Some Folks Think Obama Promised….

[McCamy Taylor]

Remember broken records, the way they would skip back and repeat a musical phrase over and over again? Here is something we are hearing way too often lately.

Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/04/24/obama-100-days-of-lies-and-broken-promises/

Many of these complaints come from the right (and should be ignored since they are just a variation of the 2000 Big Lie “Gore is a Liar”). But some of them come from the left. Funny, the uber-left wing Democratic presidential candidate whom the liberals describe must have flown right under my radar. I recall Obama being a consistent moderate all through the primaries and into the general election. Specifically, I do not recall ever hearing Obama promise….


I. To prosecute Bush era war crimes.

In fact, he promised to investigate Bush era war crimes. And if he decided that the crimes warranted punishment, he said that he would think about prosecutions. But only during his second term.

From Salon back in August 2008:

"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said. But he quickly added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

snip

What they're likely to recommend to Obama, should he become president, won't fulfill the dreams of those who've hoped for immediate criminal accountability for Bush administration officials.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/08/04/obama/

You got that? Second term. If you do not feel comfortable giving the man four more years, that is your right as an American voter. But do not accuse him of lying.

II. To legalize same sex marriage.

Here is video of the man himself, in February 208, during the height of the primary, telling us that he supported civil unions but would not attempt to push for gay marriage, because he felt that there were more important issues that affected gays, such as employment discrimination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8

Here is what was posted on the WH site (after January, 2009)

President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/

Note that his only promise re: marriage is to oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

On a related note, Obama did not promise to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. He promised to support the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Unfortunately, he can not repeal a law passed by Congress. He can only choose whether or not to enforce that law. Recently Time reported in a federal case which the Obama DOJ supported “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in court. Note that he does not promise not to enforce the law---but that is what opponents of the law claim that they expected him to do.

Pietrangelo and others argue that Obama has leeway under the law that codified "Don't ask, don't tell" after the 1993 outcry when Bill Clinton tried to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. The President, they say, could instruct the Secretary of Defense, who has the sole power to carry out the law, to make investigations a rarity, so that "Don't ask, don't tell" simply does not function. Indeed, Obama could tell the Pentagon that, as a general matter, it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to expel a service member solely for saying he or she is gay or bisexual.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html

What is wrong with this picture? If Obama was to do what is suggested above, this would allow our spineless Democratic Congress to avoid confronting an important civil rights issue (which might cause them momentary embarrassment in the primaries). Who is to say that the next president would not instruct the Secretary of Defense to start a full scale gay witch hunt? Leaving inhumane laws on the books is never a good idea, because sooner or later someone will decide to use them. Congress must change the law. They will only do so, if people realize that the law is still on the books---and that only Congress can fix it.

Note that Congressional Democrats have been extremely reluctant to do their duty.

Last week Congressional officials told me they're unwilling to move ahead with a legislative repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law without vocal support from the president. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went even further, saying that language for legislation needed to start at the White House before the Senate will consider action.

Snip

The lawmakers call the policy a "dishonorable and debilitating law" and also add that "Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination."

http://www.blogs.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/77-lawmakers-ask-obama-ignore-dont-ask-dont-tell


Pardon me, but where in the Constitution does it say that new legislation will be introduced by the executive branch? One of the complaints against the Bush administration was its willingness to write new laws by executive decree. So now, Congress wants Obama to usurp its powers? The members need to have the president hold their hand so that they can repeal a "dishonorable and debilitating law"?


III. To Decriminalize Marijuana

No fair holding the man by anything he might have said while running for a state legislature or for the Senate. The only thing that counts are the promises he made as a presidential candidate promising what he would do as president. Here is Obama, way back in the Democratic Primary in 2008, stating unequivocally that he did not support marijuana decriminalization.

Washington, DC: Senator Barack Obama’s campaign backed away from statements made last week affirming the Senator’s support for decriminalizing marijuana, after being confronted with inconsistencies in his past and present campaigns on the issue by the Washington Times.
A spokesman for Obama’s campaign blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the inconsistencies, and said that while Obama does not support decriminalization, "we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws."
If you told yourself that Obama secretly meant to decriminalize pot but was just too scared to say so for fear of offending Republican voters, you were guilty of wishful thinking. The Founders recommended that we become informed and vigilant citizens in order to protect our Democracy. Informed and vigilant people see the world the way it is, not the way they hope it will be.

I suspect that many of the cases of “Obama said one thing and is now doing something different” have arisen because people deluded themselves. On a related note---

IV. To Prosecute Warrantless Wiretapping (aka Domestic Spying)

When Obama voted to give the Telecoms retroactive immunity from civil suits last summer, KO decided that the new administration would almost certainly start criminal prosecutions of AT&T and others. This should serve as a warning. Unwarranted optimism may boost the morale of a sports team, but it has no place in politics.


V. To Get Us Out of Iraq in 16 Months

From the New York Times last summer, way before election day.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”
In the afternoon, this is how he addressed the same topic:
“I’ve also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that pace would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position, I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”
Mr. Obama’s positions on Iraq have never tilted as far left as many Democrats would have preferred – remember a debate last year when he declined to say specifically when troops would be out of Iraq? – his statements here provided the latest indication of the way changing circumstances in Iraq have added fresh challenges to keep anti-war supporters on his side while pursuing what he calls a responsible end to the war.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-iraq-withdrawal-timeline/

I think we can blame the liberal press and bloggo-sphere for some of the myths about Obama's war stance. When he said that he opposed the invasion of Iraq, Obama was demonstrating his good judgment. He was not making a statement about how he would handle the ongoing war in Iraq. Folks at sites like the Huffington Post decided to extrapolate from his early objections and from Clinton's yes vote on the same issue. They concluded that Obama and Clinton were world's apart on foreign policy. In fact, their positions were always quite similar---which probably explains why she is now his Secretary of State.


VI. To Ban Nuclear Power

Were these people living under a rock during 2007-8?

