Thanks Hugh but IMHO it’s not the person but the Parties themselves. It doesn’t matter who the Dems and Repubs put forth, the bottomline is the need to maintain the status quo.

As Sirota said “The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it.”

It was the mistake of the public in taking the rhetoric of Obama as indicating he was somehow heading a ‘movement’ and that wasn’t -and isn’t- what he is all about.

Marginalizing Paul Volcker?

Replacing Howard Dean with the incompetent Tim Kaine at the DNC?

Trading New Orleans funding for Joseph Cao’s HCR vote in the House?

Opposing Chris Dodd’s financial reform bill?

Inspector General fired over investigation into political ally Sacramento’s mayor?

Allowing schoolchildren to work in White House garden without lead-testing the soil?

Breaking individual mandate campaign promise on HCR?

Lying in Ft Hood eulogy about equality in the armed forces?

Hey did we expect perfection. Have You taken the time to make such a list of Ex President Bush’s scandles.

Don’t forget to include His remarks of Yesterday.

Taking a bunch of campaign money from Goldman Sachs.

Actually I kept the largest list of Bush scandals on the web. They can be found here: http://bushscandalslist.blogspot.com/

And no I have not kept up with Bush since he left office.

I’m not a fan of either Frank’s or Dodd’s financial reform proposals. Neither address core issues. Dodd’s proposals are only a little better than Frank’s. Volcker is in his 80s. I did like his proposal to ban investment banks trading on their own account and requiring registration of hedge funds. The Dean point is a good one that I hadn’t really considered. I think I mentioned mandates and Obama’s position on them during the campaign in my entry on healthcare which is I think number 26. I missed the Ft. Hood eulogy and had not heard about the quid pro quo with Cao.

Thanks, Hugh. I think on the Newshour this week they were talking to historians about who were the biggest contributing presidents. And they made their lists.

Then they said that the citizenry often include Reagan and JFK in that “top” list, even though historians say they didn’t give beneficial reform, but they were masters of style not substance. I fear Obama is in that category. If he can do optimistic spin, which his election did, win a nobel peace prize going the opposite direction from peace, … style not substance prevails. And truth to power has such loud competition. Obama adept at being a celeb, needs to stay on the benign side of corporate media. What they think far more important than annoying enlightened progressives.

So glad you are making this list.

Leave Obama alooonnne!

(If I try that comment over at Big Orange they will probably ban me.)

In any case, I never considered him to be a progressive (too vocal in admiration of R. Reagan, among other things); I — tho’ a yellow dog democrat–, was going to sit out the last election — but Palin scared me so I voted for Obama in any case

Hey Hugh Checked it out. Good work man keep it up, sorry for questioning You. So many are only one sided it’s easy to find reason to question.

Hugh, your list is one of the most valuable sources of information on the Obama administration available. I use it all the time. My only suggestion would be to rename it, since some of the “scandals” are really policy flip-flops (like Obama’s FISA change). Like you, I am amazed that Obama has used progressive-liberal rhetoric but as camoflauge only; his appointments and actions show him to be a DLCer or even a Rockefeller-type Republican. What is even more surprising is that a lot of progressives-liberals have taken the Obama bait without any criticism whatsoever. I think that explains why he has taken this stance: if he ran for what he really is (at best a DLCer, at worst a Rockefeller Republican) he would never have gotten the Democratic nomination last year. Hence his image was remade and he was repackaged as something that he really is not. By the way, have a look at an excellent Firedoglake article a few years back that was written about the Goldman Sachs funded “Hamilton Institute” (type Obama, and Hamilton Institute in Google and it should pop up) and you will see that Obama was in Bob Rubin’s bag (Goldman Sachs) years ago. When he was still a senator from Illinois Obamama made the guest inaugural speech at the opening of the Hamilton Institute. In it, he lauded “my friend” (Bob Rubin) and the ideas of unfettered free trade and the need for major cuts to entitlement programs (like social security). I think it is one of the true insights into what Obama really is. Also in the speech, he even calls himself a “liberal” but you can almost hear him chuckling when he says that because he knows its not true. The man is all PR; it’s starting to unravel for him though, with the upcoming war escalations and the high unemployment numbers and his unwillingness to do anything about it. Someone who is really a liberal-progressive (like Russ Feingold) should primary him in 2012.

