"We see our name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're going to actually do something." -Bill Maher on Barack Obama
Bill Maher has offered some scathing criticism of Obama of late, ranting against the president's televisional ubiquity and questioning Obama's political substance on his show, in an op-ed in the LA Times, and in an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.
But so far, Obama's backers largely have yet to speak up and deliver what the chattering classes might refer to as a smackdown to Maher for so harshly criticizing the president.
In fact, Maher's criticisms have found sympathetic ears at The Huffington Post and Daily Kos.
So why haven't liberals blasted Maher, or even balked at his criticism?
Perhaps it's because Maher represents a faction of Obama's support base--the left contingent of the Obama coalition--and he does speak for their concerns. Partly the same contingent that's been upset with him for continuing to use military tribunals--the same liberal faction that was upset with Obama the candidate for backing the 2008 overhaul of wiretapping rules that codified some new government authority and offered retroactive immunity to telecom companies who cooperated with Bush.
Perhaps it's that people who feel the same way Maher does are simply more vocal than their centrist counterparts. Perhaps it's that impassioned criticism is always louder than regular old satisfaction with the president.
Perhaps it's that Obama hasn't given his backers enough ammunition to fight against Maher's attacks: health care reform, energy reform, withdrawal from Iraq, and the closure of Guantanamo haven't happened yet. One of Obama's most notable accomplishments actually was a speech--the one he gave in Cairo--which fits Maher's narrative well.
I'm not sure why it is so. But Maher's criticism is out there, collecting its supporters.
Why no backlash? Because it's nothing new. Just a different person. However, the heart of his critique -- Obama should be like Bush to push through his agenda, this time, a purportedly progressive agenda -- misreads Obama. He's not a progressive. No matter how much people try to make him out to be one -- no matter how much they suggest they were tricked, and even though, relatively speaking, he's more progressive than others -- he never was a pure progressive.
By the way, Bill's particular articulation of the critique (the rant), of course, works for the chattering class. There's a little something in it for everyone. So, for example, Fox News can show it, focus on the "Obama really is a celebrity" piece of it, and leave out the parts about how Bush had bad ideas, Maher thinks Obama's are better, he just wants him to be more ruthless about pushing them, and the Republicans are in the wilderness. I personally think Bill Maher should feel (a bit) like a tool as a result of this; but he doesn't seem to care if his main thesis is (and fair points are) ignored by many in favor of the zingers against Obama.
What's you criteria for saying that there ought to be a backlash? Is political viciousness under all circumstances basically a requirement now? Are you saying that somebody isn't being manly enough? Are you saying that Maher is being given a pass in some way and fairness demands that he be treated like someone else?
Maher doesn't actually want Obama to fail, so what's the percentage in dropping a bomb on him?
Well put eaglesfan.
The reality is that there are bigger issues at stake than a Maher screed against President Obama. Maher is trying boost his ratings and maintain his 'independent' cred. He's just doing his job.
Most have bigger things to focus on than stir up backlash against a comedian.
Perhaps there hasn't been any outrage against what Maher said because its true? Five months now and what has Obama done but throw more money at the banks?
For example the gay community isn't going to defend Obama since the only thing his administration has done so far is to have the DOJ compare gay marriage to incest. Oh and give us an empty Proclamation. As Sullivan called it, the fierce urgency of whenever.
A call for a "backlash" would seem to be a bit unfair. Look at it from the perspective of comedians have criticized the President, whoever it is, for the past 20 years. For the last 8 years they have had Bush to pick on, before that Clinton was a good target for comedic stylings, etc.
Political figures are public figures and therefore, fair game. Guess what, Obama is up next.
If you disagree, fine. However, don't act like this is the first time its happened.
I disagree with Bill Maher more than I agree with him. He's a whiner and a complainer, in my opinion, but he is good at trying to bring in perspectives other people are loathe to touch on. He's also, sometimes, funny.
Maybe there has been no backlash because we're not the ridiculous blindly maniacal ideological Right?
Our criticisms, whether of the prior administration or this one, are founded not in blind unsupportable rhetoric but in intellectually defensible moral positions. We do not feel it an attack on our ideals and goals when anyone criticizes us or our positions with intelligent discourse. Our leaders are not divinely inspired actors effecting the will of God, but fallible humans just like us.
