For all those calling Obama a "Corporatist" or "Friend of Wall St.," this destroys THAT meme:

[jenmito]

Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

Daniel S. Loeb, the hedge fund manager, was one of Barack Obama’s biggest backers in the 2008 presidential campaign.

<snip>

So it came as quite a surprise on Friday, when Mr. Loeb sent a letter to his investors that sounded as if he were preparing to join Glenn Beck in Washington over the weekend.

<snip>

Other onetime supporters, like Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, also feel burned by the Obama administration, people close to him say.

That the honeymoon between Washington and Wall Street has turned to bitter recriminations is not news, given that the administration had long pledged to revamp Wall Street regulation in the wake of a crisis that rattled the global financial system.

Less than two years ago, Democrats received 70 percent of the donations from Wall Street; since June, when the financial regulation bill was nearing passage, Republicans were receiving 68 percent of the donations, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

But what is surprising is that some of the president’s biggest supporters have so publicly derided his policies, even at the risk of hurting their ability to influence the party in the future. Issues like the carry-interest tax on private equity or the Volcker Rule have become personal.

Why so personal? The prevailing view is that bankers, hedge fund mangers and traders supported the Obama candidacy because he appealed to their egos.

Mr. Obama was viewed as a member of the elite, an Ivy League graduate (Columbia, class of ’83, the same as Mr. Loeb), president of The Harvard Law Review — he was supposed to be just like them. President Obama was the “intelligent” choice, the same way they felt about themselves. They say that they knew he would seek higher taxes and tighter regulation; that was O.K. What they say they did not realize was that they were going to be painted as villains.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31sorkin.html?_r=1

(Emphasis mine.)

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. You can't refute a theology with facts.

"Obama is a corporatist" is a revealed truth.

Not only can it not be refuted, the most merit comes from believing in things that are not so, because that calls for the greatest faith.

[jenmito]

2. Kind of like

the "Obama is a secret Muslim" meme? Like Obama said, "Facts are facts. I can't go around with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead."

[boppers]

3. +1 emo

[pa28]

31. Here's a fact.

The government and fed have expended, loaned or backstopped over 12 trillion in public funds and equity to financial institutions and corporations. Seems friendly enough to me.

The faith based assumption here is that Obama is your friend and all you have to do is chill the F*&* out and let him handle it. Do we want to eject critical thinking and traditional Democratic skepticism for authority because we happen to really, really like one particular politician?

[Davis_X_Machina]

42. Why do they hate him, if he is friendly to him?

[grahamhgreen]

56. Perhaps because he favors Goldman Sachs, and not Chase or the firm in the article.

[vaberella]

79. Which is false. Unless you're telling me AG Holder wasn't investigating GS?

And from my knowledge still is. That would show that Obama and his government is NOT favoring anyone, even if you want them too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269948/Goldman-Sachs-facing-criminal-probe-mortgage-securities-deals.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001336.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_feds_launch_criminal_investigation_of_wall_street_giant_goldman_sachs.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/goldman-sachs-case-sent-t_n_557884.html

Yeah, Obama adores Goldman Sachs.

[grahamhgreen]

83. Except after the meager fine, GS stock price shot up!

"Put aside, for a moment, that Goldman has to cough up (if that’s not a phrase too vigorous for the mild expectoration mandated by the SEC) only four days’ worth of 2009 revenue. Put aside, also, the seemingly eye-catching fact that the fine levied on Goldman, $550 million, is the heftiest ever levied by the SEC on a Wall Street shop. Put yourself, instead, inside the pulsing heart of Goldman, and feel the blood course triumphantly through you: $550 million, when many were talking of Goldman, earlier this year, in the hushed tones reserved for the terminal uncle; $550 million, when many saw the SEC suit as the battering ram against the walls of Wall Street, one that would lay waste not merely to Goldman, but an entire way of deliciously thin-iced and lucrative life. (The increase in Goldman’s market cap, following the announcement of this treaty, was in the region of $3 billion. Nice work if you can get it. Do the math, Robert Khuzami…)"


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-16/goldman-sachs-pays-small-sec-fine-and-nothing-else/

[truedelphi]

84. Very good answer. n/t

[pa28]

57. Utility maximizing. They trade a politician the way they might trade a stock.

Right now Obama is a losing stock as are the Democrats in Congress. Loyalty and friendship the way you and I think about it don't exist on Wall Street.

