Bush led on AIDS funds; will Obama?

[KYTOP]

As much as many of us like to critcize our past President, I found this article from CNN to be very interesting. Bush seemed to be a much stronger advocate than our present guy. Something to think about.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/23/kennedy.aids.bush.obama/index.html

[TotallyOz]

I am a die hard liberal. I was for Hillary (after Kucinich got out) and I did not want Obama. However, I jumped on board anyway. I had high hopes. He has not lived up to my mildest expectations and has been a big disappointment.

[Guest restless]

I am a die hard liberal. I was for Hillary (after Kucinich got out) and I did not want Obama. However, I jumped on board anyway. I had high hopes. He has not lived up to my mildest expectations and has been a big disappointment.

I've been impressed with him, but I've had to work at it to be so. It's because the DNC and the WH have not had a coordinated effort to talk about what he HAS done. Maddow was just talking about this the other night - she rattled off an astonishing list of all the shit he's done, and I hadn't heard of half of them. They're doing a shit job of getting the word out. I'm not pissed at him; I'm pissed at the Dems who aren't playing the game well.

[JKane]

I've been impressed with him, but I've had to work at it to be so. It's because the DNC and the WH have not had a coordinated effort to talk about what he HAS done. Maddow was just talking about this the other night - she rattled off an astonishing list of all the shit he's done, and I hadn't heard of half of them. They're doing a shit job of getting the word out. I'm not pissed at him; I'm pissed at the Dems who aren't playing the game well.

I'm not sure whether or not Howard Dean lived up to my hopes or not, at least the DNC under him helped defeat McCain, but whoever the hell it is that's replaced him as DNC chair doesn't seem to have done jack shit. Maybe the new DNC chair is the Ficus potted plant Michael Moore once tried to run for office? May as well be! It's like he doesn't want to do anything at all in case it risks drawing the kind of attention Michale Steele gets.

I never supported Hillary in part because I didn't think she (or Bill for that matter) really believed in anything other than their ambitions. The second part was because a huge target would be painted on the White House for all the Ken Stars of the world and the Fox talking head echo chamber, allowing them to create so much distraction nothing would get done (assuming anything much was even tried). Just too much baggage on Clinton's part and bile on the other.

Given last week's bullshit, tea baggers in general, and all the obstruction to Obama (even though many believe what he's tried to accomplish is mild)... what if I was right and Hillary would've had it even worse? Would DC be a cratered wasteland by now?

[JKane]

As much as many of us like to critcize our past President, I found this article from CNN to be very interesting. Bush seemed to be a much stronger advocate than our present guy. Something to think about.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/23/kennedy.aids.bush.obama/index.html

To be clear, Obama is providing the same level of funding, PLUS 366 million; this article is complaining that in this economy he's only added 366m instead of 1 billion (per year) once mentioned during the campaign. I'm sure 5 other headlines on CNN that day were about the deficit and out of control governmental spending. How in the world would another 1 Billion/year for AIDS in Africa make it past the minority party? His even trying would give them a bat to bludgeon him with in the eyes of 'the average voter'. Especially with the powers-that-be in the Republican party's penchant for race-baiting.

Others know far more than I about the fight against AIDS around the world. But it is my belief that while Bush apparently did do a a lot for certain kinds of AIDS funding we need to remember that half the times he went out of his way to praise and advocate an initiative he gutted the funding for it in the very next budget. And that his administration went out of their way to prevent distribution of and education involving condoms, often replacing government aid programs with 'faith based' ones run by religious ideologues.

I have no specific knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if the effect of Bush's leadership in Africa was a net negative. More people living longer with less symptoms thanks to increased access to medications (which is good of course), but *combined* with less education or access to condoms... The question is, what will the rate of infection do these next couple years?

[lookin]

They're doing a shit job of getting the word out. I'm not pissed at him; I'm pissed at the Dems who aren't playing the game well.