It's the other side that acts this way, with fervor and devotion to whomever they've placed atop their pedestals. I think the suggestion is that BOTH sides act like that but it just isn't true. We're a smarter and more thoughtful generation than that raised by Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and we don't find their idiotic response to every grumble a compelling attitude to emulate.
I actually don't blame Obama for the media's obsession with him and his presidency. The obsession is inevitable. Might as well be resigned to it and try to direct it in a way that is positive for him. In fact, I was so annoyed by Maher's whining about Obama's celebrity (What? The man can't go on a date with his wife?) that I almost turned it off before he got to the second part--the complaint of Obama's seeming complacency in either or ignoring or even embracing policies that some of us deem repugnant.
Nonetheless, as has been mentioned, this presumed weakness in Obama's leadership performance is nothing new and not at all surprising. However, Maher's recommendation that Obama embrace some of Bush's more repugnant qualities in order to compensate for these failures probably invokes some hesitation in many of us. So, instead, we are putting our energies/money into organizations that will hopefully force the administration into more progressive directions. I, for one, view this as a simple argument among friends and not a deep division. Consequently, I see no need to balk at or rebel against Maher's criticism. Criticism is healthy and democratic as long as it is substantive and done in good faith.
BTW The Idea of the Day pop-up thingy at the opening of every single page is ridiculously annoying.
Why all the hairsplitting about Maher's remark with trying to parse out segments of it for different interest groups as if it were a cake?
Let's take it a face value: So far, Obama has been a lot of smoke but no fire.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....
Because shoving things down Congress and the American public's throats really worked well for the Republicans, correct?
Why give Maher what he so obviously craves - attention and ratings? Besides, we are talking about Bill Maher - since when did anyone really care what he had to say about anything?
On issues of significance thus far, it seems that the future of our nation is in the hands of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, or subject to the whims of Ben Nelson and Chuck Grassley (he of the angry twitter finger.) I think there were bigger expectations for Obama than to let wishy-washy Senators from small states run public policy.
I may be reading this wrong, but what I get out of this article is that the Author notices that when typical right wingers zing President Obama, the lefties get their panties in a bunch....this time President Obama was zinged by someone who seems to be a liberal, and other liberals are not getting their panties in a bunch to denounce Maher like they otherwise would if it were Limbaugh making these comments.
To that end, I would like to say that the lack of fire on Maher is probably due to a combination of people not caring what he has to say and (from those that do care what Maher says) a non-reaction to reasoned, logical discourse. We have had so much illogical decision making, lying, stonewalling, etc. over the last 8 yrs, where anyone opposed to this type of government was immediatelly and illogically considered "liberal" or "Socialistic" or "unpatriotic" that it turned people off from the Republican Mantra of rule by fear. So, those that have supported President Obama aren't at all opposed to differing view points, as long as their reasoned and based in some sort of fact based vision, as opposed to republican made up facts and fear tacticts that we have hear over and over for the past decade.
Probably because witch hunts attempting to destroy the reputations of those that disagree with you are more the calling card of the Republican party (anywhere from Edward Murrow to Meghan McCain). I haven't liked Maher since he sold out most of his Libertarian ideals but I'm happy he's one of the few people out there keeping a critical eye on Obama's presidency. Somewhere between the softball media and ranting propaganda from right wing pundits there are still a few journalists willing to look at both sides of the coin.
Another way to look at it is pro-Obama sentiment dominates the Democratic spectrum. Their 2012 candidate is set and his power within the party is unquestioned. A little dissent is fine, the Bush presidency created so much anger that it's highly unlikely any of these people will actually withhold voting for Obama if they feel a Republican has a shot at winning. Republicans on the other hand are in a state of chaos. The power vacuum is obvious and an attack on a prominent centrist (Spectre) or fundamentalist (Hatch) can be seen as part of the ideological battle for the party. It's only natural these sort of criticisms make bigger waves on the right.
