Fineman's philosophy: Democracy rocks except for all the goddamn voting.

My only guess is that Fineman is merely pitching conflict as the Meme Du Jour, simply because conflict sells. It gets a lot more people's attention when a writer says, "The President is in trouble!" than it does when he says, "The President has high approval ratings." The mainstream media is merely doing what it always does-- manufacturing controversy whenever possible, even if it is wholly fabricated, simply because they are in the business of holding people's attention. Conflict sells. Period.

When you have a conservative touting a 'trickle down' effect, you know it's a bunch of BS.

We are in a full fledged class war right now, like it or not. The elite plutocracy (Wall St., DC insiders, etc.) vs. us, 'we the people'.

I'd love to see an expose of some sort on this. For so long the right has used this mantra when anything encroached on their comfortable little lives. Let's turn the tables on them.

Yes, classicism exists in America. Face it, acknowledge it.

Lets see if I have this right:

A guy with a 60+% approval rating has to change what he's doing so he can garner the approval of several interest groups whose aggragate approval ratings would be somewhere in the mid-twenties to low thirties. Is that about it? In what world?

Steve Benen wrote: "I can imagine a column in which a political observer urges a leader to worry less about the elite establishment and more about the opinions of the American mainstream. I never thought I'd see a column arguing the opposite."

I can't imagine why you "never thought" you'd see such a column, since pretty much every column ever written by every bought-and-paid-for shill for America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. and published by the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal etc. has argued exactly that: that elected officials should do what the corporate aristocracy wants and not what the American people need.

There's lots of trickling down from the "bigs" right now since they are collectively pissing themselves over fear they've been exposed as the worthless aggregate they are.

I think what the good Mr. Fineman is trying to say is that, unlike the previous awesome president, Obama isn't like Shane.

What, they're still not getting enough money from him? Contrast this with Ruth Marcus in the WaPo today, a Beltway insider who makes the obvious case that Obama is far from the liberal he's portrayed by the media, with a list of case examples and quotes from influential, disappointed, progressives. Obama -- not sufficiently Bushlike!

Fineman wants to stand out from the pack and to compete has to come up with something, even if it may be farfetched. While capitalism, as a result of competition, may be subject to creative destructionism, with pundits it's creative in the making up sense destructionism. Fineman may not believe, deep down, what he is saying. But he's got to get noticed and he does by coming up with what may be nonsense.

Just because I am wrong 98% of the time with my analyses & predictions does not mean that I should not go on making them or receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for them!

After all, Chris Matthews will always give me air time! And my predictions are historically more accurate than most media commentators & analysts. 2% accuracy is twice as good as 1% accuracy.

To quote Lincoln "...with malignant heart and deceitful speech, they strove to hinder it."

Fineman: unremarkable elite concern-trollery.

"They" are scared. Obama may not be Superprogressive, but he is Kryptonite to a number of influential and profitable American industries whixh likely will see their profits fall if (when) changes are made in a modestly, or nominally, progressive direction. Obama must be stopped or slowed before he achieves things so as to buttress his hopeful rhetoric with popular accomplishments. Some of the establoshment carnival barkers are shrill (GOP) others are more discreet (Fineman), but their goals are the same: secure American hegemony and economic gain for the benefit of the "ruling" class. Eric

citizen_pain has it exactly right. This is indeed class warfare. And the Republicans and those in the Democratic Establishment are not going to stand with the rubes and plebeians who make up the majority of the populace, and upon whose backs they make their fortunes.

As Douglas Adams wrote, if the Establishment chooses not to loosen their grip on people: "they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

Here is how the Fineman column would have read if Obama had been taking the establishment's (read - the people Howard Fineman chats with a cocktail parties) advice.

A Turning Tide?
Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.
Howard Fineman
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 10, 2009 | Updated: 8:37 a.m. ET Mar 10, 2009
Surfer that he is, President Obama should know a riptide when he's in one. The center usually is the safest, most productive place in politics, but perhaps not now, not in a once-in-a-century economic crisis.

Swimming in the middle, he's denounced as a socialist by conservatives, criticized as a polite accommodationist by government-is-the-answer liberals, and increasingly, dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats.

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's. But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

