President Obama

It Didn’t Work Then. It Doesn’t Work Now.

Has any modern president issued such a direct repudiation of Trickle Down economics?

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there’s been a certain crowd in Washington for the last few decades who respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everyone else. And even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, they argue, that’s the price of liberty.

It’s a simple theory – one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible post-war boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.

You simply can't make a credible case that the president is not out there fighting for liberal causes or promoting liberal ideas. You can't even say he's a centrist.

His pragmatic style of governing may occasionally take on an outside appearance of centrism, but make no mistake, President Obama is a genuine liberal. He's probably more liberal than many of those who are reading this.

President Obama is a liberal who understands the only way to move the country forward is with compromise, not kicking and screaming. And that doesn't mean surrendering your principles or comprising your ideals. It means giving some to take some, and because the Republicans are so out of their depth, and the President is such a smart politician, there's been quite a lot more taking than giving. Just don't tell the media that.

via ThinkProgress

  • Gussie Jives

    Compared to the other “liberal” Presidents, Obama may very well be the most liberal President the US has had. However, when the howls of “Grrr, Socialist, arg” come up, I often find myself countering with “Tim Geithner.”

    I’m all for pragmatic solutions, but when Tim Geithner is still Obama’s main economic adviser, I can’t help but think that may be Obama isn’t as liberal on the economic front as we’d like to believe.

    • mrbrink

      Explain how Tim Geithner hurts the president.

      We went from -6.8 GDP to positive growth and job creation after shedding 750,ooo jobs a month leading up to Barack Obama’s inauguration. And following the stabilization of an economy in the ditch, inheriting the Great Recession, Tim Geithner was there when the president signed a 787 billion dollar stimulus, health care reform, financial reform, and he even argued against extending the Bush tax cuts.

  • trgahan

    The comments posted so far are a great illustration of how long a road we have to go regarding economics. The beauty of supply side economics is that it is based on greed, pride, and selfishness (veiled in the concepts of “fairness,” “achievement,” and “merit”). It is so easy to be seduced into believing it and make people fear any change in the system.
    I would argue that, as a nation, we have been waiting since the 1790’s for the success of a few to somehow save us all. During the few brief periods when we turned toward trying to help the collective (always associated with the times our economy crashed), the institutions and policies created were quickly neutered because those at the top weren’t getting as wealthy as they could have been. And it has always been justified as correcting “government incompetence.”

  • Razor

    Again, I’ll be the one to take the heat for the “centrist” argument, but Obama is only “liberal” because the conversation is so, so far out to the right. Obama invoked Teddy Roosevelt multiple times during the speech and Roosevelt was a Republican president.

    It shouldn’t be a liberal idea that trickle down doesn’t work, it’s a cold, hard fact supported by 30 years of history. It shouldn’t be a liberal cause that the rich should have to pay their fair share, it was the way of the land for more than a generation. A liberal candidate shouldn’t have to debate support for child labor laws in 2011. But that’s where we are as a nation, centrism is the new liberalism, because conservatism has gone from “let me have my money” to far-right whackaloonitude that also wants their money and wants to make sure you don’t ever see any of it, ever.

    That’s not a criticism of Obama, it’s a criticism of the GOP and America in general.

    • mrbrink

      “Obama is only “liberal” because the conversation is so, so far out to the right.”

      Are you saying president Obama is talking like a centrist here? Making a centrist’s argument by pummeling right wing conservative economic theory?

      Don’t mistake a centrist’s tone for centrist. Just because it doesn’t sound like screeching hell doesn’t make it any less liberal.

      Do you think anyone else could make a more reasonable, articulate pitch for liberal policies in America than Obama? Where are they and why aren’t they the president?

      • Razor

        Again, it’s not an attack on Obama. I certainly can’t think of a single Democrat in politics that I would rather have leading our “side,” if that’s the terminology you want to use.

        What I’m saying is Obama’s stances on a lot of issues would have been considered centrist or even right-wing not that long ago. I’m obviously not saying he’s right-wing, but what I’m saying is that the conversation is so far right, a formerly right-wing position now looks centrist or liberal. Black is white, up is down, etc.