That's true, but I also think that many of us who supported and elected him are doing a shit job of acknowledging what he has done and giving him some time to accomplish the rest. I missed Maddow's list, but I can easily name two handfuls of accomplishments. He faced a formidable array of problems on inauguration day. If his administration had done nothing but prevent the collapse of the U. S. economy and stop pissing off our long-time allies, I'd have been a happy camper. The arms agreement with Russia and the public stand for eliminating nukes was gravy, and made me a very proud American.

I still think he'll deliver on the majority of his commitments, one by one. But I wasn't expecting perfection, and I sure wasn't expecting it within the first eighteen months. I can understand diehard Republicans berating him for not fixing everything in a year and a half, but why are the rest of us rending our tunics because there are still some problems left to deal with? Shouldn't the guy at least be able to finish one full term before he's declared a failure?

As you say, the Democratic establishment bears some responsibility for getting the word out. But I believe that a thoughtful electorate also bears some responsibility for acknowledging the depth and duration of the problems we faced, and that fixing them will take years rather than months. Instant gratification may be a worthwhile objective on a game show, but I don't think it's something we should expect from our government. We know where that can lead.

[TampaYankee]

I'm not pissed at him; I'm pissed at the Dems who aren't playing the game well.

You can say that again... about the Dems. To say they border on both strategic and tactical incompetance would not be a stretch.

As for Obama, there was no more ardent supporter than I. After 18 months, he has gotten one hell of a lot done. Some of it I am disappointed with. Neverthess, the financial collapse changed the entire ball game and I do not know where to fault him and on which things, against that back drop.

I was upset at the final form of Health Reform and even more so with the tactics to achieve the end product. Nevertheless, it is a monumental miracle that anything was passed and there is much good to it. Hopefully, it will be improved in the future.

He has dropped the ball on jobs and the Dems will pay, as they should. The Stimulus was too small but nothing larger would have passed. It could have been better targeted -- water under the bridge. More $s need to be pumped into jobs and small business loans in a smarter way than in the intial Stimulus. Won't happen until next year, if then, and that is too late to avoid a Dem bloodbath in Nov. In many ways they deserve it. The only problem with that is the alternative is pure poison.

I think Obama failed on financial reform. I would fire Geitner and Summers -- twice if I could. Anything short of dismantling Too Big TO Fail is a dismal failure and that describes Finance Reform. What remains still leaves us at risk, permitting the BIG BANKS to still gamble with their money while comingling with despositors money and leaving the financial systems at risk. What we now have is a more orderly way to guide the collapse but that does not prevent collapses or the wakes from those collapses overturning the broader econonmy boat not to mention our pensions and savings. It is shameful to leave us at risk after just having been burned. Of course their is plenty of blame to dish out to the GOP and many Dems too. A curse on all of their houses. Unfortunately, the curse remains over all of us too.

I suspect Obama will cave on appointing Warren to head up the new Comsumer Protection Agency. The ultimate choice is likely to emasculate the Agency -- again BIG BUSINESS will win. They always do... even when they loose.

I think Obama will go down in history as an historic president for many reasons including much for his accomplishments. It just doesnt feel very satisfying for someone who supported him and appreciates many of those accomplishments, if not all. My enthusiasm has waned as I fear it has in many supporters.

Just to be clear, I'm one of those Independents that has lost some confidence in the way the country is going, in the ability of Dems to govern and in Obama himself. That does not mean that I have ANY faith in the GOP as an alternative. They are not an option individually or collectively for me in these times. Things suck!! I hope next year brings reforms in the Senate and some Republicans actually show up to help govern.

[BiBottomBoy]

I like Obama's ideas but he's not enough of a son of a bitch to get things done. He has a huge bully pulpit as his disposal and he doesn't use it at all.

He's letting Israel walk all over him, he won't call out the Tea Bagger for being the racist pieces of shit that they are and he really thinks that negotiating with Congress is the way to go.

He went into office with a huge mandate for change and he's squandered it by being a complete and total pussy. He's never been a particular fan of gay rights and is letting himself get walked over.

Hilary would have been a complete and total bitch, but she would have been a bitch who got things done.

[JKane]

He's never been a particular fan of gay rights and is letting himself get walked over.

Hilary would have been a complete and total bitch, but she would have been a bitch who got things done.