They have some reasons to be concerned. While the public found comfort in the President’s calm and reassuring demeanor during the campaign, he has abandoned the character traits that got him elected. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. While Americans found his judicial temperment reassuring during the election, he seems like he is trying to evolve into a blunt-spoken coach. We need someone with a judicious demeanor like FDR in charge, not Bobby Knight.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:
• The proposed $1.5 trillion dollar stimulus was way too large, and thus could not secure the necessary Senate votes to avoid a filibuster. Furthermore, the proposal was absurdly optimistic in directing $500 billion at road building and construction when there are nowhere near enough “shovel-ready� projects.
• The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, throws too much money directly at people without making sure we aren’t rewarding people who consciously lived way beyond their means.
• After failing with the "stim", the president added insult to injury by torpedoing the $400 billion supplemental spending bill over an earmark showdown when earmarks make up approximately 2% of the bill. We are on the brink of a depression, and Obama decided to become Carter II by getting mired in avoidable battles with Congress just on principle.
• Obama decides to abandon the strategy of trying to see the economy through the liquidity crisis and instead, in effect, declares surrender by letting Citigroup (trigger a financial crisis ensuring a depression) and General Motors (showing contempt for American blue collar workers and manufacturing) collapse.
• While the Obama administration does nothing to prevent the economy from sliding into a full scale collapse, he instead calls on Americans to engage in sacrifice. At a time when economists agree slowing consumer spending is part of the feedback loop worsening the economy, Obama is acting like it’s his intent to do everything possible to destroy the American economy.
• Revealing an imperial nature, Obama refused to work with Congress in fleshing out crucial details in the stim and then reprised the worst decision of the Clinton administration and announced a finalized health care proposal as if Congress would treat it as a fait accompli.
• After the failed stimulus, the 2010 budget that tries to do too little and instead gives in to doom and gloom with its predictions of falling revenues and a collapsing economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler vigorously paddling towards the falls.
• Unable to stick to any course of action or defend any of those around him, Obama absurdly ousted his treasury secretary following a skit on “Saturday Night Live." Obama appeared to be trying to pin the blame for his failures on Geithner, and most of the estalishment recognizes Obama has no loyalty.
• An impulsive actor in the face of the growing banking crisis, he immediately acted to nationalize banks after the Citigroup collapse. Maybe, this is all part of a master plan to drive the U.S. into full-fledged socialism.
• Trying to divert attention from all of his failures, Obama engaged in un-Presidential grand-standing by demanding a life sentence for Bernie Madoff, thus scuttling a plea agreement that would have helped secure assets for the victims. An awful President, he would make an even worse U.S. Attorney.
• The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, reverted back to his one true comfort zone – trying to become Professor-in-Chief. Subjecting the U.S. public to an endless seminar on the collapse of the banking system, he seems to view the worsening crisis as an interesting case study instead of crisis warranting effective action.
• With his economic plan in tatters, Obama also seems to be giving up on future generations as well. Even though reforming health care, achieving sustainable energy independence, and rebuilding our education system is essential to our long-term prosperity, Obama has now tabled any effort to tackle those issues as well.

Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.

Well duh, Obama's policies might narrow the gap between the haves and have nots [shudder]. The Bigs will never approve of Obama unless he implements the past policies of the Republicans.

he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.

Shorter Fineman: "Dammit, Obama is still popular, crank up the noise machine to 11"

It's about to get a lot noisier.

Fineman - a serious misnomer.

Funny you should mention this, but over the weekend I got a distinct whiff of a separate and distinct American upper-class uniting to protect its privileges. Maybe it was all this talk about private investors out there who are hoarding their capital refusing to put it in play because they lack the "confidence" and "certainty" in either the market or Obama. And I thought: whatever happened to the myth of American capitalism being about risk and reward. Maybe after 30 years of conservative Republican government all of these wealthy private investors are accustomed to governments that are more accommodating to bend or break the rules in order to give them a sure thing for their investments.

A perfect example of this upper class pushback occured when I turned onto Meet the Press and found David Gregory surrounded by a roundtable consisting of Newt Gingrich, Mort Zuckerman, Erin Burnett and some economic history professor. As they took apart Obama's policies I thought, WOW, here really are the privileged elite protecting their own.

President Obama, based upon pertinent precedent, should be cheered by Fineman's column, as it appears that so far the 2nd term is assured:

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

Franklin Roosevelt's Address Announcing the Second New Deal, Madison Square Garden
October 31, 1936
(listen to the crowd roar at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BksTHQo8Q78 )

Three days later, on November 3, 1936 FDR defeated Landon 60.8% to 36.5%, winning every state except Maine and Vermont.

"The rest of us."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

Howie, this here's a gun and this here's a stick-up. The 'rest of us' decided we want to have the rest of our money.

Shorter Finneman:

"Because Obama is doing what a majority of Americans want to him to do, he better be careful or else the minority (whose money and status were built on the backs of the majority) will try and stop him."

You know, in previous centuries, that minority would have already seen their palaces stormed while the guillotine was sharpened ...

Every now and then Howie slips up and says what the village really thinks.

And their collective disappointment might "trickle down to the rest of us," as if Fineman is on our side of the great establishment divide.

Uh, Steve, you do realize you work for a publication called "The Washington Monthly"?

"the gathering judgment" = "the pomposity of the dim"

I think you are over thinking Mr. Fineman's points. I have grown to see Howard Fineman as a reliable journalist who wants to get the story right whether he gets it first or not. The takeaway I got from Fineman is that Pres. Obama must work within a set of circumstances influenced or even dictated to by strong economic/political interests already entrenched in our nataion's capital and its culture. I didn't read any endorsements of these "interests," but I also didn't see him fingering any specific "interest" and I think that was because Mr. Fineman needs to keep his reporter contacts as best he can.

Please, don't begrudge everyone for what they fall short of, but rather help reporters like Mr. Fineman get more to the bottom of our cultural woes! -Kevo

The "elites" identified by Fineman are more likely participants in a perp walk or a layoff than in some sort of insider's revolt.

Don't tell Fineman that the "Beaver Management" in the spending bill is really just code for "Establishment Stifling".

If there's more than 20% of the Establishment which is Dem I'd be surprised.