The Diane Rehm Show

Actually, Brian, I think Plouffe is another DR show mistake, not much better than yesterday's choices. Why? Because the DR show has settled deep into what appears to be an establishmentarian, institutionalist rut.

Though I'm hardly a tea party sympathizer, it seems clear that the real divide in America is between the establishment and the rest of us. "The rest of us" are a varied group, but we are united in fatigue and irritation with media that toe the line.

We thought Obama was a reformer. Turns out he's among the most establishment-protecting presidents we've had in a long time. Let's see if Plouffe breaks any molds.

As someone " on the ground " here in North Carolina, I have to say that one big mistake was keeping the OFA data from '08 out of the hands of Democratic Party Activists for so long.
I've been knocking doors and making calls, and recruiting volunteers, since JUNE for a congressional candidate here.
I was JUST, about a week ago, finally given a list of the volunteers who worked in my county during the Obama campaign. If the party had had access to this during precinct organization, that "new base" would have been active already. Instead, it's a desperate scramble to find all those activists, and voters, for this election.
I fear losing access to this information again. Please, Please, Please continue the work of DNC and OFA as one coordinated effort going forward so that we can truly re-invigorate the Democratic Party.

(please don't use my name, I am not allowed to talk to press as part of the employment agreement with my candidate)

Has anyone ever determined how much taxpayers are subsidizing the wealthy by providing benefits to those who are not paid a living wage by large and small businesses? Can this be explained simply to the voters? I believe the U.S.' basic economic problem is the continuing short-term mindset that public companies must keep increasing profits without regard to the long term impact on their consumers or society.

~
Come on David.

Here's the reason that most of us are so disaffected.

Obama negotiated with the Republican Party. They started out pinned against the far, right hand side of the negotiation.

Obama started the negotiations one hair's-breadth to the left of center.

Sure, he got legislation through but it's such LOUSY legislation, what's the point?

The major pieces of legislation -- health care and financial institution -- still favor special interests.

And we still have all the warrantless wiretapping, secret rendition, Gitmo, boundless defense budgets.

And finally, Obama is not a fighter. He's a conciliator. I'm happy that he's a gentleman but he is not fighting against a fair opponent.

I always said that Hillary would have been tougher and would have known how to handle the Evil Empire of Boehner and McConnell.

~

You mentioned, earlier, about borrowing money from China. It is my hope that our country would never have to borrow from anyplace. I, for one, would be willing to sacrifice my tax refund, for a couple of years, IF it truly went to repairing our debt issues overall. I am not the only American that would be willing to do this. Would this kind of action possibly ever repair some of the problems we are encountering? Or ever fix things permanently?

I think one of the main problems dividing the center left from the center right is the definition of wealthy. To lump in people earning $250,000/yearly with billionaires will continue to alienate a significant number of educated voters. I earn $250,000 yearly and am working 60 -80 hours weekly to do so. I am not wealthy and cannot be compared to a billionaire. I think the definition of wealthy has to be defined in much better terms. I did not inherit my money, I went to school for over 15 years.

I am totally confused with this interview. David keeps saying that he really isn't political, but he keeps repeating strategic political scare tactics just like Karl Rove. Elections are more than just getting a person elected to office by whatever means necessary. We need leaders.

Every country borrows money. You may want to do some research. It's part of business as usual.

I would like to hear from the dems "Ask not what the country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." It seems the climate in the country is to focus on individual needs, individual tax cuts, personal gain, etc. What about our need to survive together and be of service to one another?

It amazes me that there are Still people out there that believe in "trickle down" economics. That somehow if we funnel ALL the $ to a wealthy few that somehow the economy will be great for all.
If so after Bush years, we all should be happy.
During Bush administration "trickled up" from poorest of poor to richest of rich through fraudulent credit card practices and mortgage schemes among others. Now that a couple % of Americans enjoy some 95% of all American wealth, we should ALL be happy?
Over past 40 years Reps have slowly but surely destroyed American economy. Bush put process on fast track.
It's gonna take a whole lot longer than 2 years to repair.

I am a solid Democrat and student of Political Science,
so I understand that at the end of the day, politics use various methods to get elected.

But Obama today seems confused as why his supporters are upset with him. And although I know that Obama has inherited a full plate of problems, I am reminded of his campaigning style during the election. His vocal cadence was like a preacher, and he employed emotion to reach voters that would not have come out to vote otherwise. By the time of the election, some had appointed Obama with a messianic-like status. He did little at that time to ground his base. I was not one of those voters, I voted for Obama--the man, expecting him to be a smart and able leader. But courting that kind of adoration is a tricky thing to manage, and that is exactly the kind of fervor Republicans are manipulating these days...and it will come back on them too.

Now he has turned out to be human, and like any president, the view from the Oval Office is much different that from the Campaign platform. He is a moderate, and deliberate man...and I was not shocked to see that, but others were. I truly think that he needs to surround himself with a better crew, and that seems to be what's happening. A president does not govern alone, and this new group of advisors can help turn this around and insure a second term. If given a second term, I think Obama will mature as a President and truly accomplish what it is that he is capable of.

And as a voter, yes the other side is so much worse that I would vote for Alvin Greene over a Republican....but that is not the best argument for the capability of Democrats.

the key word here is "alternative." so you are not happy with obama and dems, but you agree with their philosophy and political bent. so, do you then vote against your interests and "punish" your original bent by voting for the opposition whose stated plan is the dismantle every thing accomplishedand what you supported? a pyrric "victory" for sure.

The biggest challenge that the Democrats are up against this election season is that they spent too much time on Healthcare and not enough time on the economy. The Obama administration agreed to the stimuls under the Bush administration that also bailed out the automakers. The new administration hit the ground running on their own agenda instead and rushed Healthcare through because they had an unknown sense of urgency. The mistake was not following through with staying solely focused on the economy because now their own base is out of work still.

FDR's administration started several years after the beginning of the Great Depression. The blame was easier to place on President Hoover his party's corporate supporters. President Obama started his administration only a few months after the Great Recession began. It might have been better if the Democrats had lost one more time. Then Social Security, National Health, Organized Labor Laws, and Election Reform legislation would have been swept into national law without the big money lobbyists watering them down. Also, the Democrats would have clearly won the presidency for decades after the big obvious failure of Reaganomics.

Obama's biggest failure was to not go first for legislation on campaign finance and lobbying reform. The lobbyists have watered down everything he has tried to do and corporate interests have extended their power over the US election process. After November he may be too weak to produce any significant campaign reform.

The U.S Government should pay for campaigns for Senate, Congress, and the President. This would release senators, congressmen, and the president from kissing the behinds of big-money lobbyists. The American people will not be represented until their use their tax money to pay for national campaigns.

I suggest David study up on the Spanish Civil War to understand what's happening.