As Halperin explained, "All this dialog, this debate, about whether Obama's trying to do too much."

This is not so much villager naivete as narrow mindedness of the Wall Street crowd. They see the economy as a banking/investing problem. Period. Obama sees the need to expand the economy by creating demand for healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. These other people just want to wipe off debt and resume the policies under which they thrived.

Whwn faced with multiple problems , or one problem with multiple solutions, there are basically two ways to address the problem: sequentially or in parallel. Sequential problem solving is the surest way NOT to solve the problem as you have to complete one component before starting the next.

Given that it is unclear what these "pundits" mean by solving the economic problem, the resolution can alwayss be said to be incomplete and the next step should not be started.

Solving problems in parallel is what is needed as all issues get some attentioon and forward movement and will be further along when a necessary component is completed.

This letter was posted on theNYT in response to David brooks who was talking the same crap:

"Here's what many Republicans do not understand: health care, energy, and education are not "separate" issues from the economy. They determine the economy. And our neglect of them has poisoned the economy. We will not recover as long as we spend 17% of our GDP on health care, send billions of dollars abroad for oil, and tolerate a substandard school system. Obama is not trying to solve four puzzles. He is trying to solve a single, large puzzle of which health care, energy, and education are inextricable parts."
Sums it up succinctly

That the meme of "the president is doing too much" is so strenuously being pushed by conservatives has very little to do with their concerns about the economy, but everything with the fact that they see no other way of stalling his agenda.

I find the media distracting.

And if Obama were dumb enough to focus on one issue:

"Why is President Obama ignoring X?"

"Is President Obama in over his head?"

"While the president has been focused solely on the economy X, Y & Z continue to plague Americans."

"Obama begins to show the strain before his 1st 100 days!!"

Them, them. Fuck them.

What you're failing to understand is that conservatives and the village media are coming off 8 years of a president who COULD NOT do more than one thing at a time. Thus it's shocking to them to see a president who can multi-task.

The Answer WAS Orange....Exactly You know how the narrative would go.
See Tom Tomorrow over at salon today - he nails it
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/03/10/tomo/

I think having Obama do business as usual as much as humanly possible rather than being an economic Chicken Little 24/7 will be far more useful for restoring confidence.

The Democrats should avoid conforming to Repug talking points anyway.

I agree that this is just pure Republican obstructionism. We finally have a President who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the other side wants to do everything it can to hobble him. It's not because he's doing too much, it's because they don't like what he is doing. But the rest of us do.

At times like these you realize one of the media's main jobs is to invent reasons to read, listen and watch them.

It's a riot when they all adopt the same daily Republican media briefing point and Stewart runs those talking head clips one right after the other on his show. When all the commentators make essentially the same point and interview the same "experts" the only thing that distinguishes one from the other is the theatrics and, sadly, the insults they are willing to stoop to.

Being a talking head pays pretty well but sounding like a thoughtful, independent thinker day in and day out is tough work.

Obama must do too much to make up for a President who did too little.

Why do people take Halperin seriously? He is a deeply unpleasant person and habitually incorrect.

How about a 'Too Far Afield' list, Steve? My suggested entry is any idea for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that involves any new US money, troops, or security guarantees.

Funny, not so long ago, conservatives were shouting that Obama's policies were killing the economy. If he focused on the economy 24/7, doesn't that mean he'll destroy it FASTER? You'd think they'd want him to focus on anything BUT the economy, so, under their belief system, it'll have a chance to thrive.

Unless, of course, they're lying scumbags.

A president who spends every waking moment trying to improve the economy.

I can envision such a policy bringing about tremendous chaos.

Ever seen people who watch their 401k every day and then do something to try to improve?
Would this kind of behavior install confidence? Or nail biting panic?

Hhmmmmmm....
Bush focused his entire attention and on the 'war on terror' and look how that played out for the country.

You know what's distracting Obama? Having a bunch of idiot Republicans throwing sand in the gears 24/7.

If he spent all his time on the economy he would be savaged for interfering too much in the economy.

Anyway, his predecessor left him a lot of work to do. It wasn't his idea.

Uber asshole "Plutonium" Jack Welch, who said the same thing.

Translation:
"Help MY INVESTMENTS Obama, you're my only hope!"

Aside from getting business/personal credit going again, Wall St and the leisured class can go screw themselves.

How much effort did it take Obama to give his liberal followers a much needed morale boost and political win by overturning Bush's position on stem cells? Virtually none. How hard was it to start a debate within the GOP on who their leader was? It was a throw off line. Maybe Washington reporters are tired of covering so many stories at once, and Republicans wish they didn't have to come up with new ways to obstruct progress. But for the White House this stuff is as easy as taking out the trash.

I can't stand Halperin or those other villagers, but in this case I think they are right. I think Brooks, like the proverbial broken clock, was actually right today too

If Obama and Geithner had a coherent banking plan, I would no problem with pursuing a multi-pronged, progressive agenda.