“scandals”

yo, what decade were you born in?

you’re functioning with an unhealthy does of myopia…

and while the context is, whether or not he’s progressive enough, I’m taking issue with the use of scandals.

ok fine, the list is TEPID at best, so I’m taking issue with the post.

I’m not sure what the intention of the diary entry was, other than to annoy “free thinking”, reasonable and thoroughly logical progressives like myself…?

fail.

Absolutely, it was made to annoy fact-free, amnesic “progressives” like yourself. There are none so blind as those who will not see. So I will take my myopia to your sightlessness anyday.

When I wrote my Bush scandals list, I made it clear at the outset that the only way accountability could happen is if we had a way to remember what, in fact, went on. What I did with Bush I am now doing with Obama and for the same reasons. You, on the other hand, are acting exactly the way Republicans and conservatives reacted to my list. If you wish to distinguish yourself from them, perhaps you should consider acting (and reacting) differently from them. Otherwise from where I’m sitting you are simply engaging in the same kind of mindless partisanship, only with a slightly different slant.

Hugh, here’s the next candidate for your list. Action has begun to seize mosques and schools and other assets allegedly controlled by Iran (worth losts $$$$). Notice (AP) here. Article was posted at 8:13 a.m. shortly before Holder’s announcement of federal trials for the 5 Muslum HVDs in which proceedings he will direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty. Big day for winning the hearts and minds of Muslums the same day OB heads off for Asia. That bunch in DC truly see only their piece of this large puzzle picture, and seem to think it is the whole thing.

The Parties do provide certain propensities to act in one way rather than another, but, after all, Obama has free will. He can choose; he can do much to change the way the parties operate; and he bears the responsibility for these “scandals.”

Russ, is great. But anyone who believes in deficit hawkism as he does, is a bad choice for President of the United States.

It continues to be a great list Hugh. Please keep it going.

Folks, the issue in the link at my #13 (seizure of mosques, schools, skyscraper, assets of Muslums alleging control by Iran) needs to be a diary. I expect big repercussions from it. (NY, Houston, Detroit, wherever). What this is is using abusing authority to steal. It’s past midnight here and my disgust level redlined just about sundown, so please someone up above here, write a diary on this.

Russ is a deficit hawk on the defense department and on the wars abroad, not so much on domestic spending for social needs. He’d make a great president because he has his priorities right and the convictions to carry through on them.

Acquarius, good coverage of this over at Democracynow.org

Amy Goodman interviews the spokesman for the American-Islamic Relations group who says something like this: imagine the headlines abroad, US government seizes mosques.

I second you that this should be added to the list of Obama administration “scandals”.

“When I wrote my Bush scandals list, I made it clear at the outset that the only way accountability could happen is if we had a way to remember what, in fact, went on. What I did with Bush I am now doing with Obama and for the same reasons. You, on the other hand, are acting exactly the way Republicans and conservatives reacted to my list. If you wish to distinguish yourself from them, perhaps you should consider acting (and reacting) differently from them. Otherwise from where I’m sitting you are simply engaging in the same kind of mindless partisanship, only with a slightly different slant.”

Shorter Hugh:

Think like I do!

Jesus, dude. Fucking lighten up.

Thanks, fflambeau – it’s 2:14 a.m. here now so Amy’s coverage must wait ’til later today. How about you writing a diary on this? Please.

How is it that anything you disagree with is considered a “scandal”? Slow down Narcissus. You don’t seem to understand the definition of the word.

P.S. It’s not like we’re going through any extraordinary circumstances or anything.

Choice of Rahm Emanuel as the President’s Chief of Staff a scandal?
It is most likely the best decision Obama has ever made in his life.

Did you hear the good news?
Dollar Bill Jefferson got 13 years!
Not enough but…….

Hey fornight that is weak…. in fact way too weak.

You forgot the /s

Fucking lighten up.

By all means, because it isn’t like the country has any serious problems at the moment. And besides there is a Democrat in the White House and a Democraticly-controlled Congress so anything that does arise will be taken care of, right? When I wrote my Bush scandals list, I got the same kind of kneejerk defensiveness that I am seeing from some liberal/progressives with regard to this list right down to the quibbles about whether “scandal” is the appropriate term. My view is: Been there, done that. What would you prefer? Obama’s Amazing, Wonderful Change We All Can Believe In List? Would that soothe your overwrought sensibilities?

