If you have "no place to go," come here!

SOTU open thread

vastleft's picture
No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... bipartisanship, claiming he hated the bank bailout.

Submitted by lambert on

From the transcript:

So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.

Not so. "The rest" is the TARP money: $700 billion. The financial rescue program in toto was more like $22 trillion in guarantees (though not all "spent" it's the guarantee that creates the moral hazard). See this post for Yves on Obama's obfuscation on this point (and, of course, Booman).

Notice the silence on breaking up the banks. The econobloggers are going to rip him a new one on that, and they'll be right.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

saying we need "clean nuclear energy" and asking if anyone had any better ideas for heatlhcare reform. Are you fucking kidding me?

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

And did Kucinich or Massa or Weiner get up and yell "WELL SINCE YOU ASKED"

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I screamed, "You're a Democrat, you fucking asshole!"*

He always comes across as this patronizing professor lecturing the unwashed masses on how to behave. GTFO, Obama. We all know this man is ruthlessly bold when it comes to protecting Wall Street and the Village, but people actually believe that he's their president so when he insists on appearing as a political Ms. Manners, instead of a brawler, a leader on behalf of the public, it cuts any stature or leverage he has.

*Yes, I realize that Obama was a Trojan Horse rather than an actual Democrat, but in his case the public actually believed the lie that he was not only a Democrat, but a New Deal type Democrat.

Submitted by lambert on

I understand the worse is better argument; but.... Well, 2% more hope, and all.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Mark Shields is saying that Obama was trying to channel Reagan. He is giving Obama some points for health care part. He says it was a good speech. Brooks is saying how moderate it was. How Republican. Yuck.

I didn't feel any kind of response in terms of renewing, concrete change ... just spin, baby, spin. The dramatic MA vote shifting. Obama thinks he just needs to educate the citizens more, that is why Americans are frustrated with him. Hubris. Yeah, we want more of the ol' razzle dazzle, Barack. NOT!!! Agree Davidson re that tone he uses.

Yeah, vast, when he said that about if you have a better idea, bring it to me re health care. I wanted to throw my shoe at the tv screen.

Say anything political hack Obama ... I don't believe the man has any kind of strong moral sensibility. Watching him posture and charm the citizenry made me tired and sad.

And those naughty banks, as if those CEOs weren't his donors, his golf buddies. Talk is so cheap. We gotta monitor that lobbying. Bull shit. Say anything. Smile at the camera and say anything.

And spouting about hard luck details of specific people. Don't do that, Barack. That is exploiting people. That is true bottom feeding. Your freeze is going to worsen their lives and you know it. Don't lie to them and use them to spin a veneer of empathy.

Maybe children literally starving in America should be a priority, Barack, along with childhood obesity?

Submitted by lambert on

From one small business:

It's not that people are not trying to spend, it's that they really have run out of money

Stupid. Guy owns a flower shop. Why isn't he marketing to banksters? They've got money!

UPDATE Because JS-KIT SUCKS SO BAD I can't link to the actual comment, but there's an Ellie Light sighting on this thread!

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

And of the Dems who helped confirm him:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Roberts has proven to be an unprincipled plutocratic sycophant. Even Scalia and Thomas are less repugnant. And the worst part is that he's young, so unless he meets with some unfortunate accident we'll have to contend with him for a long time.

Submitted by Anne on

grade the speech as if it were some cheesy reality TV program. As if Obama was handing out roses to the chosen, or belting out a ballad for the chance to go to Hollywood.

The shallowness just astounds me.