This is just starting to make the rounds, and it should. It presents the other frame to the "poor Obama is just too weak" story that gives him such a pass among his much-abused base.
That other frame, for what it's worth, is "clever Obama is really good at convincing his base he's actually on their side."
Love it or hate it, intellectual honesty (if not electoral safety) requires both frames be considered.
So in service of intellectual honesty, here's Matt Taibbi, telling the Frame 2 story, the "clever Obama" tale. His title is "Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive" and it makes the case.
(In case you don't know, the phrase "takes a dive" comes from prize-fighting. A fighter takes a dive when he puts up just enough fight to fool his fans — backers and bettors — then throws the fight to his opponent by falling down to a weak late-round punch. For this deception he is paid extra.)
From the article (my emphasis everywhere):
The general consensus is that for the second time in three years, a gang of financial terrorists has successfully extorted the congress and the White House, threatening to blow up the planet if they didn't get what they wanted. ... Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. ... The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists.But, according to Taibbi:
The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.For evidence, Taibbi points to the tons of money that Obama is collecting for his 2012 ad campaign (er, re-election effort). If Obama's really a loser, that's a lot of smart money chasing a really bad candidate. Or, you could look at it this way:
For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.
Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?This game is for keeps, as I'm sure you've figured out, and we're at a Herbert Hoover moment. It's 1932 and if Obama is not FDR, but Hoover in disguise, the consequences of not knowing that are huge, possibly world-historical.
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
And if that's true, if we're the mark in this planet-killing game, it would be horribly self-indulgent to want to stay ignorant, wouldn't it.
GP
