Why is Obama Attacking the Left?

You think those quotes make him sound better? He's whining. What I'm hearing is complaints that conservatives have beat the White House on messaging and that those nasty left-wing bloggers don't reprint his press releases.

Obama was warned repeatedly by the left-wing that the right-wing would not publicly support him no matter what he did. It wasn't in the right-wing's interest to spend a lot of time compromising. Obama took a conciliatory strategy, and if he's had his support undermined it's because his political messaging and positioning has often been scattershot and poorly executed.

And the idea that the government in charge should "catch a break" on matters of substantive policy shows an almost crazed lack of awareness of the nature of left-wing politics. Democratic politics have often been fractious. Ted Kennedy ran against a sitting president in a primary in 1980, for chrissake. These people are not fascists. It's a point of pride to them that they are willing to split on matters of principle. Why does the White House not understand this?

Aetius wrote:

Further, the President is the commander-in-chief. If he says "close Gitmo", the military is duty-bound to obey. If he says "withdraw from Afghanistan", the military is duty-bound to obey. Yes, these things require some political maneuvering, but it's not exactly rocket science.

Those things require a lot more than "some political maneuvering". They require an ass-load of political capital that he just doesn't have right now, having spent it on stopping the economy from completely collapsing and trying to get 50 million or so Americans some access to health care.

He raised a trail balloon on closing Gitmo and moving the prisoners to federal jails and every governor and Congressperson raised such a stink that their states would be instantly destroyed by those super-terrorists once they escaped those maximum security prisons. And as far as Afghanistan is concerned, he'd be on the ropes for both flip-flopping *and* surrendering to the terrorists if he pulled out.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't get this strategy from the White House:

...

No matter what, the White House is going to need left-wing voters in the fall and in 2012. I get that they are unhappy at being attacked from left-wing bloggers, but is this in any way going to help matters? Why does Obama think that sounding like Newt Gingrinch or the morning show on Fox News will help them politically?

I think because there's a difference between left-wing voters and what they're calling the "professional left." What I think they are trying to do is show how the expectations of some on the left are unrealistic/the criticisms are overly harsh, and remind left-wing voters that even though they might not be perfectly pleased, the Obama administration is anything but a total disappointment.

I'm not sure I agree with the tactic, but I do have to say that the left is harder on their politicians than the right. The right wing has been able to string the pro-life voters along for decades with pretty weak actions to advance their agenda. Obama gets a health care plan that addresses things like the pre-existing condition issue and the left decides that because it doesn't have a single payer option, it's crap.

Funkenpants wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I am the base - and I agree with them. The far left is what was being criticized.

Why are you the base? Seriously, self-identified democrats represent about 30+ percent of the population. Which among that group are the most reliable voters, or the one that are considered the base? Traditionally, the closer people get to the center the more likely they are to be independents or break Republican on issues. We see this with blue dog democrats in the Senate and House all the time.

That's the difference between the right and the left: the 'base' of the left wing is closer to the center than that of the right wing.

The further you get towards the wings does not mean the population will dwindle at a constant rate. The far left wing is too small to be a 'base'; you don't have to go nearly as close to the center to get enough people to form a 'base' when we're talking about the right wing.

Minarchist wrote:

Didn't you know? Obama is just GWB, flashed with Oliver Wendell Jones' Electro-photo Pigment-izer.

Seth wrote:

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

Is it not deserved, though? He hasn't really done anything he promised them to get elected, and he's 3/8th through his term at this point. Gitmo's still open, warrantless wiretapping/searches have gotten even worse, both wars are still going on...

When it comes to him being GWB I'll take Sotomayor and Kagin over Roberts and Alito, that's for sure. And I don't even have a uterus.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just don't get why every one is so disappointed in Obama. Sure, he has a lot of work left to do - but he can only do that work if he has people there helping him.

It is as if everyone assumed that he would have a magical army of unicorns and gnomes working with him to right all that is wrong in America. Remember people - this is reality, and change (in which we can, hopefully, believe) takes time and effort. One man is no panacea for all that ails us.

OG_slinger wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Further, the President is the commander-in-chief. If he says "close Gitmo", the military is duty-bound to obey. If he says "withdraw from Afghanistan", the military is duty-bound to obey. Yes, these things require some political maneuvering, but it's not exactly rocket science.

