It is not "Blind Trust", it is "Trust".

[Bonobo]

Everyone here on DU that is jumping all over Obama in this whole "Krugman Vs. Obama" slugfest... just what are they implying about Obama when they suggest he is not on "our side", the "side of the people", etc? Well, I will tell you what I think. I think they or you believe that Obama is either a fool or in the pocket of the wealthy, corporate interests. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Do you all think Obama is a fool or a servant to the rich? Which is it?

My trust in Obama is not a blind one. It is based on my observations of his character throughout the campaign, through reading his books, looking at the arc of his life and observing his interactions with those around him. If you all think this type of judgment of character is useless, then there isn't much I can say I suppose, but to call it "blind trust" is untrue. It is simply based on things that I feel I am a better judge of -after my life experiences- than to try to judge through the false prism of the media, the echo-chambers or through an amateurish attempt to gain enough knowledge of complex market economics.

My read on Obama is that he is a genuinely good man interested in bettering the world for as many as he can. That is inconsistent with the implication that he is a greed-monger, a war monger or a servant in the pocket of the rich and powerful. Furthermore, after seeing how he ran his campaign, I have come to think he is a man of dazzling intelligence and subtlety far above my ability to read as well as above the ability of the brain-dead media to really get a bead on.

So call it trust, but do not call it blind trust. It is not.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Guess you can be crossed off of the DU kewlkidz list.

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

2. He did a 180 on FISA. This still stings. Sorry, it does. nt

[Bonobo]

4. Stinging is fine, but answer me this one question about motivation.

What do you think his motivations is?

If you really don't know, you can say "I don't know". It is okay to feel like you don't know.

[Captain Hilts]

8. I think his motivations are honorable. I think Krugman's are too. nt

[Bonobo]

9. So then here is my follow up question...

Obama is a smart guy, right? He presumably knows what he knows and know enough that when he doesn't know something -to go and find help. Right?

So if his motives are honorable, what might possibly account for his "mistaken actions"?

Is it just possible that he sees a larger picture than a person like Krugman?

[Captain Hilts]

10. Yes, I think he does have to prioritize in ways Krugman does not. Absolutely.

But I also have sympathy for Krugman's wanting him to grab the bull - or bear - by the horns more forcefully.

They're both valid viewpoints and I'm not sure on which side I come down on more.

[dbmk]

53. My main problem

..is that Krugman does not seem to recognize in his writings, the political reality that Obama works in.

There is a whole lot of "what should be done" (and a lot of that makes perfect sense), with little of "what can be done".

[Captain Hilts]

55. The endless debate between 'should' and 'could'. nt

[firedupdem]

3. K & R! Bonobo...

This President would be the last one to sell us out for the greedy. I don't have a major understanding of economics but I trust the President I worked hard to elect, to make good decisions. He is a good man and he's on the side of the people. That hasn't changed.

[watrwefitinfor]

5. Bonobo,

You have summed up my feelings exactly, and I suspect those of many, many more on DU. Thank you.

Wat

[Hansel]

6. Good post.

It really is a rather pompous and arrogant accusation meant to discount anyone who doesn't see things the way they do.

I think some of them really believe that they are the Cassandras amongst us warning of the supposed impending disaster that Obama is about to wrought upon us and that we are too stupid to see it. They'll get over it as time passes and that impending doom never materializes.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Why can't you accept that there is more than one valid viewpoint on this issue?

Why must you insult those that might disagree, especially on so complicated a topic.

[Hansel]

41. I can.

I think that is the point of the OP is that there are those who can't. And I agree.

It's not just those who "might disagree". It is those who insist that we have "blind trust" in Obama like we are mindless morons and haven't really thought it through, just because we disagree with them. That is an insult. And I'm responding to it. If you are not guilty of insulting those of us who want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, then I'm not sure why you are taking offense.

Edit to add: My sarcasm can be a little sharp at times and I appreciate your criticism.

[DeeDeeNY]

7. K & R

[AllentownJake]

11. I'm sorry I don't have the trust you have

I'm fine with people disagreeing on this. However, your answer to why something is going to work is because President Obama said so. President Obama is not an economist. He's a constitutional lawyer. I think he's a brilliant politian and a man with a great heart who wants to do the right thing.

Summers and Geithner have a track record of being wrong. Summers was one of the archeticts of the deregulation that got us into this mess and Geithner was overseeing the NY Federal Reserve when this mess unfolded. Please forgive me why I have doubts on these advisors but frankly, their track record fucking sucks.

If this plan is so great I want Summers and Geithner to address the concerns. They are the ones who are asking the nation to cough up 1 trillion dollars. They should have to sell this idea to the American people like anything else.

