When you voted for Obama, were you hoping for him to be more progressive or more corporate?

[yurbud]

Poll question: When you voted for Obama, were you hoping for him to be more progressive or more corporate?

As the Democratic primaries went on, I had a simple formula for picking who to support: I'd back the most progressive candidate left in the race. When it got down to Obama and Hillary, I thought it was a no-brainer.

Obama was clearly more progressive than Hillary, who was a poster child for the corporate-compliant DLC.

If Obama had only chosen Hillary, that wouldn't be much cause for concern, but instead, the vast majority of his appointees have been DLC. Is this what you wanted?

[FrenchieCat]

1. I was waiting to get him sworn into the office,

so that I could actually tell based on policies proposed and enacted, instead of guessing based on barely nothing. :shrug:

[cali]

2. I don't use stupid black and white templates

to make judgments. Some here have to- they don't have the mental capacity to do anything else.

[yurbud]

7. what are the other choices, genius?

I know there are moderates who aren't business owned, but the DLC prides itself on being a corporate tool, and most of the appointments are DLCers.

[TheWraith]

40. "Most of his appointments," really? Care to name them?

Because only three of the nominees are actual DLC members: Clinton, Richardson, Vilsack. That's three out of 22 cabinet and cabinet-level positions.

You really shouldn't buy into the DU nuttiness without fact-checking.

[natrat]

59. lisa jackson at epa and ken salazar at interior are corporate crooks

and are no friends to the people who want clean air and public lands that are not used for corporations to rape

[Grateful for Hope]

49. Another choice

might be to strike a balance. I don't think that corporations should be "subservient" to us. I also don't think we should be subservient to them (which, IMO, is the current situation).

I think there should be a working partnership between workers and upper management/shareholders.

I voted "other".

[JohnnieGordon]

20. Yes genius, redesign the poll for us, or can the insults

If you think you could've done better, prove it.

[yurbud]

32. and the response is silence! hmmmm....

guess they don't have alternatives.

[boppers]

3. False dichotomy. eom

[yurbud]

8. sometimes there only are two choices--in this case, I wish there were more

but there really aren't.

[Syrinx]

4. I haven't liked his appointments much so far

But I think there is a method to his madness, and I refuse to give up on him before he has even taken office.

[yurbud]

6. I hope that analysis is right: but we have to keep our eyes open to make sure it is

and keep our mouths open to make sure he knows if it isn't, it's unacceptable.

[Syrinx]

9. I would agree

:hi:

[truedelphi]

50. Very much agree.

:toast:

[No Elephants]

5. When I voted for Obama, I hoped he would win because Obama Biden was

light years better than McCAin Palin. The alternative was unthinkable, especially Palin.

I am not surprised that he has chosen a significant number of DLCer's because they are the only Democrats who have both White House experience and a reliable amount of energy. The Carter folk are just not in their prime anymore.

I do wish he had chosen a few more new faces and a couple of familiar liberals. But, the economic crisis kind of cried out for people who needed as little learning curve as possible. And this may work out very well.

Bottom line: We'll see.

[Kaylee]

16. There you go being reasonable again. Stop it!

:hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

10. False choice. Labels are amusing, but...

We've got serious economic problems that no "progressive" has come up with reasonable and workable answers for.

We've got serious social problems, like health care, retirement, and hunger, that no "progressive" has come up with reasonable and workable answers for.

We've got serious environmental problems that no "progressive" has come up with reasnable and workable anaswers for.

Should I go on? Note that no "conservative" has come up with decent answers, either.

The key word is "workable." Both ends of the political spectrum keep coming up with the same old bullshit every year, completely forgetting how well it worked the last time it was tried. Then, even the good ideas from either side get watered down after the bloody battles between the ideologues.

So, what we need now are managers who can first put out the fires before coming up with more grand schemes.

[yurbud]

22. your statements are only true if "workable" means what the wealthy & corporations will allow

Progressives have come up with workable solutions on many things, and some have even been implemented. Then the wealthy get to work to undermine them.

The one that seems to have withstood their assaults for the longest is Social Security, and the reason is probably a pathetic one: the SS tax on the wealthy is a microscopic portion of their taxes compared to the relatively big bite it is out of ours. If the program depended on their money, they would have killed it long ago.

[dkf]

11. I wanted pragmatism over ideology.

I wanted our Government to work and make sense and for our leaders to respect the law instead of being above it.