What happened to Wind and Solar? Barack Obama pushed for Wind and Solar in his speeches and run for the presidency. Now his pick throws Nuclear front and center. Is Barack Obama behind the change of direction? Play back the debates. See how many times Barack Obama says Wind and Solar, then see how many time he says he is in favor of nuclear. I think you will find some discrepancy between before and after election chatter. Is that something we should continue to be prepared for?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10141790-38.html

Obama was always a proponent of nuclear power. Always. Maybe the person who wrote the comment above listened to the McCain propaganda, which went something like Obama is against nuclear energy. . Never, ever believe the lies which one candidate tells about another.

Obama said he was for nuclear power during the presidential debates. Just about the only people who ever protested his rallies were the No Nukes folks. He continued to support nuclear power in the general election season.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/obama_nuclear.htm

If a candidate says it and if no one listens, that is not the candidate's problem. That is a problem with the electorate.

Now, about the remark I quoted at the beginning of this journal,

Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.

For those of us who can remember all the way back to 2000, W. promised to be an isolationist president. No more U.S. military actions like the one in the Balkans to promote democracy. He started planning the invasion of Iraq almost from day one. He promised to protect patients from health insurance plans---and then had John Ashcroft strike down the Texas Patient Protection Act in federal court. He claimed to be concerned about global warming---and then he did everything he could to keep the world from doing anything about it. He promised fiscal responsibility and then he blew the federal budget and the deficit went through the roof.

Bush lied. So far, Obama has been one of the most consistent presidents that I have seen. You just had to be paying attention. Unfortunately, I think some folks were so preoccupied with electing Anyone But Bush that they did not bother to acquaint themselves with Anyone’s positions.

[FSogol]

1. K&R. n/t

[MADem]

2. It is refreshing to see a post from someone who paid as close, if not closer, attention to the

positions of the candidates on the issues as I did.

Well done.

[uponit7771]

19. Payin attention is a rare American attribute....

[D-Lee]

134. Very helpful post -- thanks so much for paying attention (n/t)

[DaLittle Kitty]

79. Yep, Would Have Been Nice If People Paid More Attention To John Edwards Instead Of Drink'n KoolAid!

Blame da media too... They were HYP"N The Daylights out of Obama and HillBill while acting as though Edwards who was quite a bit more direct on his issue positions e.g., Health Care for one... than the anointed pair! www.johnedwards.com

[MADem]

110. If they had paid more attention, they probably would have noticed that Edwards was

fucking the cameragirl, too!

[bjobotts]

80. Cherry picking only works on the truly uninformed.Criticisms aren't from Not prosecuting Bush

[bjobotts]

81. They come from his refusal to bring transparency back to goverment by ending states secrets

[bjobotts]

83. Something he did promise but is doing just the opposite. Ending rendition and

[bjobotts]

84. locking people up without due process or even chages.Ending gov spying

[bjobotts]

85. U piucked only what would support your claim without considering where he is failing

[bjobotts]

86. Preventitive detention???Give me a break.Prolonged detention?-come on.

[bjobotts]

87. I support Obama and criticise him when he's wrong or fails to do what he promised.

[bjobotts]

88. There are time limits on even being able to prosecute Bush/Cheney so it's like not doing it at all

[bjobotts]

89. If the only criticism Obama hears is from the right then he will only cater to them

[bjobotts]

91. We have a democratic platform and he is the head of the dem party so

[bjobotts]

92. expectations are normal regardless if he specifically promised each issue

[bjobotts]

93. Get with trying to get Obama to do what we want instead of justifying what he hasn't done

[ClusterFreak]

112. I just have to say...regardless of anything else...

The way you write only in the subject line and then continue on in a series of responses by using the reply function....is beyond obnoxious.

Don't get enough attention otherwise?

[ihavenobias]

122. I agree.

Granted, I hate the "hear no evil, so no evil, speak no evil" approach some take toward our president (any President actually), but on a style night, I couldn't agree more.

[Turborama]

128. It's beyond annoying, and he/she/it never get's involved with discussions

They just post these long trees of one liners that clutter the threads and never give any response. Should be renamed Spam-bot, IMO.

[MADem]

130. That's why I will not reply to it. It seems more interested in peeing on the tree

than having a discussion of substance.

[applexcore]

127. If you want attention, get a dog

No need for a great wall of 'subjects'.

[Clio the Leo]

3. I've been humming this song a lot lately....

I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine,
There's gotta be a little rain sometimes.
When you take, you gotta give, so live and let live,
Or let go.
I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.

I could promise you things like big diamond rings,
But you don't find roses growin' on stalks of clover.
So you better think it over.
Well, if sweet-talkin' you could make it come true,
I would give you the world right now on a silver platter,
But what would it matter?
So smile for a while and let's be jolly:
Love shouldn't be so melancholy.
Come along and share the good times while we can.

I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine,
There's gotta be a little rain sometimes.

I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.

I could sing you a tune or promise you the moon,
But if that's what it takes to hold you,
I'd just as soon let you go, but there's one thing I want you to know.
You better look before you leap, still waters run deep,
And there won't always be someone there to pull you out,
And you know what I'm talkin' about.
So smile for a while and let's be jolly:
Love shouldn't be so melancholy.
Come along and share the good times while we can.

I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine,
There's gotta be a little rain sometimes.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. I almost called this "I Beg Your Pardon, Obama Never Promised a Leftwing Rose Garden"

[Clio the Leo]

8. ha ha, do it while you still can! NT

[jenmito]

11. I wrote a thread back in December titled, "I beg your pardon. He never promised you a rose garden:":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7992905

:hi:

[bjobotts]

107. and didn't promise to release torture photos or reveal what he wants to keep secret.

[bjobotts]

108. Never promised he wouldn't jail us all with "preventive detention" either.

[goclark]

23. That is it! He never promised us our own little Rose Garden!

He never said, "Goclark, what do you want me to do and what day must I do it to make you happy."

He is not a magician and he did not/does not have a crystal ball.
Certainly he NEVER promised us our own little Rose Garden.

