The New Republic

Read this along with Chait's post on hostage negotiation strategy - very complementary, and between the two of them, they explain a lot about the abysmal failure that this administration's approach to politics has been. Can you imagine a Bushie going on TV and saying what Plouffe said? Obama will probably win reelection, and hopefully will change his approach in his second term when he won't have to care about the next term.

- NR409654

April 11, 2011 at 1:12am

Sorry, NR, I one for one have very little hope. Obama is who he is. When he had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate he was a poor public leader. He certainlhy is one today. What makes anyone think he should change. He simply is not up to the task. Unfortunately there is no alternative at this point.

- PeteBeck

April 11, 2011 at 2:24am

Agree with PeteBeck, sadly. People keep hoping for The Real Obama to Stand Up. Well, I think he has stood up. When he let the GOP roll us with the Bush Tax Cut extension, and just as bad cutting into SS revenues, I think that emboldened the worst elements of the right. It has certainly disheartened the Left, even moderate Dems have to be hurt and confused. Meanwhile, the circus in Washington does nothing to address the concerns of people who can't find solid, meaningful work or realize their dreams. Those of us facing old age and/or illness are flat out frightened.

- Sophia

April 11, 2011 at 2:50am

BTW, I am a staunch supporter and think he's achieved a lot. Just wonder why he has so much trouble articulating it, which is a prerequisite for having the credibility to negotiate from a position of strength. If Clinton had achieved even close to what Obama has, he would have won reelection with 70% of the vote.

- NR409654

April 11, 2011 at 3:43am

After he was forced to move the center Clinton had three major achievements. NAFTA, welfare reform and a balanced budget. What has Obama achieved? His foreign policy consists mainly of alienating our allies and kissing up to our enemies. His signature domestic "achievement", Obamacare, is an unpopular mess that has a good of either being repealed or ruled unconstitutional.

- bulbman1066

April 11, 2011 at 4:41am

a. Which allies has he alienated? What enemies has he kissed up to? b. Obamacare is not unpopular in the accepted sense of the word ... as in, the people who don't like it contain a significant portion who think it didn't go far enough and I think you can fault the bloody Senate for that, not Obama. It will not get repealed - if it gets ruled unconstitutional, it will be in all likelihood a political decision. c. Achievements include - in addition to healthcare reform, middle classs tax cut - bringing the economy back from the brink of a complete meltdown. Unless I am not remembering well, we've had three consecutive quarters of growth. I don't think any of us would have predicted that in early 2009. Could he have done more? Absolutely - that's my point. He seems to have lost that ability to tell a story that won him an election, and would have allowed him to keep public opinion on his side.

- NR409654

April 11, 2011 at 5:12am

I guess I've never thought its the President's job to in any way help me realize my dreams. I don't even think it's the President's job to find people work, never have.

- WandreyCer

April 11, 2011 at 6:25am

For 8 years I was sick and tired of snowjob after snowjob, from stem cell research to Iraq to tax cuts to torture. Talk about change. That was all the change I wanted. And now the Republicans have offered the ultimate snowjob Ryan plan. President Obama needs to throw a change up.

- Nusholtz

April 11, 2011 at 6:46am

Suggestion: bulbman is a knee-jerk right wing loon of the first order. He thought Hillary was in the grassy knoll with her lesbian friends and that all liberals are evil. I'd skip even engaging. I'll be honest - I'm an beyond sick of the constant liberal carping about Obama. I am not going to list again his many accomplishments, industries and millions of jobs saved or ellucidate once again the environment that he was elected in or the bald-faced reality of how Americans (including liberals, who constantly whine and then refuse to vote) vote in this country. It's been said too many times. Yes, I wish the state of the economy was better and everyone had safety and a job too. But the fact is that most people in this country don't care if their neighbor has a job, as long as they have one. At least they don't care in any way that they are willing to sacrifice a damn thing to make sure it happens. Yes, I could have used some more muscle in Wall Street reform and yes, gee whiz I wish we didn't have to cut taxes for the rich yet again to get unemployment insurance fired up again. I wish Republicans weren't stupid compulsive liars and that Democrats were more effective politicians, but guess what - they are and we aren't. Twas ever thus. Obama isn't a "leader." OK, people are entitled to think that. I heartily disagree. He's centered, realistic and a grown up, not a macho asshole or a phony. He plays the long game and wins much more often than not, in the things that matter. Yes, he could care less about the win/lose news cycle nonsense, probably to his detriment, and is obviously even more sick of carping than even I am. Ditto. I try to imagine my grandparents complaining the way liberals do now - why isn't the President of America personally meeting my needs? Making my dreams come true? Getting rid of my fear? It would never have occured to them to look to the President to do any of these things.

