Reply #16: Can't really buy the premise of the OP.

[quiet.american]

The article says:

What is needed is immediate action, not idle chatter. We already know what works: federal stimulus money channeled directly towards job creation, a public works campaign to help rebuild the U.S. crumbling infrastructure, full funding for education and social services, and more.

Go look at Recovery.gov and tell me what part of the above is not already intiated/in place, and has been almost from the beginning of this administration. Seeing in detail how the stimulus money is being spent and awarded, state-by-state, and how jobs are being saved/created is a powerful antidote to this latest round of shirt-rending that pretends the jobs summits is the first and only idea Obama has had about job creation since taking office. For instance, right out of the gate, the Obama administration expanded the government's guarantee of small business loans to 90% and offered small businesses other incentives and assistance as part of the effort to immediately stimulate job growth. This meme that Obama has done "nothing about jobs" since he's been in office is absolute nonsense. (And by the way, what part of "it's going to get worse before it gets better" -- which Obama has said from day one -- do people not understand?)

Is there room for criticism of how the administration is handling the jobs situation -- of course -- for instance, I would like to know why awards of the stimulus money are not proceeding more quickly, and how the administration underestimated how much "worse" the jobs situation would get -- (a fact-based answer, not a political rant answer) -- however painting Obama as Marie Antoinette has no basis in my book.

And for that matter, so is repeatedly trying to paint our democratically-elected, Democratic president as the enemy of the middle-class. Yes, Obama makes mistakes, but why do we assign to him the worst possible motives because he's not perfect? Or because the reality is that he has to maneuver in an environment that is not perfect? For instance, the article says in the writer's words that Obama is inviting the "corporate elite" to the WH. Yes, CEO's are invited. BUT SO ARE LABOR LEADERS AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, and it NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE BEEN INVITED TO THE WH. In fact, according to the NYT:

The most frequent visitor included in the narrow sample was Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union and Mr. Obama’s top ally in the labor movement. Mr. Stern visited the White House 22 times, sometimes for health care or other public events in the East Room, other times for meetings with the president or aides like Rahm Emanuel, Peter R. Orszag or Ronald A. Klain.

The visit tally underscores the clout that S.E.I.U. and Mr. Stern enjoy in this White House, something that has generated consternation at times among business groups and envy among rival unions. By contrast, Richard L. Trumka, the new president of the AFL-CIO, visited seven times in the same period.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31visitor...

That Obama's door has been open to representatives of working people from the beginning of his administration is treated as an inconvenient fact to the objective of attributing to Obama purely corporatist motives. Yes, Goldman Sachs has been to the WH, but so have labor leaders, and one of them so many times, he has earned "most frequent visitor" status.

My overall point is this, though -- no administration's policies are perfect, and Obama's is no exception. But why do we seem to feel the need to aid and abet right-wing delusional hatred of him by making him into our enemy as well, when his administration is working on initiatives that mirror Democratic values -- healthcare, economy, energy, winding down years-old military conflicts, bringing diplomacy back to our foreign policy, etc.

Let someone here post angrily about how the administration is "screwing us" and it reaches the top of the Greatest Page with some 100+ votes.

Let someone post about how they have personally benefited from the administration's policies, or about an administration victory in the right direction -- it sinks -- maybe 9 or 10 votes (Sometimes maybe 30 or so votes -- but it still sinks). I guess, 'if it bleeds, it leads' applies not only to the evening news.

As Obama himself said, his feet do need to be held to the fire. But there's a difference between that and cutting someone off at the knees and exhorting everyone else to do the same. Sometimes, I look through DU subject lines and really have to wonder which do we prefer. No, we shouldn't go into Pollyanna territory with posts; but why is it so hard to acknowledge the good with equal strength, too? And I don't think demonstrations around jobs are a bad thing, but not in the spirit of holding up signs that say "Obama, I don't like cake!."

Alright, probably, there will be a pile-on to this post, but truthfully, I don't want to spend the rest of the day clicking "Reply," so I'll just let them ride without comment.