Obama and his message of "change" is a FRAUD!!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I've been scanning DU following the election, as well as reading articles and listening to podcasts of some of my favorite progressives (i.e. Matthew Rothschild) and I have been awestruck at the firestorm that Obama seems to have kicked up over various cabinet appointments and/or some fine tuning of his proposed agenda and how some people seem fully prepared to write Obama off as just another disappointing no-change corporatist/hawk/neocon who, freed from the constraints of a GRUELING campaign, is now free to announce to the country (and, more importantly, his liberal/progressive supporters) that nearly everything he campaigned for is heretofore being jettisoned and that HIS administration is going to be a continuation of the post-1994 "conservative" years of the Clinton administration (a 3rd Clinton term if you will).

All this, of course, despite the fact that he hasn't even been sworn in as President and NONE of us know what's really going to happen once he "hits the ground running" as I'm sure he's planning to do. Actually, he already has been WAY more active and involved in things than I've ever remembered any previous President-elects.

Now, I wish to emphasize that I, in no way, believe in stifling dissent even when it's one of our own. We've had WAY too much of that over the past 8 years for me to suggest that just because OUR candidate won that we need to acquiesce to and/or support EVERYTHING he does or says and I myself don't even agree with each and every one of Obama's appointments but what I fail to understand is how some of this criticism has reached to the level of near-hysterical proportions- prior to his inauguration.

The big question I have for people who are genuinely ready to jump ship on Obama is this: Do you honestly believe that Obama REALLY misrepresented himself during the primaries and GE and/or has already been swallowed whole by the "Washington Establishment" and plans on maintaining the status quo (more or less)? Was his "change" mantra really just an empty campaign slogan that doesn't mean ANYTHING now that he has been elected?

[mrcheerful]

1. Thats the problem, people forget that Obama is only PE Obama until

he is sworn in on Jan 20th, then he becomes President Obama, so until then GW asshole is still prezinut. For some odd reason people forget that election day they voted someone into office but until that person is sworn in they are not in the office they were elected to.

[Coexist]

2. from the NYT via TPM: Obama actually doing lots:

NYT: Obama Actually Putting Together Administration At Record Speed
In contrast to people criticizing Obama for inaction, the New York Times points out that Obama has actually been assembling his cabinet at the fastest clip of any president-elect in modern history. Obama has now filled 13 of 24 top posts, compared to only one from Bill Clinton at this point in the transition, two each for Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, and eight from George H. W. Bush.

[OHdem10]

3. Obama gave plenty of signals that he is a centrist and would

pursue a centrist agenda. First, by working all those red states
which was a good idea and a good move, there is no way he could have
gotten conservative Democrats unless they had good reason to believe
he would be centrist. Not once did I hear anything from Obama that
hinted Liberal.

I heard Obama followers put their liberal dreams into his vessel.
Obama never committed . He played it as a politician(smart) he
committed to nothing while his followers painted him as they wished
him to be.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. All anybody needs to do is read (or better yet listen to) "Audacity of Hope"

That gave about as good of a representation of his overall philosophy as anything he did or said during the campaign IMHO. I can't say I agree with him on everything but there will NEVER be a single person alive with whom I will agree on EVERYTHING but I feel confident enough in Obama to believe that he will make smart decisions, listen to his trusted advisors, READ HIS BRIEFING PAPERS, admit his mistakes, and change course when circumstances demand it as President and all of those things matter a helluva lot more to me than whether or not I agree with everything policy position he takes although his positions on issues will ALWAYS be MUCH closer to my own than, say, McCain's views would.

[happychatter]

10. this is straight out of the MSM

did you ever have an idea you didn't put a label on provided to you by a corporation?

[mtnsnake]

4. If you think it's bad now, just wait until he's been in office for a month or two

This forum seems to thrive on negativity. Obama could end the war, solve the economic collapse, and discover the secret to anti-aging, and he'd still be torn apart. Look what this place has tried to do to Bill Clinton's most successful 8 years, an 8 years that everyone in the real world seems to appreciate, except for all the perpetuals complainers you find around here.

[Kashka-Kat]

5. A change to CENTER is a "change" from far right quasi fascist fringes! That's what I was voting for

and the kind of change that I personally could believe in. No contradiction between "change we can believe in" and moving to CENTER.

Never was under the illusion that Obama would bring in the utopian progressive state - THAT is up to us to accomplish. Some of these people need to get away from the computer and start ORGANIZING, working face to face to make the dreams happen.

The Bush admin has done untold damage to environmental, labor, drug and all sorts of consumer regulation by executive order - we don't even know the half of it. That the Obama admin is tracking these and is prepared to reverse them is what *I* was voting for. If the EPA, ESA is preserved, if global warming treaties are enacted, if guantanomo is shut down and geneva conventions restored - that means theres that much less that we activists have to deal with, and that gives us more time/energy to persue a more progressive agenda.

As Naomi Klein has been saying lately, if Obama is going to govern from the center, we have to "move the center." It's up to us!

[burythehatchet]

7. Change you can believe in

[frazzled]

8. Yeah, Nader 2000!

What short memories we have. The imperfections of Clinton/Gore gave us ... what? George W. Bush, two failed wars, and a destroyed economy (as well as torture, a decimated foreign policy, and all sorts of constitutional depradations).

Striving for perfection can be personally destructive, and it can be politically destsructive. I don't expect Obama to be able to execute my every liberal/progressive dream. And it may be a damn good thing if he doesn't.

But I also expect we will see Clinton/Gore redux from many among the left: the perfect will continue to be the enemy of the good. The Christopher Hitchens conundrum lives!

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Let me try to answer your question. First, you need to take a step back and

consider the context of your question.

We live in a two party system that assumes everyone will either fit into it in some way or that they will just then voluntarily concede any political power at all.

We are humans and as such we have a pluralistic range of issues and political expression.


However, the unnatural structure of our system forces a bunch of people who have very differing views and experiences to only have the same political vehicle.

So there is always going to be warfare within either of the two parties.

There is far less inter party warfare in system where people can have political expression that is closer to there own.


We know that Obama is certainly capable of making empty statements, misleading statements, and contradictory statements. The choice of Hillary Clinton as his SOS kind of illustrates that as did his flip flop on FISA during the campaign.

How would anyone of us who doesn't personally know Obama be able to ascertain to what degree Obama himself believes his message of change? We can't. So we make guesses based on known past behavior and on our own personal feelings to form an opinion. My opinion is that anyone who expects Obama to change things is naive. Change implies a pluralistic endeavor. An individual can start the process but we change things.

Which brings me back to something you touched on, the so called divide between those who think now that Obama is in we need to sit back and watch and wait and see, and those who are willing to engage Obama on his appointments, policy statements, and his decisions. I am one such person and have been accused of dis-loyaly or the equivalent a few times by those who apparently believe inaction is a virtue when it concerns Obama. To them I can only ask:

When during this long campaign when I canvassed, phone called, donated, went to meetings, went to trainings, did I swear everlasting loyalty and obidience to Obama? I didn't.

So I have no constraints calling 'em as I see them. Most of Obama's appointments aren't on my radar, a few are. My biggest and strongest criticism has been that so far PE Obama's top appointments haven't included anyone from my wing of the party. That doesn't seem balanced and broad based, but lopsided.

The hysteria hasn't been over Obama but between people who don't want to engage Obama and people who do.


Why would whether Obama has been sworn in as president yet stop the car companies from trying to get his ear? It wouldn't. Yet you expect citizens not to try to get his ear? Why?