KKK and RRR

:bounce:

[Clio the Leo]

36. And there will come a time in our lives....

.... when we WISHED we had it so good ... when our biggest complaint was that the White House didn't publicize their meeting with GLBT groups to the degree that some reporter thought they ought to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8489854&mesg_id=8490085

It took us 233 years to get a President like Barack Obama .... and we will never have another one.

[Window]

105. Ain't that the truth!

n/t

[bjobotts]

96. Yeah, some are just content to hum "At least he's not Bush" or "My Obama right or wrong"

[bjobotts]

101. Yeah, but he did imply one by carrying around all the seeds and the hoe

[bjobotts]

102. Just couldn't "promise" one. Also didn't promise he wouldn't rape your sister but why think he would

[Bluenorthwest]

73. I've been humming this one

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope


I'm sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

That is John Lennon.

[ChiciB1]

111. John Lennon... Indeed! Wrote One Of The Greatest Songs Ever... Imagine!! n/t

[xchrom]

4. indeed all the reasons i wasn't wild about him to begin with. nt

[Cha]

6. Thanks for this, McCamy Taylor..

Who knows who these are that can't recognize what a gift we have in President Obama? Anonymous posters on an internet board.

[R. P. McMurphy]

7. K & R n/t

[watrwefitinfor]

9. So very well said, McCamy Taylor. Thank you.

These are exactly the reasons I knew he was probably too much of a centrist to satisfy me, but I was certain Clinton was. And he seemed much more likely to be able to beat McCain. I looked closely at his organization and his fund raising abilities and his good common sense and knew he was the one (not The One).

Nice piece of work you posted here. You are a brave DUer.

Wat

[Somawas]

10. These are some of the reasons I supported Kucinich, then Edwards,

and leaned Hillary before reluctantly supporting Obama. He is now and always was a center-right Democrat.

[grantcart]

12. who was against the war before the others (except Kucinich) and had

a 'more liberal voting record' than the other senators.

[Somawas]

41. At this point

its all pretty irrelevant. McAny is right. Those who want the ultra liberal Obama made him up.

[Fire1]

13. Try telling that to the 'whiners.' n/t

[SeattleGirl]

14. There you go with throwing facts at us, McCamy!

And I thank you very much for that!

[MannyGoldstein]

15. He Promised A Transparent Government

But has backed the unprecedented Bush-era secrecy and privacy-busting rules with great zeal and vigor, including warrantless wiretapping.

Obama promised to investigate torture, but put Holder in charge of this. Holder himself has admitted to signing off on outsourced torture under Clinton - was anyone thinking that there'd be an actual investigation by this fellow traveler? And, Obama has reserved the right to continue outsourced torture and imprison people forever without trial.

Obama promised to help the Middle Class. He's helped put $13 Trillion of tax money at risk with the bankers, but has done precious little for the rest of us except lecture us about credit card debt (while the bankers have lunch at the White House, celebrating the bonuses they gave themselves with our money). And he's not, to my knowledge, changed any rules on banking to prevent the same insanity from happening again.

He promised us a public option for health care - but refuses to say that he'd veto health care "reform" if such an option is not part of it.

He promised to end DODT, but he's refused to actually do it. Not to mention a side order of "gay marriage = incest".

Yes, he's far better than George Bush - but that's a very low bar to be judging against.

[FLAprogressive]

27. +1

[kristopher]

45. I don't think he has failed in this area

As with DADT in the military, if Obama just "establishes transparency" by executive order it is only good as long he is President. Within his own sphere he has followed up on the budgeting and spending database, and he is extremely forthcoming in his discussions with the public via personal press conferences and interviews as well as through his spokespersons. He has defended certain policies of Bush that had been challenged in court. He, as executive, chose to continue those court cases. Why? One possibility is that he is a closet Bush, but that has little supporting evidence outside of the litany addressed in the OP. Without those misstatements this lone example of defending Bush era court cases on executive power takes on a different interpretation - he wants the court to rule on the limits of executive power in order to write those limits into law. THAT is establishing open and transparent government in as permanent a fashion as can be done.

Let's see how the courts rule on these cases and then pass judgment on him.

[Egnever]

54. That is an interesting take

I'll need to think about that for a while. Sort of a gamble though no?

[ejbr]

63. +2

[rudy23]

72. Thank you. There are plenty of reasonable expectations that Obama should be held to

I believe all "the whiners" are doing is our job as politically informed citizens. If we didn't, there would be no "center-right" about it.

Obama has all the pressure in the world on him from the most powerful people to move towards the right, and the only pressure to satisfy the left comes from us, "the people."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. they think Obama has a magic wand

well he's keeping it for later

[Uzybone]

17. excellent post

[uponit7771]

18. AMEN!!!!!!

[jenmito]

20. K&R.

:)

[Fire1]

21. k&r.

[struggle4progress]

22. Thanks for this. The trolls, of course, are always busy spewing venom

[gaspee]

24. Wrong, wrong, wrong

On the issue of marriage equality - we all KNEW he was anti-equality. The PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING WITH HIM is that he consistently and loudly said he is FOR repealing DOMA and DADT - he even claimed to be a fierce advocate for the civil rights of GLBTQ citizens - and we have seen the exact opposite.

You are not being truthful when you claim the LGBTQ community is angry with him for being anti marriage-equality. We knew that about him. In fact, quite a few of us knew all of his pretty words were just lip service. He liked the donations and the activism from that part of the the Democratic base and a lot of us knew not to expect much from him but voted for him anyway - because what they hell are we going to do? Vote Republican? Not vote? That was my plan but I gave Obama's actions the benefit of the doubt and voted for him anyway - even though I did not support him in the primaries. The Warren debacle, the continued discharges under DADT, the horrendous and inflamatory defense of DOMA from his justice department... it's adding up to a huge shit sandwich we're just supposed to choke down while thanking him - and then to have our supposed allies tell us our concerns are noted but we're just going to have to wait - as if our very lives are trivial --

gah - tangent - my point is you're being disengenious, reducing the gay community's problems with Obama to your snide - he promised us gay marriage! claim -- and you know it.

