-Let me clarify my statement from before. Biden is not really ashamed of the part he played in with the crime bill. He does admit that some stuff in there lead to discriminatory outcomes and he has tried to get those fixed. But he his apology falls short of even Bill Clinton's so he deserves a **** you on that issue. He has in recent years adopted most of Obama's stances on civil rights, so maybe now he is on the right side of the argument but ole boy violated heavy and should always be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.
-Btw: In 2008 Jon Edwards and maybe Richardson was the populist, Obama, Dodd and Hillary were center left liberals.
Biden was the main centrist option.
-I like the dude mainly because how much he has changed, evolved and expanded his world view over the last 8 years. I am not a big fan of pre-2008 Biden. No progressive really should be as well.
Him and Weiner have to be 2 of the most disappointing Dems in recent memory,both had solid policy ideas but risked it all in the name of their sidechicks
Most of the Biden talk is made through the lense of having seen him as VP for 8 years,he earned a lot of goodwill in that time. For sure things would've been very different back in '08
This is low key one of my favorite Biden gifs. I have no idea what the hell he is talking about about his smirk at the end gets me. Dude has a ton of pics of shooting an imagery shotgun too. I have no idea why he used to be on this
I remember someone had him sniping Ryan cut into this....
The problem is that we're holding Obama to a higher standard.
Which is fine amongst us. We still know he's 100x better than the alternatives, and it's fair to discuss whether it was the right move.
My issue is that the right runs with it, and now they're gloating about how Obama is a sell-out. When in reality they should be applauding him because he's doing what they always praise: making money off our free market system.
But the worst is when those on the left criticize him publicly. No, please, no. If you want to say something, give a ******* nuanced political answer like you're ******* trained to do. Don't say you were "troubled" (I'm talking about Elizabeth Warren). Say that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to do and that you trust his judgment. If you really feel the need to, you can say that personally you don't know if you would accept without knowing more details about the arrangement. End of story.
Anyway, I agree with gamble. Get the money, Obama. People did you no favors while you were in office, and by all accounts you were the cleanest, most honest president we've had in our lifetimes. I hope you are richer than the Trump family by the time don is impeached.
Wall street nearly destroyed the global economy, its not suprising that the standard when it comes to dealing with then would change.
I'm sure Bill Clinton or any ptogressive politician would have never given speeches to tobacco companies in the 90's when they were lying about how dagerous there products were and the public hatred of those companies was much more palpable.
No one is debating if obama has the right to cake up...im saying he shouldn't.
It was reasonable suspect it in Hillary case (even though I thought it was a whole bunch of nothing anyway) and it is reasonable to suspect it in Osh's Bill Clinton example. Because those two are either running for president, planing to run or are president.
I certainly understand your position, but I don't think the distinction is entirely clear here. I mean, Obama is still the most powerful and influential figure in the Democratic Party...
Also, does it make any difference to you who the group is? Would you be cool with Obama giving a $400,000 speech to a private prison group?
I think the distinction is very clear. He is out of office. While he may have the power to rally people to a cause, he has very little power little to make the Dems adopt it directly.
Yes I consider the type of speech and who is paying. The second question I will ignore because it is a red herring.
So the only quid pro quo that takes place in politics goes like this: "We'll pay you $400,000 to do this speech. But in exchange you have to do xyz (introduce a bill, vote against a regulation, etc.)."? Or that's the only kind we should be worried about?
My second line of questions was genuine. Whether you want to answer it or not, that's obviously up to you. But the issue with paid speeches to Wall Street is that their interests are viewed as generally antithetical to both the interests of various constituencies progressives care about and to their political ideology. The same could be said, to an even greater degree, for private prisons. You don't have a problem with Wall Street speeches. I'm asking if you would have a problem with speeches for private prison industry, as a means of assessing if there is a bridge you consider too far when it comes to this topic.
-Here are other ways people should worry about Wall Street (and other interest) influencing politicians besides paid speeches. Nothing it said previously hints that I believe only speeches are the only way a politician could be paid off.
I was speaking within the context of this topic, regarding the Osh's quote.
-And please don't be coy, you are specially using private prison because of their role in the prison industrial complex and the fact Obama is black. You could have asked me directly what is a bridge to far, but you did not. Criminal Justice reform is not just a issue "progressive" left fights for, and it is interesting that you claim private prisons are so important to progressives, when the progressive candidate candidate of choice didn't even have it in his platform until 2 months after Hillary Clinton of all people. i would think if it was such a major issue above Wall Street, that Bernie Sanders would be DOA for many "progressive' constituencies.
