Gaithner must go . . .

In starkest terms, Gaithner is part of the problem -- the enabling network that created the crisis, including the artificially low interest rates underwritten by the Fed that facilitated the mortgage orgy and subsequent bubble -- not a credible part of the solution.

However, due to America's schizophrenic attitude toward white collar robbery, he, Summers, Rubin, and other smart guys sit fat and happy, and are not in jail.

In more accurate, terms since Gaithner and that ilk are authors of the policies and practices that nearly took down the economy they are psychologically not equipped to:

1) admit and internalize that that is exactly what they did -- with a significant degree of knowledge. No one fully knows markets, so of course they could not have exactly anticipated that the results of their greedy policies and practices would be as extreme as they were -- though in the backwash of Glass-Stegaall abolishment they, if anyone, should have heard the steps of the 30's bank collapse close behind.

2) craft remedial policies and approaches that have as their basis the recognition and indictment of exactly the practices they created.

I'm not even alleging conscious avoidance here. I'm mere pointing out a basic and thoroughly credible psychological pattern (of sublimation and denial) that prevents Gaithner or the other primary actors from coming to the economic crisis with untainted mindsets. They literally are not equipped to grasp and accept some of the very fundamental issues, mainly proceeding from greed and recklessness, feelings of invincibility, and a reckless addiction to the adrenalin rush of risk.

Far from jailing them, have we heard a peep of apology commensurate with the damage done? That is a hallmark of denial, sublimation, and projection. Gaither makes a stab at dissing those who fomented the crisis, as does Obama, but anyone familiar with reading body language sees a lack of authenticity, discomfort, and fraudulence. And why not? Stoked by the unconscious guilt he bears, it is impossible for him to demonstrate authenticity of belief or demeanor.

And it's not as if there aren't economists out there who didn't foresee the collapse. So why, now, would we want to have the very culpable, and psychologically crippled, financiers in charge?

What does Obama want?

What does Obama want? Well, here is another indication that he definitely wants to look forward and not backward, particularly when it come to malfeasance by the Bush administration (much of which he has found useful to continue):

" . . . an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional misconduct allegations. . . .":

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/29/opr-report-altered-to-cover-bush-doj-malfeasance/

It seems clear that Obama is not interested in the messier aspects of the rule of law. Not interested in much of a progressive agenda. Not interested in treating the Republicans in Congress as the venal obstructionists they are. Not interested in rocking too many boats to get things moving.

What we can say, or which seems to be Obama's main interest is the vacuous wish to "change the tone in Washington". This supposedly will help Americans feels so much better about the lack of significant substantive work being done in domestic or foreign affairs (except war and the military; always have to remember that's a growth industry. A real change agent for America in the world). Changing the tome is a nice thought. Actually accomplishing something is a more meaningful one.

Obama may change the tone in Washington, but only by acquiescing continually to the repubs and blue dogs. And since they don't seem to want any change that benefits most Americans, the prescription is for nothing significant to happen.

Obama is getting a rep for being a softy; he calls it civility. It's not going to work. How to get the message through??? Maybe Obama/Emanuel is a fatal combination?

But there is no way to address the nation's problems without breaking a bunch of eggs. All we are getting is the optics. Like the Buddhist saying goes: "painted cakes do not satisfy hunger".

I'm ready for some broken eggs.

SOTU and other guest appearances

The SOTU is not the place to announce personnel changes.

And often it is not the place to play gotcha politics either. But given the universal perception, among sentient being who are not caught up in the republican mass delusion, the politics of "no" deserved to be laid out in front of the American people much more strongly and explicitly than it was (i.e., if I recall, by innuendo and inference from the "if you require 60 votes to pass anything", with a sidelong glance to that part of the chamber. That's not confronting the chief procedural factor underlying the gridlock that Obama identified. It needed to be spelled out. Obama has nothing to lose but some kumbaya points.

Overall, I did not find the tone of the presentation serious enough. Still too much smirking and chuckling; too much congenially clubby nuance. (wink, wink, we all politicians/insiders, eh?) I'm aware that just being solemn can come across unnaturally heavy -- and that one should not try to act too far out of conformity with one's natural presence. However, the tone and presentation did not convey the truly dire state of things; it didn't even come up to matching the words as written.

I also understand Obama was ostensibly trying to start over again, in campaign mode. Up beat, can do, America the great, etc.

No can do. We are where we are, ad it's not something that can be airbrushed away.

I've already suggest that Obama fire some folks (notably Gaithner, Summers and Emmanuel) if he is really serious about change of direction and gaining some initiative.

