"Obama's just like every other politician; he's terrible!"

"Obama's not like other politicians; he's terrible!"

The Klosterman thing on immersion criticism is interesting but how exactly can we separate insane obsession from productive obsession, the guy who babbles to himself about Ulysses and the prof in his office rereading it for the hundredth time. The difference, I used to think, was in social interaction; no matter how eccentric scholars are, you have to put your work into a social community that responds to it. But, honestly, lots of private obsessives do the same; they just put it into different communities. I get that there's a difference--I am a productive obsessive, and not the least of it is that I get a check for my obsessions, which makes them somewhat rational--but the difference is hard to pin down.

There's style and there's effectiveness.

I am not sure there is a difference other than outcome based. If, after everything is done, a productive outcome or advancement happens it was productive obsession, else it was insane obsession. Many sceintific breakthroughs have come from insane obsession that ended up productive.

I know nothing about the specific example you seem to be talking about. Seriously nothing.

I have never seen a politician with as different views on their effectiveness as with Obama. It is like there is a stealth field around the Obama administration accomplishments. I think it is based on (among other things) lofty (unrealistic) initial expectations and a crappy economy, leading many to believe accomplishments = 0 or something.

Great, but how big is your d!ck?

There's style and there's effectiveness. His cult of personality did not break through partisan gridlock, whether by failing to create a popular groundswell or not winning over legislators.

Because a sizable chunk of the country thinks the things he accomplished are terrible.

Someone like Plouffe or Axelrod, who had Obama's ear, asked him about it, and said that Obama gave it some thought for a couple of minutes, but ultimately said no. Wanted to get his workout in in the hotel gym and to call Michelle and the girls, was tired of shaking hands, etc.

The operative, who had also worked for Clinton, said, as you would expect, that Clinton was 100% the opposite. The guy LOVED visiting the field offices, particularly when it was a surprise, and would often stay far longer than the plan called for, sitting down with some volunteer chained to a desk and talking to him or her one-on-one for a couple of minutes. The operative made a wry joke about it to the effect that Clinton was (as you would also expect) often scoping out the women at the field office, but emphasized that it was a real thing--that Clinton loved politics, loved talking to people, loved the feedback and interaction.

Turns out the college kid who asked the candidates about job prospects after graduation was an exercise-science major.

A sizable chunk of people are nut-jarringly stupid.

I know. They voted Obama into the Presidency.

So, the critique here is that Barack Obama loves his wife and kids too much?

I know I saw it. An interesting article in Slate last week concluded that Obama is an introvert which causes him difficulting in some aspects of the political arena. I think I agree. From what I can see, it is work for him to do certain political acts (working a room, glad handing, etc.). Those activities don't energize him, like they seem to do for other politicians. Not sure that disqualifies him for the presidency, but YMMV.

Because a sizable chunk of the country thinks the things he accomplished are terrible.

Well, yeah. He isn't a mechanic, he's the President.

Flip-flopping only after a "sea change" removes the possibility of political repercussions is the exact opposite of "leadership."

So, the critique here is that Barack Obama loves his wife and kids too much?

Well, yeah. He isn't a mechanic, he's the President.

Well, you don't really need to go 100+ grand in debt to rub a thigh and tell someone to do another situp. I'd also assume that entry level jobs don't really pay well and there are a ton of people trying to break through the ceiling to get to the few high paying jobs.

No critique at all, hoss. I think it just shows that Obama is basically a staid, self-disciplined family man, with the temperament of a college prof.

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

"But that's terrible," said Arthur.

"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

Thanks to Citizens United, employers can legally tell their employees who they think they should vote for. Mitt Romney wants small business owners to do just that this November.

"I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections," the GOP hopeful told a group of small business owners this summer on a conference call organized by the conservative-leaning National Federation of Independent Businesses.

"And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope—I hope you pass those along to your employees," he continued at the tail end of a call during which he attacked the president as anti-business. "Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well."

....the two political parties in the 1990s joined forces to wrest control over the presidential debates away from the independent League of Women Voters, which had long resisted the parties' efforts to shield their presidential candidates from genuine surprise or challenge. Now run by the party-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates, these rituals are designed to do little more than " eliminate spontaneity" and "exclude all viable third-party voices". Citing a just-leaked 21-page "memorandum of understanding" secretly negotiated by the two campaigns to govern the rules of the debates.