But yes I would have a problem if he did that. There is your answer
So you don't think paid speeches to Wall Street but imminently influential Democratic Party figures qualifies as something to be worried about?
And I used private prisons because I know it's an issue you care about very much. I do too. Many progressive folks seem to, as well. That's why I used the example. Not because Obama is black and it's often viewed as a "black" issue.
I could give a **** about Bernie at this point and I think much of what he's done post-election has exposed his limitations when it comes to the issues facing and important to communities of color, particularly black folks. And I didn't think he was a perfect candidate during the primaries. My involvement in this discussion isn't about him or Elizabeth Warren or any other progressive darling. I wanted to engage you in this because I respect your politics and your nuanced approach to thinking about political strategy and I think his is an important issue for progressive folks to be serious about. Like I said in another response to whywesteppin
.
My bad on jumping to conclusion about your intentions famb, I was being dismissive.
Obama is not gonna be directly involved in writing national party policy, yes he will push issue he feels is important but he will not be the most important figure on the left forever. I would be more concerned about the herd of centrist, Cory Booker, and celebrities candidates coming in 2020 than Obama. Nothing sets the progressive movement back more than moderate candidate coming around half stepping.
People have to remember Obama is pretty lefty. The only thing that pushed him centrist was a) governing and b) running for elections and having to form a coalition. He didn't back off single payer and same sex marriage because someone bought him off, he back off those positions because they would have hurt him with voters.
Free from office I would him expect him to drift left again. Even still, Obama gives reason for his policies. Even the TPP which I disagreed with he presented a sound economic argument for it (even though it was kinda weak) and I understood it was about geopolitics. So anyone can disagree with Obama, I have and probably will some more, but Obama more than any other politician at least presents a reason for his stance. And I have always said that the left needs to have a war of ideas. If Obama is truly bought, he will show his cards in true time.
And people have to remember, the right is gonna try to do a reverse Reagan on Obama. There were plenty of people that were glad Reagan's *** was gone, even on the right. But the GOP through a consistent effort once he left office, rewrote history and made Reagan the patron saint of successful conservationism. Even Obama pointed this out, we can't discuss sound economics in America because we have a generation that has a completely warped view of sound policy because of the Reagan era. The right is out to do the opposite of Obama, through rewriting history, make hims seem way worst that the two clowns that came before and after him. For a lot of reason, including political strategy, everyone of the left must defend against this.
No need to assist the right in throwing him under the bus before then. If Obama truly violates, even I will be there to shade him.
I already conceded that I can understand people having an issue with it for emotional reasons of strategy. That Obama needs to be seen as pure for his words to have the full effect. I understand where that sentiment is coming from, especially with the current state of affairs. But I wish people on the left first reaction would be to defend Obama and give the man the benefit of the doubt, before the provide the right with a shield.
I agree with most of what you posted with the exception that I think Obama is
It's all good fam. I agree with almost all of this, although I tend to think Obama is more of a free market guy and believes that government "intervention" should generally be minimal in most cases. But I agree that I think his positions are well thought out and I can typically see the logic in them from a certain perspective, even when I don't agree. I also agree that Obama doing these speeches is far from our biggest concern.
That being said, I just look at the right and how it's very clear what they stand for. With the Democrats, it's relatively hard to discern a coherent and consistent political ideology beyond non-discrimination--and many Dems show little interest in actually addressing disparities that arise from discrimination. Folks on the left need to push the Dems to stand for more than just anti-discrimination, competent governance, and "reasonable" policy (whatever that may mean at a given moment). Obviously, concessions must often be made in the course of governance, but we're not even in a position to negotiate concessions when the time comes since there's little ideological coherence (or organization for that matter) in the left wing of the party.
I'm just trying to think through how to address this in a substantive, long-term, strategically sound way. The Dems' cozy relationship with Wall Street seems to be a potentially important piece of the puzzle that needs addressing...
A budget deal has been reached. It will run through September, it is bipartisan so some bad and some good, but Trump caught some major Ls
-ACA subsidies get funded
-Planned Parenthood gets funding
-Sanctuary cities get funded
-Increased defense spending, 2.5 billion of that money is held until Trump presents plan to defeat ISIS to Congress
-NIH gets funding
-Rumor is EPA keeps 99% of its budget (not confirmed yet)
More money for border security, but no funding of the wall
I mean, yes and no. Obviously, we have to remain vigilant and plugged into what's happening right now. But we can't do so at the expense of longer-term strategizing. Otherwise all we'll ever be doing is jumping from crisis to crisis with no substantive alternative vision and plan.
