DIVIDER IN CHIEF - written by TWO DEMS

[native]

By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen
Saturday, October 30, 2010; 12:00 AM

President Obama's post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by the politics of polarization, resentment and division.

...We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office. ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

Caddell and Schoen conclude, "...With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president."

Do I smell an inside Democratic challenge to Obama for the 2012 nomination???????

[CID1990]

Caddell and Schoen conclude, "...With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president."

Do I smell an inside Democratic challenge to Obama for the 2012 nomination???????

No, and I can think of at least 100 reasons why.

Not the least of which is that it would be the end of the DEM party. They would self-destruct along the racism lines alone.

[Skjellyfetti]

there have been editorials written by republicans blasting the teabaggers as well. not worth reading too much into a single editorial. definitely not worth using caps lock and italics imo.

[native]

Caddell and Schoen conclude, "...With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president."

Do I smell an inside Democratic challenge to Obama for the 2012 nomination???????

No, and I can think of at least 100 reasons why.

Not the least of which is that it would be the end of the DEM party. They would self-destruct along the racism lines alone.

Of course, but the same reasons failed to stop challenges to Johnson in 1968, begun before his famous withdrawal speech at the end of March in 1968.

What is the purpose of two prominent democratic pollsters who have worked for the Clintons in writing such a damning editorial? My theory is that Cadell and Schoen represent a considerable remnant of the Democratic Party who are horrified by their President and desire a change in direction from the current administration. The editorial could could be viewed as a warning or even a trial balloon.

Do you think Obama will withdraw if things look so bleak for his own chances seven months out from the election in 2012?

What is the significance of the AP poll showing that 47% of Democrats want a Dem challenger to the President in 2012.

Republicans may over-react emotionally to bad elections, but Dems react even more emotionally.

[kalm]

No, and I can think of at least 100 reasons why.

Not the least of which is that it would be the end of the DEM party. They would self-destruct along the racism lines alone.

Of course, but the same reasons failed to stop challenges to Johnson in 1968, begun before his famous withdrawal speech at the end of March in 1968.

What is the purpose of two prominent democratic pollsters who have worked for the Clintons in writing such a damning editorial? My theory is that Cadell and Schoen represent a considerable remnant of the Democratic Party who are horrified by their President and desire a change in direction from the current administration. The editorial could could be viewed as a warning or even a trial balloon.

Do you think Obama will withdraw if things look so bleak for his own chances seven months out from the election in 2012?

What is the significance of the AP poll showing that 47% of Democrats want a Dem challenger to the President in 2012.

Republicans may over-react emotionally to bad elections, but Dems react even more emotionally.

You're mis-reading this. Democrat's disappointment in Obama has more to do with his corporatist leanings and attempting to placate Republicans than with him being a meanie.

[native]

Of course, but the same reasons failed to stop challenges to Johnson in 1968, begun before his famous withdrawal speech at the end of March in 1968.

What is the purpose of two prominent democratic pollsters who have worked for the Clintons in writing such a damning editorial? My theory is that Cadell and Schoen represent a considerable remnant of the Democratic Party who are horrified by their President and desire a change in direction from the current administration. The editorial could could be viewed as a warning or even a trial balloon.

Do you think Obama will withdraw if things look so bleak for his own chances seven months out from the election in 2012?

What is the significance of the AP poll showing that 47% of Democrats want a Dem challenger to the President in 2012.

Republicans may over-react emotionally to bad elections, but Dems react even more emotionally.

You're mis-reading this. Democrat's disappointment in Obama has more to do with his corporatist leanings and attempting to placate Republicans than with him being a meanie.

I recognize the distinction, k, but Cadell and Schoen are in the Democrat pragmatist camp, not the far left camp.

I fully expect the lefties to stick with Obama but I wonder if there are enough pragmatists to give him a challenge from the center.

[blueballs]

there have been editorials written by republicans blasting the teabaggers as well. not worth reading too much into a single editorial. definitely not worth using caps lock and italics imo.

But the Tea Party doesn't occupy the White House and Obama does. Big difference.