Those things require a lot more than "some political maneuvering". They require an ass-load of political capital that he just doesn't have right now, having spent it on stopping the economy from completely collapsing and trying to get 50 million or so Americans some access to health care.

This reminds me of LBJ: guy signs Medicare, the Civil Rights Acts, the immigration reform that completely changes the policy towards non-Europeans, and the law that creates PBS and NPR, and the 'left' attacks him so badly over Vietnam he decides not to run in '68.

+++++

and of course, there is the Obamameter:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...

Seth wrote:

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

The problem is that he's tried roughing up his own team before, and it wins him nothing from Team Red. So really it's just sadistic at this point.

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

And this is one reason why I'm not voting in this election.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

That's the difference between the right and the left: the 'base' of the left wing is closer to the center than that of the right wing.

By what metric? What's the polling underlying this assertion? Where is the basis for the claim that there is a significant difference between left wing voters and the "professional left"? How does the professional left get readers and viewers if they differ from left-wing voters? How far left is the far left? Does it include only radical socialists, or just people who support the idea of a public option?

All good questions. I guess we can start by comparing the commercial success of Rush Limbaugh to that of Air America.

Also, remember that Occam's razor does not cut either way here: without 'metrics' neither what I said nor its opposite is a default position.

DSGamer wrote:
Seth wrote:

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

The problem is that he's tried roughing up his own team before, and it wins him nothing from Team Red. So really it's just sadistic at this point.

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

And this is one reason why I'm not voting in this election.

Yeah, but the last time that happened--the left became disenchanted and didn't go to the polls-- we got Bush.

CheezePavilion wrote:

That's the difference between the right and the left: the 'base' of the left wing is closer to the center than that of the right wing.

What metric are you using to measure this?

Also: "No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq" Promise kept? Come on.

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Seth wrote:

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

The problem is that he's tried roughing up his own team before, and it wins him nothing from Team Red. So really it's just sadistic at this point.

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

And this is one reason why I'm not voting in this election.

Yeah, but the last time that happened--the left became disenchanted and didn't go to the polls-- we got Bush.

Don't bait me into comparing a bad President with a really bad President. I don't think the "he's not Bush" thing goes very far when he's practically identical to Bush in terms of the policies that matter and are truly destructive to the country.

DSGamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Seth wrote:

Also -- he knows he can abuse the far left and still be assured of their votes in 2012. Their finger wagging, disappointed votes, but votes nonetheless.

The problem is that he's tried roughing up his own team before, and it wins him nothing from Team Red. So really it's just sadistic at this point.

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

And this is one reason why I'm not voting in this election.

Yeah, but the last time that happened--the left became disenchanted and didn't go to the polls-- we got Bush.

Don't bait me into comparing a bad President with a really bad President. I don't think the "he's not Bush" thing goes very far when he's practically identical to Bush in terms of the policies that matter and are truly destructive to the country.

Well that's a different reason for not voting for him this time around. If you think he's identical to Bush and his polices are truly destructive to the country, than that's certainly a sufficient reason not to vote for him. The post you were citing as your reason talked about him abusing the far left. There's a wide margin between a "disappointed" voter and a voter who considers the candidate to be "truly destructive."

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Also, remember that Occam's razor does not cut either way here: without 'metrics' neither what I said nor its opposite is a default position.

The key thing you need to remember is that I don't worry much about whether or not I own the default position. I'm happy with mine whether you believe it or not. I'm just asking if you have any metrics to back your assertion up.

Well if you're happy with your assertion without having these metrics to back your assertion up, why aren't you happy with mine sans metrics?

If you don't have the metrics to settle this question, you based your assertion on something other than metrics. What was it?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Also, remember that Occam's razor does not cut either way here: without 'metrics' neither what I said nor its opposite is a default position.

The key thing you need to remember is that I don't worry much about whether or not I own the default position. I'm just asking if you have any metrics to back your assertion up. If I'm proved wrong, then okay.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well if you're happy with your assertion without having these metrics to back your assertion up, why aren't you happy with mine sans metrics?

Edit- You seriously want to go down this route? No reason to waste time even discussing it.

Funkenpants wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Well if you're happy with your assertion without having these metrics to back your assertion up, why aren't you happy with mine sans metrics?