[Shiver]

17. Pragmatism was one of the things I voted for

Rigid adherence to ideology got us into this mess. Rigid adherence to a different ideology will not get us out. If his appointments do a good job and fix the current situation, if our Government becomes more accountable and transparent, then I don't care if the DLC is involved or not.

[yurbud]

24. Pragmatism? DLC is like judge trying to rule to please rape victim and rapist

pragmatism is looking a bit to the left of taking your marching orders from the wealthyas GOP & DLC tend to do.

Admittedly, the DLC tries to couch their proposals in progressive terms, but the glaring omission is any assignment of blame to corporations that cause the problems, like insurance companies that are at the heart of the health insurance debacle, and their solutions fail to rein in those same companies that solved the problem.

In short, they are like a judge trying to come up with a ruling that would please both a rape victim and her rapist.

Their solutions are either bland platitudes or incoherent. Either way, they do not address the problem.

If you want to get things done, SOMEONE'S feelings have to get hurt.

To give the people more power, you have to take it from somewhere.

If the wealthy have expropriated trillions in our national wealth and productivity, you can't say their ill-gotten gain is untouchably theirs for all time and should never be spoken of again.

[yurbud]

48. since the "pragmatists" backed the Iraq War & War on Terror, will they be as aggressive vs. Wall St?

Wall Street and corporate scammers have done far more damage to us than any terrorists, and infinitely more than Iraq, which wasn't a threat to us and wouldn't have been even if they had the dreaded ''WMD's.''

It would have been suicidal for Saddam to use nukes against us or give them to terrorists who did since we have ten thousand nukes and would burn Iraq off the map in retaliation before the mushroom cloud cleared. The leaders of every country in the world know that, probably even that nutball in North Korea who is really just playing a high stakes game of chicken with us, daring us to call his bluff.

[dkf]

52. I'm a pragmatist. I didn't want to go into Iraq because I thought we would lose as

we don't have the stomach to be brutal enough to really win. You can't tell me that opinion is based on any type of ideology.

[yurbud]

53. what did you think the need for the war was? Did you think Iraq was a threat to us?

[dkf]

55. I didn't think Iraq was a threat to us except maybe economically

because of oil. I do believe in peak oil.

Of course those aren't justifications for war. I'd say I agreed with Obama that it was a stupid war.

The one justification I could see was the brutal way Saddam ruled Iraq. Then again, I didn't think anybody could hold that place together by being a nice guy. The whole thing demanded more Machiavellian rule than I can tolerate.

[yurbud]

58. Ironically, Greg Palast and others found that oil companies were worried Saddam would pump TOO MUCH

and would drive down prices.

That looks especially likely in light of jump in oil prices after Bush reelection.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/bbcs-greg-palast-on-iraq-war-to-keep.html

[Oak2004]

68. Or any kind of ethics

If the only thing "wrong" about unprovoked invasions of other countries is that you might not win, then your "pragmatism" appears to be a war crime.

[Swamp Rat]

12. human

[Syrinx]

13. that's disturbing

[Swamp Rat]

14. "Hohoho!! ... Daa chuba tinka!!"

""Cha too ma laya conky, ya neema loka nyan... hahahahaah!!"

[yurbud]

39. that one took me a second to figure out. Doesn't he have red-ish hair?

[ecstatic]

29. LOL! nt

[zanne]

15. He said that "there are no red states or blue states"......

I'm holding him to that, and so far, he's performing quite well.

[yurbud]

47. it's not reaching out to ''red states'' that's the problem but reaching out to Wall St. owned pols

I don't have an issue with being moderate on issues if it is independently arrived at, but the DLC has aggressively sought the backing of corporations at the expense of workers, and have given them a return on their investment by supporting NAFTA, the Iraq War, the bailout, and on and on.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I wanted a more progressive President, but I never imagined that Sen. Obama would be significantly

more progressive than he is. We still do not know how progressive he will be. Radical change almost always occurs only during desperate times. So it is entirely possible that major chances might occur,,,not because President Obama would be particularly left-wing, but because during desperate times, moderate changes may simply be inadequate.