[tomp]

76. or perhaps they're playing one side against the other.

no matter how good a deal they got from obama they might want to get better from the repubs.

[impik]

58. Exactly. Obama hate is a religion. It has nothing to do with facts. These people

are extremes.

[jefferson_dem]

61. Truth.

I loathe delusional political dogmatism...whether it be on the teabagger right or the firebagger left.

[phleshdef]

68. My thoughts exactly. Only those that treat their ideology as a religion say he isn't progressive.

Its the gospel according to Hamsher and Greenwald and anything that contradicts it is apparently a sin against all things liberal.

[druidity33]

82. Really?

Because i don't really know ANYONE that would call Obama Progressive. He's really more of a centrist.

And i like Greenwald. He never fails to raise salient points and thoroughly link all his sources. I don't always agree with what he says, but why should i have to in order to respect his journalistic integrity?

I'll admit, i don't read Jane Hamsher's work too often, but i love the FDL site... especially Emptywheel. If you don't go there because you don't like Jane, you're missing out.

:shrug:

[jenmito]

4. Funny how people are unrec'ing but not giving any reason WHY. Maybe there IS no reason.

:eyes:

[Arkana]

5. When will you learn that facts cannot stand in the way of a good story?

The "Obama is a filthy corporatist" meme makes for good copy, so that's what the Hamsher Bunch run with.

[jenmito]

6. I see that they don't seem to have any explanations for their disagreement...

so they unrec and run.

[Kalun D]

23. What's the New Copy

in the corporate media?

Obama takes on the bankers?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

are they going to give back the $Billions/$Trillions?

Is Obama going to remove Geitner, Bernanke, Summers?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reggie the dog]

60. I hate to let you in on this but you must understand

that the left in the usa is not on the left on an international scale, the democrats would be a mainstream right wing party in just about every country in the european union with a possible exception for England (not scotland or wales though as local labour there has to be real left wing to compete with the popular far left party of wales and far left SNP)

Obama and most Democrats are filthy corporatists" in that they do little to stand up for workers and have favored banks and financial institutions more, hell in France our right wing UMP party and hard right president Sarkozy have LOANED money to banks with interest rates similar to thoses used by banks and have called for stronger control of wall st and for a crackdown on financial paridices like Luxembourg, Monaco, Jersey etc. Now our left wing parties here in Europe actually work for COMMON PEOPLE (what would be considered the poor, working and middle classes in the usa). Why do you think education is so affordable in the European Union (i know England is expensive they are an exception, in Scotland universities are free as they used to be in california until governor reagan ruined the system)? Why do you think we have affordable (as in my friend who is at risk for pre mature birth is on 80% of salary sick leave and has to pay NOTHING to have doctors COME TO HER HOME to look after her. Why do you think having cancer in the UK (even in England) France or the rest of the EU does not mean losing ones home or savings???? WELL BECAUSE OUR LEFT WING PARTIES ARE NOT CORPORATISTS LIKE THE LEFT WING PARTY IS IN THE USA! As an American living in France for the past 7 years I can tell you that life is much much better for nearly everyone in countries where there is a political party which stands up for the little people and tells the banks to get fucked.

[begin_within]

7. So Wall Street won't support his reelection bid in 2012?

Who cares. I wouldn't want them to have any ties to him any more anyway.

[jenmito]

8. That's why I don't understand why so many here are still insisting Obama's best buds with

these people.