Because I form a judgment on such questions with the limited information available to me. If someone comes along and offers me a valid measurement that contradicts my uninformed belief, and then I change my view. If they don't, then what's the point?

Why does my contradictory information have to rise to the level of a metric as you described in order to get you to change your view? Why can't it just be more information of the same type as that which was originally available to you?

edit: To clarify: if your original judgment was formed based on limited information, then why can't I convince you by supplying more information of the same type--why does it have to be both qualitatively as well as quantitatively different?

Funkenpants wrote:

Also: "No. 132: No permanent bases in Iraq" Promise kept? Come on.

Check the link:

Promises kept can always be broken in the future, and we'll revisit this one if things change -- particularly as we move closer toward the deadlines for troop removal

You're right though: use some caution as I cannot vouch for how well maintained the site is.

Of course, I didn't offer it as some kind of definitive pronouncement--in fact, I'd be wary of *anyone* claiming a number I should take on faith. But that's the nice part of the site--it's transparent, and links to the primary sources used to support the judgments made.

It's a good resource for remember things that are forgotten in the debate over Obama's Presidency, which seems to revolve around Iraq and Afghanistan/Gitmo/Health Care/Wall Street regulation. There are a lot of other, less 'sexy' (e.g., issues that don't primarily affect white heterosexual non-disabled adult males) issues that he made promises about as well.

OG_slinger wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Further, the President is the commander-in-chief. If he says "close Gitmo", the military is duty-bound to obey. If he says "withdraw from Afghanistan", the military is duty-bound to obey. Yes, these things require some political maneuvering, but it's not exactly rocket science.

Those things require a lot more than "some political maneuvering". They require an ass-load of political capital that he just doesn't have right now, having spent it on stopping the economy from completely collapsing and trying to get 50 million or so Americans some access to health care.

He might have a bit more political capital if he did the things his supporters want him to do. He spent his political capital making sure that Wall Street bankers were taken care of at the expense of everyone else (and future generations), just like Bush, and handing a giant pile of cash to politically connected healthcare companies instead of fighting for single-payer - just like the Bush administration did with their expansion of Medicare drug benefits. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, just like Bush did in Iraq. He's continuing, for the most part, the worst civil liberties abuses of the Bush administration, and expanding Top Secret America. He has refused to prosecute the criminal acts of the Bush administration, or close the prisons where many of these acts occurred.

He raised a trail balloon on closing Gitmo and moving the prisoners to federal jails and every governor and Congressperson raised such a stink that their states would be instantly destroyed by those super-terrorists once they escaped those maximum security prisons.

Why does he care what these people think? They are never going to vote for him. He hasn't fought hardly at all to make this happen, which is what this discussion is about - they are complaining about the fact that he doesn't even try, and instead supports and works for government as usual - enriching and protecting big business, pursuing pointless foreign wars, and throwing away civil liberties at home. That is not what people elected him for, regardless of which side you're on. They elected him to change something, and he has not only changed nothing, he's doubled down on the bad policies of the Bush administration!

And as far as Afghanistan is concerned, he'd be on the ropes for both flip-flopping *and* surrendering to the terrorists if he pulled out.

Only to the minority of Americans who actually support continuing the war. The polling on this is very clear - Americans are tired of war, and are ready to pull out. All he has to do is try. He doesn't even have to succeed. Do that, and he'll have his supporters from 2008 back with him.

Aetius wrote:

He might have a bit more political capital if he did the things his supporters want him to do. He spent his political capital making sure that Wall Street bankers were taken care of at the expense of everyone else (and future generations), just like Bush, and handing a giant pile of cash to politically connected healthcare companies instead of fighting for single-payer - just like the Bush administration did with their expansion of Medicare drug benefits. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, just like Bush did in Iraq. He's continuing, for the most part, the worst civil liberties abuses of the Bush administration, and expanding Top Secret America. He has refused to prosecute the criminal acts of the Bush administration, or close the prisons where many of these acts occurred.

He spent his political capital making sure the entire economy didn't collapse. I don't like paying bankers for their absolute greed and incompetence either, but as we've gone over before, it was either do that or go back to bartering. Let's just see how the new financial reform law goes and what new regulations are created before we condemn the entire thing.