***********

Here then, within this one process of structuring the presidential debates, we have every active ingredient that typically defines, and degrades, US democracy. The two parties collude in secret. The have the same interests and goals. Everything is done to ensure that the political process is completely scripted and devoid of any spontaneity or reality.

All views that reside outside the narrow confines of the two parties are rigidly excluded. Anyone who might challenge or subvert the two-party duopoly is rendered invisible.

So, the critique here is that Barack Obama loves his wife and kids too much?

What about people who vote for a third-party candidate knowing that it won't matter for this election, but in the hopes that increasing the number of voters that refuse to select either mainstream candidate may have a positive effect for the future? Even if it's unlikely that a third party can ever really break into the current political system, evidence that there's a large and increasing pool of dissatisfied voters might shift policy for one or both of the current two parties.

There are certainly differences between Democrats and Republicans, but they are essentially two wings of one party these days: pro-business, statist, and far to the right of center when compared to other first-world governments. That isn't to say that the differences don't matter at all (and certainly, given only the choice between the two, I have a very clear favorite), but it is to say that there are fundamental issues where the two parties simply manifest the same general philosophy in different ways.

Neither party is close to embracing the idea that government has no business interfering with individual decisions that impact only the self or other consenting adults. To me, that's a fundamental problem that is the source of many of the issues I might take with either party. Choosing between Democrat and Republican is addressing the symptom, not the problem.

The planning for the fund-raisers seemed to underline this estrangement. Obama’s first event was a 6 P.M. dinner at the Four Seasons. About forty contributors, many of them from Wall Street, had paid thirty thousand dollars each to dine with him. Some of the invitees were disgruntled supporters who felt unfairly blamed for the country’s economic problems, and they wanted to vent about what they considered Obama’s anti-business tone. But the President did not have enough time to hear them out—or even share a meal—because after only an hour he was scheduled to leave for the second fund-raiser, at the downtown home of Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue. At the Four Seasons, the President could spend about seven minutes per table, each of which accommodated eight donors. This was fund-raising as speed-dating.

The President’s staff knew that Obama wouldn’t have a moment to eat properly that day, and that it would be hard for him to do so while being the focus of attention at the fund-raisers. So time was set aside at the Four Seasons for Obama to grab a bite, in a “ready room,” with Reggie Love, his personal aide, and Valerie Jarrett, his close friend, senior adviser, and liaison to the business community. This arrangement, however, inadvertently left the impression that Obama preferred his staff’s company to that of the paying guests.

“Obama is very meticulous—they have clockwork timing,” one of the attendees says. “After a few minutes at each table, a staffer would come and tap him on the shoulder, and he’d get up. But when people pay thirty thousand they want to talk to you, and take a picture with you. He was trying to be fair, and that’s great, but every time he started to have a real conversation he got tapped.”

The attendee appreciates that such events must get tiresome for Obama. “Each person, at each table, says to the President, ‘Here’s what you have to do . . .’ At the next table, it’s the same.” Even so, he noted that Bill Clinton—who set the gold standard for the art form known as “donor maintenance”—would have presided over the same event with more enthusiasm: “He would have stayed an extra hour.” After that Four Seasons dinner, the attendee adds, “people were a little mad.”

“He would have stayed an extra hour.” After that Four Seasons dinner, the attendee adds, “people were a little mad.”

But, even the parties are essentially alike, why is that bad? A proliferation of third parties is not conducive to stability, and stability matters. It may matter more than anything else.

Yeah, you can take it. You want to know what you can do with it?

I was personally against interference in Libya - are you agreeing with me, or just insulting me?

I'm sorry, Sam but you are descending into JoeK territory by continually responding to Obama isn't perfect stories in this manner.

than it's a failing of the guy that loves his family, IMHO.

I thought we wanted free people choosing their own governments.

I think one needs a cross-section of the obsessor's thought. Someone who thinks that The Shining is about a faked moon landing is likely to think that Ulysses and Invisible Man and Gilligan's Island are also about faked moon landings.

Maybe they've been done to death before on BBTF, but I do find it odd how I can mention a US judge passing an injunction against the NDAA and the Atty. General being complicit in a program to supply US arms to Mexican drug lords and just get yawns.

The physical therapists I know make very good money. Getting the degrees necessary to work as a physical therapist seems like a way better investment than, say, law school.

Almost no one becomes a physical therapist after just 4 years of college. The likely route who be do to do your 4 years of college and then try to find a PT assistant job while attending further schooling which is another 3 to 4 years of schooling. So after all of that most people will be well north of 100,000 dollars in debt and have a job that pays about 50k a year at entry level and averages about 75,00 year for the entire field.

