“What we need is a “leader” who can clarify the past mistakes, lay out a plan for rectifying those past mistakes, bring accountability to those who made - and profited from - those past mistakes and have the balls to stand up to those who made - and profited from - those past mistakes.”
  In my opinion, the US is ideologically incapable of admitting mistakes. To confess mistakes would negate their (concneit-based) “charter” to rule the world.
  Calling for a “leader” is dangerous in view of the fact that “the people” are (for many insidious reasons)unable to even get together and agree on what kind of leadership they want and need. In their present chaotic and largely ignorant state, “the people” are very likely to go for a “leader’ who will lead them to the nearest cliff and push them off.
  The first step is to create opportunities to learn how to rule themselves, first by talking about the work we all have to do to put together a country more like something we want, with—let’s say for starters—with “more justice for all”. Let’s sketch out in general terms what changes would be necessary to approach that goal, and then look for a candidate or candidates who are less interested in being politicians than in working toward those goals— candidates who can look ahead and suggest specifics of a plan flexible enough to be changed when needed.
  At this stage I can’t see how even the people themselves are ready and willing to “clarify past mistakes.”  They are only willing to accuse each other; they have no unity of purpose whatsoever—except, perhaps, to return to some longlost third grade classroom and stand and salute the flag.
  Other than that, we are at loggerheads over nonsense like “Is he a socialist?  Are they terrorists? Are you a right wing nut job? Shall we—or shall we not—take over the Middle East? What is the color of their skins? Is torture really torture when we do it? Etc. ad nauseum.”

Republicans are shadow boxing Obama’a shadow. Most ridiculous is the Grinch, whose foot-work is one-sided, who jabs with jabbering nonesensical cliches,  leads with his “Wrong” and retires to his corner to reinvent history.

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb ~ Concur and moreover, Obama’s intents for the middle class have been largely stonewalled by the Congress through record setting filibustering.

It may be asserted that the reins on Wall Street and banker’s has been lobbied away, though the banking committee added a gallon of dilution. (I’m no favorite of Goldman Sachs influence in the administration. Obama’s biggest mistake, though a novice mistake at that. For who could withstand that lobby and the threats of economic disaster? Congress with all it’s grey beards could not resist Paulson.) Iraq, no matter how fastidious, is winding down. As for Afghanistan, he may have over-reached in terms of fighting the Taliban. Libya? He’s damned if he does or does nothing.

Equal pay for genders and a negotiated healthcare law that should evolve and must grow better through necessity in the coming years speak to Obama’s effort to get a few of the Left’s agenda onboard.

All considered, in a messy world, Obama should at least be given credit for trying to keep the nation afloat despite the squawking of those commissioned to do the work on the oars.

If your analysis only looks the length of your nose, your committed to a shallow statement that belies the underlying reality, not unlike that of the Rebublicans who believe they can absolve themselves of responsibility by shaking a finger at he who would offer some remedy. Where are the suggestions based in the real world?

Considering the Republican front-runners, and the distinct possiblity of the Right losing some seats (for their over reach in labor confrontations and under reach in being the Party of No) in the next election, which one of them could even attempt to govern from the center to meld the concensus necessary to move the country forward. As far as I’m concerned they’re all recidivists whose ultimate purpose in life is to sustain the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Inherit The Wind, March 26 at 12:34 pm:

Leadership?  All we need for effective leadership is for Obama to say (in more polite terms):  Hey! Republicans! Fuck Off! ...

I don’t think so.  I think Obama would have had to engineer some sort of coup d’état against his own party and the present established order in the U.S., for example instead of bailing out insolvent banks he would have had the government seize them.  There would have ensued a considerable national struggle approaching civil war, since the kleptocrats would have fought back with every power at their command.  The outcome would be dubious at best: impeachment and assassination would certainly occur to some of the opposition.  Perhaps the somnolent working class would awaken, perhaps not.  The media would be screeching uniformly against him.  Mr. O is not the kind of person to attempt something like that.  He wants to get along.

Probably because it is so spoilt for choice, as will be revealed to all over the course of time, that’s if everyone has enough left in this millennium.

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, I accept your apology. You cast your lot with Obama, and that is that. I cast mine with finding common cause with Libertarians and Liberals With A Conscience and others who are sick of the way Democrats and Republicans have run this country into the ground. Finding common cause on such issues as ending wars and abiding by the Constitution are far more important than fighting about public support for social institutions. We can iron that out, and really, I don’t see Obama fighting to fund any social programs right now. It seems he wants to cut most of them. While the administration wants to lower the deficit on the backs of the middle class, it chooses to launch an expensive, oil-driven, let’s-pretend-its-humanitarian war.

