Huffington: Obama can still be transformational if he acknowledges original mistakes

[Armstead]

Short and sweet from Arianna Huffington.

I'd suggest reading it with an open mind, as it is constructive criticism, rather than "bashing."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roundup_b_434217.html

John F. Kennedy came into office wanting to be a transformational president, but he started with three false assumptions: He was convinced that the Third World was about to go Communist, that the Soviets would soon have a nuclear advantage, and that civil rights legislation could wait. When he realized all three were wrong, he was able to course-correct. Obama also came into office wanting to be a transformational leader. He was convinced that as long as Wall Street was sound, the rest of the economy would follow; that as long as he surrounded himself with smart old pros like Larry Summers, he was in good hands; and that bipartisanship was a worthwhile goal unto itself. He was wrong about all three. His response after the Massachusetts defeat shows that he is capable of learning on the job. If he follows through, he still has time to be a transformational president and turn the country around

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Obama should start being Obama

deliver the agenda that people voted on in Nov 08

He has to be bold and cut the strangulating influences

[choie]

10. maybe he is

being Obama.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. not the old Obama

[Hamlette]

2. "he was able to course correct"? JFK

he did not change one of the three things mentioned. Yeah, he finally started talking about civil rights but he didn't actually try to do anything about it. That took LBJ.

There are some on the left who realize they will not get attention unless they are more shrill than a republican. Arianna remembers how to do shrill republican well. She'll take it all the way to the bank.

[Armstead]

3. Um, he died early in office. Not a whole lot of time to follow through...

And what the fuck is so "shrill" about standing up for principles and goals and values in clear terms?

[Enrique]

8. how on earth can you call that 'shrill'?

seriously. Shrill?

[Hamlette]

12. maybe not that bit but she's still a republican and hasn't ever said or done

anything to prove otherwise.

She's in it to make money and if you don't believe that, take a look at her site.

She used a completely off base example to make a comparison.

A better example of a trasnforative president is Reagan. He came in promising cuts in government and taxes and raised taxes three times and grew government. He came in threatening war with the soviets and instead went with back pack diplomacy (and regular diplomacy) He trashed welfare but expanded it. The examples are endless if people would bother to look at facts.

JFK did not change while in office but she uses him because she an idiot and wants to make a point.

Instead of shrill (which she usually is but not here) I should have just said stupid.

And to the poster who said JFK was not in office long enough to change, perhaps, but JFK on his own would not have done anything about civil rights. Bobby maybe, but not John.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. I am inclined to disagree

It is my belief that Obama was not naive about the potential for bipartisanship. He has seen with his own two eyes, just as we have here at DU, how the GOP has played the game in the last decade. To offer that he actually believed that he was going to magically alter the strategy of the GOP by getting some of the GOP to engage in bipartisanship is simply a laughable idea. When people offer this type of an argument in relation to Obama's choices for cabinet positions etc., they are simply lying to themselves. Obama is not a dumb man nor is he ignorant of the political landscape in Washington. To imply that he has made mistakes simply because he had grand ideas that have now been dashed against the rocks of good intentions is nonsense.

It is much closer to the truth that Obama initially tried to serve two masters - Big Money and his base. If anything, Obama has hopefully realized that that strategy will ALWAYS lead to bad things politically. One master doesn't care and the other cares too much.

Regardless of whether Arianna is correct, we both share the hope that Obama understands that his time is now and his legacy is still being written. We both hope he chooses to realize the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans have placed in his hands.

[quantass]

5. Well said! n/t

[Armstead]

7. I think he -- and even many of us -- did underestimate what shitheads the GOP turned out to be

I don't think Obama had rose colored glasses about the GOP, but he did underestimate how brutal their behavior would be. Frankly, I and many others probably made the same mistake.

Determining an approach to the GOP after the election was like the game-show Let's Make Deal, where you have to choose between Door Number One or Door Number Two, without knowing what was behind either.

Logically, given the position of the GOP, they had two basic choices. After that election they were demoralized, weakened and tossed out in the cold. They had two basic ways to go in that situation.

1) They could have moved away from the crazy side of their image, cooled down the polarization and sought to establish a position as a party of reasonable mainstream conservatism. That would mean working with Obama and the Democrats to actually get things done, and then take their share of the credit. They woulod still be the opposition party, biut more of a constructive form of opposition, doing things like actually negotiate and work for a compromise health care bill.

2)Plan B was to embrace the crazy side of their image, and align themselves with teabaggers and the Rush right. This woild translate into doing everything possible to be a brick wall of opposition in Conbgress, and hope for the worst so they could come back and say "We told you so. Liberalism is bad and Democrats are destructive goodfballs."

Aiming for "bipartisanship" was a gamble, based on the GOP following the first course, of being a moderate opposition party. If that had occurred Obama's original strategy could have been brilliantly successful, both politically and in terms of getting things done.

Since he (and we) now know what is behind the doors, it's time to abandon any pretense of bipartisanship.

But instead, the GOP has chosen Plan B. Therefore Obama was wrong. As were many others who thought the GOP was capable of being reasonable.

[Little Star]

16. What you said Vinnie From Indy!

[wackywaggin]

6. JFK did want to be a transformational president

that part you are right about. He did not start with those 3 assumptions though, just the opposite is true. Without going into specifics I suggest you read JFK and the unspeakable : why he died and why it matters , by Douglas. You will find that you are wrong on all these points.

Heretic Wack

[stubtoe]

9. He needs to have the courage to take the risk to be a one-term president

Not that I think he will be. We need our politicians to do some serious ass-kicking on our behalf.

[Aramchek]

13. ariana might be constructive, but you're just bashing, and you know it

[Armstead]

14. And you're a.......Oh forget it.

[Forkboy]

17. LOL...about fifty words popped into my head to finish your post.

I doubt Aramchek would like any of them. :)

[depakid]

15. Regarding "surrounding himself with smart old pros" -it's generally a good idea in any endeavor

to look at their track records. Surrounding one's self with the arrogant and tone deaf- or with those who repeatedly got it wrong in the past isn't a typically a recipe for success.