[Skittles]

13. the whores see where the winds are blowing and go in that direction

now that they're thinking Obama will be a lame duck, they're betting on repukes

[jenmito]

17. "...now that they're thinking Obama will be a lame duck..."???

I guess you didn't read the REAL reasons stated in the article. :eyes:

[Skittles]

30. oh! oh!

so that means he'll stop pandering to them, right? yeah, RIGHT

[jenmito]

38. You have nothing but what you must consider clever one-liners (or personal

attacks like the one below).

[Skittles]

47. um, you just responded with a one-liner

and look, I am responding with TWO!!!

[jenmito]

50. My OP has many, many lines which you're obviously ignoring.

You claim I'm living in "fantasy land." Why should I take you seriously?

[Skittles]

55. no, I read your little fantasy analysis

simplistic nonsense

[denimgirly]

9. They've gotten the most they can from Obama and now they want More..and so they go Repub now

THere is no mistaking the fact that Obama helped Wall Street more than Main Street but now Wall Street wants more...if they want more then they will be best served by going republican now seeing as how democrats will be losing control. Wall Street is just following the blood and seeing the writing on the wall....the team who they think will win will get their money. Democrats have fulfilled their purpose to them and so they are now looking for the next thing which in this case will be in the eager hands of GOP.

Recall that democrats got most of their money back in 2008....and low and behold we ended up giving them a big fat bj in return.

What is odd is why Obama thought by giving them what they wanted they would remain loyal and continue to fund the democrats. Why would they...they've milked the party enough and got what they wanted. Now they want more.

GO tough or go home. We had a chance to tie them up and put real regulation in place but we ended up just handing over billions in tax payer dollars with no strings attached only to be backslapped and betrayed for the other party. Is anyone surprised?

[jenmito]

11. You must not have read the article. n/t

[babylonsister]

29. You. You have already told us you won't vote, so why gripe so vociferously?

Get lost. You are so discouraged about Dems? Why continue to trash them here when we are trying to accomplish something?

[izquierdista]

40. I'm not surprised

The only surprised ones are those with the rose-colored glasses, of which there are many around here.

[ibegurpard]

10. It proves that they're seflish greedy pigs

Here, Rahm attempts to explain it to them:
http://www.politico.com/playbook/0710/playbook1105.html
"RAHM EMANUEL told POLITICO’s Ben White yesterday that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets, despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefitted business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus. But, in the White House view, some business leaders listen only to Obama speeches being tough on BP or on the excesses of Wall Street and assume Obama is hostile to business across the board. “Rather than respond to atmospherics, they should look at policies where we have been supportive,” Emanuel said.”"

Maybe you should be talking to Wall Street about ponies...because this administration wasn't very hard on them.

[depakid]

12. LOL- No, what is shows is the utter futility of pandering to and protecting that crowd

because they'll drop Dems like a hotcake when a better deal comes along!

What it shows, quite frankly is that the Democratic "leadership" ought to have been on the side of the pitchforks (to paraphrase Obama) and not standing in the way.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. Exactly!! He might as well have REALLY stood up to them and gotten something

that was really good for the Middle Class. The Wall St pigs are dropping him anyway. The Middle Class would have been much more grateful.

[babylonsister]

34. So do what now? Dump Obama? Is that the solution for everyone?

I want to know. And I'm taking names, because I think it's important to know who is on our side vs. trashing this admin.

Thanks.

[Kalun D]

49. No

the solution is to yell as loud as you can that Obama needs to change BEFORE we are going to vote for him again

end this corporate crap, or at the very least stop promoting it.

stop rooting on the teachers

Investigate BP, not phony BS, a real investigation

let the damn bush tax cuts expire, at least on the upper 1 percent

stop with the cat food SS commission

Who's on who's side? The Obama admin damn sure isn't on mine, I'm in the working class.