However, as you wrote, so be it. Good luck to us all. We’re going to need it in the months ahead.

Leadership?  All we need for effective leadership is for Obama to say (in more polite terms):
Hey! Republicans! Fuck Off! 
You know you are obstructionist, solely to gain power. You know you’ll endanger the nation solely to gain power.
You know you’ll do or say anything, true, false, or contradictory just to defeat me in 2012.
So Fuck Off!

(of course, more politely and in more “Washington code” than that)

But he won’t because he’s clearly incapable of saying that.

That is why there is no value whatsoever in Republican statements. Statements are not made to add value to any situation. They are made by Republicans, who are unified in demagoguery, to advance themselves and the conservative cause.

Why does anyone ever listen?

leadership implies responsibility which doesn’t exist among our current crop of politicians whether in or vying for office! What we have is a Darwinian scrabble for wealth and power amongst individuals or groups. Once arriving to the top of the heap via whatever expeditious route, fair or foul, these people, euphemistically called “leaders” are anything but; just the next target of their erstwhile pursuers and wannabes!

Leadership is a code word for control.  The only ones controlling our country’s decisions should be the collective voice of the people.  Until that happens, the people will increasingly find themselves poorer even when the economy - the only indicator that seems to matter anymore - shows signs of recovery.

“The US and the USSR are no longer superpowers. Humanity is the superpower. The will of the nation and country will be based on the will of the people. The people will make sure politicians do not make mischief.”
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International

Only a Republican would consider “nuanced” a “denunciatory adjective”.

Running for Grand Wizard with ones sheets tied into a knot may be a handicap,.......Call Me Whitey!

I am shooting for Newt Gangrape as the GOP leader,  he supposedly has more experience screwing anything that walks then any of the other GOPers!

Newt Gangrape has the uncanny ability to make sure he always comes out on top, which makes him seem quite religious too!.... No compromising positions for him!

Yeah! Give me the Newtonian!

Wake up people. Democrats and republicans can’t fix our government or themselves. Face it, America doesn’t work…

JOIN THE REVOLUTION
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://www.revolution2.osixs.org )
We don’t have to live like this anymore. “Spread the News”
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

Wannabee:
WTF are you talking about?  You were spilling your guts (which is as accurately graphical an image as one could want)about….nothing other than your hatred of anyone to the right of Rush Limbaugh.  There was no logic, no reason, no facts…just vomitus.

Won’t you be happier posting a Fox Noise?

It’s hard for Barry Hussein Soetoro as president to remain above the battle, even in a country that claims to despise Washington infighting? Of corse it is Mr. Dionne. I am my college professor’s favorite pupil. He calls himself a “philosophical progressive” (whatever that means) and he tells wonderful stories about Mao Zedong and how deeply spirtual it is to become a Progressive. He told us not to pay any attention to those horrible rumors that the Conservatives preach to us about Brother Mao’s murder of 60 million. I know it’s a lie, that’s what a girl on Facebook said. After all, President Obama had a Mao ornamate hanging fron the White House Christmas tree, right on cool. After learning all of these new political ideas, I went out and got the latest Che Guevara t-shirt. It is so rad. My professor went to Harvard like Obama did so I know he loves Che too. My professor said Hollywood helped to revive another leftist martyr but my uncle (who was in the Army) said Hollywood has dutifully churned out yet another cinematic agitprop paean and that I should read to try to discern why many supposedly democratic, civil libertarian liberals still swoon over this Stalinist mass-murderer. What ever that means, later dude.

Its easy to be obsessed with something you don’t have.

Please realize that as much as they deny it, the drive for leadership by Republicans is the desire to have what Qaddaffi had for 40 years.  Don’t forget: the Colonel came in as a reformer, creating a coup to “clean up” for “the people”.

He has happily impoverished his nation for his own power, wealth, enjoyment of his voluptuous blonde “nurse”, and insurance that nobody dares question it.
Hey! Sounds like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, just a few steps further down the road.

It was reported on Fox News today;

While Palin was in Israel, .....Bachmann called Palin to ask Palin if she had been to the Eiffel Tower in Israel yet?  Palin replied “Not yet, she was still looking for Big Ben!”

If you vote for anyone who takes corporate cash you are voting to cut your own throat. You are voting for more fascism. You are voting for the death of the middle class.