[Bonobo]

14. I completely agree about Summers and probably Geithner. However...

I also believe that Obama is smart enough to employ them and use them as far as they are useful. I cannot myself fathom how their interests (and all of our larger interests) can be aligned at all, but I do trust Obama that far at least.

The only way to really trust someone that is fundamentally untrustworthy (such as Summers, et al) is to ensure that your interests are aligned while you work together.

[AllentownJake]

17. Question

I don't think Bill Clinton was a bad guy either...I actually think he is a very good man and one of the smartest men to sit behind that desk in the oval office..however both of these guys are acolydes of the guy who convinced Clinton to embrace Corporate America. If they can seduce Bill Clinton who came to the White House wanting to change things...how is it that they can't seduce Obama.

Does President Obama use them...or do they use President Obama. That is the $24,000 question.

[Bonobo]

18. Indeed.

But as for Clinton, in retrospect, I wonder how good of a man he really was. I think he was deeply flawed (and I am not just talking about blue dresses). Clinton grew up in the swamps of corrupt southern politics and I think he abandoned his more idealistic notions after having his ass handed to him in the first year or so of his administration.

And you are missing one other thing. Clinton did not have the grass roots mandate that Obama had with his larger victory. Obama's campaign broke new ground in terms of getting funding from the people and I think he knows it is where he derived his victory from.

But your question is most definitely the right one. Who is using whom? Time will tell, but wise-ass snarkiness on a message board will not help. I am sure of that.

[AllentownJake]

19. I'm trying to determine if I can support this

That is what I use this place for. I'm gathering information.

[Captain Hilts]

20. It's a really complicated issue, isn't it? I'm not exactly sure where I stand. nt

[Bonobo]

22. I agree.

Please see my response to Allentown. It is exactly how I would answer you as well.

[Bonobo]

21. Tough to gather info here these days.

Lots of entrenched positions, little dialectic reasoning.

As for me, at this point, I am confounded by the potential complexity of all this. Even if the straight-up economic issues appear as simple as Krugman portrays them, there are a myriad of other issues to be considered that perhaps he is not considering. Issues such as international relations, national security, etc. come to mind but there may be others.

That is why my fallback position at this point (until more understanding is achieved) is to trust the man we worked so hard to put into office and I just don't see that sharp-shooting, snarky, pissing contests on an anonymous message board is of any worth (except to make people feel self-important -and I am NOT talking about you, Sir).

[AllentownJake]

24. This is going to have to pass congress

I'm in a dilema if I organize for something I disagree with or do I pass that task to another and shut my mouth.

This is an integrity question for me.

[Bonobo]

25. If you feel that you really have enough facts at your command and if you feel you

have arrived at enough proper understanding, then it is your responsibility to do what you think is the correct thing. I agree.
But it takes a wise person to know when they do NOT have a full and proper understanding and to, under those circumstances, pass the task on to a person that they trust has a better understanding.

For example, if I stop you on the street and ask you how to get to a location and you only have a vague understanding of where it is, do you offer your opinion as if you know precisely how to get there, or do you honestly tell me that, embarrassing though it may be, to go and ask at the police station? That is also an issue of integrity over ego.

[AllentownJake]

27. I still organize for the guy when he sends out the email

My question is can I answer the email on this issue if he sends it.

[Bonobo]

28. I would still give him the benefit of the doubt, unless you are SURE he is wrong, yes. nt

[JTFrog]

52. If you are trying to determine if you can..... Ford said it best.

[Two Americas]

13. blind, not blind, doesn't matter

Personally trusting Obama is not relevant to anything in politics. Nothing hinges on whether or not any of us trust him.

Bush was completely trustworthy - you could trust him to reliably advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful few and to dismantle the public infrastructure and work against the interests of the working people.

Trust in politicians blinds people - no matter how informed they believe their trust to be - because it is not about trust, nor any personal feelings. Thinking that it is blinds us to political reality.

Characterizing critics as not having sufficient trust blinds us and others to what they are saying.


...

[Bonobo]

15. My problem is not, ironically, that critics have a lack of trust. You miss the point.

My problem with the critics is that they trust themselves (or others, in the case of Krugman for example) too much.

In other words, why would you think that an economist (albeit a nobel award winner) would have a large enough perspective to judge the direction that must be taken to strengthen this country's overall security better than Obama?

Or...why do you have so much trust in your own (proabably) very narrow experience and knowledge? Surely anyone on this board would have to admit that they simply do not have the perspective that the POTUS has in considering all relevant factors.

