Or is this an excuse for his inactions?

He's a wonderful orator who said all the right things in the campaign, or almost all. I wonder what happened to his political skills. Or is it the team around him?

It seems like the wind left Obama's sails just after he was elected. Can you, Aurelius, think of any events that changed his course? Senator Kennedy's death?

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law

Signed the stimulus package into law

Banned enhanced interrogation techniques

Restored funding to overseas family planning organizations

Restored funding for stem-cell research

Oversaw the banking rescue

Oversaw material interventions in the U.S. car industry

Successfully nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

Greenlit California car-emission standards

Refocused U.S spending on Green initiatives. More capital devoted to sustainable energy in 2009, than the prior 50 years combined

Advanced the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq

Reinforced the U.S. commitment to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan/Pakistan. By spring 2010 more identified al qaeda and taliban leadership has been captured or killed than in the prior six years of Bush Presidency

Took steps toward resetting the tone of U.S. relations with the Arab world

Ordered the release of “the torture memos”

This week will likely pass health insurance reform. The first US President with such an accomplishment in US history

Regulating on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and refineries through the EPA

Obama signed executive orders to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center within a year

Highest percentage of legislative accomplishment since LBJ in his first year in office.

But hey, why go against the MSM narrative.

The one person in Congress who is willing to stick up for the left and the Obama administration and their minions like Kos are willing to throw him under the bus.

Aurelius,

I'm sure you are a nice guy, but as a DC insider, you're just a cabin boy on the Titanic.

It was full steam ahead under GWB and hit the iceberg when they paid off the banks.

So now it's one final bubble to beat all bubbles, of sovereign debt.

Today the tea partiers and Ron Paul still look a bit kooky, but by 2012 those independents who took a flier on Obama are going to be in full pitchfork and torch mode.

It is as Carville put it; All about the economy.

And Paul is right about the Fed being the source of this problem even if he is off the wall about many other things. When you have a debt based currency, the inclination to create ever more debt and therefore wealth, is irresistible.

Everyone whines about the government spending too much money, but it's designed that way. They don't have a budgeting process, they have a spending process. The only way to get anything passed is to promise enough legislators enough goodies to vote for their bills and the President can only pass or veto them. Of course overriding a veto is mostly a matter of increasing the promises. The result is that the government overspends and government debt is the foundation of our currency.

It would be a simple matter to create a budgeting system which actually budgeted. For example, break the bills into their constituent items, then have every legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Reassemble the bill in order of preference and have the president draw the line at what will be funded. (The buck stops here.)
This would divide responsibility, with the legislature setting priorities and the president deciding what can be afforded. The percentage system would give legislators the ability to fine tune their granting of favors to lobbyists and trading with other legislators, but it would all be graded on a curve anyway.

Of course, our economic system would collapse without the steady growth of government debt.

Oh, wait! Our economy is about to implode under the weight of runaway debt anyway!

What the politicians and the people need to understand is that money is not an effective store of value. It is drawing rights on community productivity and its value is derived from that productivity and that makes it a form of public medium, like a road system. You own you house, car business, etc, but not the roads connecting them. Money has a similar function. We like to think of it as a form of property, but that encourages hoarding and eventually the excess stores of money far exceed the productive capacity of the economy and the system collapses. Often to the extreme detriment of the government in charge.

The problem with creating a stable monetary system is that tendency towards excess. Either by politicians directly controlling it and creating inflation as they issue excesses in order to maintain power, or by bankers over extending credit to increase their own profits.

Some ideas: For one thing, if we were to accept that the monetary system really is the public utility that it is, it would have two effects. Hoarding it wouldn't be nearly as tolerated as it currently is, but also people would be much more careful what value they drained out of social and environmental resources in the first place. We all like and need roads, but there is little inclination to pave more than we must. This would leave much space for other, more organic exchanges and stores of value to develop, rather than everything drain of all value in order to put it in a bank. We could start having real communities again.

Also, if we are going to have a publicly supported currency, then we need a public banking system. That's the duplicity of central banking: The public is responsible for maintaining the value of the currency, but private banks reap the rewards of managing it. What if the police and courts treated their responsibilities the way the banks treat theirs? There are places like that and it isn't pretty.