- WandreyCer

April 11, 2011 at 6:49am

I believe this will be part of Obama's re-election strategy, not deficit reduction strategy: to create a contrast between the Republican vision for America and the Obama vision for America, without being too specific (just like the Ryan plan). And since the election season isn't far off, and with the hot summer recess in between, nothing much will happen between now and then anyway, just lots of talk. I suppose I disagree with Cohn's concern that Obama will stake out a middle position from which to negotiate with the Republicans, resulting in a compromise that is to the right of the middle. There won't be a compromise because none is intended. But I do worry that an Obama proposal made now will have Geithner's finger prints all over it; if Obama were to wait until after the re-election, after Geithner is replaced, the Obama proposal would come much closer, from both a political and policy perspective, to one that Cohn (and I) would be happy to support.

- rayward

April 11, 2011 at 8:12am

"I don't even think it's the President's job to find people work, never have." Wandry, maybe you don't think it's the job of the president, along with Congress, to enact and administer policies that help grow the number of well paying jobs, but what you think is absolutely wrong. A major job of the federal government -- from the very beginning in 1789 -- has been to promote economic growth and prosperity and virtually every president and Senator and Rep has since claimed that they are doing just that. The question today is are the Repubs being honeste or at least sensibl when they say their plans will help grow jobs -- I think not. And does Obama even have a plan that makes any sense and if he has one is he able to sell it to the public -- so far the answer is "no".

- PeteBeck

April 11, 2011 at 8:39am

Oh, no. Not YET ANOTHER Obama pre-emptive "compromise" that begins giving away the store. Besides, the Obama administration has ALREADY CUT the cost of Medicare/Medicaid, it's call the ACA. Which the Ryan plan would throw out while chasing mythical cost cuts provided by the unregulated Free Market. Because that's worked SO well in the past. But when Obama offers a pre-emptive "compromise", he simply weakens his position. "Oh, so you AGREE with us the system is broken? Okay, fix it OUR way!". He's done this several times, and EVERY time the Republicans DENY any compromise was even offered, while using the compromise position as a STARTING point. PLEASE Mr. President, DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY!

- AllanL5

April 11, 2011 at 8:44am

Wandrey, my single complaint about Obama (and it has been fairly consistent if you read the posts where I am not defending him) has been his puzzling lack of articulateness regarding his accomplishments. I believe it is this, and not just his taking the long view and not worrying about the win/lose cycle that has him in a position where he doesn't have the country behind him enough to take on the republicans and win a fair deal. I remember regarding Clinton with sheer admiration when his job approval rating was in the 50s even when he was caught having sex with Lewinsky - the economy helped a huge deal of course, but so did his unbelievable eloquence and the ability to convince people that he had their best interests at heart no matter what else he may do. Obama needed to be - and didn't - building a story about his administration as he went along, one that told people the incredible work he had done for them. Instead he has the vast middle convinced that he is an inveterate spender, and "just another" Democrat.

- NR409654

April 11, 2011 at 9:18am

When is Obama going to get over his obsession with bipartisanship? When is he going to realize that trying to compromise with a bunch of right-wing fanatics who demand that everything be done their way is a complete waste of time? Never, apparently. He ought to propose a budget-reduction plan that would be a horror to the GOP but largely acceptable to the middle class. Most people are aching to see the rich get it socked to them for once and for the tax code to be made simpler and fairer, but it seems like it will never happen. The best parts of Obama's plan will probably get negotiated away, and the worst parts will be made even worse, all in the name of a bipartisan agreement. We need an LBJ, who knew how to get what he wanted. Of course, the Republicans were a lot more reasonable back then, but I think Johnson would have prevailed against a loony-right GOP as well. He would have relished kicking their butts. It's what people are longing for, but Obama just doesn't have what it takes.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

April 11, 2011 at 9:20am

I have heard the president articulate many short term and -- something important -- long-term goals over the past couple of years. I have also heard him give complex arguments in relatively clear ideas and language (on energy, especially). But if a regular contributor to this journal writes a long piece about getting a handle on health care costs, as William Galston did a few days ago, and never even mentions the Affordable Care Act, the one major piece of legislation in a couple of generations to have that as one of its aims, what can a poor boy do? If the media interviewers and commentators would just ask Ryan "yes but isn't the ACA also a major move to resolve these problems, but in a different way?" (a fairly logical question, in my view) every time he spouts off about his "plan," this would be a different debate. What can one do about what looks like terminal amnesia about an issue that apparently convulsed the nation just over a year ago?

- ironyroad

April 11, 2011 at 9:31am

Wall Street Journal headline today, FWIW, "Obama puts taxes on the table" Sounds good to me.