So it is not just trust. It is trust PLUS understanding that we, here at ground level, could not possibly be able to survey the entire landscape to the degree that Obama can.

[Two Americas]

23. I know you have a problem with critics

There are about a hundred posts with people complaining about people agreeing with Krugman for every post actually agreeing with Krugman. I wouldn't even know about it or pay any attention were it not for all of the posts saying that we shouldn't be paying any attention to it, and that is true of most of the supposed "attacks on our president."

I don't see anyone "jumping all over Obama." I do see some aggressively resisting the bullying of some self-proclaimed "Obama supporters."

I don't see anyone "suggesting he is not on 'our side,' the 'side of the people'" any more than they do with every other politician. Mostly people are saying that it is foolish to assume that any politician is on our side, or the side of the people. I agree with that. It has nothing to do with Obama, except in the minds of those who can tolerate no criticism of their hero.

I don't see anyone saying that "Obama is a fool or a servant to the rich" nor do I think that those are the only two choices. All politicians are subject to being influenced by the wealthy and powerful - of course. That is why there is a need for a counter-balancing pressure from us.

I think that saying that we need to understand "complex market economics" - whatever that is - before we can speak is a snow job.

You say that your "read on Obama is that he is a genuinely good man interested in bettering the world for as many as he can." Marvelous. So what? He is a politician, not a religious figure.

I don't think anyone here would dispute his "dazzling intelligence" and formidable political skills. Again, so what? He is a great guy. That has nothing to do with politics.


...

[Bonobo]

26. The "bullying" is your strawman argument claiming that I see Obama as a messiah.

So all politicians are alike and cannot be taken at their word? Nonsense.

"It has nothing to do with Obama, except in the minds of those who can tolerate no criticism of their hero. "
-More nonsense. Of course it has to do with Obama. What an odd statement. What does it even mean?

Also you say:
"That is why there is a need for a counter-balancing pressure from us."
This is foolish and nonsensical unless you truly believe that your posting here is the same thing as applying said pressure. Do you actually believe that???

As to the issue of who is bullying who, I think there are fools at work on both sides. But the tone of your post and its large amount of straw and poo suggest to me that you are one of them, rather than one who is interested in really arriving at a middle of the ground sort of dialectical understanding.

[Two Americas]

29. ok forget that word then

I will take back the word "bully." How about "aggressively pressure?"

I did not say that "all politicians are alike and cannot be taken at their word."

I can't respond to your charges of "tone" and "straw and poo," obviously. The readers of this thread can judge for themselves.

I calmly and logically responded to each point in your post.


..

[Bonobo]

32. It is a matter of perspective.

Your claim: There are people on one side pressuring or bullying those that deign to criticize King Lord Messiah Obama (therein lies YOUR strawman).

My claim: I feel bullied when people make claims that my support of Obama is predicated upon blind, nearly religious faith.


See what I mean? It was not as calm or logical as you think. Sorry. It contained a lot more luggage than you are admitting.

[Two Americas]

36. whatever

That was a relatively minor point, and I withdrew it. You have latched onto it.

Of course I have a strong point of view - "luggage" - and there is nothing to "admit" as I am completely straightforward about my views.

"Feeling" that you are bullied is not being bullied, by the way. We have people here claiming to be "persecuted" or "personally attacked" when someone else disagrees with them or dismantled their opinion.

So no, I do not "see what you mean" and I do not think that it "works both ways." I don't care how people feel about Obama, and would never comment on it. It is when people attack critics, and then claim that the attacks are loyalty to or support of Obama that it becomes an issue.

You know all of this, You have been right in the midst of the battles.

You are the one talking about "King Lord Messiah Obama" - then claiming that this is my strawman, when I said no such thing. You are the one talking about "blind, nearly religious faith."

I can well understand why people would say those things. I don't, but it is understandable. I don't think people mean it as an attack, but rather they are perplexed by people's behavior around the subject of Obama and are trying to understand it.

There absolutely are people here demanding that we all have "blind, nearly religious faith" in Obama, and promoting him as a cult figure and messianic figure. I wouldn't care about that either - the same thing happens around all sorts of celebrities - were it not for the fact that I think that will cripple the administration if it continues, and the fact that it is having a suppressive effect on the discussion.

That is my view. Take it or leave it. Doesn't matter to me.


...

[Bonobo]

38. "Whatever" =last refuge.

You absolutely did create a strawman.

You took some straw, you took some poo, You mixed them together and created a strawman,

And big surprise, you defended your strawman.

So, whatever to you. Your perspective, your luggage and your strawman is yours to bear. It will have no effect on anything of import, so take it wherever you wish and enjoy.

Whatever.