[babylonsister]

53. I'm working class too, when/if I find a good job. Corporate crap?

Is that why the corps hate him? Which is it? I can only do so much, but if you have a better candidate who might better serve us, I'd love to hear who.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=431937

Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9078458

FBI On Hand As Key Piece Of BP Oil Spill Evidence Pulled Water

[BrklynLiberal]

69. I am still voting Democratic..but I think some pressure must be applied to let

our leaders know that we are truly pissed, and they better stand up and deliver, and not take our support for granted...and not call us "retards" and/or professional leftists, stop undermining our education system, stop appeasing the repukes in hope of getting something from them they will NEVER EVER GET...

I will not sit idly by and let the Democrats do as good a job of destroying us aa the repukes..

AND this inaction and inability to take a strong moral stand is costing the Dems seats that should NEVER have been up for grabs..
Boxer, Feingold, and look what happened in MA!

Sorry,
I will not be compliant!

[Skittles]

15. CORRECT

[ibegurpard]

16. yup...see my post above

[ProSense]

20. I really love this line of thinking. So

now that they've dropped him after he supposedly pandered to them, what will happen now?

Do you expect that he'll continue pandering to them now that they've dropped him?

Do you ever stop to think that maybe your perception of the situation isn't accurate? That maybe they're just pissed because they didn't get their way?

[depakid]

22. "Do you expect that he'll continue pandering to them now?" -Yup, sure do.

Though I suspect we won't be seeing any more interviews with Bloomberg where he doesn't begrudge banksters their bonuses, and compares them to baseball players.

See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/

[ProSense]

32. So you believe the President will

continue this so-called pandering to corporations who don't want anything to do with him? Really?

I take some of Krugman's post with a grain of salt, especially when he panics. After all, he doesn't for a second believe that health care reform was a sellout to corporations. In fact, he believes the opposite

[depakid]

41. behave much the way Clinton did...

It's part of the very same pattern, with many of the very same folks or their proteges.

[BrklynLiberal]

80. Yep..just like the abused wife and the abused children. They will ALWAYS come back for more.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

19. Kinda vulgar there. n/t

[Kalun D]

21. Not Even

When Wallstreet gives back the $700 Billion that Obama helped give them.

when Obama removes the felony criminal perpetrator bankers from his admin

THEN and only then will the corporate Obama meme be destroyed

[jenmito]

24. You can declare whatever you want...

the facts show the meme is false.

[Kalun D]

28. Tell Us Then

Obama helped give away close to a $Trillion dollars to the bankers

Have they all the sudden given it back?

What bad has Obama done to the bankers to reverse all the good he's done for them?

What bad equals close to a $Trillion dollars?

I'm eagerly waiting for you to post

Otherwise you're all talk, JUST like Obama.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

35. If you read the article,

you'd see that they're very unhappy with the new regulations among other things.

[Skittles]

36. they'll be unhappy with ANY regulations

to make a difference they'd need to be HARDCORE regs and THAT they are NOT

here, read some more NYT

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/3000-pages-of-financial-reform-but-still-not-enough/

[jenmito]

46. Do you have a more recent article than one from May? TIA. n/t

[Skittles]

48. what does that matter?

it's an analysis of the "reform" bill, just another half-assed measure designed to appeal to everyone while pleasing no one

[jenmito]

52. It was revised since that article was written. n/t

[Skittles]

54. LOL

yes, HUGE revisions than make sure they'll never be able to crash the economy in the same manner - right? Oh, that's right, NOT RIGHT.

[jenmito]

71. Yup-it DID get stronger before it finally passed. This is what they finally voted on:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/15/news/economy/whats_in_the_reform_bill/index.htm

[Kalun D]

25. The NYT?

The biggest corporate whores on the planet.

It's a flim-flam snow job, Obama isn't going to do jack-crap to the bankers.

[jenmito]

26. THAT'S a new one. You obviously didn't read the article. n/t

[Kalun D]

37. It's a white wash

The article names 3 or 4 bankers, the worst of the worst, whining cuz their not getting 100 percent of what they want.