- miceelf

April 11, 2011 at 9:47am

"If the media interviewers and commentators would just ask Ryan 'yes but isn't the ACA also a major move to resolve these problems, but in a different way?' (a fairly logical question, in my view) every time he spouts off about his "plan," this would be a different debate. What can one do about what looks like terminal amnesia about an issue that apparently convulsed the nation just over a year ago?" Or the president could raise the same points and not wait for the media to (not) do it for him.

- AaronW

April 11, 2011 at 9:59am

"There is a time to bring opposing parties together. And there is a time to choose sides." Best of all is to successfully do the second, while appearing to do the first.

- gwcross

April 11, 2011 at 9:59am

NR - I agree, well put and I do get that. This is a very puzzling part of the man and his administration and damn it, liberals are allowed to hold the man accountable, we have valid policy goals too. But he is not President Clinton in 1999, a charming magician of a human being who also had a smoking hot economy at is back. He is President Obama in 2011 and in my view, the knee-jerk carping about the man's supposed failings every time he opens his mouth says alot more about liberals - and I am a liberal - than it does about him. Sorry. I have my disappointments with the man, but I also get fed up with the constant WHINING and negativity from every corner about every thing he says or does. How he puts up with it is utterly beyond me. This is very vulgar and I probably should not post it, but here goes. My friend's high school son was watching Obama defend himself at a press conference after the last tax cut deal, the one where (insert rending of garments) he sold our very soul yet again yadda yadda etc - and this young man, a highly thoughtful, funny kid who does not say vulgar things often in front of his Mom and her old bag friends like me:"You know, one of these days Obama is going to stand up at a press conference and say 'Ladies and Gentleman, I called you here today to say just one thing: suck my **** and walk off the podium." I thought it was astute - if admittedly adolescent - analysis, myself. Pete - I hear you too. But I didn't say the President's job isn't to sell and ideally implement economic policies that create as many job opportunities as possible for Americans (like saving the auto industry and all of those jobs). I said it is not his job to *get* you or anyone else a job. He's the President, not God. He's also not personally in charge of economic cycles, which sometimes exist outside of political or policy influence.

- WandreyCer

April 11, 2011 at 10:30am

Wandrey I agree with petebeck The economy is the most important thing and jobs are a part of that. When employment is down, crime is up, aid to the poor is up, education is down, &etc. Government can't cure our problems, but there is a lot less do deal with when the economy is doing well.

- Nusholtz

April 11, 2011 at 10:35am

So Boehner just said to the Presidend "Guess what, Mr. President, you're not going to get a 'clean' bill" -- referring to the debt-ceiling raising bill. To which Mr. Obama should say "Guess what, Mr. Boehner, you're not the President. You control the House of Representatives, do you REALLY think the House should dictate to the Senate, and the Presidency? And even if you do, you've ALREADY obligated the United States to spending this money. What part of "renege" do you not understand?"

- AllanL5

April 11, 2011 at 11:46am

I have no problem with bipartianship, but progressives need to start with a plan that is as far to the left as the Ryan plan is to the right, and let the negotiation move to the TRUE center. I am so tired of these GOP arguments that the well to do and business need certainty and cash, but the middle class and poor need the less certainty of defined contribution pensions, reduced social security (which is already less cash) and, according to Paul Ryan, defined benefit medicare. Socialism for business and the rich, capitalism for the middle class and the poor...the governing philosophy of the GOP apparently. Lets all remember, transfer of wealth and class warfare can go both ways....

- rbstanley

April 11, 2011 at 3:13pm

NR writes: "Achievements include - in addition to healthcare reform, middle classs tax cut - bringing the economy back from the brink of a complete meltdown. Unless I am not remembering well, we've had three consecutive quarters of growth. I don't think any of us would have predicted that in early 2009." But nobody likes the health care reform except a few die hards here and there. The middle class tax cut was Bush's tax cut. It's a HUGE cut that costs $230B a year. Obama's tax cut ("making work pay") was $15/week, or $60B a year. So, Bush's middle class tax cut was 4X larger than Obama's. In early 2009, Obama predicted that right now unemployment would be under 7% IF we enacted his recover plan, and 8.9% if we didn't. Of course, we DID enact his recovery plan, and it's still north of 9%. So, I think it's fair to say OBAMA predicted we'd be a lot further along than we are at this point.

- seattleeng

April 11, 2011 at 3:59pm

You're making stuff up again, seattle, to suit your narrative. If you put together the people who approve of ACA and those who are disappointed because it didn't go far enough to at least a public option if not single-payer, they are many more than the few who want to go backwards. And as the provisions kick in and people start to benefit, it will only grow more popular. If the Democrats don't allow Boehner, Ryan and the rest of the savages to ruin ACA, it will be very popular before long, just like Medicare and social security, two programs that the Republicans detest but must rhetorically insist they want to "save" while destroying. Same lies, different day.