Like democracy, a public banking system would work best from the bottom up, with local banks supporting their own communities and serving as board for state and regional banking systems, in something of a parliamentary system.

These local, organic communities wouldn't need as much Federal largesse, reducing the need for deficit spending.

This might sound funny to someone who knows what is going on, but that ship is sinking and the life boats are much smaller.

The frustration of Obama's squandered talents is ongoing. I even catch myself, on rare occasion, thinking, "If only ..."

But then I go back to a discussion just before the primaries started. I asked someone who should know, "Who Wall Street wanted for president?" I was told, Obama, since they knew that things were going to Hell and they needed a media-genic figure to hold the people at bay while they took care of themselves. When Obama came back to rescue the bailouts during the campaign, I knew this was correct but still had a sliver of hope. But when Geithner and Summers showed up, I had this awful recollection of that pre-primary discussion. He's an enabler of the greatest bailout of entrenched wealth in the history of this country.

Like you, I was taken by the style of Obama's Ohio appearance. He has all the moves whenever he calls them up. But a couple of other thoughts occurred to me. He was there, in part, to go after Kucinich. Dennis' standing went even higher in my estimation when I saw that. He also featured the woman struggling with cancer treatment. I watched long enough to hear someone actually ask the president how the woman would have benefited form his plan. He hauled out that tired canard about the big insurance pools and the insurance exchange. My God! That was one of the most cynical statements I've ever seen. That was beyond the pale and people are picking up on it.

Obama has failed. He's ignored the 300 million to the benefit of the 10,000 investment bankers and their big firms who took $150 billion for their fine work in 2009. That's his legacy and it's a truly pathetic one.

Here is the problem with reform as it has been discussed by all the Democrats. The problem is that no health care reform can take place until the we change the way health care is monetized. The current system of monetization pays, in a very lopsided way, for procedures. The only procedure that a general practitioner can perform is a Vasectomy; which, comprise a major part of general practitioner's income. The people who are the real "feet on the ground" are pushing Vasectomies so they can pay off their student loans; its not uncommon for a general practitioner to owe $2 million in student loans. Meanwhile, a specialist can earn 10X a general practitioner's salary. We cannot provide wider access to health care without doctors; they have to be payed what they are worth and they need a proper education that does not overburden them with loans.

The simple solution would be to Nationalize health care and provide scholarships for Doctors. We have a national system of roads and bridges; we can have national health care. The health insurance companies had their chance, killed a lot of Americans, bankrupted, and imposed needless suffering on many more. The health insurance companies must go away.

First off, welcome to the Agonist. I don't know how long you've been reading here, but if you are a frustrated progressive you'll fit right in. Just be sure to bring your flame retardant underwear (being a DC insider has perks and disadvantages online) ;)

Anyway, I wanted to ask your opinion on the state of the health care debate. Specifically, I'm right on the fences for whether its better if this bill passes or not. So if this bill dies, is that the end? Will the Dems go running for the hills, or will Obama push his non-mandate, HCR-lite fallback plan? Because honestly I would prefer that to anything that has a mandate and no PO for cost control. If the Dems will scatter and hide though, I suppose this bill is better than nothing, it may be a start as people say (I don't know, deep reservations about our ability to get any more reform after the companies have their brass ring in hand.) What do you think about all this and what is the best possible scenario progressives can push for right now?

Maybe this is a good topic for a second post at the Agonist?

... upon gaining office he (all) was told in clear, respectful, firm tones that while he is the President, he will only be so for a short while. And oh, all that stuff you thought you knew about what was going on, and why? Sit down. Here's the real story. Please don't get the idea your more than passing through.

There's always a disconnect between what seems like good sense to those on the outside looking in, and the actions taken (or not) by those with the real power.

I'm not talking about tinfoil hat stuff, just that forces at play aren't always obvious (for good reason), and the where's-and-why-for's that explain current circumstances can be best understood by such things as highly classified information and heretofore unrevealed detail.