Anybody who thinks a) Obama has been a uniter during his tenure as he had promised, or b) has acted in a presidential manner during this campaign is a) stupid, b) blind, c) both.

[GannonFan]

I think this editorial is a pretty spot on article. Speaking as an Obama-voter, I can say quite clearly that one of my major disappointments with the person I helped to elect is that he has been extremely partisan and divisive once he took office. I don't know what to blame this on - maybe he was always that way and hid it better during his campaign, maybe the onset of the supermajority in Congress made him think that he didn't need to address the issue of partisanship in Washington since the GOP couldn't block a single thing, or maybe he just decided that populist mudslinging was the best way to get things done. Frankly, it was probably all of the above. But at the end of the day, one of his big flaws of his first two years is that he did nothing to fix the partisan sniping in Washington and has actually done a fair amount to make it even more vitrolic. So after 8 years of some of the most bitter partisanship we've seen in awhile, I think Obama, in the last 2 years, has missed completely his chance to turn the tide in that regard and even more so, has done a fair amount of pouring gasoline onto the fire. A missed opportunity.

[kalm]

I think this editorial is a pretty spot on article. Speaking as an Obama-voter, I can say quite clearly that one of my major disappointments with the person I helped to elect is that he has been extremely partisan and divisive once he took office. I don't know what to blame this on - maybe he was always that way and hid it better during his campaign, maybe the onset of the supermajority in Congress made him think that he didn't need to address the issue of partisanship in Washington since the GOP couldn't block a single thing, or maybe he just decided that populist mudslinging was the best way to get things done. Frankly, it was probably all of the above. But at the end of the day, one of his big flaws of his first two years is that he did nothing to fix the partisan sniping in Washington and has actually done a fair amount to make it even more vitrolic. So after 8 years of some of the most bitter partisanship we've seen in awhile, I think Obama, in the last 2 years, has missed completely his chance to turn the tide in that regard and even more so, has done a fair amount of pouring gasoline onto the fire. A missed opportunity.

I find it interesting that you as an independant take this view although I understand the desire for a president to rise above the fray.

That being said, FDR met the Republican and monied establishment head on and called them out on the issues and it was pretty effective for him:

"The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor — these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age — other people's money — these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in. Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities. Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike."

[GannonFan]

I think this editorial is a pretty spot on article. Speaking as an Obama-voter, I can say quite clearly that one of my major disappointments with the person I helped to elect is that he has been extremely partisan and divisive once he took office. I don't know what to blame this on - maybe he was always that way and hid it better during his campaign, maybe the onset of the supermajority in Congress made him think that he didn't need to address the issue of partisanship in Washington since the GOP couldn't block a single thing, or maybe he just decided that populist mudslinging was the best way to get things done. Frankly, it was probably all of the above. But at the end of the day, one of his big flaws of his first two years is that he did nothing to fix the partisan sniping in Washington and has actually done a fair amount to make it even more vitrolic. So after 8 years of some of the most bitter partisanship we've seen in awhile, I think Obama, in the last 2 years, has missed completely his chance to turn the tide in that regard and even more so, has done a fair amount of pouring gasoline onto the fire. A missed opportunity.

I find it interesting that you as an independant take this view although I understand the desire for a president to rise above the fray.

That being said, FDR met the Republican and monied establishment head on and called them out on the issues and it was pretty effective for him:

"The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor — these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age — other people's money — these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in. Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities. Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike."

What worked for FDR doesn't apply that greatly to today. FDR didn't run on a platform of ending or softening the partisan divide - he was pretty clear in the '32 election that the GOP and business were the villian and people elected him for it. And the America of FDR's time was still much closer to the workplace of "The Jungle" and was still before the real strengthining of unions and workplace safety and rules such as that. Heck, FDR was still talking about tilling the soil. Most people today only do that in their gardens, if at all. And plenty of people shared in the rush to easy money that led to this most recent economic collapse. There weren't too many people complaining about getting loans better than they should've gotten. The collapse of the economy in the late 20's was the result of the privilaged few reaching for too much. The most recent collapse had a much broader cast of characters reaching for too much.