        • mrbrink

          I know what you’re saying and I suppose someone had to say it. But I disagree. I think liberalism is naturally subversive, and especially to political rigidness, or cultural stagnancy. So where ever you find an argument by a U.S. president raging against trickle down economics and concentrated wealth, or championing empathy, or equal rights and protection, and the “little guy,” you’re in the company of liberalism.

          Being a center right country and being told we’re a center right country are two very different things. One is provably false, the other is about an 80 years long direct-marketing scam using gobs of ACME money leftover from the sale of Xanadu.

          • Razor

            I’m just bothered by the idea that sticking up for “the little guy,” (aka, the majority of Americans) is a liberal concept.

            But the wealthy and powerful sticking up for the wealthy and powerful and screwing the little guy has been with us since the dawn of civilization, so I suppose you’re right.

    • Teresa McCarthy-Greene

      Hey Razor, the ultimate problem or miscalculation in your analysis of the liberalism of the President is because you define liberalism as a static rather than dynamic concept. Liberalism as a concept is dynamic reflecting the current milieu.

      Let’s take the oft talked about Greatest Liberal of all time FDR. FDR was a great liberal, but he interred Japanese Americans, which isn’t liberal at all. Social Security was a liberal policy, but just for white men when it began. Just saying.

      Let’s look at R.M. Nixon for a minute, an arch conservative with fascist tendencies, who committed a political crime, that dude created the EPA and his administration put in place NEPA, and so began the era of deep research into ecological restoration. Nixon was reflecting his era, and that era was demanding some action on the environment, which was considered a liberal cause.

      Let’s look at t Jimmy Carter for a minute, you define him as a liberal, but under his administration the airlines were deregulated, this is not what we would consider today to be a liberal policy position. Indeed he was reflecting his era, his time. And many of the Carter Policies were liberal.

      We all know that under Clinton, Welfare was effectively gutted, and that was an indication of what was to come, the deregulation of financial services. People love Clinton now, b/c the economy was so great back in the 90’s and everyone wants to go back to that, but at the time, Clinton’s policies were just reflecting the era, sometime his policies could be considered quite liberal, The Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994, a very liberal policy that expanded the numbers of minority businesses competing for Federal Government contracts. It was a very important micro-economic policy.

      Barack Obama is no different than those Presidents, he reflects his era as well, which gets us back to the dynamic concept of liberalism, it changes and it always will. He mostly has what we would consider a liberal policy agenda, he did not oppose or trade away a public option for health reform, and you have to admit that we’ve finally taken the step to deliver some form of preventive care to everyone in this country, something Democrats have been trying to achieve for over 70 years, and it isn’t perfect but it can be built on now, not unlike Social Security.

      I guess I just think it is time to defining a static concept to the term liberalism as opposed to what is it, a dynamic concept, which reflects the sensibilities of the current era.

      Sorry that is so damn long.

      • Razor

        All great points. I understand what you’re saying about defining liberalism as a static concept, but I wouldn’t say that’s the way I personally view the ideology.

        Obama is doing a hell of a job working within the parameters of the era and culture. My gripe is that the era and the culture have moved too far to the right. Whether that’s due to liberal inaction at the polls or liberal leaders governing from the center, I’ll leave up to debate, but the conversation is way off to the right and those on the left are either pulling us more towards the center or just chipping away.

        Obviously there’s no magic bullet and that kind of sweeping change isn’t going to happen overnight, but I don’t know why the country was allowed to move in this direction in the first place. The tone of just about every debate we have as a nation stems from or skews right. It’s just accepted that we’re a “center-right” nation when it’s demonstrably false. But for some reason, every conversation we have as a culture is always looked at through a Republican lens first.

        • Teresa McCarthy-Greene

          Yeah I agree with that Razor.
          Thanks for helping me flesh out my own thoughts on this, I turned it into a blog post. :D

  • nathkatun7

    President Obama is the most liberal president in my lifetime; and I’ve consciously lived under nine presidents (ten actually if I include JFK of my teenager years). He is also one of the smartest and one of the most charismatic. The tragedy is that he has been the most demonized by the right wingers and by the so called progressives. Not even Jimmy Carter, who had his share of liberal doubters, experienced such unrelenting attacks from Republicans, or from people who claim to be the base of the Democratic party. Although, for some of us who pay attention to history and public policy, President Obama has posted an impressive record of achievements in both Domestic and Foreign issues, the media and people on both the right and the left continue to label him a failure. Surely this negative attitude towards President Obama has to do with some hidden agendas because it is not justified by the record of his achievements.