[keepCAblue]

38. +1 What a bunch of OP bullshit. Talk about twisting the facts...

...and making up shit to suit an agenda. Obama, in his campaign letter to the LGBTQI community, stated:

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same‐sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.

Give me ONE example of O's using the bully pulpit to urge states to do ANYTHING right for LGBTQI Americans. You can't.

CA: On prop 8's passing: silence
CA: On CA Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision: Silence
FL: On passage of Prop 2, FL's DOMA: Silence
AZ: On passage of Prop 102, AZ's DOMA: Silence
AR: On passage of Arkansas' Adoption Ban: Silence

And ZERO *official* statements regarding the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in IA, CT and elsewhere: Silence, except to make a tacky joke about IA.

How fucking out of touch is the OP with the reality of the LGBTQI civil rights fight, to say that we have complained about O's not making same-sex marriage legal? We have never said this because we know he never promised it. Yeah, so go ahead and just make shit up in order to bolster your cheerleading rant for Bush O'rama. We have only held O's feet to the fire for his failure to make any efforts toward the SPECIFIC PROMISES he made in his campaign letter to LGBTQI Americans. And so far, he is batting a big fat and indisputable ZERO.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. And I note that no matter how many explain those facts

The OP is unable to address the intellectual dishonesty of the spin heavy posting.

[goclark]

71. This is not "the Gay Communities problem" this is an American Problem

that needs more than just the Gay Community to solve.

Wouldn't it be better to have other members at DU to join in the effort?

Why the continued put downs of those that would be more than willing to be even stronger supporters?

If the members of the Gay Community here see this meaningful issue as a "Gay Community Problem" than that leaves out a lot of people that would love to join in support.

I've asked many times -- give us links to websites to donate to/call/email representatives -- Until today I had not received one.

Finally, today ,ruggerson gave me/us a link regarding the Committee and the legislation.

Thanks ruggerson!

[ChiciB1]

115. I'm NOT GLBT, I'm Just Hetero With A Sometimes Chauvinistic Husband....

But I do recall Obama making overtures to GLBT! Write what you will, anyone can make a "case" for something most of the time. Still, it's my WISH to see MUCH BETTER from him, and MORE of what he talked about he was going to do. If we simply sit by the wayside and say nothing, then we are nothing more than what Repukes are!

The FOLLOW THE LEADER... NOT MATTER WHAT!! I always believed the Democratic Party to be the Party Of The Big Tent! Not the Party of "Follow Your Leader!"

Call me a Socialist LIBERAL!!! I also belong in the TENT too ya know? I worked pretty hard and long for a lot more! And I'd bet I worked harder than many other Democrats across this country to help him along! Even though he was never my first choice!

And don't mix up my words, here at DU I'm sure people worked harder than MOST Democrats, not just I! But too many Americans are just too APATHETIC and have been for FAR TOO MANY YEARS!!

[AtomicKitten]

25. There is a huge difference between what he promised and what people wish he had promised. n/t

[Fire1]

29. So what? Just make shit up!

:sarcasm:

[mullard12ax7]

26. Are you making excuses for not prosecuting war criminals? PITIFUL

In fact, treasonous. War crimes are just that, crimes. Making excuses for people who refuse to prosecute war criminals is just as criminal.

[FLAprogressive]

28. Yes he is.

[emilyg]

46. +1

[cliffordu]

30. Aw, come on, you don't want to inject REAL LIVE QUOTES into this

catfight.

Makes the hysterics and the chronic whiners and the nabobs look as silly as they are.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Obama' actual words:

"As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office."

[MADem]

131. Well, the work has started, actually. DOD is battling this issue out.

It's not going the way of equality, though, is what I'm understanding. There's a "pushback" against it and DOD, from what I understand, just doesn't want to "get into that" right now (no shooting the messenger, please--I get so tired of people yelling at ME for simply passing on information--I am not SECDEF Gates).

See this link (and pardon the source, but it's accurate), where the disconnect between WH and DOD is rather glaringly apparent: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWFmNTNhNGM2YzQxMDhiOGNmNTVlNDkxMGJjOWRiZjc=

I have said this elsewhere--a lot of that work that needs doing in order to implement the change in policy HAS been done. Back in the nineties, every single DOD and service-specific instruction and notice was scrubbed with an eye towards eventual repeal of the ban on gays in the military. Of course, those documents have been rewritten over the years, but a lot of them are pretty much the same. If they kept that old stuff, and hopefully some bozo did--it was boxes and boxes of a LOT of work-- it will make the second scrubbing go much, much faster. We identified the specific documents that required change, and I'll bet that list is still pretty much the same.

As for the MREA, I would be pleasantly surprised to see that thing move in this term. I just get the sense that's a second term project. I'd like to be wrong.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Some people think George W. Bush blamed Saddam Hussein for 9-11

They leapt to the conclusion because of the conflation and careful mentioning of the two in the same breath so people would tie things together. Bush maintained plausible deniability while purposefully insinuating that there was a connection so people's fears could be used.

Obama campaigned as being "against the war" in such a repeated way that people got the false impression that he was a peacenik. Many of his supporters endlessly deride anyone for thinking that he used them. Sure, he brought up the "wrong war" concept early, but that was largely to dispel the image that he was some kind of liberal cream-puff. He wanted to have it both ways, and largely got it.

He was pretty clear about Gay Marriage, but he kept mouthing such statements about acceptance and solidarity that people felt suckered. The McClurkin incident showed that he was willing to do anything to keep the religionists on his side; it should have been obvious in October of 2006. No, he doesn't hate gays, he just doesn't see them as as important to appease as fundamentalists.

The fairly consistent take about Iraq was get out in a quick and deliberate manner. Specifics varied, but the intent was repeatedly stated.

He's for health care reform, too, just as long as the profiteers are TAKEN CARE OF FIRST AND SUSTAINED.

