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

What a fucking farce


The Obama administration announced plans Monday to hold a forum on jobs and economic growth at the White House on Dec. 3, after which the president will go on the road to demonstrate his concern about the nation's rising jobless rate.

With the nation's unemployment rate at its highest level in 26 years, President Obama plans to bring together CEOs, small business owners and financial experts* to sound out ideas for continuing to expand [?] the economy and create jobs.

"During these difficult economic times, we have a responsibility to consider all good ideas to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country," Obama said in a statement.

The president outlined plans for the forum before leaving for Asia last week, but at the time had not nailed down a date. The White House said Obama would follow the forum with a visit to Allentown, Pa., for the first stop of what the White House is calling a Main Street Tour, which will take him to across the country over several months.

Months. So, we're going to have to go through the campaign of 2008 all over again.

Remember how the OFB said that running a great campaign was, like, really a qualification for being President? It's starting to look like that was the only qualification....

NOTE Of course, this is just the warm-up for the mid-terms.

NOTE * Oh, good.

UPDATE Hey, here's an idea. Maybe Obama could ditch the arena concept, ditch the oratory, and try holding small town halls where he fields whatever question is asked for a couple of hours and demonstrates his mastery of policy and detail. Just a thought.

No votes yet


jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Demand the withdrawal of all support funds from the banks and such.

Force themselves onto the cameras. 'Fight hand to hand' if it comes to that.

Make Obama break his stride and shatter that grin of his. Force his face into the ugly maw of the mess he keeps feeding.

Bryan's picture
Submitted by Bryan on

If you don't want to make the only proven and logical decision, you hold meetings, followed by consultants' reports, followed by blue ribbon commissions, until the problem hopefully goes away, or you get to retire.

It's a stall. The stimulus was too small and not adequately purposed, and everyone who has studied the response to the Great Depression knows it. We are beginning to see them repeat the one big mistake that FDR made, trying to reduce the deficit before the economy was healthy enough, so we can anticipate a double dip, a W recession that will last longer than normal.

The banks aren't lending, so there is no private capital available for expansion. The government is the only source of funding to create jobs, so the government had better get to it.

Corporations are the problem. Wall Street is the problem. The first step is to acknowledge what the problem is or you can't possibly design a solution.

Submitted by gmanedit on

Bryan is right, of course. It's to give the appearance of doing something, as opposed to doing something.

Oh, lambert, you brought back memories: "Maybe Obama could ditch the arena concept, ditch the oratory, and try holding small town halls where he fields whatever question is asked for a couple of hours and demonstrates his mastery of policy and detail." Is it mean of me to recall the time Obama ran away from debating with Hillary? "Hillary Clinton wants to debate her opponent so badly, that she’s even willing to do it 'on the back of a flat bed truck.' During an outdoor rally standing before the U.S.S. North Carolina, Clinton said the debate doesn’t have to be in a 'fancy studio.' . . .

"Clinton first proposed a Lincoln-Douglas style debate at a rally in South Bend, Ind., over the weekend where she offered to scrap the moderator and have a 90-minute debate where each candidate would ask the questions. The Obama campaign did not agree to Clinton’s proposal saying that Obama prefers to spend the next few days campaigning rather than preparing for a debate."

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

debates.' I certainly see the logic of it- why disrupt an impression of dominance and victory with the potential stumbles a debate could bring?

Although I think one of Obama's strengths is his capacity to explain things in plain language. I suppose it's left over from his days as a college professor. So I really don't know how much extra debates could have hurt him.

Submitted by gmanedit on

He wasn't prepared, hence "what Hillary said" at the so-called debates. He never had enough interest in policy to immerse himself in the details. Plus, god forbid, he might have had to make commitments he had no intention of honoring.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Hillary decimated him in Pennsylvania. After that debacle, he ran away screaming in terror, never to debate the Titanium Pantsuit again.

To be a good debater, you have to be able to distill complexities into simple, sound-biteable language. Both Clintons are incredibly good at this.

Obama's skill is the opposite. Like many pretend intellectuals, he uses language to obfuscate, rather than clarify.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

It was one of the most impressive displays of policy finesse I've ever seen. For two hours, he stood in a town hall in New England, on a stage, shirt sleeves rolled up and answered every question that came his way. the auditorium wasn't full and people would come and go. Liberals, conservatives, wingnuts - he took 'em all at face value.

Couric asked Palin what newspapers she read and much was made of Palin's bizarro answer. I wish to god someone would have asked obama what economics texts that he had read and to synopsize what he learned. I don't think he could have done it. And we're paying the price.

Bryan's picture
Submitted by Bryan on

His decisions on wiretapping and surveillance don't reflect his supposed knowledge of the Constitution, and his Justice Department is working like crazy not to have these policies tested in courts.

His grasp of economics doesn't seem to be much deeper than John McCain's, and he doesn't seem to understand the real conditions of the communities he represented as a "community organizer".

He doesn't seem to be pushing filling important posts in his administration that are directly involved with the current issues, like the Medicare director.

So far he doesn't seem interested in getting involved with Congress over legislation.

Frankly, he keeps running around for photo ops and feel good town halls, rather than dealing with problems.

I get the distinct feeling that he thinks he is supposed to be a mediator rather than a leader. At some point he is going to have to make a decision and then stick by it. The Republicans and Blue Dogs have already figured out that they can get pretty much anything they want just by saying "no", because Obama will keep moving towards their position. The liberals are the only ones who are expected to compromise; the liberals are the only ones who get leaned on.

I'm not looking for a "manly man", but a competent bureaucrat would be nice.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

He read the Cliff's Notes version of "The Fountainhead" and thought it was teh awesome. What more do you want?


nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

If your frame of reference differs significantly from that of the people whose support you want, a debate is dangerous. Recasting your answer from what you believe to what your followers want to hear slows you down. Remember George Bush stammered around and misspoke when talking about social issues ("food on your family") but was clear and direct when threatening to inflict harm. Obama would have a similar problem. He has clearly acted against his own prepared speeches, from use of national security arguments to guard government secrecy to the cronyism of his appointments to the enriching of powerful interests. In a debate, he would too often be trying to formulate the popular answers ("Government should be transparent") when he in fact will cut secret deals with banks, big pharma, and the like.