I don't get how gays can idolize the Clintons or think Hillary would do better by them! These are the people that brought us DADT *and* DOMA. Could've vetoed either, in fact with DADT they let congress legislate what had been a presidential prerogative so no future President could just 'desegregate' again. Instead they gave both hearty bi-partisan support.

But hey, at the time it helped them hold onto some power, and that's all that is important. Especially when they went on to use that power to... wait, what did they actually accomplish?

My memory is of an administration on the floor curled up into a ball crying 'not in the face' at the Republican leadership, their pets like Ken Star, and the Fox echo chamber for the last several years. Backing down to cries of 'wag the dog' when it was clearly time to go after Bin Laden and Afghanistan because he couldn't have kept it in his fucking pants.

[BiBottomBoy]

My memory was eight years of no wars and a great economy with a budget surplus.

[TampaYankee]

My memory was eight years of no wars and a great economy with a budget surplus.

Well, the budget surplus rings true.

I seem to recall Bosnia, Mogadishu, the USS Cole, the US Embassy attacks in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, not to mention the first WTC bombing. Seems we had plenty of war even if it wasn't called war. Maybe if we had more war then we would have had less war in the last 10 years. Who knows?

Personally, I'm averse to war but I'm not one for turning the other cheek either. If it has to be war then I favor short hot wars over long drawn out expensive affairs.

Some small problems with small solutions presented themselves in Clinton's era. They were ignored and festered into much larger issues. That is just history.

[JKane]

My memory was eight years of no wars and a great economy with a budget surplus.

Afghanistan allowed to develop into the mess that spawned 9/11 and the tech bubble allowed to grow then burst plunging the economy back down much of any gains...

[BiBottomBoy]

I'll give you mogadishu, but we got out of that pretty quickly. The rest of it was Bosnia, which we avoided, and minor terrorist attacks against us, which didn't involve us spending trillions of dollars fighting wars we can't possibly win.

[JKane]

I'll give you mogadishu, but we got out of that pretty quickly. The rest of it was Bosnia, which we avoided, and minor terrorist attacks against us, which didn't involve us spending trillions of dollars fighting wars we can't possibly win.

And you feel it's *good* we allowed genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, then gave in to brutal warloards raping their country to pieces in Somalia? Because it saved some tax dollars?

I mean sure, between those three millions of people died, but they didn't have oil so fuck 'em!

Of course we'll also allow Somalia to continue developing into what Afghanistan became under Clinton: the breeding ground for world wild terrorism; and since we can never learn from our mistakes we'll only try to do something about it after they kill thousands of Americans (or at least get really close to pulling it off...).

[TampaYankee]

... and minor terrorist attacks against us, which didn't involve us spending trillions of dollars fighting wars we can't possibly win.

You make my point exactly. That is just the kind of thinking that got us to where we are today. We didnt take care of business when it was a small problem now we are paying big time after it became big problem. Wishing it would go away by ignoring it won't make it so. It didnt then, it won't now.

BTW, we spent a LOT of money on Bosnia even though you may not have been aware of it. I know because I worked in the defense industry and saw some of the tech spending in support of it, not to mention the operations support spending that went into supporting NATO. True, alot then was not too much for these days. But it was alot for the time.

Of course we'll also allow Somalia to continue developing into what Afghanistan became under Clinton: the breeding ground for world wild terrorism;

Bush I and the Congress (under the Dems with Bush and under the GOP with Clinton) must share in the blame. No one cared to invest the energy and resources into Afghanistan at the time when it was malleable and would have been cheap. That is just the way a short-sited foreign policy, set up to fight the Cold War rather than to cultivate international stability, works . We succeeded -- we won the Cold War and international stability went to hell.

[BiBottomBoy]

The problem is nobody every wins in Afghanistan. The Brits tried it and failed miserably. Then the Soviets tried it and failed miserably. Now it's our turn.

[JKane]

The problem is nobody every wins in Afghanistan. The Brits tried it and failed miserably. Then the Soviets tried it and failed miserably. Now it's our turn.

Yep, it's where empires go to die.

Wonder how long it took the Soviets to realize they were done?