I certainly never for one second imagined that Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders or anyone else would make the corporations subservient to the people. Such a change as that would require more than an election. It would require a social revolution. As one important historical figure of the 19th Century put it, "government in capitalist society is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. There has not so far in the course of human history been a case where power has been transfered from the bourgeoisie to ordinary working people by way of the ballot box. The cases where a transfer of power did occur had almost without exception resulted in authoritarian and anti-democratic orders. However, the social democratic experience in Europe has demonstrated that it is possible to enact major reforms within capitalism that increased the democratic input of ordinary people while maintaining or perhaps even strengthening the power of moneyed interest.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. I knew he was what he is. And I voted for him

although I would like a more courageous President, both of our choices were corporate. It amused me then and now that anyone thought there was a big difference between Hillary and Barack, and the words 'clearly' 'poster child' and 'no-brainer' make me laugh all over in retrospect.
It is not what I wanted, but the idea that Obama and Clinton were vastly different was always a contsruction, not a fact. The whole reason for the contentious and personality based Primary was that they had virtually no differences to talk about. So they talked about trivia and made accusations. The were interchangable candidates.

[LWolf]

21. I wasn't hoping for anything.

I didn't support either in the primaries. I held out until the end, hoping for a brokered convention that would offer a 3rd, better choice.

I knew that Obama was just as centrist/corporate as HRC. In some cases, he is MORE so than she is, which makes the "but he's not dlc!!!!" argument ludicrous. He may not be a dlc member, but he's a dlc wet dream.

And he was, all along. It was there in everything he said. He didn't misrepresent himself; Democratic voters and supporters misrepresented him.

So while voted for #1 in your poll, because that's what I hoped we'd get, that hope was dashed last January, when Obama and HRC were the last 2 standing. I never had any illusions about Obama.

And he has been busy proving me correct.

[emmadoggy]

62. DITTO. nt

[SoxFan]

23. Edwards lost. Kucinich lost.

This sort of bogus equation lost.

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Edwards and Kucinich lost, because the Whore Media wanted a Obama vs Hillary circus

People who get their news from the corporate media never knew there was anybody else IN the race. And after the first couple of primaries, there really wasn't.

[SoxFan]

27. Oh please

John Edwards was the 2004 VP nominee, and won a bunch of delegates that year. He started the 2008 race with 100% name recognition and deep union support.

Blaming the media for his loss makes you sound like a Fox News crabapple whining about the librul media.

[cali]

28. Neither lost because of the media

Kucinich ran a lousy campaign, just like in 2004. He wasn't seriously running is the only conclusion I can reasonably come to. I think he runs to get his message out. And that's a good thing. As for that poseur Edwards, he lost because people didn't buy what he was selling.

[ecstatic]

30. LOL! nt

[yurbud]

34. no, the media shut them out because the wealthy didn't want them in the driver's seat

If anything, the 2008 Democratic primaries were a good indication of just how progressive a candidate the wealthy would tolerate.

I knew Dennis would get the axe from the media before he got it from the voters, but I was surprised when Edwards got the same treatment.

Obama was the more progressive of the last two standing, which is part of why he won, albeit his progressive credentials were largely from not being around long enough to have pro-corporate voting record to explain, and not making the mistake of so publicly grovelling to the wealthy as Hillary did when she sucked up to Rupert Murdoch.

Something similar happened in 2004. In both money and polling, Howard Dean was the leader before the primaries. But even though Dean was a relative moderate, he wasn't corporate owned and approved, so he got the hammer big time with scrutiny and the ''Dean Scream'' the lamest take down the media has ever done. The only thing commendable about what the media did to Howard Dean is that they probably saved him from a bullet in the head.

The elite were perfectly happy with Kerry, who knew how to take a dive like a gentleman, and if the votes were accidentally counted, he could be counted on to triangulate in favor of the wealthy.

Some people here seem to be getting most of their info from TV News, which is an oxymoron.

[marimour]

25. I wanted him to be the uniter that he said he would be.

Haven't been disappointed yet.

[Critters2]

31. I knew he was a centrist, and not all that progressive.

That's why I didn't vote for him in the primary. But after the primary, he was the only choice I had.

[yurbud]

46. sad, but understandable

[SKKY]

33. I knew exactly what Obama was about, which is why I voted for him...

...both in the Primary and in the General. I'm quite satisfied with how things have gone thus far.

[yurbud]

35. I would have more respect for DLC if they made their case honestly:

''We can't break the chains of our corporate masters, but they might not mind if we put some padding on the collar and manacles, and if we ask them really nicely, they might use lube when they screw us.''