Neither am I trying to excuse. There's just so much BS floating, so much analysis that with hindsight appears worthless in the making, it seems the only reason can be a lack of substantial and relevant data.

Which, of course, leads to much speculation and wacky theories attempting to explain. Like mine, for instance.

Thanks for the food for thought.

I understand your frustration. I too expected a lot more from Obama and I was never expecting more that a return to a moderate Administration.

The bank bailout hit me in the gut so hard that I almost shit my pants.
I still don't like to talk about it.

Healthcare is something I have much smaller expectation for, as any change is going against the grain of a monster industry.
Spending his political capital early on would have been far more effective but the hammer fell with the financial collapse and much of that capital evaporated, even if it was not yet tracked.

I look forward to reading more from you in the future.

Always good to have another set of opinions and ideas around here. :)

Thanks so much for reading, welcoming me and all the comments. Even the attacks are nice. Nothing like a good debate.

To answer any questions I can:

1) Numerian - I think it is a combination of his seemingly constitutional inability to engage in a fight, along with the Rahmocratic insiders who somehow think that negotiating with oneself and getting 1/5 of a loaf without trying is better than exciting your base and Independents (and perhaps a few moderate Republicans) by taking on the bad guys

2) Gannon - Sadly, after observing for a year and hoping things would get better. No such luck. I just don't think he has it in him. I don't think he is a fraud, I just think he is uncomfortable fighting for anything, and has surrounded himself with some bad advisors who play to that. I could be wrong, and hope I am, but every day is a new story about something he has given in on.

3)Joaquin - I think he is given too much credit for the election. I remember more than a few times, being about to lose it as he and McCain we neck and neck when after 8 years of Bush and McCain's campaign, he should have been killing him. And why? Because he was never comfortable attacking McCain, and only seemed to be willing to define him and his ilk as a last resort. THen the financial crash, and the rest is history.

Once elected he did the same thing. He could have defined the problem: conservatism. He could have reminded everyone they bankrupted the country, greedy executives ruined our economy, and set the stage. Instead he didn't do that, and now he's being blamed for the economy and the debt.

4) Scotjen - Great list of accomplishments. And do you honestly think any Democrat couldn't have gotten that and 1000 times more done with conservatism in the crapper, the media in love with them because of their historic victory, and huge majorities. Yes, he is a Democrat, and so some good things have gotten done. But seriously, this was a once in a generation chance.

5) Zot23 - I think a more detailed post on this is forthcoming :). But right now, as I said, regretfully, I support this bill. It is not my favorite. A mandate without a public option is stupid. But some of the policy parts, such as outlawing rejection due to preexisting condition is going to help a lot of needy people. Also it is a start, which we can hopefully improve upon if it reminds people the government has some responsibilities in this area for those under 65. Finally, politically, this has to pass or God help us come midterms.

But once again, this is a crappy bill that only slightly improves things in my estimation, and we should have had so much more if Obama had shown a hint of a spine...

Think that's everyone...thanks again for all the comments once again!

Your responses to everyone in the thread really fleshes out your original post.

As for your response to my comment, I hope you are wrong but I fear you are right. I am still holding on to a shred of hope until after the 2010 election.

I admit that I have had my head in the sand a bit on the growing list of disappointments. My complex theory of long game influence strategy is a grasping at straws and I know it. I just choose to be an optimist until the verdict is well and truly in.

Occam's razor favors your interpretation, I just don't feel like shaving yet ;)

This post and the flow of comments seem analogous to a married couple's having a heated argument, then making up afterward with great sex.

Well, SPK said to give you a warm welcome.

Greetings Aurelius,
I am not so disappointed because I read somewhere in the progressive blogosphere well before the election that Obama would be a big disappointment to progressives. It may have come from Ian Welsh or Stirling Newberry.
I read elsewhere recently that this bill, flawed as it is, will establish the principle once and for all that the national government is responsible for health care delivery. So we don't get to the ideal system immmediately.
About Obama delivering on the Progressive wishlist.
We still live in a country where at least one third of the population is pathologically batshit insane and racist. I live in rural Virginia, Mother of Presidents, haha, and all my neighbors went out and bought guns and ammo to celebrate the Change They Believe In.
That might be the reason for taking things slowly...don't rattle the crazies too much. And if he wasn't so mellow, they would be calling him just another 'Angry Black Man' overtly.
I would be interested in your view about his reversal of the Bush legacy of deep seeding the Federal bureaucracy with right wing ideologues and/or incompetents. Does that appear to be happening?

