it's a classic case of incremental ism vs. a bold paradigm shift. I'd love to see single payer. But where does the support come from? Even in the Democratic primary, if you wanted single payer, it was Kucinich. Not even within the Democratic party is there support for real health care reform from the actual candidates. You still get shouted down sometimes on Democratic Underground if you support single payer - I agree that it's a sad state that to support what the majority of Democrats support gets you called a dreamer on a site like this. The teabaggers get way more traction in the political system out of proportion to their numbers because they are vociferous about their core issues. Until Democrats do that, we'll get less than our share of results from the strength of our representation in Congress. Only people power and good persuasion from the Democratic left can shift that.

The dissent needs to be consistent, public, and unrelenting against this sold-out economic team. Returning to Main Street economics has got to be a part of the solution, but with Wall Street so well represented in the White House, we're sunk. President Obama is a better listener than most - Congress needs to gain his ear on alternatives to the current failed and failing finance policies.

It's known as the federal government.

And, are you implying that there are no historical examples where federal assistance to business has played a role in economic recovery? Probably the biggest counter-example is the Marshall plan, which was central to post-WWII recovery in Europe. But there are many other examples, whether it's federal assistance for infrastructure and human capital (railroad construction, highway systems, GI Bill) or direct job creation and payments to individuals (WPA, Social Security). To compare all federal assistance to business to a Soviet-style planned economy just doesn't hold up. Obama's as tax credit friendly as a moderate Republican in some ways - he's proposed tax credits for hiring and included a sizable middle-class tax cut in the stimulus package. But it's a fantasy to think that tax credits alone are going to get us sufficient growth to get out of recession. Didn't a recent president named Bush already try that?

Remember, this is DU - supply side purity gets called out here.

The Democratic wing of the Democratic party wins, and so does the country!

It's a breath of fresh air after this latest RW media storm cloud in a teapot.

Congratulations, President Obama!

even though he's done more to support Democratic causes in the last 20 years than many of the Democrats in Congress.

And he makes darn good films, shining a bright light on corporate cronyism and cowardly politics in health care, the war in Iraq, free trade and the American workplace.

But it feels oh-so-reasonable for some of the people who support his policy positions to call him a bloviator - look at me, I'm fair and balanced!

If we all had Michael Moore's passion for the issues, we'd get better legislation, maybe single-payer instead of a watered-down private insurance mandate, maybe diplomacy in Iraq instead of a six-year quagmire.

I agree with you in spirit, that we want the same things. I also agree that it is the public's job to lead. I would add that it's our job to support and sometimes challenge the president and other paid public employees that we hire to help us achieve our goals in a democracy. I also agree with you that as African American private citizens, we tend to appreciate the impact of hate speech on the climate very well, and our role to challenge the haters is crucial.

On the other hand, the president is occupying the most powerful public office in the world, the most prominent place to speak from, and the continuing presence of bigotry calls for appropriate responses that do not stop with the campaign. Racism is one of our deepest problems, a consistent impediment to all our efforts to create good social policy since the colonial era. Developing policies that help bridge the achievement gaps between cultural and ethnic communities in this country is inextricably part of "making this country run better," as you put it. The presidents that have made the most contributions to creating a more just and equal society (Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, even Clinton) understood this, and I count FDR too because he recognized class and regional differences in achievement and legislated accordingly.

If President Obama is going to style himself after Lincoln, he should recognize how the right's stoking the fires of racial division is exactly what we don't need, and respond accordingly. I don't expect him to miraculously change racism; I want him to oppose it, the same thing I expect from any Democrat (I've written letters to Russ Feingold for failing to speak up when his boy McCain and Sarah Pallin-around were calling a sitting U.S. Senator a terrorist) or any citizen. The president will get no props from me for PC talking points, though I guess in the end if he takes the country further by being reticent to speak about racial issues, it's all good. But wouldn't you agree that the Democratic Party's failure to challenge the right wing is part of what got us in this big hairy mess in the first place?

I don't see the President tackling racial issues here. He's offering some talking points to mollify those who accuse him of "playing the race card," mostly directing his appeal to liberals and independents, because a good percentage of conservatives trash him no matter what he says.

Achievement gaps persist, teabaggers rant, survivalists arm themselves, and all we get from the highest office is PC talk. President Obama's is busy with many legislative priorities - I get it. But the racist hate needs to be challenged too so that we can move beyond extremist positions and sustain a dialogue among all Americans that will help us change this stratified society. I guess I need to lower my expectations for what this administration will do on these issues. Disappointing, to say the least.

We can only hope that this notion of corporate personhood is revisited and revoked, especially since corporations have no personal financial liability but do have free speech rights! It's high time to reconsider this absurdity.

Go, Judge Sotomayor!

racial atmosphere takes a turn towards 1963. The Kennedys, Lyndon Johnson, even Harry Truman with desegregating the military - they all had to step up on the issue of racism and accept the political costs in order to do the right thing.

I can see how this particular situation could become too much of a one-on-one confrontation, but the president's silence on the wingnuttery that is sweeping the country cannot continue. Sure, standing up righteously for anti-racism may piss off the feckless MSM, Faux News and the Ben Nelson sympathizers on DU, but that's the price of leadership. We're certainly not going to get it from the rank and file elected Dems unless the President leads the way.

Thank you for your words. As a black man living in a smaller city/rural America, I find it easy to witness how changes in the national political scene are reflected in the day-to-day realities of the social climate, often for the positive, but not lately. The surge in ammo sales, the talk I hear about preparing to take the government back, it's not just television talk. All responsible people in government, and especially us as everyday people, need to stand up against the craziness that the media is aiding and abetting. It's no joke, everyone - it's a dangerous time, and we need to get back to where we can at least talk across the aisles about solutions to our problems. I lived through some of the rounds of school integration in the 70s, and it's starting to seem like that again around where I am. We surely don't want to backslide any further.

I'm with you - thanks again!

Personally, I wouldn't begrudge fellow Dems a little outrage at this story and the general fact that armed threats to the President are more routine than ever at this point.

Or, instead, let's follow your reasoning and rename the Democratic Party the "Passive and Waiting for All the Facts Even When Provoked by Armed Wingnuts" Party. Maybe that description fits us better at this point.

Why not propose the bill, debate it, get behind it, and let people make their votes in the open? Or else, what good is a 60 vote majority in the Senate?

edited to acknowledge that others have made this point...

The activists in the Democratic party have had more chutzpah than its leaders for a long time. But to get legislative change in place, it would sure help to get more from the leaders. No matter how much separation Democrats get in the election, it seems that the advantage is always squandered. We're going hat in hand to ask for policy changes when the votes in the national government are more than 60% Democratic!

The President is going harder now at the issue of health reform. Maybe the more forceful approach will work. Cut to the chase - get to a vote.

As the grassroots, we all have to keep finding ways to get the Democratic message to broader audiences, and put pressure on the leadership, and on the media that exaggerates the clash every time. It's a sad situation, but there's no choice beyond pressing on.

And why do you persist in holding that the term "black/white relations" excludes women? It doesn't.

There have of course been civil rights struggles involving a number of demographic groups in this country. OTOH, it's a linguistic commonplace to use the word "civil rights" with reference to African American legal struggles for equality, as in "civil rights movement." Maybe it's bigotry that that practice persists. It's your call.

While I choose not to rank oppressions in terms of historical importance or order, for the record the disenfranchisement of African American voters continued past the 1920s and the women's suffrage amendment. But you know that, and still prefer linguistic snark even when talking to people who share the same goals.

By the way, you didn't mention men in your statement. How sexist!