I hasten to add, that I'm not sure Obama has it in him. Largely, I am beginning to believe, that even if Obama 1) is on 'our' side (you know, saving the republic) 2) recognizes the big shakeups, in personnel and personal mindset that is needed, he lacks the personality traits and is hampered by unresolved 'efficacy' issues to pull it off. (efficacy issues = sort of like getting past seeing himself as either more special or more inferior because he is, well you know . . .)

Including yesterdays televised 'interchange' with the Republicans at their Congressional get together, at which everyone seems to think Obama shone, rather than getting tough and playing hardball, he seems to have doubled down on the message of bipartisanship. While once again he may have won the day in rhetoric and speechifying, does it do anything more than indulge his own personal crusade to 'change the tone' as opposed to meeting the reality of the situation head on with appropriate tactics.? It's not in the Republican strategy to cooperate. And it's barely in the Democratic playbook either. Time to knock heads, not hold hands.

One year later -- wither Obama

We're all pretty good at seeing where Obama has gone wrong, if he ever intended to go right.

The only question, as to his election, is where on the sliding scale one comes down: from Manchurian candidate for the rich and powerful to naive neophyte propelled on the wave of America's celebrity fixation and attention span of 30 second sounbites. Or somewhere in between; and all catapulted on popular reaction to a venal and illicit administration that preceded, two times!

As to his governance, from day one, it was clear. The hopeful counterpoint to those venal and despised Republicans, and the milquetoast toady Democrats turn out to be a cipher. Faced with the huge opportunity to capitalize on the demonstrable hatred of Bush and his gang, administrative and congressional, Obama proclaims, basically, "I want to be your friend". The mildest rebuke, in the inaugural address, to the those who had shattered the nations' well being, was followed by bows on the world stage, and turning over the reins to Rahm and the corporate template.

I don't know what propels this "style" of governance, even given the reserved personality it is attached to. Whether weakness, arrogance, or hubris, or some other. The result, however, seems clear. Whether true belief hidden behind lofty but disconnected rhetoric; or misguided conception of coaxing 'bipartisanship' and alliances with the enemies of the people, like the young guidance counselor who thinks he can encourage good behavior from the meanest of schoolyard bullies. The result has been continuous abandonment of ideals.

And not even soaring "new" ideals; but simply the concept of restoring some healthy direction to the nation which had been the basis of the, now betrayed, expectation the people gave in a huge electoral victory.

We know the record of accomplishments, or lack thereof, since then. From LGBT to Af/Pk; from big banks to big pharma; from Havana to Tel Aviv; from no accountability for crimes to perpetuating the process that generates civil rights-destroying actions. Nada.

So now it's immeasurably harder. If Obama is even inclined to do the work of playing catch up.

1937 Redux? The Obama Freeze

It's smoke and mirrors. The big picture, the big, obscene expenditures on war, get not just short, but NO shrift. We cannot talk about their costs in relation to the needs of the country which are never considered to be competing needs because the controlling class has decided to make it that way. And in that controlling class I include the media which rarely questions the equation.

Obama is trying to pull off the trifecta; continue to open-endedly fund endless war; pretend to get the budget under control with a freeze (while ignoring the military component); pretend to fund essential domestic programs adequately in the guns and butter mold.

If he were serious about changing direction, he wouldn't mount this charade. He wouldn't just change the optics. He would fire Gaithner, Summers and, preeminently Rahm. Even as mere symbols, which of course they are not, it would indicate a president with actual and active cognizance, not one who cogitates and poses and let's the same old actors come up with the same suboptimized solutions.

And then hire some folks with actual productive ideas, not just blab about "fighting" for the people, and floating gratuitious, self elevating talk about being a good one termer versus a mediocre two termer. Uh, Earth to Barack: we make that call, not you. And it ain't looking good for even the former.

I'm afraid it's gone and getting goner every day so to speak. The public is so jaded on politics and politicians, especially at the federal level. And yet, for a brief, and perhaps misguided moment, the country carved out an exception for Barack Obama. So far, when he should have multiplied the force of the initial good will and support out there, he blew it. A gut punch to the optimism he inspired. A massive miscalculation and exercise in back room politics that has failed miserably, and an incredibly naive and/or hubristic display of denying the writing the repubs have been putting on the wall all along: "we are not going to play; not now, not ever". Or a masterful con job?

Some say it was never in the plans anyway. Doesn't matter. It's done. And still we wait for a signal that Obama really get's it.