I think Bill Maher's points are valid about President Obama. President Obama needs to be more executive then legislative in pushing his agenda. This is a style that Governors understand as opposed to Senators. This explains why so few Senators ever become Presidents and why so many Governors do. In addition Bill Maher's probable intent is to for President Obama to be more successful. Maher does not wish or want Obama to fail. Just the opposite. That's why there is outrage from the middle or the left. That being said President Obama is still 3 steps ahead of the Republican opposition. Obama's speech in Cairo is wrecking havoc in Iran. Like it has been said before, Obama is crazy.....crazy like a fox. I expect President Obama to be quite successful not only in getting his agenda passed but also in achieving the results we all want and need in America. And remember the Bush Administration was still able to get the main street media to buy into the fact that the Clinton Administration bore some responsibility for September 11th. The Bush Administration was in office for 9 months. I think we can give the Obama Administration a little more time in resolving the economic mess while he also manages 2 wars.
Bill who?
I imagine it's because no Democrat wants to face either banishment from the party, or the public humiliation of going on Mayer's show to grovel at his feet. Then again, perhaps it's because Mr. Mayor judiciously avoided; racial slurs, charges of fascism, socialism, communism, electoral fraud and wanton, mass infanticide. You know, the stuff that passes for thoughtful criticism in today's GOP.
Oh yeah, forgot this important fact.
Maher's op-ed was in the L.A. Times. No one cares or takes the LAT seriously anymore, especially the opinion page. Thanks Tribune Company and Sam Zell!
After all, the LAT also publishes Jonah Goldberg.
If Maher's op-ed were published in the N.Y. Times, the Washington Post, or the WSJ, maybe there would be a different reaction.
And by the way, not that it really matters, but I do like Maher. I don't always agree with him, but frequently do. But the combination of the rant on Friday AND the op-ed made the whole thing seem sort of contrived. People love rants, but they're more authentic when their impromptu or seem more organic.
Some of his criticisms are fair, but comparing Obama to Lohan and suggesting he hasn't done anything is silly and sort of made the whole thing seem as much a cry for attention as anything else. Again, most of the main stream press attention focuses on the zingers, not the substance of Maher's arguments, but he seems to be fine with that.
Another problem with his critique is that it gave voice to the idiodic meme that Obama is on tv because he wants to be popular for the sake of being popular. But for the two burger stops, I'd argue that he's on tv because he's trying to sell something -- some policy. He's the best sales person his administration has. Whether you agree with the policy or not, suggesting that he lacks substance because of this approach is just wrong. It was disappointing to see someone who claims to agree with at least some of what Obama is doing give voice to a characature that, at least potentially, further undermines his ability to do the very things he wants Obama to do.
In the end, though, the lack of backlash is because Maher's rant and op-ed reflect just another dissenting opinion. There are tons of those to go around.
I think you're missing the fact that there really isn't any taboo here. Leftists/ progressives have been criticizing Obama for some time - while still supporting him. Read around on blogs like Daily Kos and Open Left and you'll see what I mean.
As far as people in the MSM go, Paul Krugman didn't catch much flack for constantly attacking Obama's solution to the credit crisis for months. In fact, most progressives favored his policies over the administration's.
Now Bill Maher is in a slightly different league because (a) he's a comedian and (b) his views aren't actually all that representative of the Democratic party orthodoxy.
Of course, if Obama only delivers watered down compromises on health care and other key issues that the Democratic activist base have been pushing hard for, the attitude of the left will shift pretty quickly.
Bill Clinton, who sold out his base on many issues, is still largely popular with Democrats, but the momentum on many of these issues has been building for so long that if the Democrats cave, there may be trouble for them.
Maher is just a hacky old-school comedian, and his comedy has never been very smart (anybody see "Religulous"?). He's still operating under Fox News rules, where politics is about obviousness, polarization, insult. That's his kind of comedy, too. Try to explain to him that there are things that need to get done WITHOUT the president looking like he's taking an active role in making them happen, and he just wouldn't understand the concept. Soft power, diplomacy -- international or domestic -- are too nuanced and indirect for his political/comedic worldview. He doesn't care how small the financial bailouts are compared to the deficits of the Bush era, because that doesn't fit his schtick.
Ambinder wrote about Obama's M.O. recently in "When State Secrets Aren't State Secrets": http://budurl.com/3h2l
"So -- this case isn't really about secrecy. We know the secrets here -- they're contained in the testimony of the detainees and in numerous, repeatedly verified media accounts. If the case was really about secrecy, then the administration would be, in effect, contending that every secret is a real secret unless the administration acknowledges that it isn't. Jeppesen is a poor case to base a state secrets assertion on because so much is already known. It is the weakest of the several state secrets cases in the court system. And for that reason, the administration feels compelled to defend it."