If you google the definition of “scandal”, it will have something like this: “A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society.” Works for me. Now when Obama lies perhaps you see that as less disgraceful or offensive than when a Republican does it. As I said in the post: YMMV.

Nor is there any “Think like I do.” I have had the honesty to put my evidence on the table. You can go to the site, read the full entries, and search the accompanying links. You can go through them and make up your own mind. So where is your evidence, TBogg? What do you have beyond your well-known bombast? My horizons extend beyond Sarah Palin. Do yours?

Finally, look at us. Was all that talk about the left side of the blogosphere being the fact-based, objective one, just that, talk? Do we, just like the Republicans, have one set of standards for ourselves and another for everyone else? Was the whole deal to replace IOKIYAR with IOKIYAD? Are memory and accountability only issues when Republicans are involved? Please TBogg, if you are so enclined, write your own list to counter mine. Show us all Obama’s accomplishments, how he stopped the wars, fixed the economy, chastised the banks, how he re-established the rule of law, investigated the crimes of the Bush era, how he put an end to domestic spying, enacted universal healthcare, stood up to the corporations, how he saved homeowners and created jobs for the nation’s workers. And even if he could not accomplish all these things, show us how, at least, he fought for them, not what he said in some speech, but what he did. Short of Kafka, I don’t think you can. But as I said to you before, and this goes to anyone else, I have shown you my evidence. If you have an argument, show me yours.

Thank you Hugh. Your list, like the list of the previous CEOs scandals, is a valuable resource for those of us that really are progressives and see this present four years as nothing but a continuation of the previous 8, 16, 20, 28. Sickening ‘aint it!

My entry 103 on the mosque seizure story is now up.

“Obama promised change but didn’t say it was change from his own campaign promises. His administration recently nominated Islam Siddiqui for the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the US Trade Representative.

So who is this guy? Currently, he is a VP at CropLife America, a corporate trade group that represents Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont and Syngenta who has advocated for less truth-in-labeling and more hormone-treated meat.

This NY Times Op-Ed points out that Siddiqui’s past accomplishments include proposals to allow genetically engineered crops, irradiated foods and sewage-sludge fertilizers to carry the “organic” label. As a Clinton Administration USDA appointee, Siddiqui pressured policymakers to allow frankenfoods into the EU or lose WTO funding. So why is Obama trying to send him back out to represent the US in WTO agri-trade deals? ”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Nominates-Monsanto-R-by-Gustav-Wynn-091114-137.html

Hugh, number 92 addresses this BUT perhaps besides adding the appointment of Rahm to the list, adding the Gates holdover is another one.

My entry 104 is on Dean’s 50 state strategy vs. Rahm’s DCCC one. If anyone has links to their win-loss records in the 2006 election, I will include those.

How about SELLING OUT TIBET and the Dalai Lama? I find that scandalous.

- When the Dalai Lama was recently in Washington, Obama refused to see him, claiming that it would be better to discuss matters of China’s involvement in Tibet with China first. It’d strengthen his hand, you see.

HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YA?

-From the BBC: US welcomes strong China – Obama

-From the NY Times: China Focuses on Territorial Issues as It Equates Tibet to U.S. Civil War South

Obama would be a great president if he would only start doing the things he says he would do. Talk is cheap, and he talks a pretty good game, but when it comes to crunch time he folds like a cheap tent.

Thanks for the links bluebutterfly and ubetchaiam. I added the Gates’ story to the end of 15 and will write up Siddiqui later.

Thank you, Hugh! And for the sake of us all and our country, Don’t Lighten Up! Would to God there had been a “Hugh’s List” beginning back in the late 1950s when the empiricists began the take-over.

getting db error when trying to post so this is ‘just a test’.

This does it for me, blue! Emperor Obama (for whom I voted) is now stark naked.

ubetcha, I have to refresh/reload page every time I take any action or navigate between diaries. Lotsa bugs in this system.

Would that soothe your overwrought sensibilities?

Yeah. I’m the one who is “overwrought”. Maybe you should google “overwrought” for the definition because you apply it as sloppily as you do “scandal”.

Seriously. Go outside, get some air, because you’re riding the crazy train to Glenn Beckland.