Let me know when the conservative argument swings back the other way.

Maybe they've been done to death before on BBTF, but I do find it odd how I can mention a US judge passing an injunction against the NDAA and the Atty. General being complicit in a program to supply US arms to Mexican drug lords and just get yawns.

Call me when you're working on the Dyson sphere.

Yeah, this has been hashed out here before, I'm pretty sure it was Joe K's "Obama bombshell du jour" for awhile.

he is not as good at slapping backs and talking to people.

Isn't the main objection to a Dyson sphere that it would take more energy to gather the materials and build than it would generate?

Isn't the main objection to a Dyson sphere that it would take more energy to gather the materials and build than it would generate?

Rebuttal of course being that you build small amounts at a time, Dyson Swarm.

The problem wasn't that Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants

The problem wasn't that Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

The odd thing about Obama (for me anyway) is I keep thinking he is not very good at some parts of his job, and then he keeps being successful. Four years of being in office, and every timehe looked bozed in, a few weeks later he accomplished what he wanted (of course I wanted some different things than him, but he did seem to get what he wanted. He might have been narrowcasting what he wanted to what was possible also).

Clinton was maybe a better "natural politician" and all that but ignoring the economy* the accomplishments of Obama in 4 years stacks up better than Clinton's 8 years (from my biased liberal perspective). Specifically Clinton did a bunch of small bore stuff and some stuff I am not fond of (Hi DOMA!) that was likely foisted on him with occasional good stuff. Obama has bigger and better gets.

* Of course the economy is a BFD. How much of that, or any of this stuff, is controlled or influenced by the President is an open question. Still Clinton will always get mad props for his economy and Obama will get dinged for his, and fair or not that is life.

This whole glad handing business is way overdone. Please show me the where it's had a huge impact on legislation.

The Dems get their stuff passed when they have big majorities in Congress. Like FDR and LBJ had.

Repubs have represented the moneyed elite forever, who are the most comfortable people in any society with doing nothing. So obstruction is always an option for them. Dems can't play the obstruction game as often because their voters usually want them to do something. So a Repub president doesn't need the majorities the Dems need to pass what they want. Been this way forever. Any Dem prez isn't going to arm-twist, gladhand, or hypnotize the Repubs into passing what they want.

It's all because idiot executives stupidly decided we could do without an in-house SQL expert DBA and sourced the work to a vendor... after months of me and a counterpart on the software side screaming about the utter waste that is our vendor... they brought in a noob... who sucks...

But at some point, don't we have to face the idea that the 90s boom was an unsustainable bubble -- some
of which burst late in his Presidency (the tech bubble), but others -- exotic securities and derivatives market, housing,
etc -- that just burst later?

DBA expertise is a funny thing. Some are great, most are largely harmless, and some need to be locked into a utility closet and never let out. This is annoying when you need something done, especially when you know more than they do and just want them to do what you told them to!

Sorry a little PTSD on my part.

Bitter, I guess I just have trouble with a politician (Obama) who heads an administration that has gone to great lengths to cover up the
fact that the US supplied over 2000 guns directly to Mexican druglords, while on the other hand spending billions of dollars through the
Merida Act and domestic enforcement to punish drug users. Thats what I mean about these issues. Complicity in just one issed as ridiculous
as this should be enough to make anyone with a brain question the narrative and motives behind every single thing they do.

But at some point, don't we have to face the idea that the 90s boom was an unsustainable bubble

I hate short-sightedness - and near as I can tell, modern business at the high levels is filled with nothing but idiots whose minds are too weak to see past the next P&L.... I mean, WTF? If an exec fails, they parachute out with plenty of cash and a rolodex full of the next board of idiots to give them a new thing to screw up... meanwhile, I have to clean up the mess -- but with a NEW moron executive who is charged with cutting the bloated costs of vendor contracts and programs that do nothing but produce powerpoints, but since THOSE such things can't be cut -- why, let's cut another headcount so the problem can get incrementally worse for the next executive... who will be even stupider... I've reached the conclusion that my only hope is to just hang around long to get one of those moron gigs myself, let my own brain turn to mush, and then hop on board the same gravy train

]This is a pretty interesting take on the whole Libya/Bhengazi spin Joke was trying to pull off the other day.

But at some point, don't we have to face the idea that the 90s boom was an unsustainable bubble