But they don't have a plan. And the economy is sinking very fast into an outright depression. My fear is that economy tanks, GOP wins house seats in 2010, and we're back we started by 2012.

Obama has surprised me in the past, but I don't think he can pull this ambitious agenda off. I think he needs to act sequentially, starting with the banking crisis.

conservatives have been pushing the "distraction" line pretty aggressively, and reporters have been picking up on it

The "liberal media" strikes again!

Feh. This phenomenon isn't new; Joe Conason, for one, documented it in his 2003 book Big Lies.

Didn't we already see the results of a certain presidential candidate setting aside his campaign to focus solely on the economy...and if I remember correctly, the results were not pretty.

All it did was freak people out that perhaps a certain someone did not have the capacity to walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time.

I suggest that this might be projection on the part of MSM personalities who realize that they might have to go from uninformed banter on one issue to even more egregious trivialization of multiple issues simultaneously as they attempt to portray same with a decreasing proportion of available sound-bite wisdom per issue.

Ted Frier , JHM You both got it. Did you see Jon Stewart rip that lying weasle Cramer a new one again last night. And yet there he was again on the today show being quoted as an "Expert" That fucker ought to be behind bars.

These corporate media 'villagers' live in their own bubble of 'reality' just as their hero, shit stain bush, did. Thus, they literally 'invent' these non-reality 'story lines' as if they are real. Where I live, in reality, I have heard no one talking about whether Obama is focusing on to many things at the same time: zero. IN reality, actual reality, people where I live area all talking about Obama actually trying to solve our problems. And they in fact want him too. Reality.

This is a debate about tactics, not goals. A lot us who support the progressive agenda also think that Obama needs to stabilize the economy before pursuing other things.

It's like stabilizing a patient who's been a horrible car crash before engaging in reconstructive surgery. There's no point on operating on a dead patient.

The thing that bothers me is that there is little bit of "drink the Kool-aid" type of thinking going on in this thread. You may not agree with the criticism of Obama for not acting sequentially, but it's not an absurd point of view.

And the great thing about only doing one thing at a time is that everything else stops in its tracks and waits for you! I mean, it worked for Bush! In 2001, he completely ignored national security to focus full-time on tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, for corporations and for the wealthy. And nothing bad happened, right?

g.powell: Ok, tactics then. The way to stabilise the economy is to build confidence. This is not going to happen, regardless of the stimulus, if the right and the media are constantly harping on about the stimulus.

A couple of distractions are perfect. They aren't distracting the white house, they are distracting those who will benefit if the stimulus does not work. Therefore, a couple of nice juicy distractions along culture war lines to draw fire from the right, and voila! Stem Cells. Carbon tax. The health care debate!

Royalblue,

Obama so far has come up with an inadequate stimulus and a money-for-nothing response to the financial crisis. I fail to see success in his multi-pronged tactic.

Steve Benen wrote: "... how political analysis often goes horribly awry."

Steve, it absolutely defies belief that a prominent liberal blogger actually believes that this is "political analysis gone awry".

This is transparent, blatant, over-the-top propaganda -- corporate-sponsored, RNC-written, focus-group-tested, scripted, teleprompted propaganda -- aimed at undermining public support for and confidence in Obama.

I would really like to think that this is just a rhetorical tic on your part -- that the frequent statements of this sort in your posts are merely indulgences in faux naivete, which have long ago worn thin. Republicans are "confused". The corporate media's verbatim repetition of scripted RNC talking points is "analysis" that has somehow "gone awry". Please. Enough.

On the other hand, the idea that you actually believe this stuff is too horrifying to contemplate.

I personally felt the stimulus should have been far bigger, had less tax cuts, and more infrastructure spending. But almost half the country voted for morons who think 100% tax cuts are the panacea for everything. And with an enabling press, we got the stimulus we got.

So having got the stimulus voted in what do we do now? Try and pass stimulus two? Do nothing until the economy is sorted out? Far be it for me to point this out, but if the right and the media (but I repeat myself) are calling for him to do one thing at a time, I'd put money on that being absolutely the wrong thing to do.

g. powell wrote: "You may not agree with the criticism of Obama for not acting sequentially, but it's not an absurd point of view."

The burden of proof that it's not "absurd" is on you.

Neither you nor any of these critics have offered a single, substantive reason why, or any actual example where, Obama's efforts on various other fronts have delayed, hindered or delayed action on the financial crisis.

On the other hand, I find Obama's argument that we must immediately begin laying the basis for a sound, sustainable economy (e.g. through renewable energy, infrastructure upgrades, health care reform, investments in education, etc) and that these measures need to be undertaken together to achieve optimal synergistic benefits, very compelling.

What have you got? Anything?

g. powell: This is a debate about tactics, not goals. A lot us who support the progressive agenda also think that Obama needs to stabilize the economy before pursuing other things.

Your concern is noted.