I look forward to more posts and spirited discussions like this one.

Look at what the Dems did and did not do after 2006: they never stopped Bush at all. Almost none of them can stand up for what they believe in. And I am constantly puzzled by this. My only option is to believe that they are simply bought off by the same folks as the 'pubs so they cannot come out with the clear truth.

great post Aurelius! I, too, am disappointed at Obama and frustrated with the general lack of backbone that seems to characterize Democratic "leadership" these days.
Maybe Obama will wake up and realize the "can't we all be friends" ploy only plays into the hands of the Repubs

It all looks to me as though advertising has completely swallowed policy in the professional political class. Obama said in the campaign that he admired Reagan, the cowboy actor who spent the end of his career as a corporate spokesman. That seems to be how Obama defines himself -- as the actor who fronts corporations. The relationship between his words and the policies that his administration accepts is like the relationship between a Coke ad and the actual drink. It's all about emotion and lifestyle, and only puritan weirdos think about the product in any other terms. And when this ad campaign wears out, roll out a new one just before the next election. That's just the job.

What I question is to what extent that translates even to other progressives.

For one thing, the import of the health care accomplishment needs to be recognized. No President has done this and many many have tried. FDR could not even accomplish this legislative achievement.

Also the argument that the health care accomplishment is meaningless, is spurious and an outright falsehood - if the legislation is understood, and folks take the time to look. It brings insurance to 96% of the population, it provides $1 trillion in revenues as a subsidy to middle class families (and I have seen the specific calculations regarding the benefit and it is huge), it eliminates exclusion for pre-existing conditions, it removes lifetime caps, it provides insurance for those who cannot get insurance through any mechanism (mostly folks in their 50s), it provides full coverage of children, creates competition, and holds loss ratios to 85% for insurers (averaging 65% today). That is the start, the beginning of this proposal.

As far as progressive support: Move On supports this legislation to the tune of 83% of its members, Daily KOS and their membership supports this legislation, Howard Dean has given his support and even led a rally in Washington DC for its passage a few days ago. Dennis Kucinich has announced his yes vote this morning and gave a very good explanation. In fact Move On has so far raised over $1 million to use to run against Democrats who oppose this legislation, and they have been actively creating a Primary opponent to those representatives opposed to this legislation. Hardly lukewarm support.

From an economic standpoint, I have resigned myself to the fact no one will ever understand the depths of the crisis of last year. So be it. But the recovery from that crisis, potentially worse than the Great Depression because of its global extent and possibilities was nothing less than legendary and someday will be fully understood and recognized. That Obama could marshall a near $1 trillion recover package in 60 days, barely time to unpack the furniture, is also amazing.

As far as bipartisanship, that is the key to the current success. The process being used today can be used because the argument is laid that the conservatives were not serious in bipartisanship. I am one of those who believes a President is head of the country and not head of their party. That is a difference here relative to Europe or Canada, and Obama understands that difference and I respect that view. That those from outside the US don't understand that, I also understand. It is a critical position, that insures long term and not just short term success.

Oh and I failed to mention the jobs bill going to his desk at this moment.

So there is some context.

but Obama did not change

he was the same cautious pol in the Senate

What is Obama's next act? Is he going to try distracting people with reforming nochildleftbehind, while Geithner and Bernanke are still trying to jumpstart the economy in the background?

There are various discussions going on on blogs like naked capitalism and Zero Hedge about how to really reform the financial system and the economy, as well as The Huffington Post putting up some of Ellen Brown's articles. After this stupid health care debate is over, there are going to be a lot of disappointed progressives who are going to be looking beyond Obama and I suspect they are going to form a left wing version of the tea party movement and it's going to start coalescing around various ideas and people. They are the ones who will be the new world order, after this mess completely blows up.
The future maybe formless, but it is implacable.