Politicians and pundits blather about ideological divides. How can that be when the Democrats have no ideology, unless you count “We suck less”.
|By: TobyWollin Saturday January 28, 2012 8:00 pm|
I can’t use the photo, so I will direct readers to their own link and I will direct you NOT to Jan Brewer’s finger (or her mouth for that matter which looks as if she is screaming at the top of her lungs… though perhaps there was engine noise and she just wanted the President to hear what she had to say), but to the President’s right arm and hand (which you can’t see but which you can sort of figure out where it is from the angle and so on). He has moved in and is either putting his hand or trying to put his hand on her arm (perhaps on her elbow). He is trying to draw her in, reduce the distance between them.
|By: Jon Walker Thursday January 26, 2012 3:05 pm|
There is no way Obama could have spent more time talking about the biggest legislative action of his presidency and still have received the incredibly broad approval he did get from people who watched the speech. Don’t expect the issue of health care to be brought up by choice by Democrats in the upcoming campaign.
|By: David Dayen Thursday January 26, 2012 1:15 pm|
I’ve noticed this tension among politicians for a while. On the one hand, they want to say that they favor a “simpler” tax code, and they like to talk about how many thousands of pages the tax code is, and how byzantine it is to understand, etc. At the same time, they boast about all the goodies they give out to this or that business or individual using the tax code, which of course only makes it more complex.
|By: Jon Walker Thursday January 26, 2012 9:15 am|
Given how many people actually expect the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate, it is hard to guess whether a favorable ruling for the administration would be a political positive or negative for Obama. On one hand, the court upholding the mandate could get people to resign themselves to the idea of the mandate and the new law.
|By: Gregg Levine Wednesday January 25, 2012 4:14 pm|
When I turned on the TV last night, I wanted to stand up and cheer. While watching President Obama’s State of the Union address, I felt much like I did when I watched his 2008 acceptance speech at Mile High Stadium in Denver. OK, that’s not true–not hardly. Reality has not been kind to Obama’s rhetoric, after all. But when Obama got to the energy section of the speech, I found much to applaud, not unlike in 2008. . . with some obvious caveats for his praise of dirty, dangerous, failed or flat-out fictional forms of energy production.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Wednesday January 25, 2012 2:50 pm|
President Barack Obama delivered the annual State of the Union address last night. There was nothing new about how he discussed Wall Street. But, there were a number of proposed ideas for addressing Wall Street that may have been included because of the success of the Occupy movement over the past months.
|By: Jon Walker Wednesday January 25, 2012 1:00 pm|
I’m of two minds about President Obama’s shout out for Senate rules reform in his State of the Union speech. I’m glad he brought attention to the need for reform, but mostly I’m very disappointed he proposed to eliminate the filibuster only for appointments and not everything else.
|By: Jon Walker Wednesday January 25, 2012 8:25 am|
President Obama’s State of the Union address gave us a sense of what the Obama campaign thinks are his strengths and weaknesses. The auto rescue and several foreign policy successes made up a huge part of the speech. But if you weren’t paying extremely close attention, you may have missed Obama’s few passing references to his signature health insurance law.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday January 25, 2012 7:40 am|
This isn’t a victory. Schneiderman may be trying to work from within, but he’s saddled with a panel full of co-chairs tied to banks with a history of obstructing accountability. The united front of Justice Democrats has been nicked. And progressive critics of the Settlement sellout are praising the mechanism that seems structured to fail while letting the Settlement proceed.