He's for financial regulation, too, just as long as the usual suspects retain control.

He loves non-believers, too, but make no mistake about it: religion is being given an ever-bigger role in government, regardless of his vaunted status as a "Constitutional Scholar".

Marijuana? Whatever; it's a piddly little non-issue in the scheme of things.

Nope, he's ducked nuclear power questions fairly well, but depending on the audience, he's hummed along with the environmentalist's tune. Same with Clinton. Of the big three, only Edwards flatly said "no" with no equivocation, and although that hadn't always been his opinion, once it did, it stayed.

It is, in fact, quite remarkable that so many people think he said things that he studiously avoided saying, but in the end, it was all deliberate and carefully orchestrated. Ask yourself this: how did so many people so misinterpret him? Is he THAT horrible a communicator, or was he playing games?

He was a stalwart champion against the Iraq war, even though he only made one speech about being against it before it was taken, and that one was so insignificant to his 24-hour P.R. machine that not only was it not videotaped, it wasn't even audio recorded in its entirety. His votes, once he finally was in the Federal Government and being called to account, were consistently to sustain the effort.

All things to all people ain't nothin' to nobody.

He's done many good things so far, but he's also shown himself to be a staunch defender of the privilege of entrenched corporations, especially in the financial and health industries. These industries live off the pain and subjugation of others, but they are sacred, nonetheless.

I have no problem accepting that he's a somewhat right-of-center politician with a decent heart, even if he is misguided in his thinking of the indispensability of extreme corporate kleptocracy, but I'm tired of the bullshit whitewashing that he never promised a rose garden and he's been scrupulously candid all the way along. It simply isn't so. He's been on both sides of most of the issues he couldn't duck, and now he's being called to account. He's Bill Clinton without the affairs and lies. (There's a good side of that, too: they're both very curious and work hard.)

Frankly, after all of the deft deceptions and slipperiness, I'm getting a bit nostalgic for a good old-fashioned, full frontal Clintonian LIE. Now THOSE were things you could really wrap your ire around.

As a steadfast contrarian, I am doomed to defend him more and more from the very same obnoxious hotheads who raged against anyone who breathed a peep about him being anything less than the second coming of progressivism and are now feeling melodramatically betrayed. You are right in that he is as he was, but the advertising, although bluff, bluster, insinuation and vague airiness, was designed to make people think he was much more progressive than he was and is.

People don't get these mistaken impressions from NOWHERE, and if his soft-soaping hagiography machine has confused people, IT'S HIS FAULT. It was deliberate deception. He played fast-and-loose with people's hopes and dreams, and they're feeling toyed with; this disappointment is simply amplified by the repeated calls for "newness" and a fresh kind of politics, especially when they were so excited--deliberately so--on such a gut level.

He's been the Pied Piper of feelings and enthusiasm; now he has to pay that other piper.

[rudy23]

77. Great post. Right on the mark, IMO. nt.

[MADem]

132. You're right that people don't get these mistaken impressions from nowhere,

but that said, there were people here who pointed out the disconnects and were beaten senselessly for their trouble. I was one of the ones who beat the drum over that Gospel Tour bullshit, which didn't just include Donnie McClurkin, it also included George W. Bush's very own Crawford pastor-turned-Obama-fan, the little shithead who performed little Jenna's wedding, Kirbyjon Caldwell.

People can't say that he wasn't sending a few signals with that little hatefest in Carolina. The "Oh, he doesn't mean it," crowd were simply whistling past the graveyard--he most certainly did mean it.

I do think, though, that if there were sufficient critical mass he'd pragmatically change his mind on this particular issue. I think he's polled it, and while it's not a deal-breaker for those who support equality, it could be a deal-breaker (or a vote demotivator) for those who oppose it. And he's not willing to make any election a GOP v. Dem fight on "The Gay Issue."

See, it's not his "fault," (though I do get what you are saying), he knew what he was doing, and he did it deliberately, with thought, and on purpose. He counted (rightly, as it turns out) on the propensity of the American people to "speed-listen." He peppered his speeches with the right words, and folks picked out the ones they liked. It was a veritable salad bar of hope, change and believe.

But people here did pipe up when his rhetoric collars didn't match his policy cuffs--they were simply shouted down when they did, though. I gave up even bothering to try to discuss the issues; the climate was simply not conducive to honest communication during the primary season.

All that said, the party picked their nominee, and he won. He's the President, and if he gives enough people what they want over the first four years, he'll get to do four more. And that's when we'll find out exactly how far he's willing to go.

I have to say, Obama wasn't my first choice, but I'm cutting him some slack and realizing that he's way better than the other team's ticket. Unless he does something totally stupid, I'll vote for him next time around, as well.

[scheming daemons]

32. And none of the troll brigade will reply in this thread... guaranteed

Great post, MT

[Fire1]

33. Uh.......they already have. n/t

[rhymeandreason]

34. Thank you McCamy for your

clarity and substance on this issue.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Nice summary

I haven't been very surprised about President Obama's position on issues so far and have been amazed at the flood of threads here accusing him of breaking all kinds of campaign promises when, as far as I can tell, he has actually been rather consistent, which is, I guess, why I haven't been as disappointed in him as some people here. You DID leave out the one about healthcare reform because he's been catching a lot of flack on it lately because some people believe that he has "broke" his campaign pledge on supporting single-payer healthcare reform when, in actuality, he has always supported a private/public plan (which allows people to keep their private plan or choose public coverage) as the ideal way to reform healthcare (even though he might have made some encouraging- albeit qualified- statements regarding single-payer during the campaign).

[Jennicut]

69. That bothers me the most. He was NEVER ever for single payer.

I get people's anger that he will probably never support single payer, but there is no broken promises.
He has been remarkably consistent.

[ruggerson]

37. Here's a real live quote for ya

"As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office."

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Obama's Fingers Were Crossed Behind His Back

Whose fault is it that you didn't check for that? Hmmm?