What happened with health care was exactly what happens in political compromise. There was no way in hell single-payer would have survived. If the choice was single-payer or nothing, we'd have nothing. Hell, we couldn't even get end of life treatment discussions included because the right demonized it as "death panels" even though it's been proven (by trial programs run by the very health insurances companies themselves) to dramatically reduce the cost of end of life care.

Another President will have to make the push that we need to move from the inefficient and costly private insurance to a single-payer health care system and they'll likely do that in a few decades when the costs continue to rise and private insurers are proven incapable of fundamentally changing health care in the ways that are needed to truly reduce costs and improve results.

He campaigned on fighting Afghanistan instead of Bush's fiasco in Iraq and he's doing just that.

Aetius wrote:

Why does he care what these people think? They are never going to vote for him. He hasn't fought hardly at all to make this happen, which is what this discussion is about - they are complaining about the fact that he doesn't even try, and instead supports and works for government as usual - enriching and protecting big business, pursuing pointless foreign wars, and throwing away civil liberties at home. That is not what people elected him for, regardless of which side you're on. They elected him to change something, and he has not only changed nothing, he's doubled down on the bad policies of the Bush administration!

See, I give him points for caring about what half the country thinks and trying to work with them even if they never will. Why? Because we had eight years of the Republicans forcing through legislation specifically designed to benefit their corporate and wealthy masters and placate their Evangelical base. It's a very good thing to have something other than a closed loop, 'Ima gonna get mine' logic to governing.

And people elected him because they projected all their hopes and desires upon him and they're finding out he's more centrist than they thought. And I simply disagree with you that he's done nothing. He got a major economic stimulus package passed. He expanded health care to millions of Americans. He started the process of re-regulating and reigning in the very financial industry that got us into this mess. And he's done all that in less than two years.

I have to give the guy credit for being handed a broken country that was teetering on the brink of collapse when he took the oath of office. He's not only managed to keep the wheels on (so far), but actually accomplish some other big goals.

Aetius wrote:

Only to the minority of Americans who actually support continuing the war. The polling on this is very clear - Americans are tired of war, and are ready to pull out. All he has to do is try. He doesn't even have to succeed. Do that, and he'll have his supporters from 2008 back with him.

Actually, according Gallup, a majority of Americans still support the Afghanistan War, just like they have for years and years. Support for Afghanistan was in the 60% range until the Wikileaks documents came out, but, even with that information out, a majority of Americans still want us to be there.

That poll numbers for both our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are so split show that it would be one hell of political fracas if Obama just pulled out. As I've said before, we have exactly the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that the voters are comfortable with: we want to do something, but aren't willing to commit enough troops, treasure, and time to make that happen so we just have a moderate presence, spend lots of money, and wait for a time we can declare victory and leave.

OG_slinger wrote:

Actually, according Gallup, a majority of Americans still support the Afghanistan War, just like they have for years and years. Support for Afghanistan was in the 60% range until the Wikileaks documents came out, but, even with that information out, a majority of Americans still want us to be there.

I just want to point out that the poll you cited doesn't actually say that. The first question was about whether or not the person thought sending troops in 2001 was a mistake. However, the next question focus on approval of Obama's handling of the war (36% now) and how the war is going (62% very or moderately badly). Basically, what that poll says is that the war was supported in 2001, and now is not.

That poll numbers for both our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are so split show that it would be one hell of political fracas if Obama just pulled out.

The problem is that Obama is losing his base, and not gaining anyone else, because he's following a policy that is essentially the exact same as Bush's. If he continues as-is, there won't be a fracas, because he'll just lose.

As I've said before, we have exactly the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that the voters are comfortable with: we want to do something, but aren't willing to commit enough troops, treasure, and time to make that happen so we just have a moderate presence, spend lots of money, and wait for a time we can declare victory and leave.

We have exactly the same policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that we did under Bush - and the polls show that no one is comfortable with that, especially now.

Aetius wrote:

I just want to point out that the poll you cited doesn't actually say that. The first question was about whether or not the person thought sending troops in 2001 was a mistake. However, the next question focus on approval of Obama's handling of the war (36% now) and how the war is going (62% very or moderately badly). Basically, what that poll says is that the war was supported in 2001, and now is not.