- roidubouloi

April 11, 2011 at 4:27pm

"Obama starts off with a flexible, center-left position. The Republicans start off with a rigid, far-right position. Obama's commitment to bringing people together seems absolutely sincere; the Republicans' interest in shredding the welfare state seems absolutely sincere. The two go back and forth, eventually reaching a compromise that is somewhere between the two ideological starting points--which is somewhere on the right." Substitute HMO's, Parma, Pentagon, Wall St for Republicans and you've summed up for the first term Jonathan.

- IggyPop

April 11, 2011 at 5:12pm

Wandrey, it damn well is the job of the President to help the American people. That includes protecting all of us AND our environment, the natural resources we as a people supposedly own. How many young people do you know? Talented, accomplished, hard working and unable to find anything better than a minimum wage job at Dunkin' Donuts let alone a job in their own field ESPECIALLY if they're in the arts. Of course older people who lose jobs really struggle to replace them at all! Teachers - being bashed and blamed. Unions, women, the environment - taking a beating. Old people, the poor, people with disabilities - threatened and afraid. What about people who've lost the value of their portfolios and their homes or who've lost their homes altogether? People are abandoning their animals, even, in droves. They simply cannot afford to care for them. This completely sucks. I don't want a person in the White House who doesn't get this, who is so cool, who remains "above the fray." Why????? Forgetaboutit. We need somebody who's willing to fight for us. Splinters, segments of the Far Right are running things and we don't even know what's up until it is too late to fix it. Example they attacked wolves in the budget deal, removed them from the Endangered Species act. WTF.

- Sophia

April 11, 2011 at 6:50pm

savages I like this word. It pretty well sums up the philosophy of those we need our President to confront. So why won't he? GE didn't pay a dime in taxes yet all we hear about from the Right is how high taxes are in the US. Is this even true? I doubt it so why isn't somebody out there confronting the lies?

- Sophia

April 11, 2011 at 6:53pm

I rest my case: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

- Sophia

April 11, 2011 at 7:00pm

I could cut Obama some slack if he would just make the case for our side in these debates about public policy. He doesn't do it. He has accomplished some tremendous things, under some trying circumstances, and I think he does not get nearly enough credit from the American people as a whole, or from liberals. But his problem with liberals is not primarily our inability to accept the need for compromise, it is that the President accepts and endorses the Republican position! It is one thing to compromise to avoid a shutdown, and quite another to publicly agree with the opposition. Obama undermines the case for his own program, and validates the voodoo economics and rich man's priorities of the GOP, when he could as easily be using the bully pulpit to explain why the Republicans are wrong, why their proposals are so bad for America, and why the compromises, while necessary and unavoidable under the current political reality (a GOP Tea Party House), are going to hurt us. As a consequence of Obama's failure to make the arguments against the lunatics of the right and their mean-spirited policy objectives, even the accomplishments of the past two years are in jeopardy of being rolled back, defunded, or repealed. As for the portion of his agenda still to be addressed, there is almost no hope. I don't want to bash Obama. I will be supporting him in 2012. But, he is a huge disappointment. Neil

- purcellneil

April 12, 2011 at 9:34am

Sophia, I find Krugman smart, but his opinion of Obama, especially in terms of the politics, doesn't prove anything. From what I can tell, at least what's being reported this morning, "entitlement reform" as mentioned by the president appears to consist of efficiencies in delivery of medicare (very similar and perhaps even the same thing as the quality assurance that was part of ACA) and raising the cap on social security taxes. And this is exactly the kind of the reform that is needed. Raising the cap makes it less regressive AND increases revenue. There may be something horrible hidden in the details, but if this is what he's proposing, I don't care if he calls it entitlement reform. Especially when contrasted to the Republican plan of cutting taxes on the wealthiest and gutting medicare/medicaid. (And yes, it's being called the Republican plan in the press, not the Ryan plan: I hope they choke on it).

- miceelf

April 12, 2011 at 10:12am

To answer a previous question: Allies he has alienated - Poland and the Czech Republic, over the SDI deployment, in which this POTUS, after US diplomacy had convinced the Poles and Czechs to take interceptors, then withdrew them in the face of Russian opposition. Russia was not, is not and will not be our friend, in any sense of that word. He has alienated the Israelis with his foolish insistance that settlements hold the key to a "peace" deal, when there cannot be peace because there is an entire Palestinian nation that wishes to destroy Israel, no matter what they say, in English, to gullible Western reporters. I could go on, but that's a start.

- butchie b

April 12, 2011 at 2:33pm