  • joseph2004

    The sad thing is that the only plausible way the US has of “paying down” $15Trillion in debt is to print lots of money and deflate the currency away. Very few who look seriously at the debt believe that it can ever really be paid off without resorting to long-term devaluation, perhaps over decades. I don’t see any mention of this little ditty in Obama’s speech about how the middle class is getting clobbered. He talks a lot about those robber baron payday lenders and bankers.

    You want to kill the purchasing power of the middle class? Print print print. Devalue devalue devalue.

    It’s happening as we speak.

    I’d like to see the loopholes he talks about go away. I’d like to see the subsidies go away that create artificial markets in everything from oil to wheat. I want to see a “fair” tax system, too, but you won’t convince me that the concept of “fairness” in practice can be agreed upon by everyone. Someone will feel some pain somewhere. There’s no way around it.

    Government plays a big role in distorting markets. Student loans are a classic example. The harsh reality is that by making education available to “everyone” with guaranteed student loans, the cost of going to college has skyrocketed at a rate reminiscent of the “Turtle and the Hare” (the Turtle being inflation).
    Maybe that’s a necessary evil, but when Obama says people ought to be able to get a college education and not be saddled with $100,000 in debt afterwards, the only approach is to raise taxes on EVERYBODY in order to make education “free” (laughter). Or, force public colleges and universities to cut salaries in half for all professors and cut tuitions to where fewer people need to take out loans or being saddled with loans that holds them back for years.
    You want “free” medical care for everybody progressives? Fine, but you know and I know that means returning to a much less progressive tax code, because in order to pay for that and education and everything else Michael Moore thinks should be “free,” it ain’t just the “1%” who will have to pony up. It will be everyone. And it won’t be the America Obama claims made America great anymore.

    “…our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government” is in the DNA of America, he says, and then incredibly he follows up by attempting to squash the idea that this very set of traits had or has anything to do with America’s success.

    As such, I don’t know what Obama is really saying in or what he intends by his speech. He has to understand this stuff. He is, as you say, “such a smart politician.” But smart politicians know how to make great speeches. They know how to work the crowd, leaving people at least momentarily filled with happy thoughts. Obama has been good at that at times, but his vision – which I guess represents the “Progressive agenda,” no? – can’t possibly be realized while maintaining the innovative energy and incentive to achieve that is America’s past. Something has to give.

    • jjasonham

      Sorry. You’re trying to frame the argument of taxes from the place that the money isn’t there and never was there to fund these “free” institutions. With full taxation of the 1% that own over 40% of the wealth in the country, it’d be a much more logical place to work from. The 1% not getting taxed + their greed for evermore profit lessens the money that goes into the collective pot while driving up costs everywhere else…

      • joseph2004

        That’s got a sort of “confiscation” tone to it. Sure, I suppose if you take 90% of any earned income over $250K or whatever “Rich” is deemed to be and also tax capital gains, dividend and interest income at some 50% or better, you might for a while get by. But not for long. The unintended consequence of such a drastic scenario will result in some sort of flight of the rich. They’ll find a haven, somewhere, you can be sure. Or the incentive to earn more will die right along with the incentive to invest. Better to keep one’s money in a coffee can under the bed, or hold gold bullion in some place the US Government can’t get at it.
        No, there isn’t enough there on a sustainable basis to fund the “free” institutions – not while carrying astronomical national debt and interest at the same time.

        • jjasonham

          When have the rich ever been taxed 90% of their earnings or 50% of their capital gains? Never. But somehow, they’ve managed to survive even when paying what was deemed their fair share 40 years ago. Are you saying they don’t have enough money to pay their fair share? There have been large and small gaps in income inequality before in the history of the US. Did they flee or fail to invest? No. You know why? Because the institutions that we all pay into help THEM make their profit, not the other way around…their profits don’t subsidize our institutions. They benefit from the educated workers they are able to hire, the roads we all pay taxes and tolls for, the internet infrastructure they use to do business. If the rich were to leave or not invest, the only thing that would happen would be new people getting rich and investing.

          • joseph2004

            I think the fact that governments local and otherwise are willing to give corporations tax breaks and other incentives is because they know that when businesses come into a community, it generally benefits that community. In my state, which has traditionally been very liberal, both local and state governments have not been reluctant in the least to making these kinds of deals, because they bring money, jobs, and tax revenue home.
            I said above, however, that I would like to see much of the subsidies and other incentives go away. The system is so tangled up with so many special interests pushing and pulling, it’s hard to know what the value of anything in fact is anymore.
            Still, your view that businesses/corporations are simply parasites on society is the kind of view that leads to punitive policy decisions. Those kinds of decisions often have adverse impacts on the people they supposedly were designed to protect.

          • jjasonham

            There is not one place in my comments that states I believe businesses/corporations are parasites on society. I have no idea where you got that from.

            Businesses bring tax dollars to communities, but at what cost? The large and small businesses that invest back into the community with outreach, educational tools, etc are the ones that really contribute. The subsidies and tax incentives tend to have a “race to the bottom” effect, where the local government just wants to meet a need for jobs and will do anything to get it. For example, my hometown of Greensboro, NC. In that region, Dell Computers pitted the localities against each other for tax incentives. Winston Salem won out, but about 5 years later, they’re gone from there. That’s not because they went out of business, it’s because the objective wasn’t to be a part of “the community” but to get the best incentives. This is what most commonly happens. A lot of times, symbiotic relationships happen between community and company.

            My point is, companies need the community just as much as the communities need the company. So to say the companies provide for the community and shouldn’t be irritated with paying their fair share for fear of retribution is absolute nonsense.

          • joseph2004

            That’s fine but first you have to realize that, despite a few high profile corporations finding ways around taxes, the vast majority of businesses big and small do pay taxes – local, state, and federal.
            The airwaves and blogosphere are riddled with slogans, one being “Corporations don’t pay taxes” or “Corporations aren’t paying ‘their fair share'”…. and I’m not arguing that in some cases that’s not true, but it’s become a talking point that’s gotten more mileage than it deserves.

            OWS has come up with a brilliant concept – the “99%” or the ‘1%’ – but the result is an over simplification of what ails us. Details become a casualty when catchy slogans are employed. And that’s the whole point of catchy phrases. They work.
            “Look at me, I’m with the 99% (ie., the ‘good’ guys). Look at ‘them,’ they’re part of the 1% (ie., the “bad” guys).”
            Doesn’t get much simpler or simplistic than that. I doubt most people who’ve bought into the “fair share” notion really have any concept or care for what “the rich” do or don’t pay. The catchy phrase lets them off the hook.

            Are the 1% really not paying their “fair share”? All of “them”? Who are “they” really? How does one define “fair share”?
            Look how the left especially uses the “1%” game. Mitt Romney, who everyone knows is rich, is made to look shady, greedy, and unfair just by including him in OWS’s demonized 1%.

            The whole “fairness” concept has always had a contingent that claims those who earn more don’t deserve it, or that they’ve just figured out some shady way of growing their wealth. The Buffets of the world make a show of saying they should be paying more taxes – Obama makes reference to it all the time – but of course they’ll wait for the tax code to be changed before they offer up any “extra” income to the government.
            To your last point again, I disagree. I think the vast majority of companies do contribute to the community. The bottom line is jobs in the community. Anything else – charity (very common by the way) – is gravy.

          • jjasonham

            In response to your latest comment:

            The amount of taxes being paid by corporations is not just some detail that you can gloss over. Catchy slogans aren’t making it this situation too simple….it’s already a simple concept. Companies, all of them, should pay their fair share (see Elizabeth Warren’s youtube video about business giving back). Fair share has to be defined within the context of the economy. We can directly compare tax percentages of previous eras and the contributions those taxes made to the prosperity of the time. These are not philosophical debates. Even if there are was just one company that didn’t pay taxes, that’s absolutely one too many. If we weren’t in the economical state we’re in, people probably wouldn’t care what the rich did or didn’t pay, but we’re in a recession and the electorate is on the hook for the mistakes of many excesses. That’s the context we’re in, and why this is such a big deal. OWS isn’t demonizing the 1%. They’re pointing a finger to the aftermath of years of financial influence from the 1%. You are correctly seeing the negative aspect of it, although you’re attributing that negativity to OWS “spin”. Your conclusions seem misguided. And no, jobs are not the only things companies can contribute to a community. Employment numbers can come and go, but a contribution to a community has a more lasting effect. Why do you think businesses spend so much money for good PR surrounding their contributions to the community? They don’t spend tons of money to say “Here are your jobs”.

        • mrbrink

          “That’s got a sort of “confiscation” tone to it.”

          Well then “Property and Natural Right” should be grounds for revolution.

        • Andrew Bugbee

          The two biggest financial collapses in the last 100 years,(not including the oil embargo years), were during times when the top marginal rate was at its lowest.

    • mrbrink

      “The sad thing is that the only plausible way the US has of “paying down” $15Trillion in debt is to print lots of money and deflate the currency away.”

      Or stop spending money on things like tax cuts for the top 2%, prescription drug giveaways, corporate subsidies, a $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq.

      I find the best way to pay down the debt in this day and age is to keep Republicans far away from power. Three Republican presidents are responsible for $10 trillion in current debt. There’s much more flexibility than you offer as solutions to wealth inequality and debt.

      The dollar is still the world’s most sought after currency, as is our debt.

      And as far as a “fair tax” system goes, how much should poor people pay to subsidize the rich and famous? And is it better to be a rich man in a poor country, or a poor country in a rich man’s pocket? Or, er, uh, we can’t get fooled again!

      “Government plays a big role in distorting markets.”

      Without government, there would be no “markets.” Look at the black market for your “free markets” model. Markets exist because rule of law exists. Government exists for rule of law, we just threw in the roads, schools, clean food and water, police and fire departments, and the military protection of international trade routes and foreign embassies because the free market would be a much different place if left to inspiring minds like yours.

      • joseph2004

        Brink I’m not saying government has no place, anywhere. I just find it interesting that government gets so much credit for being the solution in instances such as, say, the mortgage meltdown. Are we to believe that all of the sudden those nasty bankers woke on the same day a decided to drop their long-standing 100-year rules about who they would and would not loan to? There had to be a reason, and the reason was that the government created a regulatory environment that provided a backstop for the lenders. Approve a mortgage ap from someone who otherwise you’d never do so and we’ll back that loan up…. you know, to encourage ownership… Mr. Lender, you don’t have to worry about a thing. And they did.
        Banks had an incentive; it wasn’t sudden uncontrolable urges to rip people off. Obama is willing to point a finger directly at the bankers, but he never admits government culpability because that would kill his message that government is the solution to all our problems. We need more, not less government.
        Sorry, but I don’t see the evidence for that.
        Government exists, yes, for rule of law. Are you arguing that there aren’t enough laws? How many laws and rules that say the same thing multiple different ways do we need? If you said lack of oversight was the problem, I’d agree, but that’s not the same thing as lack of rules, laws, and regulations. Writing up a bunch more isn’t going to solve the problem, especially when you have so-called regulators spending their clock time reviewing porn sites.
        Did you see what Dick Durbin’s debit fee cap “rule” has caused? Small merchants who rely on small ticket purchases, where merchant fees for purchases at or below $10 have been discounted, have seen Visa and MC and others raise the formerly discounted fee to the new max cap amount in order to make up for lost revenue. This is adversely affecting, you guessed it, the very small businesses and consumers it was supposed to help. Coffee shops and vending machine operators (when card swipes are present) are being forced to raise prices.
        Now, you can blame that on those greedy big banks. I might even be sympathetic to the view, but you’d better be willing to acknowledge the regulatory change that caused it to begin with.

  • KXA

    Campaign season is on and Obama is once again making great speeches – something he is amazing skilled at. Yes, his repudiation, of Reagan economics is spot on and I much prefer it to his praise of Reagan.

    Yes, the speech sounds great. It is all true and has been for thirty plus years. But so did the promise to fillibuster FISA! Where was this speech during the debt ceiling negotiations, where was it when the Bush tax cuts were being debated. I find it odd that pragmatism is now one of Obama’s great qualities.

    The third to last paragraph is silly. Of course you can make a credible case that he isn’t out there “fighting” for liberal causes. I sure don’t see much fighting at all and many liberal causes have been left to wither on the vine. Of course you can say he is a centrist. He did choose Joe Lieberman as a mentor in the Senate.

    The proof is in the deeds and acomplishments and not the speeches. If he really is the greatest Liberal since FDR then it is time to come to work and start winning more than national Romney style health care. I’ll see him as a geat liberal when, Like FDR, he becomes a traitor to his own class, the 1%, rather than a Neocon hero.

    The majority of the citizens actually support “liberal” positions. Just like this speech, he can win almost any arguent against the Republicans by just stating the facts.All that takes is courage.

    I am all for a liberal, fighting, Democratic President but it takes a lot more than a speech to earn that title. Let’s agree to check in on January 1st, 2013 and see if he has what it takes.

    • jjasonham

      There is nothing you said in your comment that cannot be obliterated by looking at . You can’t prove he hasn’t been fighting, because there is no proof. Don’t come here with that “I don’t see” bull. You’re not looking, and you’re not the only one with eyes and a gavel.

    • mrbrink

      “The proof is in the deeds and acomplishments and not the speeches.”

      What about these?

      Or these?

      Thanks for all your help, though.

  • paul a

    Fine, but I need more than one speech to be convinced that he means it. It is 3 years into this presidency and he has not made many such speeches so far. Yes he did bring in health care reform but it was watered down and he never really came out swinging for it. That’s my beef with Obama: he rarely ever comes out swinging even though the Republicans are incredibly easy targets. If it were a prize-fight, the Repubs would be a drunken weakling with spaghetti arms, no rhythm and half-blind. And Obama would be Muhammed Ali but afraid to hurt his opponent. Let’s hope that Obama keeps hitting from now on.

    • JMAshby

      he has not made many such speeches so far.

      You haven’t been paying much attention then.

    • aleth

      Oh please…he has been talking about it since 2008 but you haven’t been paying attention… Heck even pushed dems before the midterms to vote on the Bush tax cuts but they bucked thinking any tax increase was a no -no

      I think you should read this


      The level of dishonesty in this argument is simply appalling. The President has been talking about social justice and income inequality since the primary elections in 2008. A journalist could have gone to the White House web portal and looked at the President’s speeches,but Mr. Berman is no journalist so I’ll do the work for him. Here is the President in August – before this “pivot” that has become part of the self-serving narrative of the fake-left.

      • mrbrink

        It is appalling. I heard David Sirota on Thom Hartmann the other day make his case for Ron Paul. He said he disagrees with Ron Paul’s economics, but his first choice– Anwar al-Awlaki– died by complications resulting from an international arrest warrant gone bad– so Ron Paul it is! Or something very close to that line of thinking.

        Ron Paul says “bring all the troops home” and “civil liberties” and “freedom and liberty” and “the drug war has failed” and they applaud. He whines, in that incessant, Seinfeldian, “what’s the deal with monetary policy?” tone– let states criminalize abortion! stop regulating polluters! repeal the minimum wage! repeal child labor laws! stop enforcing food and drug and product safety standards! allow multinational corporations more freedom and liberty to monopolize and buy up the idea of states’ rights and the commons!

        It’s a fair trade. A little experimentation with complete privatization of education, healthcare, and retirement insurance, and on and on is drastic, sure, they’ll stipulate that much, but it’s all worth it because Anwar-al-Awlaki would have wanted it that way.

        • ranger11

          These dudes must really like drugs to ignore everything else.

      • mrbrink

        before this “pivot”

        I’ve seen this meme around and about. Good looking out.

        They see right through that Johnny-Come-Lately veneer! No-Bama! No-Bama! Worse than Bush!

        The Obama Democrats passing and signing more liberal-progressive legislation in two years than any activist, blogger, or politician in modern history is more than a pivot, thank you very much. At this point, it’s a way of life.

        Some of us have gotten so used to the fight and disappointment, it’s like we don’t hear the word, “yes” anymore.

  • gescove

    I haven’t watched the speech, but have read the transcript and it is terrific! This is a full throated defense of liberal Democratic principles. Bravo! I have great optimism that the Republicans are going to choke on their own bile in 2012 and I look forward to President Obama’s second term.

  • ranger11

    He’s the most liberal president in my lifetime and I’m in my early forties. He blows away Clinton and Carter in this respect.

    • danah gaz

      Sorry. I have to disagree with your assessment of Obama being more lefty than Carter. Obama’s positions on war (TWOD, TWAT, etc, for starters)

      • ranger11


  • schemata

    And from some corners of the lefty blog-o-spehere all we got for analysis of this is “So?”

    • D_C_Wilson

      And from the Fox “News” alternate reality corner, we got (say it with me now):