I am not so much convinced that Rahm doesn’t have a lot of talent–I think he does—but that he reverts back to the techniques that got him success a prior time. And implementing strategies that would “triangulate” the issues in the mid 1990’s worked big then.

I’m curious – what would you consider Rahm’s past successes? Or “triangulation’s” for that matter? Clinton’s health-care plan? DADT? They balanced the budget, mostly on the backs of the Poor (and Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky), which kept Wall Street fat and happy. The Clinton administration was HIGHLY overrated, and didn’t move this country forward. They mostly just avoided making major blunders through an overabundance of caution, and only look good by comparison with the complete incompetency and utter venality of the gang that rode in behind them. The incestuous relationship between the Clintons and the major investment banks (where Chelsea now brings down seven figures) is as sickening as the one between the Bush family and the hedge funds…

If participating in that non-victory is Rahmie-Boy’s clam to fame, I rest my case, both as to his incompetence and Obama’s poor selection.

To pass a bill with no public option and no negotiation power with Phrma but loaded with taxes and mandates is a DISASTER! It perfectly plays into the stereotype of Democrats. Who is so stupid that they believe this is a good idea? And how the hell did they convince Obama of this? The Democrats will be run out of town on a rail if they pass such a travesty.

I’ve been warning about this “clear and present danger” for a long time now. Health insurance reform that includes mandates without a public option to effectively negotiate for lower prices is a multiple billion dollar government engineered theft from the middle class to the corporations involved in health care. This should now be clear to everyone and beyond dispute.

Rahm-Obama-Bing-Bang know this and want it to happen. They specifically have put off the date it will go into effect until after the 2012 national election because they know re-election will be impossible if the bill passes and goes into effect before then.

I do not believe it’s a coincidence that Obama’s actions since he took office are entirely consistent with the Chicago School’s neoconservative goal to remake the world into America’s corporate empire. Professor Leo Strauss, the neocon godfather taught Political Philosophy in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Milton Friedman, virulent free market and pure capitalist enthusiast, taught in the Department of Economics. The University of Chicago is infected with their acolytes and Obama taught Constitutional Law at the law school. I doubt everyone who teaches at the University of Chicago endorses the evil theories of those two monsters, but what I’m seeing causes me to ask myself if Obama subscribes to their views.

I believe the University of Chicago connection merits serious study, given the circumstantial evidence of linkage, and I intend to do that. In the meantime, just for fun, I encourage each of you to assume for the sake of argument that he is a Machiavellian corporatist neocon free market enthusiast who plotted and planned all of his actions to get elected so that he could do exactly what he has done since he took office. Does such an explanation for his decisions since taking office make more or less sense to you than theories based on notions that he’s too idealistic and too committed to compromise and bipartisanship?

Also ask yourself why he is so nonjudgmental about the right wing and so judgmental about progressives? Is this not a quintessential neocon view?

No one who would act against our public interest should be exempted from this contempt. While it is true that Obama and the present congress is what has to be dealt with, they do need to be dealt with. Action is called for not just grumping.

Donating money to our supporters is one aspect surely and one should should reward those officials who act on our behalf, although it is rather unseemly to go that route. But there are many other options for the public who is being taken for fools and dupes to react. There is something craven in not doing so.

Obama is unreliable and has made his proclivities for siding with big comapnies already clear, there is no need to doubt that these are his truly held preferences because he acts on those. What we need to do is to likewise act on our own behalf. It is action that is called for.

Whatever form this action takes it must show results. Incessant protesting to our reprentatatives to commit to the PO publicly and factually revealing in print whatever may be compromising their reluctance to do so should be pursued.

However one should seriously think about forming a concerted campaign based on the single issue of public finacing of health care at least to a significant extent. The goal should be to make our representatives, congressmen and senators alike, commit to that publicly. That is an attainable goal and it will make a difference. Their unwillingness to do so will mean that we will support a candidate who is willing to commit to that.

Because Dems in power keep thinking “where are you guys gonna go, to the Republicans”. They forget that apathy is a player as well. Just because people are disgusted with Republican lies doesn’t mean they’ll tolerate Democratic ones.

They’ll just stop playing. And then the entrenched corp interests will get to play D vs R against each other again.

All because the Ds didn’t have the guts to deliver on their promise of change.

Because we are clearly not talking to the same young people, if so.

Thank you Jane! Thank You, Thank You, Thank YOu!!! I’ve been making this point over and over in multiple blogs. To pass a bill with no public option and no negotiation power with Phrma but loaded with taxes and mandates is a DISASTER! It perfectly plays into the stereotype of Democrats. Who is so stupid that they believe this is a good idea? And how the hell did they convince Obama of this? The Democrats will be run out of town on a rail if they pass such a travesty.

An recent Abc/Washington Post poll attributes Obama’s declining support from Democrats and liberals. I support this president, but I’ve grown weary of him, he’s consistent with inconsistencies and too often compromises principle for republican bipartisanship. And Rahm Emanuel, well, he’s been a disaster from the start; something about Rahm is not right.

you are on fire