The burden of proof that it's not "absurd" is on you

Wow, you really have entered Koo-aid realm. You argue that anyone who disagrees with you on tactics is basically a clown, or must prove otherwise. This is the type of thinking that dooms movements.

I would love it if Obama could be successful in his multi-pronged approach. I just think he won't be able to do it if the economy falls into a global depression. So I think therefore he should first stop the financial system from deteriorating and engage in real stimulus. This, I believe, we give him more leverage to pursue the progressive agenda that we all want.

But I guess that's all crazy talk in your world, not a legitimate point of view.

After 8 years of hearing "No, you can't" and "No, we won't" and "How could we have known . . ." I think people are surprised to find government agencies so ready and capable of addressing so many diverse needs simultaneously, from stem cells to energy to roads & bridges, national parks, C02 cap & trade, health care, housing . . .

Imagine that, a government that works, government employees who care. What a refreshing change. This is what gives me hope.

This is a debate about tactics, not goals. A lot us who support the progressive agenda also think that Obama needs to stabilize the economy before pursuing other things.

Yes, because skyrocketing health care costs have no effect on the economy, especially when people who have been laid off have to decide between buying groceries and paying their COBRA payments.

Sorry, but you seem to be under the impression that the only problem we have is a banking crisis. The problem we have is that the banks don't have any money. They thought they had a bunch, but it was all on paper, and now that paper's been shown to be worthless. They bought a bunch of tulips called mortgage-backed securities and CDO's and now we have to figure out a way to not have places like Citibank declare Chapter 7 and leave millions of customers with credit cards and student loans in the lurch.

Without figuring out another place for investors to put their money besides investment banks, we're dead in the water. Hence the whole "infrastructure" and "green energy" side of the stimulus package.

I will say this, though -- someone has to sit down with the CEOs of all of these banks and investment houses and say, "You guys fucked up. You thought you were smarter than the market, and you weren't. You're just as dumb about investing as the rest of us. Now sit down, shut up, and let us clean up the problem you caused."

Sadly, that ain't going to happen, and all of these bankers and hedge fund managers are still waltzing around convinced that the only problem is liquidity because they did everything right.

This should also be a discussion about jobs. Federal funding of this work will mean that there are more researchers working in this area. I believe a number a saw awhile ago said that for every high tech worker there are at least 2.8 additional workers to provide the support and move the work forward. So in addition to the wonderful benefits of this research, guess what - it creates jobs.

Don't journalists follow the who, what, where, when, why and how model to write a news story?

Guess not.

Instead we have "why them", "why that", "why there", "why now", "why at all", "why that way".

This type of journalism is much more profitable because you can speculate ahead of actual news, and criticize after the actual news, and essentially ignore the news.

Also, the more you misunderstand the news, the more you can speculate and complain. It is like a win-win. The dumber you are, or pretend to be, the more useful you are to your employer.

This in part because Bush could'nt hold more than two abstract thoughts in his little pin head at once.

In other words, when the intelligence official brought him the report that the country was in danger of being attacked, and Bush offered his famous CYA dismisal, he was pre-ocupied with deciding wether to have peanuts or pretzels with his ham sandwich, and didn't have the mental capacity to entertain other drains on his brain's computing power.

In other words...

Republicans do not like the fact that Obama is doing more than one thing, and successfully doing things while they are busy trying to spin attacks elswhere. The one benefit of the economic collapse, they thought, was that it would prevent Obama from doing anything other than shovelling money at banks and Wall Street. They keep thinking in terms of George Bush, who could hardly walk and chew gum at the same time.

Every week, it's another meme from conservatives. Oh yeah, we all remember how successful it was in September when John McCain decided to drop everything in his presidential campaign and rush to Washington to focus on the economic crisis. Are they all one trick ponies?

Good God. Being the sharp-eyed observers that they are, you'd think Halperin and Burgdorf might have some vague memories of John McCain's whole campaign suspension stunt a few months back. One of the main points that Obama made when McCain wanted to postpone the debate was that the President has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. I remember that, and I'm not even paid to do this.

Just project it back on to FDR's term - would GOP have been saying this then? check. Would they have been wrong then? check.

Why listen to these people?

Yesterday's edition was especially illustrative of how political analysis often goes horribly awry.

I wish that the offerings of the political punditocracy would stop being referred to as "analysis". Its not, for the most part, anything even remotely likely analysis. Where it isn't outright propaganda, its mostly reflexive emotional kneejerk responses driven by ideological preconceptions and conventional wisdom.

All of the problems Obama is working on are interconnected to the economy. The republicans are trying to slow Obama down until they can figure out how to derail him. Except it's not gonna work this time.

I wonder what would happen if they did a poll and asked what worries people more, that Obama isn't spending all of his time on the economy or that Republicans are spending all of their time blocking whatever Obama wants to do on the economy.

Weren't we (and the media) mocking McCain for his drop-everything-and-focus-on-the-economy crap during the election and now that's the line being floated out there?

Can't have you cake and eat it too.