I’m actually going to find out more about this in the next few days. The mosque in Carmichael Ca. is about 10 miles from me, and I know some people

I have yet to have it explained to me what law was allegedly broken

This is very troubling because it comes at a time when the Temple Beth Shalom also in Carmichael was broken into, vandalized and defaced with Nazi symbols and slogans a few days prior to this. And the most vile thing about it was that this cowardly act took place on the anniversary of Kristallnacht; they knew what they were doing

Thanks, John, please keep us informed about what you find out. There has been so much behind-the-scenes stuff that is kept from us that it’s hard to know what is as it appears to be and what is the exact opposite, i.e., false flags. Good to hear from you again.

Well done, Hugh.

I hate to ask you to do more work, but I will anyway because I have a fun, if rather cynical fund-raising idea. To do this, you would have to date the scandalous act of each president in terms of the number of days after each swearing-in ceremony.

How ’bout a race to the bottom. We bet 5 or 10 bucks a pop on (1) when Obama reaches 150, 200, 250, etc.; (2) we bet on whether he gets there quicker or slower than Bush, (3) we have prizes for accurately predicting or closest to picking the correct number of ignominious deeds Obama achieves at the end of each quarter; and (4) we have a grand prize for picking the correct number of total wrongful deeds at the end of his first term. We’ll call the final prize the Ignominious Achievement & Malfeasance Award, or IAMA ________.

Don’t know if this violates gambling laws, so maybe we can avoid legal hassles by having each winner designate the charity of his or her choice, subject to certain exceptions, of course, like the Republican Party and the KKK.

Suggestions are welcome.

How’ bout we start (or contribute to) a fund for uninsured women with breast cancer? With sufficient interest and participation it could reach a million bucks maybe within 6 months and keep going from there.

Or maybe a fund to primary Blue Dog Dems.

Just trying to get something started here.

Thank you, Hugh. And Bluebutterfly. We watched “Food Inc” last night. The Monsanto scandal is huge! They are evil and a threat to our Constitution.

“So I will take my myopia to your sightlessness anyday.”

No, look moron, I guess we can add distortion to your list of flaws.

I take the long view…where as you can’t see more than 5 feet in front of you…btw, consult a dictionary a little more often.

sightlessness…oy.

Good day.

Hugh, you just don’t get it do you?

You don’t speak for the true left.

STFU.

~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~…are you listening?

“acting exactly the way Republicans and conservatives reacted to my list”

Take your tepid IQ and your offensive, weak minded, emotionally laden posts and flush it.

You got that?

I support this President and I voted for him, now using basic logic here, there aren’t a whole of Republicans / Conservatives that support this president, in fact, they are innately opposed to any (D) President, centrist —> progressive.

So, considering that I merely (in a few words, compiled into a few sentences) voiced my displeasure with the use of “scandals”, etc. you’re stretching the bounds of common sense here by accusing me of “acting just like republicans…”.

Just like tbogg said “think like me…”

Eh, Hugh?

Umm, no!

~~~ModNote: Flaming other commenters is strongly frowned upon.~~~

More light, less heat, please.

As I said, you can go to my list. It contains the evidence for my view. Apparently, other than a few flip remarks you’ve got nothing because you have presented nothing. You need facts to sustain arguments. You have given neither, and no, sputtering in righteous indignation doesn’t count. What you are doing is completely unpersuasive. If you wish to take on one or several of the policy areas I outlined in my #27, feel free. Let’s see your facts. Let’s see your analysis.

I am curious though how long will you stick with Obama, how badly does he have to fail before you re-assess your support? How anti-progressive must he be before you say, enough? I broke with Obama back in July 2008 over his support for the FISA Amendments Act. At that point being an Obama critic on the left was a pretty lonely position to take. Since then, I have found much more company. Among those who identify as primarily progressive as opposed to primarily Democratic, support for Obama is eroding fast. You can see this in the positions people take in the healthcare debate at fdl. You can hear it in the frustration expressed by those who rarely comment who say they have had it with Obama. You can deny this, or rail against it, but you have presented no case to the contrary, and with each passing day, the likelihood of any such case being assembled diminishes. You are on the wrong side of this. I do not expect to convince you but I think time will.

Truly words of wisdom, Hugh.