DOMA was signed to head off a movement for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Considering that 40+ states, including mine, have passed a State Constitutional Amendment (my state) and/or legislation banning gay marriage and/or same-sex partner benefits, I think it was a necessary, though unhappy, political move.

This stuff about the Clintons and DOMA is, and always has been, a red herring born either of ignorance of the true facts and/or a desire to obfuscate the true facts for political points-scoring. IMO, as a lesbian living in a Blue state where a large majority of voters – including a majority of Dem voters – voted to amend the Constitution to deny me protection, the Clintons’ dedication to gay rights cannot be questioned. While I don’t like DOMA, it’s better to face state legislation than a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Tell me, how long did it take to repeal prohibition?

And, PorJ–I did’t say that DADT was “an example of Clinton’s liberalism.” Please read more carefully. I said that it was a position he was forced into by a rebellion in his own party and among the generals. His original desire was to integrate the military without respect to sexual preferences. That was, and is, still a noble liberal goal, one that no president has yet achieved.

Regardless of how much some may hate Bill Clinton, he isn’t the president and hasn’t been for 8-1/2 years. Obama is the president we have now, so he’s the one that can and should (and must) take the heat for his less than impressive record so far. My only point in bringing up Bill Clinton in the original post was to suggest that politicians can sometimes do quite well when their enemies are clearly raving lunatics, whatever their own failures and problems.

I couldn’t disagree with this more. The problem is the “landmark legislation” has mostly been in one direction. I would argue that welfare reform was a landmark – it was a problem that vexed Democrats since Reagan’s anecdotes about the welfare queen taking a limo to the liquor store. Clinton’s acquiesence marked an important turn for the Democratic party (supposedly the party that protected the safety net) and the nation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has killed broadcasting and allowed corporate consolidation over the media that could not have been imagined in, say, 1980. Again: the Democrats moved right, and such FCC rules as minority set-asides and ownership caps have (for all intents and purposes) disappeared. Once again, Clinton abandoning liberal principles. And I can’t believe Historiann brings up DADT as an example of Clinton’s liberalism. If it was such a great idea, why have several gay rights groups called for its repeal? Go back and you see how infuriated several people were with that particular compromise at the time.

There’s been plenty of landmark legislation since Nixon. I didn’t even note here the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton in September, 1996 – an absolute abomination to liberal principles. Taken together, the Clinton record of governance is remarkably Reagan-esque in its repudiation of liberalism (I’m talking about Clinton’s actions – not words. Look, we had a “dialogue” on race! Wonderful. Why weren’t Sister Souljah or Ricky Ray Rector invited?).

And perhaps that’s the ultimate problem. Obama can’t seem to break free of the towering shadow that has basically haunted (and limited the scope of action for) every president since January, 1989.

@linnen, I’m afraid we’ve had a misunderstanding common in these short form postings. I wasn’t trying to address the issues you raise (Krugman, Greenwald…) What I was asking for are what specific and realistic political steps should be taken to achieve the near-term goals. It is not enough for me that someone wants Obama to have more backbone or be true to himself or whatever. Obama is not a dictator; the Presidency is, in a crude portioning, one-third of the government. Many representatives owe something to him but many Democratic Senators do not, especially those from red states whose political future is dependent on some distance from him. In this context, what moves can he make to achieve the goals that we all support?

p.s. But it *would* be interesting to see some of this discussion shift to foreign affairs, re Historiann’s allusion re “not internationally, and certainly not domestically.” One of Clinton’s lost opportunities to be feared, or at least credited, both at home and abroad, evaporated along with Bosnia between 1993 and 1995. Compared with that situation, Obama is playing three-dimensional chess (or at least contemplating three-dimensional chess).

I am not certain where you are going with this. For instance, critics did speak up. They were told to STFU, and that President Obama was playing a ‘deeper’ game until he got the GOP in the right place. Then, WHAM!

The anti-war folk want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and the troops to come home. Krugman has been writing about continued emphasis on tax cuts instead of actual stimulus spending. Glenn Greenwald writes about the continued expansion of Presidential powers, ‘preventive detention’, failure to investigate torture, and other side-stepping of the Constitution. Go to Firedoglake for criticism of not investigating torture, war-profiteering, illegal wiretaps. “Naked Capitalism” has the good on the continued propping up of the ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions.

You certainly do not wade into the feverish swampland of the right like ‘Free Republic’ to find what the critics are saying.

(Republicans only care about deficits when they’re not running the show–for example, the George W. Bush Presidency, ff.)

What I’d like to see is some toughness and some resolve about something–really, anything at this point. I don’t like to admit it, but some of the right-wingers are right in that everyone likes Obama but no one fears him–not internationally, and certainly not domestically. He needs to take a few scalps and hang ‘em high. But: that’s just not his style, as the very apt conclusion of the video above suggests. So it’s likely that I’ll spend the next 3 or 7 years saying, “don’t be so Obama, Obama! Come on!” (This will be just as frustrating for me as it is for you.)

Of the comments above, my feelings echo Indyanna’s the strongest. What has stood out to me most in the past few months is Obama’s lack of a supporting cast in the health care debate, particularly from senior Senators. With the right-wing noise machine cranked up to full blast, it is no surprise that health care reform advocates have been on the defensive. It is also little surprise that the post-Nixon era of partisanship has yielded precious few pieces of landmark legislation.

I would like appreciate it if critics of Obama would come out and say specifically what they would like to see him do differently. I would like to see him grab the reluctant farm-state Senators by the balls and threaten their massive farm and energy subsidies. If we can’t afford health care for all, what are we doing paying for all this surplus corn to be produced? That health care is being held hostage by a cadre of small-state Senators has been for me another maddening aspect of this episode. If Obama’s been waiting to play this card, he’s waited too long.

As for Obama v/ McCain, I have to go back to the economy. With McCain trying to govern from the center-right, it’s anybody’s guess where the economy would be today.

That said, yes–the lesser appointments do matter, and to a great degree. This is the lesson of the Bush years, and a rebuke to all of those in 2000 who insisted that Gush and Bore were exactly alike and it wouldn’t matter which one was elected. (How interesting that so many of the same people appear to have been taken in by Obama in 2008! As truffula said, and as Obama himself has said, he served as a vessel for people’s hopes and dreams last year.)

Here’s another reason for Dems like me to be happy about Obama: Sonia Sotomayor. It sounds like she ripped it today in the SC–holla back for my girlfriend, Sonia! (A President McCain would have been under considerable pressure from Dems in congress not to nominate another total knuckle-dragger, but he probably wouldn’t have nominated a Sonia Sotomayor.)

I’m not actually sure McCain would have been worse. At least in his case, Congress would not have been colluding to hand the country over to Wall St. and the insurance companies.