We've seen again and again that this is typical of the way the Obama administration operates. But it's too subtle for the likes of Maher, Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al.!
Preachin' to the choir...
Bill Maher is giving voice to some important criticisms. President Obama can handle it. He ain't no Sarah Palin.
Bill Maher is a funny man and an iconoclast. I think he just "clasted" the wrong icon this time. It did provide him with the attention he obviously craves. He's probably jealous of Dick and Rush getting in the news so often, lately. Bill, are you trying to out-Dick and out-Rush now? I'm sure you are able to out-Dick when you want to. Just don't out-Rush it. President Obama is not a dictator, and I'm glad he's not. Would you REALLY want him to be more like W, who stubbornly pushed unpopular legislation, such as the "reform" of Social Security, Medicare, and failed to get his way? Again, the President is not a dictator, but needs to compromise as is necessary. He was elected with the promise of bringing the country together, not splitting it apart. He inherited a real mess, and although I voted for him, I felt sorry that he was going to face a job that would cave in most people. He's not a quitter, and I know he'll do what is possible. I'm glad for you that you've received so much attention with your remarks. You're a real celebrity, as you well know. Don't begrudge the President the popularity he deserves. Celebrities often become so because they deserve it. It doesn't mean that Obama is doing nothing but talking. Have you set up a time-line for him to get things done that you could never accomplish in a lifetime? Did you really believe that any politician delivers everything he/she promised? The stark reality hits them when they take on the immense and often thankless task, especially when they face powerful lobbies, fellow politicians, and others who are ready to pounce on them. I think we got the best man for the worst job. I trust his integrity and unflappable courage.
One: Maher is an ass.
Two: All the Obots are just relieved that a "Democrat" got elected for a change, and like pretending that BO is playing JediMindTricks as he reinforces 95% of Bush policies. FISA? no problem. Shoveling boatloads of cash at bankers while essentially breaking the unions? no problemo. Telling California to fuck off and die? who needs california. refusing to prosecute anyone from the Cheney maladministrationfor war crimes? but Obama is so eleoquent. Closing Guantanamo? we'll get around to that someday. Stopping the war? Don't want to look weak now, do we. Repealing Don't ask, don't tell? Shhh... Don't ask. Appointing someone to run the faith office who wants to ultimately wants to limit birth control? Kumbaya. Keeping white house visitors anonymous? Who needs transparancy, anyway? Spying on Americans? Oh-- transparancy is for the plebes, don't you know. Single payer/public option? oh come on-- what about the poor insurance companies?
Obama played JediMindTricks, all right-- 0n the Democrats. Despite Bill Clinton's limiting of habeus corpus, his push for Nafta while giving up environmental and worker progections, his getting hustled by Bob Rubin and Larry Summers, he (WJC) will still end up to the left of Obama. BO is the biggest hustler in quite a while, and the Obots still don't know what hit them.
To flesh out point one: Maher is a buffoon-- no one, least of all Obama, is going to take Maher seriously.
I'm very tired of all of the attention paid to the Mahers and Limbaughs of the world. These people are entertainers, not analysts or experts. They love stirring the pot but really have no bona fides to be taken as serious commentators. Where I live I'm stuck with cable news channels--I try to watch BBC America News for some perspective and balance from, as Frank Rich calls them, "the bloviators."
While it is easy for Bill Maher to give his two cents on Barack Obama, it is downright dicy for President Obama to juggle his acts among lobby groups with conflicting agendas. To stay in office, Obama has to play the game well. Otherwise, he would be out in three and a half years. Someone else would take his place and here we go again. Democracy sounds great only on paper and in rallies. If Bill Maher wishes to have a taste of what it really is like, he should run for president. Only when he gets to the White House would he be able to understand the game Obama plays.
because no one cares. Bill Maher isn't funny and he doesn't have any unique perspectives.
If Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann did something like this, yes, there'd be a backlash.
But otherwise, I can't watch Maher for more than 25 seconds at a time