[ruggerson]

43. You'll notice none of them have responded n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Yep. I think that one left a mark on their little coward hides.

[McCamy Taylor]

119. I did not respond because I already addressed this in the OP. In this quote

Obama promises (again) to encourage Congress to repeal the law and the military to change its attitude. What he does not say is that if someone ends up in federal court he will tell Holder to ignore federal law (as it is currently on the books). As for whether or not he is doing enough to encourage Congress and the military, that is a matter for people to decide. But he did not spell out exactly what he would do. So, it makes sense to attempt to get him to do the right thing. But it makes no sense to complain that he is a liar if all he is failing is one's expectations.

Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. If you expect him to make legislation by administrative decree the way that Bush did, you will be disappointed.

Maybe everyone decided that "change" meant the way that they would change things. It meant the way Obama would change things.

[Prism]

39. The LGBT entry is a towering strawman

I am not under the impression that anyone in the LGBT community thinks President Obama promised same-sex marriage. That is strawman #1, and it's a whopper.

What President Obama did promise was to be a fierce advocate for our interests and equality. Nothing in his actions to date have given evidence that promise is imminent in materializing. In fact, the biggest act to date was a DOMA filing that betrayed the precise opposite of the President's promise. While there are many reasons, causes, excuses, and arguments about the nature of the filing, the fact remains that it happened on his watch, and it is the most tangible and affecting piece of policy to come from the White House since his election.

Furthermore, despite the arguments to the contrary, there are several methods by which President Obama could affect DADT today. While the best possible option for DADT is a full congressional repeal - and Congress is by no means off the hook - the President is not absolved of his own responsibility. Recently, 77 congressional representatives http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/congress-well-77-house-members-call-for-quick-action-on-dadt/">lobbied the President to take interim action. It is legal, it is doable, it is something a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community and a conscientious commander-in-chief would do. There is no reason or purpose for him not to take such action under serious advisement.

It seems to me that people interested in full equality, those earnestly and seriously desirous that the LGBT community take their place in this country as equals, would spend less time filling the role of political human shield to protect a president who has thus far done nothing and would not have done anything had it not been for the political pressure brought to bear by those who currently suffer inequality.

The President is a powerful man who does not need such protection. It seems to me these efforts and desires to restrain political harm are flowing towards the powerful instead of the powerless.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with that impulse.

[ruggerson]

44. Great post, Prism

n/t

[bjobotts]

98. Yeah the post is filled with what he thinks we think Obama promised.

[MilesColtrane]

40. K & R

[Jakes Progress]

47. Don't care what he campaigned on and not calling him a liar.

He didn't really get elected because his timid, moderate stances were what people wanted. He mostly got elected because the only alternative was a wizened, bat-shit crazy with a loon for a VP candidate.

The public wants, and the country needs, these things done. If I hire a guy because he is the best candidate for the job, but I want my employee to do better than he thought he could, I need to tell him my expectations. We need at least as good and cheap and available health care as our elected officials. We need to get out of the war we started illegally. We need to give all citizens their rights. We need to hold the criminals who started that illegal war accountable.

We need these addressed while there is still a chance that the memory of bush and his idiot cabal are fresh in the minds of the public and before the media and the relentless neocon drumming numbs the public into believing that all these problems are because of Obama. This will happen soon. If we don't start addressing what needs to happen, it won't happen.

[davidpdx]

52. I take issue with your tone that people were "forced" to vote for him

given no other choices. Many people complaining about Obama (whether they voted for him or not) simply never supported him. Those calling him Bush's third term and other derogatory remarks don't deserve the respect of being heard.

I have no problem holding Obama's feet to the fire, but some people around here are clearly looking to amputate him.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Relax.

I joyfully voted for Obama. I partied when he won.

But let's not fool ourselves into believing that God appointed him to be our savior. He was the best we had to vote for. I don't think there was anyone who wanted the job that would do any better. I supported Hillary early in the primary, not because she was God's appointee, but because I thought she stood a better chance of getting stuff done. Maybe or maybe not. Had it been Hillary, we would still be needing to hold her feet in the flames too. It is the nature of politicians to always be running for office. It is our job as an informed electorate to see that they also take care of running the office.

As far as all the Obama haters that so many think are infesting DU, they are amply balance by the worshipful acolytes that are just as insensitive to reality in the other direction. Neither serves any purpose other than to establish the edges of a spectrum.

My view is "Yeah, Obama is president. Now he needs to step up."

[kenfrequed]

78. Ah..

But most of the critical liberals (myself included) have these things called issues. Individual issues that he has chosen poorly on.

I have NEVER called him Bush's third term, nor have I compared him much to Bush at all. But I did end up voting for him and he did use language that suggested himself to be progressive, and his positions as a senator and his voting record also suggested we were getting a liberal democrat, so I feel justified in calling him out when he does something too conservative for my tastes.

[tomp]

48. this may come as a huge shock to some people but...

...i dont care what the fuck obama promised to do. there are things i want him to do whether he promised them or not. the fact that he didn't promise them just means he's a jerk, but they still should be done. and until and unless he does them, i'm not a supporter.

number one, above all others--prosecute bush/cheney, inc. no prosecution, no fucking support, no vote in 2012.

[Dragonfli]

49. Like You, no matter how hard I try I can't accept that there are some above the law.

I have to follow the law, you have to follow the law, Right wing republicans no matter what office they may have held should be no different, There are very clear and redundant national and international laws that are quite clear on who MUST be investigated and tried if they are caught committing war crimes. WE HAVE CONFESSIONS. How is rhetoric like "the actual torture specialists in the CIA will not be charged because they followed orders in good faith?" - that is specifically not allowed! It is not an option to "not press charges!".

In the case of the masterminds, they are not only proud of it, they have confessed! (Cheney confesses every time he is in front of a camera for christ sake!). Lawyers were convicted of legal cover memos justifying war crimes at Nuremberg, how can lawyers here not face charges for doing the same thing?

NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOVE THE LAW.