The poll question said "thinking now about U.S. the military action in Afghanistan that began in 2001" making it a question about whether or not the public still feels Afghanistan War as a whole is worth it, not just if they supported the original invasion. The Gallup articles about earlier versions of the poll confirm that the question is about support for the war effort as a whole, not just the invasion. That earlier version of the poll also shows that the support numbers have been relatively steady since 2004 with the fall off only happening as Obama moved attention from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Aetius wrote:
That poll numbers for both our continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are so split show that it would be one hell of political fracas if Obama just pulled out.

The problem is that Obama is losing his base, and not gaining anyone else, because he's following a policy that is essentially the exact same as Bush's. If he continues as-is, there won't be a fracas, because he'll just lose.

He campaigned on renewing the fighting in Afghanistan. His strategy shouldn't be a shocker to anyone listened during the 18-month long campaign: pull out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. He's pulled out of Iraq (as much as leaving 50,000 troops behind is pulling out) and has ramped up the troop levels in Afghanistan.

Aetius wrote:
As I've said before, we have exactly the policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that the voters are comfortable with: we want to do something, but aren't willing to commit enough troops, treasure, and time to make that happen so we just have a moderate presence, spend lots of money, and wait for a time we can declare victory and leave.

We have exactly the same policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that we did under Bush - and the polls show that no one is comfortable with that, especially now.

I'll stick to my interpretation. America is truly divided on the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fighting terrorists in general. Coupled with that, America has a huge complex about winning and being #1 so any politician that doesn't at least say their out for total victory is branded as being soft. And the last thing the Democrats need is to be branded as the party that surrendered to the terrorists as that would cement their reputation as being soft and incompetent on all things related to the military and foreign policy . Sadly, that's exactly how it would play out on Fox News and with the talking heads.

I honestly think the Obama administration is pretty corrupt and a lot of this corruption will come out after his presidency is over. If you paid close attention to the stimulus bill, you'll see that plenty of money went to worthless projects or to special interest groups. Heck, some of the money that was supposed to go to helping local governments was funneled to Congressional districts that don't even exist. Also, look at the way Obama and the Democratic Congress are handling total crooks like Charlie Rangel with kid gloves, when in reality he should be headed to prison. The final straw for me was watching Michelle Obama act like a queen in Spain while plenty of Americans are struggling to put food on the table. It's obvious where the Obama's true interests lie and it's not taking care of the average American.

Conservative voters are already Obama haters, but I think liberal and independent voters are just waking up to what's going on. So of course the Obama administration is going to make counter-accusations and personal attacks. Every good con man would do the same.

BTW I consider myself a middle-of-the-road independent so I'm not some fundamentalist Glenn Beck zealot.

BTW I consider myself a middle-of-the-road independent so I'm not some fundamentalist Glenn Beck zealot.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

fangblackbone wrote:
BTW I consider myself a middle-of-the-road independent so I'm not some fundamentalist Glenn Beck zealot.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

How so? We're talking about the Obama administration so I didn't bring up the fact that IMHO the Bush administration was also completely inept and corrupt. It's one of the reasons I was willing to vote for Obama, even if he came from a city renowned for its dirty politics. Now I completely sympathize with my Illinois friends who warned me that Obama would bring Chicago corruption to the national stage.

How so? We're talking about the Obama administration so I didn't bring up the fact that IMHO the Bush administration was also completely inept and corrupt. It's one of the reasons I was willing to vote for Obama, even if he came from a city renowned for its dirty politics. Now I completely sympathize with my Illinois friends who warned me that Obama would bring Chicago corruption to the national stage.

I think he probably had a knee-jerk reaction to the 'corrupt Chicago politician' meme that Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. have been pushing since Obama won the nomination. I don't see Chicago politics as any dirtier than any other big city.

The underlying refrain that disturbs me in all this talk is that it leads to the central conclusion of the Tea Party, GOP, etc. - government is always a problem and needs to be drowned in the bathwater. The Bush administration has shown that these sentiments last exactly as long as it takes for the 'anti-government' folks to get in power.

Minase wrote:

The underlying refrain that disturbs me in all this talk is that it leads to the central conclusion of the Tea Party, GOP, etc. - government is always a problem and needs to be drowned in the bathwater. The Bush administration has shown that these sentiments last exactly as long as it takes for the 'anti-government' folks to get in power.