Don’t like cash in politics? Don’t vote for it.

To cut to the chase: The GOP is obsessed about ‘Leadership’ for the same reason many of the vast used-to-be ‘Middle Class’ in the US are obsessed about jobs, homes, financial security…they have none.

Reportedly, the GOP is negotiating with Comedy Central, which has offered to run their political ads for the 2012 campaign at no cost, if the GOP guarantees that Palin, Bachmann, Angle and Hagee will be official candidates, in addition to the top-runners, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Paul, and Romney. Which Comedy Central plans to build a special show for, billed as ‘The Spectacular Comedic Quartet’.

You know Obama said he was going to do a lot of things and believed in something about adiosity and a lot of other things during the campaign, for some reason hop on cash and compromising positions have been taking much of his time.

So Obama made so many promisies he has trouble keeping up them, so he only has been able to do the most important ones ,like going after the Terrbelban in Afghanistan and is working on getting rid of that Republican in Lybia Col Gadfly, After little for thought, I will vote for Obama in 2012, because he needs more time to get things done, just like Bush did, maybe we should give him 40 years like Col. Gadfly?

gerard—I am sure Mr. O thinks he is helping the People as best he can.  The people who govern us have a rather feudal or monarchical view of things.  They have these terrible headaches which they get from trying to run the world and make it safe for plutocratic capitalism, however.

The political battle shouldn’t be about whether the Republicans like Obama, or whether the Democrats like Obama, but whether “the people”—members of all parties and of none—like him. 

That’s what’s wrong—the factionalism.  If the “conservatives” (some of whom are downright crazy) like him, he’s not helping “the people.”  If the corporations like him (most of whom are robbing “the people” blind) like him, he’s not helping “the people.”  If the Pentagon likes him, he’s not helping “the people.”

When will he begin to help “the people”?  He won’t.  Why?  Because they don’t cooperate enthusiasticaly enough to raise big money for his coming campaign.  It’s called “buying the President” sad to say.And with things the way they stand now, it’s likely to be that way for years, until “the people” reclaim their power and get with the program.

Mr. Goldfarb, why is it you revert to name-calling instead of addressing Obama’s failure to live up to his words? Furthermore, it’s amusing that you think a left/right coalition is “a union of the incompatible, a libertarian and a principled social democrat,” when what Obama has done is form some kind of mutant Centrist Democratic/Neoconservative “union of the incompatible.” Why do you say: “you would believe that all Americans agree with your critique of Obama and realistic democrats?” Where have I asserted such a thing (and by the way, what do realistic democrats believe in besides bipartisanship to give the wealthy everything they want?)? More and more Libertarians and Liberals With a Conscience are trying to find common ground to fight against this One Corporate Party we now have.
You conclude:
“There is a clear choice in America, and you don’t know which side you are on. You prefer ideology of the left and the right over responsible politics.”
What, pray tell, is that “clear choice in America?” Is that choice between Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans? And what in the world do you mean by “responsible politics?” Be “responsible,” shut up, and and pick one of the two choices offered: the Party of Greed and Power or the Party of Power and Greed?

The Left-versus-Right spectrum does not have much meaning in the narrow scope of national established-order politics and government.  It would be more meaningful and accurate to call Obama a conservative.  He has a different style, a different ‘narrative’ from those of his predecessors, of course, but the substance of policy seems pretty much unchanged.  One rises above ‘petty squabbling’ (that is, democracy) by assuming a monarchical role.  One can get away with this if all the serious power-holders are in substantial agreement.

The Republican shift from attacking Obama for too much leadership to too little probably denotes little more than appealing to an audience with little analytical ability and a very short attention span, using anything that comes to hand.  They seem to lack a coherent style and narrative altogether.  They are floundering.  But this has nothing to do with ideology or policy; it’s a marketing problem.

Madisolation,

You do seem to be in mad isolation, disconnected from the practical ways to address the concerns the vast of the vast majority of the American population.  You have to tell stories, Obama’s are compelling. Yours are not.  You would believe that all Americans agree with your critique of Obama and realistic democrats. And your idea is a union of the incompatible, a libertarian and a principled social democrat. Brilliant. Obama does disappoint, but if you are concerned with workers and injustice, how can you even think of Paul? Obama’s programs have not done enough to support states and stimulate the economy, but what would Paul have done? http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/02/libertarianism-versus-workers’-rights-in-wisconsin/ You mirror on the unrealistic side, the confusions of our last elections, http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2010/11/the-results-were-expected/

There is a clear choice in America, and you don’t know which side you are on. You prefer ideology of the left and the right over responsible politics.