I like Obama, but I just can't throw away our rule of law and constitution for him no matter how hard I try!

These are not traffic tickets people. There is actual TORTURE and MURDER involved!!
Treason as well!

And yet if I steal a loaf of bread and get caught with a joint in my pocket I face prison.
This is just not what I was taught in civics class, we are all supposed to be equal under the law.

Can't you see how important this is? Am I insane or is my country insane for not noticing what the loss of rule of law means to our republic?

How can I accept it being so easily brushed aside?

[davidpdx]

53. Sounds like you never supported him to begin with

Or even listened to what he had to say.

[lamp_shade]

55. He didn't, isn't, never will.

[Forkboy]

56. That's not a rebuttal of the points raised though.

A ton of Democrats chose someone different in the primaries. Are they all to be discounted because of that?

[tomp]

58. it only sounds like that if that's what you want to hear.

it makes you comfortable in some way to dismiss things you don't like to hear. and you have to diminish me in order to arrive there. this does not surprise me.

[lamp_shade]

50. Kick

[Senator]

51. Sounds Like Somebody Read One Too Many Words Of Bob Herbert's Column

For those who didn't (or can't face it yet), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23herbert.html?pagewanted=print">here's how it begins:

Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House.

While the rationalization meme of "it wasn't a campaign promise" (as if any politician has ever really promised to do anything in a campaign) is rather clever and effective at volleying back in the usual issue-contained, euphemedia/beltway shout-fests over more trivial matters, it just doesn't work on war crimes, treaty violations, and constitution shredding.

They simply don't have a "shelf life" or a "news cycle." The more time that goes by without proper action, the deeper is Obama's complicity with the outrages. His failure, even thus far, to uphold the core values that our greater generations fought and died to forge may already be his ONLY legacy.

He took an oath to do the right thing about them. Way, way beyond a mere "promise."

The notion that he could avoid being "consumed by" this was always a peculiar form of self-delusional arrogance. And yes, it's too glib to simply ascribe it "drinking the DC-Insider Kool-Aid," but any deeper inspection leads to questioning his character, to "who is he?"

And to Herbert plaintive cry of "Who Are We?" -- with Obama in the White House.

--

[Bluenorthwest]

57. When you re-spin it all your way, it is easy to make false points

Every body knows Obama opposes marriage equality. No one says he said he would as you put it 'legalize same sex marriage'. You said that. The President does not have the power to 'legalize' it. The Congress does.
No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that Obama made the promise to lead on the repeal of DOMA and DADT. He promised, in very specific terms, that if we supported him, he would provide the leadership needed to change those laws. He called DOMA 'abhorrent'. He said that if we put him in office he would 'not hesitate' to use his bully pulpit to drive these issues to a just solution.
What he has not done is what he said he would do. What you claim is expected is not expected, and never was. I doubt you can even find a DU poster that says he promised to 'legalize same sex marriage', as you put it. You certainly will not find any media voice of the community saying so. Rachel lays out exactly what the problems are. Exactly how he promised to be a Fierce Advocate for GLBT rights. All of that is there, and clear enough even for heterosexuals to understand it.
So what you are talking about, it is something you made up, a man o' straw. He promised leadership he delivers silence and worse.
He promised to use his bully pulpit, that he'd not hesitate to be a fierce advocate for the repeal of abhorrent laws. When he does half of that, or even stops being in the way, he'll get a kind word in return. Until that time, his word is of questionable value to me. Because he has yet to do what he claimed he would do without a moment's hesitation.
He promised what he promised. It is a matter of public record. These facts are not lost on the people who are harmed by those laws. Most of the action in regard to these issues does not and will not occur on DU. So good luck with your wee revisionism.

[niceypoo]

61. Your spinning the strawman

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You do, however, get a 'B' for all the effort you put into it

[ElboRuum]

82. Now, I'm a little confused...

Perhaps you could clarify this. Where is the strawman? Is it in the premise that the left believes it has been promised quite a few things it hasn't been promised? I reject that this can be the strawman because I have seen this here and elsewhere. I mean I've heard the "We've Been Sold a Bill of Goods!!!!111!!1" argument too often to ignore it.

If it is elsewhere, I'd really like to know where it is.

[Prism]

97. Here's a massive one:

The OP claims that the LGBT community believes President Obama promised "To legalize same sex marriage."

The president never promised any such thing. The LGBT community knows he promised no such thing. In fact, it was a rather large point of contention in the community during the primaries. If anyone reads the GLBT forum, they will find numerous references to the President's stated position on gay marriage - that he believes it is between a man and a woman, that god is in the mix, that his religion is reason not to support it, etc. etc. etc.

OPs like the one above, where a false belief is painted onto a community for the purpose of then criticizing or belittling that community's concerns is both dismissive and deeply insulting. It allows the poster and those in accord with those views to feel as if the LGBT community's anger is misplaced, unjustified, fabricated.

The community is well aware that enacting same-sex marriage is beyond the powers of the President. To state otherwise is a lie. To state otherwise with the intent of dismissing highly valid and relevant criticisms that are made in the course of a dispossessed people seeking equality is to align oneself with the same reactionary forces on the Right who think our lives aren't very important either.

It is unacceptable and deeply wrong.

[niceypoo]

123. Thank you

Same with "To Ban Nuclear Power" or "To Decriminalize Marijuana"  ... and so on and so forth. T

Classic straw man (or ma'am, whichever you prefer.)

[niceypoo]

125. You apparently dont understand what a straw man is...

The straw man is the OP's representation of what the 'left' believes, as opposed to what the 'left' actually believes. Obama promised, "to ban nuclear power," for example, is a position projected onto the 'left' by the OP. Nobody on the 'left' is claiming Obama promised this.