One might think that the GOP is being ... disingenuous.

jdzappa wrote:

Conservative voters are already Obama haters, but I think liberal and independent voters are just waking up to what's going on.

This came up in another thread, and I wonder if Obama really cares about 'liberal and independent' voters. I think Obama cares about *women* voters, whatever they are. And my guess is women voters don't give a hoot about 'Chicago dirty politics' if the guy is going to keep doing things like appointing women to the Supreme Court.

jdzappa wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
BTW I consider myself a middle-of-the-road independent so I'm not some fundamentalist Glenn Beck zealot.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

How so?

Heh, I read that as a funny juxtaposition between your independent position and the "kool-aid" meme applied to partisan politics. See also:

Zapp Brannigan wrote:

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Minarchist wrote:

Didn't you know? Obama is just GWB, flashed with Oliver Wendell Jones' Electro-photo Pigment-izer.

Seth wrote:

Sadistic or therapeutic, depending on how you look at the abuse he's endured from the far left.

Is it not deserved, though? He hasn't really done anything he promised them to get elected, and he's 3/8th through his term at this point. Gitmo's still open, warrantless wiretapping/searches have gotten even worse, both wars are still going on...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...

A lot of those "promises kept" were pretty week implementations. Really, the financial regulation was a promise kept? It was written by Wall Street lobbyists.

DSGamer wrote:

A lot of those "promises kept" were pretty week implementations. Really, the financial regulation was a promise kept? It was written by Wall Street lobbyists.

Well one, a lot of them were pretty strong. They just weren't the 'sexy' ones to the people who talk about these issues a lot, ones like Gitmo/Patriot Act/Afghanistan and Iraq, and like you bring up, Too Big to Fail. You could probably throw in Single Payer health care insurance reform in there too.

However, check the areas that aren't as 'hot' like Children or Disability or Gays and Lesbians or Veterans, or especially Women and Poverty Or even financial regulation outside of Wall Street like credit cards and payday loans.

I guess it really comes down to what we mean by the 'people' he promised things to in order to get elected. People like us who tool around on the internet discussing politics on a video game website might have a very different idea of what Obama 'promised' from, say, a single mom trying to go back to school.

+++++

Two, I feel like saying it was written by Wall Street Lobbyists is a bit of an ad hominem. Not that it isn't cause to be suspicious, but I don't know--this part of the explanation caught my eye:

The new law gives the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission along with the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. Banks would also be prohibited from trading certain forms of derivatives, and most of the trading must occur on transparent exchanges.

that reminded me of an article I read:

The CFTC had been created in the 1970s, primarily to regulate futures contracts purchased by farmers to hedge against price fluctuations. But by the time Born took office in 1996, futures were a much more sophisticated game.

Four years earlier, the CFTC had created a giant opening for sharp market players, exempting most privately negotiated over-the-counter derivatives contracts from regulation. Waldman calls the decision "the seed" of the current financial crisis because bad bets on unregulated derivatives crippled large firms such as Bear Stearns and AIG last fall.

In the late 1990s, the seed had sprouted into a $25 trillion derivatives market and Born saw trouble coming. The mostly unregulated "dark markets" had shown signs of danger in the preceding years, such as the bankruptcy of Orange County, Calif., which lost heavily investing in derivatives. Born's agency set its sights on a highly caffeinated market.

"I was very concerned about the dark nature of these markets," Born said. "I didn't think we knew enough about them. I was concerned about the lack of transparency and the lack of any tools for enforcement and the lack of prohibitions against fraud and manipulation." Link

Now, I'm not saying that there is no reason to be concerned--the same Larry Summers mentioned in there is, I think, part of Obama's economic team. But I think it is worth noting that what Brooksley Braun was pushing for back before the crash is being implemented now. Maybe before dismissing something on that site, we should stop and look at the sources referenced and the explanation of their reasoning rather than deciding it's 'weak' just because we heard 'Wall Street lobbyists wrote it'. Here's what she had to say about it:

I think that the legislation as it is right now, with at least one technical correction, is an important step forward in regulating the over-the counter derivatives market and I very much hope it is enacted into law Link

The "professional left?" What do they pay? Are they hiring?