Category: Barack Obama

General McChrystal Should Not Be Fired

No Comments

He should be the subject of a formal criminal inquiry.

Simply put, the statements, both by him and by his subordinates with his tacit approval are completely antithetical to the idea of civilian control of the military.

To the degree that his profile in Rolling Stone, when he was informed of both content and quotes therein ahead of publication, and he voiced no objections, is simply completely beyond the pale for the lowliest private at a wedding toast, much less a general being interviewed by a major national magazine:

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. “I never know what’s going to pop out until I’m up there, that’s the problem,” he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

“Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?”

“Biden?” suggests a top adviser. “Did you say: Bite Me?”

…………

…But part of the problem is personal: In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.” Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, “turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it’s not very helpful.” Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle. “Hillary had Stan’s back during the strategic review,” says an adviser. “She said, ‘If Stan wants it, give him what he needs.’ ”

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. “The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” says a member of the general’s team. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous. He’s a brilliant guy, but he just comes in, pulls on a lever, whatever he can grasp onto. But this is COIN, and you can’t just have someone yanking on shit.”

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. “Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,” he groans. “I don’t even want to open it.” He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

“Make sure you don’t get any of that on your leg,” an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

This is on top of his lying and cover-up in the Pat Tillman affair, the torture under his command in Iraq at the Camp Nama prison camp, and his earlier insubordination at his speech in London about a year ago.

The only way that firing McCrystal would be an appropriate response is if he were fired out of a cannon.

His senior staff should be fired, McCrystal should be brought up on charges.

Of course, Barack Obama, because he wants everyone to like him, will instead engage in some theater like rejecting McCrystal’s resignation, but this is wrong for the military, wrong for the Afghan campaign, and wrong for the country.

Well, I’ll be hearing Olbermann’s Special Comment in a few minutes.

I Can Haz Prosecushuns?

1 Comment

So, now George W. Bush has explicitly stated that he authorized torture:

George W. Bush’s casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded — and would do it again — has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn’t seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting.

Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is “unequivocably torture”, said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years.

“As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War,” Irvine said. “Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life.”

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn’t appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

Here’s a baseball metaphor to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder: You are the umpires, Bush and Cheney are calling you a c*cks*ck*r.

You have no credibility when the worst of the criminals proclaim their crimes, and you do nothing.

This isn’t, “looking forward, not backward,” it’s moral cowardice, it’s being a criminal yourself, because by being an accessory to the cover-up you are an accessory to the crime.

What’s more, much like Ford’s pardon of Nixon, your insistence on denying the rule of law will encourage further law-breaking in the future.

Obama’s Speech

No Comments

I saw it, actually read it in the closed caption, I was at the gym on a stationary bicycle, and my reaction was that it was a missed opportunity.

He asked the banks to get on board, basically scolding them, but did not name names, or otherwise get medieval on them.

The American public hates the big banks, which, BTW, should be referred to exclusively as Wall Street Banks, even if the effect on poll numbers on financial reform are minor, as I have argued.

The bankers are not stake holders, they are malefactors, and should be treated as such.

Saying, “Can’t we all just get along,” is both bad politics, and bad policy.

Justice Stevens to Retire

3 Comments

Just Announced.

Obviously, the question now is who Obama will nominate to succeed him.

My predictions:

  • They will be Protestant
    • Stevens is the only Protestant on the court, the rest are Catholic or Jewish.
  • They will be a woman and/or a minority.
    • Because it will be his way to pander to the base when he chooses a basically conservative nominee.
  • They will be tepid, at best, on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose in general.
    • Since Barack Obama has always been tepid, at best, on Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose in general.
  • They will generally favor a very expansive definition of the powers of the Presidency.
    • Since Barack Obama has aggressively asserted a very expansive definition of the powers of the Presidency.
  • They will generally be rather pro corporate, though not as much as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy.
    • Since Barack Obama is ……… You get the picture.
  • They will not be particularly pro organized labor.
    • Obama has clearly been tepid on labor issues, as shown by his efforts to soft pedal the EFCA (Card Check).

What I would like to see, beyond ideology, is that:

  • They not have worked as a prosecutor, which tends to set people off on a legal path that is hostile to the rights of the accused.
  • That they not, and have not been, a sitting Federal Judge, which is increasingly the norm, and we need more diversity of experience in there.
  • Nominating someone who is publicly an atheist.

Things that could make this amusing, but will not happen:

  • Nominating Bill Clinton, just to make the ‘Phant’s heads explode.
  • Nominating a Muslim.
  • Nominating Hillary Clinton, just to make the ‘Phant’s heads explode.

But these will not happen.

I Wholeheartedly Approve

No Comments

Someone on DU related their experience with reporting someone threatening violence against Obama to the Secret Service: (Click for full size screen shot)

I called the Secret Service on a wingnut threatening Obama

Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 12:13 AM by Jack_Dawson

on his Facebook. “We need to take him OUT! BY ANY MEANS!” he said Friday night at 10:30 (one can only speculate whether alcohol played a factor).

I called my local SS field office on Saturday. Sent them screenshots. They followed up with him, and he mysteriously removed the OP. But that wasn’t good enough for the Secret Service. They called me again today to send them more screenshots – to see if he had redacted his comment. He had not.

Then about an hour ago, he posted this:

“I suggest REMOVING Obama from office through legal, lawful and Constitutional methods ONLY! I DO NOT AND WOULD NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE!

If you see / hear something similar, I suggest contacting your district office. They do follow up.

Indeed. There has been a lot of violent eliminationist rhetoric, and when it devolves to the point of being a specific threat, reporting it to the authorities is a civic duty.

I am not suggesting the sort of reaction that got Richard Humphreys 37 months in the clink for making “Burning Bush” jokes, but when speech becomes explicit threats, or an exhortation to specific violent action, it’s a problem.

Obama Authorizes Assassinations of American Citizens

No Comments

Radical Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi has now been placed on the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) target list, which means that he can be killed if spotted. (See also here)

Based on the reports that I’ve seen in the media, it’s pretty clear that there is probable cause to apprehend him on suspicion of a number of crimes, but basically, the JSOC is a hit list.

There won’t be any efforts to capture him, this means that he’s going to be taken out by a Predator drone or suchlike, and I find this to profoundly troubling.

Glenn Greenwald makes the point that this is authorizing the killing of an American citizen on the decision of one man, the President, a power that even George W. Bush did not claim, and I agree, though I am not quite as strident in my views.

Additionally, this has the effect of legitimizing the use of lethal force by other governments against those whom they deem terrorists.

Under the rules adopted, I could see the Chinese assassinating Uighur activists, the Russians assassinating Chechen activists, or the Turks assassinating Kurdish activists, on US soil.

Also, from a purely tactical perspective, if you have a person who is willing to die to accomplish their mission, and al Qaeda does, then it is rather simpler to locate the President of the United States than it is to locate Anwar al-Aulaqi or Saddam Hussein.

This may have the effect of encouraging direct action against American officials.

Please, God, Let This Be True!

No Comments

The rumor is that Larry Summers is dissatisfied with his relative lack of power in the Obama administration, and will soon be leaving.

I am generally not a big follower of the Kremlinology school of politics, which looks obsessively at petty power squabbles amongst the courtiers in the White House, but it appears that Larry Summers, after being denied Treasury Secretary because he was too toxic, was expecting that he would be appointed to replace Ben Bernanke as Fed chair.

Well, Joshua Green at The Atlantic notes that Summers has started demanding perks, such as, I kid you not, “golf dates with the president,”* and that he is most unhappy with his role as head of the Director of the White House’s National Economic Council, and is considering leaving.

Well, all that I can say is, hip hip hurray!

Larry Summers, whatever his academic achievements have been, has been deeply, profoundly and disastrously wrong on every venture into the real world, as evidenced by Mark Ames’ devastating portrait of his performance as a public servant which shows him to be both incompetent and corrupt.

Here’s hoping that Barack Obama does not feel the need to keep him around. Larry Summers is not just the wrong man for these times, he is the wrong time for any times.

Next up, Tim Geithner, and if the Senators place a hold on his successor, then recess appoint Sam Webb.

It is a disaster on both a policy and a politics level to allow senior economic staff to be so captured by wall street.

*Golf Dates? F%$#ing Golf Dates?!?!? How fucking egotistical and petty can you be?

It’s Like They are Trying to Demoralize the Democratic Base

No Comments

Because it looks like they are going to delay the Iraq withdrawal:

The U.S. military has prepared contingency plans to delay the planned withdrawal of all combat forces in Iraq, citing the prospects for political instability and increased violence as Iraqis hold national elections next month.

Under a deadline set by President Obama, all combat forces are slated to withdraw from Iraq by the end of August, and there remains heavy political pressure in Washington and Baghdad to stick to that schedule. But Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Monday that he had briefed officials in Washington in the past week about possible contingency plans.

I understand that there need to be contingency plans, but the fact that this gets leaked to the Washington Posts means that they are looking to see if a delay is politically feasible for them to further extend Operation Useless Dirt 1.*

So in August, 3 months before the election, they are going to push back the withdrawal, and they expect the base to be enthused about working for the Democratic party.

The Obama administration is beginning to make the Carter administration look like Niccolò Machiavelli.

A few more months of this, and I might be ready to vote green.†

The equation here is very clear: Military operations are very good for careerist military officers, so you will always have a significant portion of the military arguing for these operations, since it benefits them personally.

You need to ignore them.

*H/t Eric Palmer for this bon mot describing Operation (insert name here).
†Not really, pulling the lever for the Greens would have vomiting in the voting booth.‡
‡But yes, actually vomiting in the voting booth might be a real possibility.

If Rahm is Gone, What Does It Mean?

No Comments

Cenk Uygur looks at Dana Millbank’s recent big wet kiss to Rahm Emanuel, and concludes that Rahm Emanuel is on his way out:

My second thought was, “Wow, what a hatchet job on Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod!” Since Rahm is obviously feeding this to Milbank, that is very revealing. You don’t throw these kinds of bombs unless you’ve already lost. This is an act of desperation. It’s bound to make mortal enemies of these people inside Obama’s inner circle. You can’t really work with these people anymore. That means you’re already finished there.

This is basically Rahm saying on his way out, I was right all along and these guys were wrong. ………

I hope that he is right, but Taylor Marsh sees a bigger picture, and it is scary:

But what if the problem isn’t Rahm?

It’s the question most Democrats can’t, won’t or refuse to face, because they can’t do anything about the answer. Because if they pretend it’s all about Rahm, hoping for his ouster, at least Democrats might get a re-set. With Gibby, Axe, Val and now even Dave still around, it’s better than nothing.”

Rahm Emanuel has some less than savory, and I think downright destructive characteristics, but Barack Obama is not simply some passive actor here; The problems here are clearly Barack Obama’s responsibility, his desk is where the buck stops, but it’s also likely that it’s his fault, and that his missteps on healthcare, stimulus, DADT, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

The question is whether these are mistakes, or an artifact of who Barack Obama is.

I fear that this is the latter, because mistakes can be fixed, but if the attempts to make nice and split the difference is at Obama’s core, then we are screwed.

Obama Finally Comes Out With a Healthcare Plan

No Comments

So, after months of deferring to Congress, and pissing away much of the political initiative, has finally released a proposal.

It’s not a full bill, it’s just a proposal, so it’s about 14 pages long, and it’s pretty much an exercise in splitting the baby, as Igor Volsky’s handy table shows.

Yep, once again, when there is a possibility to do something bold, Obama splits the difference, and dumps the public option, because an actual statement of policy, as opposed to just splitting the difference would be “distasteful”.

Seriously, what does he actually believe in?

(Table after break)

Provision Obama’s Bill House Bill Senate Bill
Affordability Improves the Senate bill’s subsidies for lower income Americans. Families below $44,000 and above $66,000 would pay less in premiums. Also raises the percent of health costs that are paid by insurers from the Senate proposal. Families earning below $55,000 would still receive more subsidies under the House bill, but Americans earning more than $55,000 would pay higher premiums (as compared to Obama’s proposal). The percent of costs paid by the insurers is higher than Obama’s proposal. Families making under $55,000 would see higher premiums than Obama’s proposal and the percent of costs paid for by health insurers is lower than Obama’s proposal.
Excise Tax ‘Labor agreement’ for everyone. Changes effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018. Raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent. No excise tax. 40% excise tax beginning in 2013 on individual polices worth $8,500 or higher and family policies starting at $23,000.
Payroll Tax Adopts Senate bill approach and adds a 2.9% assessment on unearned income. 5.4% surcharge on high-income households. Payroll tax increase of 0.9% on earnings above a specific threshold for a total employee assessment of 2.35% on these amounts.
Individual Mandate Mixed bag. May be easier for younger Americans to opt out. Lowers flat dollar amount to $695 by 2016 from the Senate bill and raises the alternative percent of income to House levels that individuals will pay for not having health insurance. Hardship waiver when premiums over 8% of their income, and couples under $18,700 are exempt from the requirement. 2.5% of income by 2016 with a limit of the average national health premium. Flat rate of $750 by 2016 and hardship waiver when premiums exceed 8% of income.
Employer Mandate No mandate, free rider provision. Large employers (50+ workers) have to pay a fee if employees receive subsidies. Improves transition to free-rider policy by subtracting first 30 workers. (A firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount.) Employer mandate. The House bill requires a payroll tax for employers that do not offer health insurance that meets minimum standards. No mandate, free rider provision. Large employers have to pay a fee if taxpayers are supporting the health insurance for their workers.
Grandfathered plans Plans have to conform to new regulations. Plans have cover adult dependents up to 26yo, prohibits rescission. After exchanges begin in 2014, plans can’t institute annual and lifetime limits or pre-existing condition exclusions. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing. “Grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. Abide by all rules after 5 years. “Grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it.
Medicare Donut Hole Completely closes donut hole. Replaces $500 increase threshold increase limit with a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Closes donut hole by phasing down the coinsurance so it is the standard 25% by 2020 throughout the coverage gap. The House bill fully phases out the donut hole over 10 years. Raise the dollar amount before the donut hole begins by $500 in 2010. The Senate bill provides a 50% discount for certain drugs in the donut hole. Raise the dollar amount before the donut hole begins by $500 in 2010.

Capitulation On Healthcare?

No Comments

So, Obama has announced a televised summit with the Dems and the ‘Phants on healthcare, where everything is on the table.

It appears that he’s pushing Dems to come on board for the idea, which appears to me to continue to be, “Just put ‘Healthcare’ on a piece of paper, and I’ll sign it.

Well, the response from the Republicans was that he must kill the House and Senate bills and forswear reconciliation before any such meeting, and the White House response to this, at least insofar is Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is concerned, is to say that they are willing to talk without preconditions.

One interesting twist to this is that John Boehner is also objecting to it being televised, because, I think that he realizes that “no” is not photogenic.

So, is this yet another misguided attempt by Obama to get Republicans to like him (my choice), or is it a bit of elventy dimensional chess where Obama gets Republicans to hang themselves on live TV? (What Boehner fears)

OK, Now, it’s Time To Roll Tom Tomorrow

No Comments
Click for full size


Tom Tomorrow, from Sept. 19, 2005 and Feb. 1, 2010

So Barack Obama is now saying that he, “doesn’t begrudge the $19 million in bonuses for Goldman Sach CEO Lloyd Blankfein and JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Domon:

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

This is simbply a complete mind f%$#.

It is as Krugman notes, clueless, and Simon Johnson notes that this is an example of, “One of the most complete (and awful) instances ever of savvy businessmen capturing a state and the minds of the people who run it.”

Even if you accept the argument, such as was made by Greg Seargant, that Obama was actually making a nuanced statement where he attempted to show concern without being too “anti-business” in his statements, an to be fair, both Simon Johnson and Paul Krugman, as well as yours truly accept this, it’s still wrong, and shows a concern that is warping the decision making process at the white house.

Johnson notes that he is, “Not sure why he needs to strike that balance. CEOs are overpaid, bankers are overpaid, and bank CEOs are overpaid. Why not just say it plainly?”

Paul Krugman thinks that the nuance makes it worse:

I really don’t see how this makes things any better than the reporting in the Bloomberg story. We don’t begrudge wealth in the free market system — OK, but this wasn’t about free markets, this is an industry that survives only thanks to taxpayer backing. And Wall Street bonuses are like baseball salaries; please.

Just to be clear: what freaks me out about this isn’t what it says about Obama’s policies, it’s what it says about failure to read the mood of the country. The president seems solely concerned that someone might think that he’s anti-business, without — in this interview, at least — appearing to consider it necessary to say a thing about the pervasive sense of unfair Wall Street privilege. He doesn’t have to bash bankers every step of the way, but to respond to a question about bonuses solely by praising free markets and comparing bankers to baseball stars is … clueless.

Whether Tom Tomorrow is right, or whether Paul Krugman is right, what it means is that there is a distinct possibility of a President Palin in 2012.

Obama Buys a Clue (Finally!)

No Comments

We how have reports that in a private meeting with David Boehner, Obama said that the Republicans are not interested in doing the work of government:

At the private White House meeting today between Obama and Congressional leaders, the President and John Boehner got into a testy exchange, aides say, with Obama charging that the GOP is just out to kill all his initiatives.

…………

That apparently irked the President, aides say, who accused Boehner of just wanting to kill all his initiatives. Boehner shot back that this was false, that Republicans are serious about bipartisan cooperation.

Now that you know the truth, just f%$# them.

Bipartisanship only works if both sides are interesting in helping the country. The Republicans are not, so there is no benefit to reaching out to them, period, full stop.

We Are F%$#ed

No Comments

It appears that according to Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, nothing can be done with the largest majorities in a generation:

This is the emerging talking point from the White House and Congessional leadership: It is a mathematical impossiblity that Dems will ever be able to get anything done without cooperation from Republicans.

Ignoring the fate of supermajority requirements for ordinary business (see taxes, raising, budget, California, f%$#ed), the voters hate weakness.

They hate it even more when you are the ones who are supposed to be in charge.

Why bother voting for a Democrat when they are unwilling to do anything, because the tiny minority in the corner is saying nasty things.

Let me refer you, once again to Josh Marshall’s bitch slap theory of electoral politics:

Let’s call it the Republicans’ Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry’s military service record and label him a liar. But that’s only part of what’s going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really — a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they’re tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

In a post-9/11 environment, obviously, this question of strength, toughness or resolve is particularly salient. That, of course, is why so much of this debate is about war and military service in the first place.

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

Demonstrating Kerry’s unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he’s made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.

Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person’s supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who’s receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

This is certainly what Bush’s father did to Michael Dukakis and, sadly, it is what Bush himself did, to a great degree, to Al Gore.

In other ways, Bush’s bully-boy campaign tactics play to his strengths, albeit unstated and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that while people don’t necessarily agree with the specific policies he’s pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there’s no one who will hit back harder. There’s some of that ‘he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he’s our son-of-a-bitch’ quality to the president’s support on national security issues.

This meta-message behind the president’s attacks on Kerry’s war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

All the silly little political orgasms over who stood and who didn’t at the SOTU speech, or how Barack Obama came off better in his tête-à-tête with Republicans does not matter.

If you cannot be trusted to fight for yourself , you cannot be trusted to fight for us.

Are these guys trying to lose both houses in 2010?

OK, I Didn’t Live Blog the SOTU

No Comments

Though thankfully, because of my Eastern European Jewish heritage, I have no hangover.

That being said, I watched, and drank every time he cock-punched the DFH’s,* so most of my thoughts are probably not that valuable, or coherent.

That being said, he did call for the repeal of the Military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and now Valerie Jarrett is saying that he is, “committed to getting it done.”

Now, let’s see what happens when Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman get all pissy about it.

See video (11:35, and the interview with Jarret starts at about 3:05, and the exchange on DADT is at about 10:45)

*Dirty F%$#ing Hippies.

Barack Obama is Scared

1 Comment

That’s why he’s going to be campaigning for Martha Coakley in the US Senate special election this Sunday:

President Barack Obama will campaign Sunday in Massachusetts for the Democratic candidate in a close race to fill the seat held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy.

State Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to hold off a surge by Republican state Senator Scott Brown in recent opinion polls before the Jan. 19 vote. The campaign, in a state dominated by Democrats, will affect Obama’s ability to move legislation through the Senate and is becoming an early test of his party’s prospects in November’s congressional elections.

Let me be clear, if Coakly loses in what is one of the three bluest states in the nation it is a disaster, and her failure will rest firmly on the head of “no
gutsdrama Obama”.

Barack Obama has, for reasons that appear unclear to me, decided that the way to govern with the largest legislative majorities in something like 30 years, is to campaign against his base, and try to make nice with the
VisigothsRepublicans, who are having none of it.

Fundamentally, the problem is that he campaigned on “change”, and he is remarkably supportive of the status quo, and it’s pissing off Republicans and demoralizing Democrats.

I think that she is going to lose, though my prognostic abilities have been shown to be lacking.

That’s not a good thing, though, off the top of my head, but if you want to look at silver linings there are a few:

  • Obama might realize that maybe he was elected to be a Democrat who changes things, and better that he learn it now, as opposed to November when the whole House and 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection.
    • Of course, the “very serious people” in DC will use it as an excuse to tell Obama that he needs to go on a Jihad against the DFH’s*, and Obama, being Obama, will likely believe the Beltway Boyz.
  • Martha Coakley is a deeply and profoundly bad person (though better than any Republican who might be a Senator because her policy won’t quite be flat out primeval). She has always been an amazingly overzealous prosecutor, who will do her best to continue to overcrowd prisons as a legislator.
    • Just look at her prosecution of Louise Woodward, Ray and Shirley Souza, and her actions with regard to the Amirault case, where prosecutors basically coerced testimony out of children in yet another of those “false memory” cases of counselor malpractice.
  • Something gets passed through reconciliation, which cuts Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanch Lincoln out of the loop.
    • Of course, Barack Obama will try to bring Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Blanch Lincoln back into the process, so it may not turn out well either.

I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that I am right about the election.

*Dirty F%$#ing Hippies.