This classic misrepresentation is known as the 'fallacy of the straw man'

[wyldwolf]

62. I beg your pardon...... I never promised you a rose garden...

[bjobotts]

100. But I certainly did imply one and carried around the seeds with a hoe

[democracy1st]

64. Bull Sh... you left out the banks!!1

[bjobotts]

99. And blindly supporting Israel's land grab and war crimes in Gaza.He refuses to do that.

[Bread and Circus]

65. Thank you for this. The list could be longer but the point is made. K and R.

[Beacool]

66. It's not so much what he said, it's what people projected onto him.

The average person didn't pay that much attention to his actual proposals. They just liked him and his flowery speeches about hope and change. Most of those speeches were deliberately vague. During the primaries a lot of time was spent asking people why they supported Obama over the other Democratic candidates and the standard answer was that he was for "change". Never underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the American public.

Now the left is finding out that he was not as liberal as they thought he was? Too late, just too freaking late!!!

:shrug:

[hiphopnation]

68. k

and








r



:kick:

[pattmarty]

74. Look, he's "promised" quite a few things that he has either back tracked..........

......on or did a complete 180. I am getting real "concerned" about his healthcare reform. It seems that every time he now gives a speech where he mentions it, there is some kind of comment he makes about ANOTHER compromise. It is beginning to look like what we are gonna get out of this (other than the shaft) is something actually worse than the shit system we have. If he doesn't come thru on healthcare or it is seen as a "shit" bill, he will lose seats in the House AND Senate in 2010 and will lose the Presidency in 2012. Healthcare was his BIG promise and if seen that he didn't deliver, he will lose, and it ain't just me saying that.

[Usrename]

118. There ya go.

He knows the right thing to do, and he even expresses the reasoning behind what is the right thing to do. Like when he eloquently explained why he was going to release the torture photos in accordance with the court order. Then he does a 180 and offers no real principled explanation of his reversal. The specious excuses he gives are ones that have already been shot down by the court.

He can quickly become a huge disappointment. Especially with health care. He could easily destroy the coalition that has been built between the left and the moderates, the coalition that is currently marginalizing the Republicans beyond all belief. He is already starting to spill huge support from the left, and that's why his numbers are beginning to fall. He could get those numbers back up tonight if he were to abolish don't ask don't tell like he promised to.

[redqueen]

75. Nice try, but I doubt it'll help.

Besides, I thought you weren't on either side, and didn't see a problem with the anti-Obama smears propagated here. At least that's the impression I got from one of your recent posts.

[Romulox]

76. Obama has admitted to changing his campaign positions on Marijuana, NAFTA.

The OP is extremely misleading. It's not a broken campaign promise because he's admitted changing his position?

[HamdenRice]

90. Thanks for that well thought out, factual analysis. nt

[NoSheep]

94. Thank you for this.

[ElboRuum]

95. Some food for thought...

Sometimes when a child convinces themselves that they deserve something, and they don't get it, sometimes they will say to the parent, "BUT YOU PROMISED!!!!", either a complete fabrication or a delusion based upon a child's ability to morph imagination into his/her narrative of reality.

I see parallels... all the time.

[bjobotts]

104. What good was the entire post other than to justify what Obama hasn't done

[bjobotts]

106. Just because he didn't "promise" not to nuke Iran I still expect him not to.

[change_notfinetuning]

103. I doubt President Obama would support the OP, unless he wants to be

known as SuperWeasel. (How many triangulations can you find in this OP?) I don't think you're doing him any favors.

Promises, shmomises! Obama's mantra seems to be COM-promise. What this country stands for, as well as our potential for future greatness, has been compromised for the last 30 years.

Obama promised change, correct? Not fine tuning, and certainly not business as usual. Unfortunately, I just don't see it. I don't see him working for change. I don't see him representing the people. Betrayal might be more accurate.

That being said, I may be too naive, but I still have hope. I think he, himself, is a decent man, but limited the range of advisors and is not hearing all sides, AS PROMISED.

I feel like the wife in the move, THE HEARTBREAK KID. I feel like I got burned, but I still haven't run out of sunburn lotion. Yet with all the time he's spending and plans he's making with my rivals, I have to wonder if he is going to keep his vows.

[elmerdem]

109. Patience is a virtue.

One thing that you cannot claim that Obama promised at anytime was that his positions or legislative goals would get through fast & be easy. It took dubya eight fucking years to fuck this up & a lot started way before that. Obama is making an honest effort. He is not a political reactionary. I am most impressed by his ability to take heat from all sides for not doing the politically expedient things just to make different interest groups happy. It seems as if his administration is wiling to do the work to bring all sides to the table and not push shit through congress. One part of me thinks he/they should on health care, but that would only perpetuate the partisan corporate debilitative way of governing we've had for 50 years.

[Zynx]

113. The vast majority of attacks on Obama from the left have been either baseless or poorly

based in reality.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

114. Cool a very long Obama excuse/apologist thread n/t

[Usrename]

116. Don't ask, don't tell?

:shrug:

Keeping Gitmo open?

:shrug:

[Hekate]

117. BOOKMARKED BOOKMARKED BOOKMARKED BOOKMARKED BOOKMARKED

Christ on a Trailer Hitch I am sick of the fighting, unwarranted Obama bashing, and RW talking points here. Thank you, McCamy, for putting this together.

Hekate

[McCamy Taylor]

120. You're welcome. I suspect that the right wing is partially to blame and that they have

decided to label Obama a "liar" as they attempted to label Gore and Kerry liars, so that they can weaken him politically and fracture the Democratic base. This from a party that supported a man who lied us into war. Shameful. I suggest everyone read the Rolling Stone piece about how Gore was labeled a liar.

[redqueen]

121. They are definitely shopping the "broken promises" meme. (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

124. Once again, you have used facts against wishful thinking.

But, some here only see what they want to, and hear what they wish to.

Reality must be hard on these souls.

Some of us actually listened to what the man actually was saying.

[Holly_Hobby]

126. Here's a list of over 400 campaign promises...

And the status of each:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Compiled by St. Petersburg Times

[Dark]

129. He lost me when he compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.

n/t

[bananas]

133. Obama is a right-wing authoritarian

and that's the campaign he ran on.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008