More than any other admin in recent history the Obama admin is owned by the bankers.

When he kicks out all the banking insiders that are ensconced within his corporate admin I'll believe he's turned on the bankers.

Otherwise it's all talk like 90 percent of what Obama has said up to this point.

[Skittles]

43. ???

why do you think no one reads the article? I did and it "proves" NOTHING.

[babylonsister]

27. So let us know who tells the truth, because I would like to know

what source to go to. Thanks.

[Kalun D]

39. HuffPo

beats the crap out of NYT any day

[babylonsister]

44. Hahaha! Not really. nt

[Skittles]

45. aw, you don't believe "Whore for the War NYT"?

EGREGIOUS!!!

[babylonsister]

51. Heh, I learn stuff on DU, too! Nah, while there may

occasionally be good stuff, and I like Rich, et al, I've come to the conclusion I can't believe anyone, more's the pity.

Except you, Skittles, because you are always true to form in a good way.

Thanks for your opinions, even if we don't agree. At least you are always consistent.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

59. That's a very fascinating story, they're wiser to back Dems to save them from themselves...

It didn't take Democrats for people to notice what they did.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. They don't need saving.

From their perspective it has been all good, including the collapse of 2008-2009. They pile up the fictional loot no matter who wins or loses.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. I have a simpler explanation for where the money goes.

It goes to the perceived winning team. If a Democrat is going to win the white house, wall street buys as much influence as they can with team 'D' and neglects the other half of the duopoly. If the tide has turned, the money goes the other direction. Their goal is influence in any administration and with any congressional leadership. How they explain what they are doing is just fluffage, wrapper, around the banal corruption of our republic.

They certainly got their money's worth out of Obama, they got their guy at Treasury.

[JamesA1102]

63. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts. nt

[mikekohr]

64. Facts are inconvienent things. I''d reccommend this post 100 times if I could.

The most far reaching financial reform in 70 years was passed under President Obama. Could it have been better? Certainly. But it remains the best RESULT in 7 decades. Better than any Democratic President since FDR and better than any Republican ever.

mike kohr
Bureau County Democrats

[jenmito]

72. Thank you...

Some here are just making stuff up so they have an excuse NOT to vote Dem. this Nov. (or in '12). I guess they never got over the primaries. :eyes:

[Peacetrain]

66. K&R Jen..

At some point, we all have to deal with the facts that are there..

[jenmito]

73. Thanks, Peacetrain...

I don't think some here WILL deal with the facts. They have their narrative and they're stickin' to it.

[GeorgeGist]

67. For those calling Obama a "Progressive" ...

the President and his minions have destroyed that meme.

[jenmito]

74. That's false. He has ALREADY done more for Progressives than most presidents in modern times.

Deal with it.

[flpoljunkie]

70. 'Painted as villains?' That's indeed rich coming from these greedy bastards!

[Milo_Bloom]

75. Apples meet Oranges

This is actually a great example of where Democrats so often fail.

In their attempt to APPEAL to corporate interests, they wind up still being seen as the lesser option to the republicans.

This is the same backwards logic that stated that because the Insurance industry was STILL giving money to republicans that it PROVED the health care act wasn't a huge boon to their industry.

[Odin2005]

77. Then why does Obama have Geitner and Summers in his Cabinent?

[jenmito]

78. Then why have Wall St. and Corporatists abandoned Obama with them in his Cabinet?

The people in his cabinet are implementing HIS agenda.

[w4rma]

81. See post 12. (nt)

[truedelphi]

85. I cannot for the life of me figure out either

A) Obama or

B) The upper one percent.

But like it says in post number twelve, if Obama had stood with the Middle Class and Main Street, he would have our eternal, undying gratitude. Instead he abandoned us and now doesn't get the Upper One Percent's gratitude either.