI will make the deficit worse. In other words, both sides have gotten the pork they wanted, simply by throwing borrowed money at the problem. And that is what should really worry you.

Posted by Tom on Dec. 07, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Posted by matlock on Dec. 08, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

and $50 billion for extended unemployment benefits over the next 13 months.?

That is NOT a compromise. That's a surrender - total, disgusting and craven surrender.

Maybe next Obama can agree to privatize Social Security while getting another 3-month extension on unemployment?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 07, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

Obama has been a joke from the begining. As his intentions and true colors come through again and again, he becomes more discusting by the moment.
I should buy stock in "GOO GONE" as all of you try to wipe that stupid Obama sticker from your Prius.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 07, 2010 @ 7:34 pm


When are people --such as the editors of The Guardian-- going to realize how futile it is to back ruling class parties? Obama's campaign speeches pretty much indicated his pro-corporate/capitalist positions and you seemed to willfully ignore them, nor has he done anything different than other Democratic Party presidents in representing the interests of the ruling class.

The history and actions of the Democratic Party are right in your face, Tim, so why the sudden outrage? Something tells me that you will endorse Obama again in the next election, just as you endorsed Newsom after attacking him for years. This is one of the reasons I find the political commentary in The Guardian to be so ridiculous.

Posted by Guest Michael Worrall on Dec. 08, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

No, what is unfathomable is after the last twenty years, anyone would think it would be different with Hillary. Grow up.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 09, 2010 @ 10:03 am