Mr. Goldfarb, I have to agree with your title. Obama certainly is a storyteller, but his stories seem to be for entertainment purposes only, and some would say his theme is flawed. The points he made in the Maryland speech you referenced are examples of his twisted tales:
“So they spent the last 20 months saying no – even to policies that they’d supported in the past.  No, to middle class tax cuts.  No, to help for small businesses.  No, to a bipartisan deficit reduction commission that they had once sponsored….I said yes; they said no.”
Obama tells a tale of the middle class clamoring for tax cuts when what the middle class wants are jobs and single payer healthcare. It is the wealthiest class that wants their five and six digit tax cuts. Nor does the population want tax cuts if it means their Social Security is compromised. His tax break story is therefore flawed.
“No, to a bipartisan deficit reduction commission that they had once sponsored.” Here Obama asserts that it was a good and noble idea to convene a deficit commission that would cut, among other things, “entitlements” like Social Security and Medicare. Well, this is a different story than he told the Quad City times in 2007. His story then was:
“I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax.”
Obama ought to get his stories straight.

(Obama may have the approval of diehard Democrats like Bush had with his “loyal Bushie” group and he may have the approval of the wealthiest, the warhawks and the centrist Democrats, and maybe he can cobble together a bastardized Pragmatic Party out of that mess and win in 2012. Something tells me he isn’t very confident He knows only 30% of the country thinks we’re going in the right direction, and that has to cause his p.r. people concern. Give citizens a legitimate choice of candidates and Obama would be packing his bags. It may be that the only strategy for Obama’s defeat is to get behind a candidate who—though flawed—sticks to his beliefs and doesn’t attempt to pass fiction off as truth).

****************

One thing, just from the title, the republican obsession of
‘leadership’ is more a ruse that ostensibly hides the lust for
control and the dictates for their power grab for the corporate
plutocracy and size matters because they think the more power
or bigger the government the more control. They’ll probably get
much from it also because though the democrats are not that
different, they just don’t get as aggressive as their
‘counterparts’, except from what o has constantly done for the
conservative part since his presidency built on ‘change to believe
in’ that a change head fake on the folks who voted for him.

“”“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in an appearance
on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” early this month, insisted that
his party is “prepared to do difficult things” to bring down the
deficit, but that the president has been absent.”“”
****************

Give some credit where it is due, o knows anything in the senate
will go directly to ‘filibuster’ without going past ‘GO’ and then
getting stuck in the twilight zone. Which it also shows o’s
ineptness in getting anything done that doesn’t favor the ‘people
behind the curtain’.

Obama is a principled political centrist who wants to move the center to the left. He wants to turn the commonsense so that the concerns and needs of ordinary people are addressed.

Madisolation, if you don’t know anyone who are planning to vote for Obama in 2012 obviously you are not in touch with nearly 50% of the American population. And if you include the notion that “no one wants the current crop of far right Republicans,” you are coming close to 100% of the population.

Watch Obama closely. Remember we live in a democracy imperfect, though it is, with the people we have not the ones we want, and consider how your ideals might be actually realized.

You then get a deal cutting leader such as Obama, dealing with issues and calculations such as the ones Dionne analyzes. Consider what Obama says http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2010/10/obama-storyteller-in-chief/ and realize what the practical alternatives are to health care finance reform,support of the workers in Madison, a stimulus package with infrastructure investment, a clear voice against Islamophobia and racism, etc.

“..the president’s aides have made the case that Washington is trapped either in squabbles rooted in the politics of the 1930s and 1960s…Obama is untouched by these old quarrels and ready to move the nation beyond them.”
Yeah, I’ll just bet he is. Those years saw the rise of the labor movement and the civil rights movement. Obama doesn’t want any part of helping labor nor does he respect our civil rights.
All Obama does is cut deals. That’s how he got where he is today. He cut a deal to become head of the Harvard Law Review and has been cutting deals with corporations ever since.
Oh, and those think tank poll numbers? What in the world has Obama done for average people that they would approve of him? Of course, no one wants the current crop of far right Republicans, but I know of no one who is intending to vote for Obama in 2012, either. The “deal cutter” may very well be toast if he has to run against an antiwar, anti-fed, no-special-breaks-for-corporations candidate like Ron Paul. A Paul/Kucinich ticket would put Mr. Anything For A Buck out of the picture, and what a blessing for this country that would be.