[Two Americas]

46. oh come on

I wrote little more than "whatever."

You have latched onto that bully comment - which I withdrew - are calling it a straw man and are beating it to death.


...

[Captain Hilts]

16. Great prez that he was, FDR bailed on some important issues he should not have bailed on...

such as the anti-lynching bill and naming Breckenridge Long as in charge of refugees from Europe. You had to keep pushing FDR as you do every president, no matter who they are and how much you trust them.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. Exactly. Also, I don't think FDR would have been liked on DU.

Maybe that's not the proper word...let me rephrase. I don't think that FDR would have had any easier a time on DU than Obama is having.

[Captain Hilts]

51. No, he wouldn't. He sold out the League of Nations and World court to get Hearst's

endorsement so he could get the Dem nomination and he let the Southern conservatives deter him from doing things that he should have done. Bill Clinton did the same thing. Conservative Democrats pushed him around when he should have stood his ground.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. Not to mention his court packing scheme, the fact that he listened to the wrong advisors his first

year and internment.

[stillcool]

31. Personally trusting anyone ...

is pretty foolish to me. We're all human beings..or so I thought.

[Bonobo]

33. Yes, but...

Sometimes all you can do is trust.

Sometimes it is just bluster to pretend that you really know what the answers are.

Sometimes you have to pick based upon the LIKELIHOOD and THAT, for better or worse, is an issue of trust.

[stillcool]

34. True. I think it's about choices..

always. Unfortunately 'we the people' are eager to cede all power to the few to make choices for us. It never fails to surprise me how few people call their representatives, write letters, or do anything to have their voice heard. Except on the internet. I am guilty as well, but at least I recognize the blame lies with me, and hope for progress not perfection.

[Bonobo]

35. I can completely agree with that statement.

I personally DO call my reps and senators, and I do not have personal knowledge of how few do, but like you, I suspect it is a large number sadly.

But one thing should be recalled and that is that politicians need to be criticized, but they also need to be supported. It is from support that they draw their power and from criticism that they make their course corrections.

[Two Americas]

42. that is never all we can do

Calling for that is inviting tyranny. The public should never be passive and trysting of those in power. Never.

So you picked. So you trust. Good for you. What does that have to do with the rest of us?

Why are the opinions of those who disagree with you on this "bluster" and "pretending" and yours are not?

Trust is never the "only thing" we can do. It may be the only thing you want us to all do. But that is not going to happen. It certainly is not going to happen with the general public, and that makes it a weak and ineffective idea politically and not something that is good to be promoting. But if that is what you personally want to do, go for it. I won't bother you. When you try to convince others to take that same passive stance, I will post in respectful disagreement with you.


...

[Bonobo]

44. Yes, you can also search for the truth, And should.

BUT, sometimes you cannot find it and must admit that you cannot.

In such a case, you must trust.

To believe that you can achieve ANYTHING on your own, is bluster. Foolish bluster. And self-serving ego.

[Two Americas]

47. oh stop with the insults

Who said anything about achieving anything on our own? What are you talking about? Trust is the only alternative to "foolish bluster and self-serving ego?" And all who don't agree with you are engaging in this "foolish bluster and self-serving ego?"

[Bonobo]

49. Rhetoric a little heavy from your end too. "Inviting tyranny"? Jeezus.

"Self-serving bluster" ain't nothing compared to "inviting tyranny".

[Two Americas]

39. yes

It sabotages representative democracy. It is our civic duty and moral responsibility to hold elected officials accountable, and to err on the side of vigilance and suspicion.


...

[stillcool]

30. Not everyone here is jumping on..

either Obama or Krugman. What is missing from the conversation is and, or both. There is very little to learn from good guy vs bad guy. Nothing is that simple..but it is easy. The thing that gets me, is I don't know the United States Government people think we have.

[Political Heretic]

37. I simply think the Obama administration has the WRONG PLAN on this.

It's not more complicated then that.

[Bonobo]

40. That is fine and I have NO problem with that.

And I appreciate that you feel you have arrived at a position that is as non-complex as that.

[Uzybone]

43. K&R you worshipper

[Undercurrent]

45. K&R

Thank You!

[rvablue]

50. Frankly, I trust that both of these men are doing what they think is right.

And I'm withholding judgement on both.

Although, I think my support of the President right now is, of course, much more important and critical.

I have my questions and fears about the administration's plans. But I do have trust and faith and I'm going to wait and see. I can only hope that if the President does see something of interest in Krugman's ideas that he will take it under consideration.

[tbyg52]

56. I think most of his ideas about what is right are the same as mine.

I also think corporations are very, very powerful, very, very entrenched, and very, very hard to buck.