[SoxFan]

42. Blah Blah Blah

Corporate masters blah blah blah overlords blah blah proletariat blah blah blah revolution blah blah blah Hugo Chavez blah blah blah

[yurbud]

43. wow--that's a devastating rebuttal. So you think we should let people who screwed up EVERYTHING

still have what amounts to a veto over any reform?

And when they bankrupt their institutions through moral squalor, we should bail them out?

If anything, recent events have shown that the DLC approach is less valid and practical than ever.

But you guys mistake your tepid support and protection from media and the wealthy as actual popular support.

How long do you think public will put up with token efforts at reform that protect the guilty?

[NYC_SKP]

36. I have no problem with Obama, he has done no wrong, I was paying attention.

Much like the man himself in his gift for listening to all parties and for paying attention, I listened and paid attention.

Nothing that he's done post election comes as a surprise to me.

What also helps is that I try to keep reasonable expectations, that keeps me from becoming insane.

He's got a lot to do, for someone who hasn't even been sworn in, he's doing a terrific job, far more pre-inauguration than any others in recent memory.

NYC_SKP

[Ex Lurker]

37. I expected him to be marginally better than Bush

but only marginally. He is, after all, a politician, first and foremost. So far he hasn't disappointed, because my expectations are low. People who elect a president believing a new golden age is around the corner are doomed to have their illusions crushed.

[ecstatic]

38. Your perfect candidate doesn't exist

and if s/he does, s/he will never win a primary, much less an election.

[yurbud]

44. Do you think the DLC has better ideas, or just that they are the only ones who will get through

the corporate filter?

If so, we have a system not unlike Iran's, where a group of mullahs decides which candidates can run and which can't.

The difference is, they do it openly, and our financial elite do it by flooding their favored candidates with money and ridiculing and marginalizing with the media those who won't protect their interests.

[stillcool]

41. I "hoped" for a President..

who could push the pendulum the other way. I did not/do not expect all or nothing. I 'hoped' for a populace that might get involved with interacting with their own representatives, and forming coalitions of their own to 'lobby', and give voice for their cause. I still hope, but my expectations are nil. There is no 'we the people', and from what I can tell, there are very few people interested in organizing to promote their cause. I'm sure it will make for great tv though.

[NEDem]

45. I voted for him because I trust his judgement

I don't expect to agree with him all the time.

I just want him to make decisions that he thinks will be best for everyone in this country.

[AZBlue]

51. What a f*cking push poll!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

54. And that in itself is insulting push polls i think, as even those tend to be fairer n/t

[ogneopasno]

56. Other: I wanted him to be more progressive, but knew he wouldn't be, and am not surprised at what

he has given us so far.

[Zynx]

57. So are you just throwing in the towel because of cabinet appointments?

[natrat]

60. i want him to smash the shit out of these greedy banks and the rest of the whore democrats reid

pelosi frank dodd schumer ....but thats not gonna happen

[Mudoria]

61. I'm happy with competence and intelligence..

progressive... centrist... moderate.. conservative...whatever. After the last 8 years the competence and intelligence is what I wanted and what it appears I've gotten :patriot:.

[gravity]

63. I want businesses and people to work together successfully

I don't think the economy as a zero sum game where their is a struggle between two sides fighting over a piece of a pie.

Real economic growth comes from policies that help that ensure a strong working class while promoting investment and entrepreneurship from businesses. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive goals.

[MrSlayer]

64. I was hoping for an end to corporatism but I knew it was never going to happen.

Let's face it, things are the way they are and if anyone rocks the boat too much they'd be put down or taken out. The real powers that be will not allow anyone to change the corporate gravy train and actually give us a government for and by the people. They are too entrenched and have invested way too much to allow it.

[anigbrowl]

65. I supported Obama since august 2007, because I wanted a pragmatist

Idealism is all very well, but it doesn't get the dishes done. I was impressed by his willingness to take an unpopular or complex stance and stand up for it, whether it was pursuing bin laden into Pakistan, supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens, or getting us out of Iraq.

[Iggo]

66. I was hoping the Dem would defeat the Rep.

I'd've voted for a ham sandwich if it'd been running against the republican candidate.

[Beacool]

67. Obama was clearly more progressive?

Check their voting records and please bring up more than a speech given in 2002.

:eyes: