The Real Reason President Obama Has Let Us All Down

[Better Believe It]

The Real Reason Obama Has Let Us All Down
On the night he won, I too shed a little tear; but the people weeping today are those having their homes repossessed
by Johann Hari
October 26, 2010

For two years now, most of the good and honorable people who desperately wanted him to beat John McCain – as I did –have watched his actions through a distorting haze of hoping for the best. So when Obama set us all up for another global crash by refusing to reregulate the banks or stop even their riskiest practices, we looked away. When Obama set us all up for more terror attacks by trebling the troops in Afghanistan and launching a vicious air war on Pakistan that is swelling the ranks of jihadis, we didn’t want to hear it. When Obama set us all up for environmental disaster by refusing to put the brakes on his country’s unprecedented and unmatched emissions of climate-destabilizing gases, we switched over to watch will.i.am’s YouTube rejig of the President’s “yes, we can” speech. And when a week from now he is beaten at the mid-term elections – after having so little to show the American people – by a group of even more irrational Republicans, we will weep for him.

In the Land of the Fee, Obama was brought to power by the “donations” – actually investments – of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, IBM, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, and others. So it is unsurprising that his Presidency has largely served their interests, which are very different from our interests. His first act after the election was to appoint an economics team headed by the people who caused the crash: the Clinton-era deregulators and the former heads of Goldman. They proceeded to ensure that any reregulation to prevent another crash was gutted, while the bankers’ bonuses continued to flow. In his official report to Congress, Treasury Department Inspector General Neil Barofsky warned this year: “It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the system have been addressed to date? We are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.”

There are Democrats who refuse to be corporate shills – and they deserve to be defended with every ounce of your energy. If you’re an American and you have time over the next week, phone bank or donate to Representative Alan Grayson, or Senator Russ Feingold, to name two of the best who do it the hard way, run their campaigns by collecting small donations, and actually defend the American people. But they are, alas, a minority in the Democratic Party.

Read the full article at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johan...

[stray cat]

1. So Americans think it will be better with conservatives!

[Better Believe It]

6. The only way you could conclude that is by NOT reading his article.

It's always good to carefully read an article before commenting on it.

You obviously didn't do that because you posted a response in two minutes!

Read the article.

After completing that huge task, please share your opinion on the actual content of the article, not on what you think the author might have written.

[Moonbat2]

110. not all Americans

read DU
go figure

[Tansy_Gold]

16. did it ever occur to you that there are other choices besides

the two you insist we must choose between?

Did it ever occur to you that criticism of the current administration's policies is not the same as advocating radical conservatism?

We who criticize along the same lines as this article want a president and an administration that is MORE progressive, not less. We don't want conservatives -- we are neither stupid nor crazy -- but we do want the change we believed Obama promised us during the campaign.

We're two years into his presidency now. We don't want conservatives, we don't want conservadems, we don't want DINOs. We want real Democrats, real Progressives. And most of us, lacking many of those on the ballot, will end up voting for the democrats who are running.

Does that mean we necessarily agree with them? No, but we know the alternative is worse, far worse. Does it mean that after we've voted for them, we aren't allowed to wish for more?

People are still hurting. They've lost jobs, lost homes, lost health care, lost hope. DADT is still on the books. The banks are fatter than ever, the insurance companies are still raising rates, the Gulf is still full of oil, a college education is still prohibitively expensive for too many people. All the things that were wrong with this country when boooosh left office are, for the most part, STILL wrong. It was one thing to say "give him time!" back in November of 2008 or January of 2009 or even December of 2009. But now it's October of 2010, there's an election coming up that may undo many of the gains made in 2006 and 2008, and the buck has to stop at Mr. Obama's desk.

Those who are saying he couldn't force single payer health care or even a public option through the senate because, after all, he's not a dictator, are forgetting one important point: the bully pulpit. As President, Obama could have and should have rallied the PEOPLE. The good goddess knows he did it in 2008, when he was the consummate campaigner. Why not after the election? Why not continue campaigning on the issues?

That's what this essay addresses -- the failure of Obama to deliver on the message of hope, and the fact that it will cost him and his party and his party's supporters dearly in the next few weeks.

Criticism does not equal hate, nor does it equal disloyalty. Indeed, criticism in some cases should be recognized as one of the highest forms of loyalty. Only those who are blindly loyal would fail to see that.


Tansy Gold

[Celtic Raven]

24. Wish I could Rec your reply

K&R the OP

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. Me too!

[Better Believe It]

80. Same here. Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the discussion.

[Mojorabbit]

146. me too nt

[woo me with science]

39. Beautiful response. Thank you. nt

[rucky]

59. ^^^^^^^^

[LWolf]

68. +1

[riderinthestorm]

77. +100000!! Thanks Tansy for laying it all out as usual. nt

[txaslftist]

83. awesome reply.

[Bluenorthwest]

119. Brava!

Also amen, yippee and yes indeed.

[sabrina 1]

121. Very well said, thank you! n/t

[defendandprotect]

140. +1000% -- excellent ... thanks!

Those who are saying he couldn't force single payer health care or even a public option through the senate because, after all, he's not a dictator, are forgetting one important point: the bully pulpit. As President, Obama could have and should have rallied the PEOPLE. The good goddess knows he did it in 2008, when he was the consummate campaigner. Why not after the election? Why not continue campaigning on the issues?

That's what this essay addresses -- the failure of Obama to deliver on the message of hope, and the fact that it will cost him and his party and his party's supporters dearly in the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, Obama/Baucus and too many other Dems were hip high in funding from

private health care industry -- and Obama made private deals with these interests, including

Big Pharma re negotiating Medicare prices. Not deals, of course, in favor of the public ....

but in favor of big business. Same with Obama's back room deals with private health care

industry promising to keep single-payer off the table!




I'm sure you've also seen this, but ... just in case!

It was posted here at DU on 8/12/10 by another DU member!


Ramh .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!


Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the

overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18 ...



That should make anyone who can read sick to their stomach!

[Tansy_Gold]

161. Answers to rhetorical questions are often the most painful of truths

As I said, Obama could have used the bully pulpit to rally the citizenry. He didn't, and he could have, so there must be a reason why he didn't.

And of course the answer to that question is in your post.



Supposing however, that that isn't the answer, then what is? What other answer answers the question?

Why didn't President Obama fight for the progressive principles Candidate Obama embraced? Why?



Tansy Gold

[defendandprotect]

162. Actually, the public was already rallied ... he just had to give leadership to single-payer ....

vs making deals with his health care industry sponsors ....

Public support was 76%+ for single payer/government run health care --

including Catholics -- 73% -- when Latinos/Latinas added 83%--!!!


The right wing has to buy everything -- including their supporters --

GOP gave start up fiancing in the 1980's for the Christian Coalition --

Richard Scaife funded Dobson's organization -- other wealthy funded Bauer's org.

And Kock Bros are funding this faked T-bagger gathering and it's run out of a PR firm.

And, many other deceptions exactly like those.


MEANWHILE, Democratic Party had ready made legitimate supporters for MEDICARE FOR ALL --

they wouldn't have had to do anything but call them out for a protected Dem rally and

give them all MEDICARE FOR ALL buttons!

They have carefully avoided doing anything like that!



As for your deeper questions about why Obama does what he does ....

Thom Hartmann has tried to suggest that he didn't really have to take corp money --

because citizens had given him so much, but he did anyway. And that lack of confidence

perhaps pushed him in wrong direction .... hmmm.....

I don't know if it's that innocent -- personally, I hold to the premise that

we are given our candidates by TPB and if they become inconvenient, they're gone!

Going with that one until a better one comes along!

[Tansy_Gold]

181. If I were brave enough to voice my honest opinion and risk

the wrath of. . . .whomever. . . .

I think Obama is an empty suit. I think he's got a great smile, a great gift for oratory, and a very wide but very shallow intellect. He can see the surface connections between issues, but he can't dig down to the foundational connections that crisis-solvers need to have. He also has all the necessary personal narcissism to put himself out there on public display and risk being humiliated.

In that respect, I think he's much like GWB -- indeed, all politicians are to one extent or another -- because public humiliation really never bothered W. The whole Katrina thing with McCain's birthday cake meant nothing to W, no remorse, no shame, no embarrassment.

Obama appears to be similar. He hasn't dogged BP because he doesn't have the focused passion needed to deal with an on-going crisis like that. He hasn't resolved the economy because it's hard work to go up against entrenched special interests of the uber-rich, and Obama the professor isn't used to the real hard work of governing. For him it's an intellectual classroom exercise, after which he goes home to dinner and a good book. Kinda like W, only he had PBJs and reruns of Dallas.

With Obama, I fear there's no there there. He looks good and he says a lot of things we like to hear, and he makes us feel better about ourselves as Democrats, but he's not really doing the job we thought he was going to do. And yes, I know there are some who think he is, and they're quite satisfied with him, or at least happy to continue making excuses for his shortcomings, and that's fine. That's the nature of discourse.

But if we look at some of the actions behind the actions -- as you've done defendandprotect -- a whole different image starts to emerge. I can understand why some people would turn away from that revelation, pretend that it doesn't exist or that it's a lie. That's a safe and comfortable position to take. It's one that doesn't engage the discomfort of an unpleasant truth.

Bill Clinton was and is a consummate politician, and that doesn't mean he did all the right things as president. But I would and will always give him credit for being a passionate human being. Maybe too passionate about some things and/or people, but I think even the infidelities (plural) were evidence that Bill Clinton had real blood in his veins.

I'm not sure about Obama.

For some reason or other, the usual DU search engine is all messed up this morning and so are my old bookmarked threads, but in what is still available, I came across something I posted back in May of this year, when the BP catastrophe was just beginning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

<snip>
Has it reached the point where we have to contemplate even the possiblity that "Obama Lied, the whole Gulf Coast died"?

So Bush and McCain partied while New Orleans drowned. How much different is that from Obama and Calderón partying while Grand Isle and Plaquemines Parish suffocate in crude oil?

http://www.examiner.com/x-21743-New-Orleans-Progressive ...

"Ever since the BP oil rig the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank over a month ago, gushing at best guess a minimum of 700,000 gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, local residents of the coast have harbored the fear that Louisiana's once pristine coastal eco-system, - home of some of Louisiana's most sacred wildlife - will eventually turn into an oil-polluted graveyard. To the dismay of everyone, that fear has now turned into reality.


"...In a part of Plaquemines Parish in an estuary called Pass a Loutre, reeds in the marshlands that were normally green with life, are now brown and dead, saturated with oil..."

"Sacred wildlife" is not a phrase used in everyday conversation, but I think it speaks to an almost-forgotten connection between our lives and the life of the planet. A connection relegated with some disparagement to native Americans, New Agers, and ancient goddess worshipers who hadn't seen the light of modern Jesus. We are about to be destroyed, not by the sword or by lightning, but by the consequences of our ignoring the rules of living in harmony with our world.

What Obama seemed to promise in all those ringing speeches was a return to something resembling that harmony. A retreat from war. A hand outstretched in peace. A more equitable economy.

Was it a lie? Was it all a deliberate untruth?

My French is rusty and it wasn't ever very good to begin with, but when I saw the name "Pass a Loutre" there was an instinctive "translation," if you will to "Pass to the Other Side." (Pass á l'outre.) Maybe my translation is completely wrong and someone will correct me and embarrass the hell out of me, but there you have it.

Obama has disappointed me many times since November 2008, and I've not been shy about voicing my "concerns." But I've held back on this issue because I just did not want to believe it was as bad as I thought it was.

<end snip>


One of the constant complaints about the Dems has been their lack of courage, their lack of the spine to stand up for what's right, what's good, what's just. I will not be guilty of that lack of courage.

I will stand up and say that Obama has not delivered much of anything that was expected of him with his huge mandate and his "veto-proof" congress. He did not rally the people and he did not rally the legislative process. Pelosi and the Dems in the House have indeed passed more progressive legislation that has stalled in the Senate, blocked by no more than a few pukes and a few uncooperative DINOs. If Obama and Biden, as leaders of their party, could not negotiate with members of that pary or with sympathetic members of the other party, on key issues, then the conclusions should be that either they are inept leaders or they do not want to lead in that more progressive direction.

This does not mean I'm going to run out and vote for rightwing radical insaniacs like palin or angle or mitt romney or such like. I'm going to continue to vote Democratic because we really do only have two games in town and one of them is essentially the rebirth of the Nazis. I'm not going there, no way no how.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and praise Obama and Biden in the face of their failures to deliver on the key issues on which they campaigned and on which they were elected AND/OR their failures to deal with the crises that have developed since the election.

Leaders lead. And if you look ahead in the direction they are leading, we aren't going to reach the Promised Land anytime soon.



Tansy Gold

[defendandprotect]

187. K&R --- and we're both pushing for a new BREAK THRU TO THE LEFT .....

What you're describing is the pattern --

leadership "ain't what it used to be." Hard to even remember when it was!

Recognized the other day that people even here don't really recognize how Congress

has been driven so far to the right -- on both sides of the aisle -- by right wing

elite targeting of not only moderate and liberal Dems, but also of their own moderates

and liberals, giving us pretty much right vs radical right! And then they insist that

Obama is a "centrist" -- !

It was crushing to hear so early on from the Constitution-teaching-Obama that he saw no

grounds for impeaching Bush. And a DOJ dead in the waters.

Was just looking at a photo the other day of W with the obvious network of sound equipment

running up his back during the debates. I don't think it's really the shock of these

things happening that throws us so much -- it's the shock of so little calling out of these

deceptions -- and now right wing bullying is escalating to actual violence vs opponents.

Katrina and Gulf -- like torture -- show a disregard for human life that echoes Third Reich.

On our side, I do not at all feel that things are in competent hands.

Fortunately, my BS-meter seems to be set quite higher than the majority here.


Bill Clinton was and is a consummate politician, and that doesn't mean he did all the right things as president. But I would and will always give him credit for being a passionate human being. Maybe too passionate about some things and/or people, but I think even the infidelities (plural) were evidence that Bill Clinton had real blood in his veins.

Agree -- even now, hard to dislike him because of that. But overturning 60 years of Welfare

Guarantees frequently brings me close -- and trade agreements!


SAVE ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

http://www.examiner.com/x-21743-New-Orleans-Progressive ...

"Sacred wildlife" is not a phrase used in everyday conversation, but I think it speaks to an almost-forgotten connection between our lives and the life of the planet. A connection relegated with some disparagement to native Americans, New Agers, and ancient goddess worshipers who hadn't seen the light of modern Jesus. We are about to be destroyed, not by the sword or by lightning, but by the consequences of our ignoring the rules of living in harmony with our world.

What Obama seemed to promise in all those ringing speeches was a return to something resembling that harmony. A retreat from war. A hand outstretched in peace. A more equitable economy.

House is more encouraging still -- but Senate is the intended STOP on liberal/progressive action.

Even the Founders complained that USHR provided far too little representation --

and I think we have about 1/10th of the representation in House, per person, that the British have?


PM me anytime, if you wish!

[Mimosa]

209. Tansy, your analysis is as beautifully written as it is painful to read

I lived in New Orleans and loved the coastal wetlands of South Louisiana. I fear they have finally been 'done in' and our government DID NOT MAKE BP clean up the mess. And all the CoRexit probably added more poisons to the environment than what the oil alone would have done.

Very few people realise how tragic the effects of spill will be for what was once a beautiful fecund coast.

[Ishoutandscream2]

224. Seriously, one of the best fucking posts I've ever read here

You hit the nail on the head. Just a great analysis.

[kentuck]

159. Well said, Tansy

Criticism does not equal hate or disloyalty.

[ThomCat]

176. Bravo!

It would have been nice if we had a real Democrat in office this term.

It would have been nice if we had a president in the oval office who believed in standing up for his base instead of his biggest donors.

It would have been nice if this wasn't a Goldman Sachs administration.

Yes, everything would have be worse under a republican, but they would have been better under a Democrat. Instead we got Obama, a Goldman Sach owned and operated ConservaDem.

[JamesA1102]

180. You're being unrealistic

If what you say is totally true then Russ Feingold would not be losing. You mention jobs and the economy but also DADT as if it ranks equally but can you show one poll where the people have ranked DADT up with jobs and the economy as their top concerns. I don't think you can.

To quote Rolling Stone: "Less than halfway through his first term, Obama has compiled a remarkable track record. As president, he has rewritten America's social contract to make health care accessible for all citizens. He has brought 100,000 troops home from war and forged a once-unthinkable consensus around the endgame for the Bush administration's $3 trillion blunder in Iraq. He has secured sweeping financial reforms that elevate the rights of consumers over Wall Street bankers and give regulators powerful new tools to prevent another collapse. And most important of all, he has achieved all of this while moving boldly to ward off another Great Depression and put the country back on a halting path to recovery.

Along the way, Obama delivered record tax cuts to the middle class and slashed nearly $200 billion in corporate welfare — reinvesting that money to make college more accessible and Medicare more solvent. He single-handedly prevented the collapse of the Big Three automakers — saving more than 1 million jobs — and brought Big Tobacco, at last, under the yoke of federal regulation. ..",

You're problem is that you unrealistically expected change to happen overnight but change takes time and rather than realistically look at the steps taken to put this country on the right path; you've decided to make the perfect the enemy of the good like a spoiled child who doesn't get 100% his way.

[Tansy_Gold]

182. Nonsense

I do not know why Russ Feingold is behind -- and I'm horrified by what it says about the state of our country. But that's another whole issue.

Obama did not rewrite the social contract -- he made a deal with the health insurance companies to make health insurance available to more people in a few years and he's going to make them buy it whether they can afford it or not. Obama did not make health CARE accessible. He protected the insurance companies whose job it is to DENY health care and boost profits.

Obama brought troops home from Iraq and has sent more to Afghanistan, where the war has expanded into Pakistan. The contracts with civilian contractors continue to drain billions and billions and billions MORE than if we had a self-sufficient military.

Whatever Wall Street reforms have been put in place -- not too long ago someone posted here on DU that the reforms haven't even been written yet -- haven't stopped the bonuses or the ballooning of another DJIA bubble. And that halting recovery is still bleeding jobs as companies continue to ship them to cheaper labor markets.

I didn't expect change to happen overnight. I expected progress toward change to have been made, but I've seen damn little.

There are a couple opposites of expecting change to happen overnight. One is to have seen change happen overnight when it really didn't. You seem to be reading the Rolling Stone essay as evidence that Obama really did work miracles! and yet you're accusing me of expecting them and being disappointed at not getting them. That doesn't make sense. If he really did work miracles -- in a mere 21 months with a partisan congress -- you should be celebrating.

Obama hasn't worked miracles, and I don't think any of us expected him to. Oh, maybe we thought he'd do the executive order thing to end DADT, but that's about it. We knew it would be a process and there would be bumps in the road. But what I don't think we expected was the flipflops on issues like the public option, the Gulf Coast disaster, the economy.

But you can go right ahead with your faith. It's allowed.

I just personally don't encourage it.



Tansy Gold, NTY

[JamesA1102]

189. If you don't know why Feingold is behind

then you need to get out the DU bubble and listen to what real people are worried about.

[defendandprotect]

191. Feingold is behind because of elite money influencing our elections ....

and because of right wing violence, lies and stolen elections!

What we are fighting is the right wing -- CORPORATISM = fascism --

and their class warfare -- including attacks on human rights -- i.e., labor.

Your perspective is very limited -- all of these issues are connected and

inter-connected -- and NONE of them stand alone --

certainly NOT DADT.

Capitalism is about exploitation of humans and natural resources for power and profit.

It's a suicidal concept for both humanity and the planet.

[JamesA1102]

194. Just keep repeating that to yourself over and over again

It sounds nice but it's not how you win elections.

[defendandprotect]

198. IF Repugs could win without political violence, without lies, and without pouring $$

into elections, even they wouldn't be so idiotic as to be pulling that stuff --

[JamesA1102]

208. You have examples of political violence

against Feingold?

[defendandprotect]

223. Nah .... this is after all "conspiracy-free America" ....

Feingold is still alive, isn't he?

How about Paul Wellstone, etal --

[JamesA1102]

225. So you're claiming that Paul Wellstone was murdered??

Do you have proof of that or are you just pulling stuff out of your butt again. And please show the evidence that Feingold has been a victim of political violence.

[defendandprotect]

232. Very likely Wellstone was assassinated --

Usually, my only rule for putting people on "Ignore" is being disingenuous --

In your case, I think I have to expand it to nasty and inane --

Bye --

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

206. +1000 nt

[defendandprotect]

190. Your perspective is wrong .....

DADT -- like ERA -- is an issue of Human Rights --

EXACTLY what "jobs" and the "economy" are about in our struggles against elites and

corporatism.

If Russ Feingold is losing it has to do with elites controlling our elections --

mostly with money, because the only way the right wing rises is through political violence and lies.

And, contrary to Rolling Stone's enthusiasm, we do not have Universal Health Care which --

btw, 76% of Americans wanted -- i.e., single payer-government run health care! In fact,

Catholics also wanted single payer/government run health care by majorities of 73% -- and 83%

when Latinos/Latinas are included. Not only that, Catholics also wanted reproductive care

included -- including simple CHOICE by 51%. Every other nation has Universal Health Care for

its citizens. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and yet we hear we can't afford it!

Iraq was not a "blunder" ... it was based on right wing lies.

And, thanks for the tax cuts! However, every dollar any American had pre-Bush is now worth

about 50 cents -- tops 60 cents! And so far we have not seen an end to the Bush tax cuts for

the wealthy.

When capitalism fails due to its own corruptions and crimes -- it should be permitted to fail.

And the government should take over the corporation and its employees and run it.


And given your confidence in Obama and this administration, perhaps you want to explain these

two counter examples of a pro-corporate agenda in the White House .... ?


Both articles were posted previously by other DU'ers, btw --

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

8/12/10


Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18 ...




AND ... posted at DU 9/19/10

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response,the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insur ...

[JamesA1102]

195. ERA???? Get out of the '70s and face reality

DADT may be a matter of civil rights but show me one poll that puts the issue as a major concern of the public up with jobs and the economy. And most polls do not show that most Americans want a single payer healthcare system.

You may want to bury your head in the sand about why Feingold is losing but those of us who live in the real world can't.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generic Other]

186. great reply!

thanks.

[Suprk]

197. Add me to this list

I really enjoyed reading your intelligent response to this discussion. You have echoed my feelings in many ways.

[laughingliberal]

205. +1000 nt

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

207. Great reply (rec + 1000000000000)

[Richard Steele]

226. Brilliant post, Tansy. nm

[Nite Owl]

25. Where did that come from?

No one is saying that but you.

[QC]

32. That's all s/he ever posts.

Hundreds and hundreds of variations on "If you don't like it you can vote for the Republicans!!!"

It's a strange GOTV strategy.

[racaulk]

71. And they're always "drive-by" posts.

S/he never returns to the thread to actually discuss something.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurovski]

51. For fucksake

He says the complete opposite in the article.

[Moonbat2]

109. looking that way

[defendandprotect]

138. This is an anti-conservative article .... anti conservatives/anti-pro-corporate Dems ....

[rucognizant]

167. I have a lot to say here!

Descended from the original colonists who have created this country. I still carry the Integrity & "age of enlightenment" mentality as do all my cousins ( intact after 235-40 years.............AmeriCorp/PeacCorp service given.
Totally resourceful.entrpreneurial, ( I IMMEDIATELY FELT THE DECLINE OF FREEDOM for my small "Art" business 2 months after reagan's inaugural............it has been a steady decline since then NO MATTER WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO......obstacles obstructions put up by that viscious cadre of RICH MEN who are perpetrating this disaster..........I have TRIED to make you younger ones awarfe of what is at stake....but the POWERS that be made you just comfoprgtable enought thatg you

[rucognizant]

169. HOLY COW I AM MAD..doesn't work with my keyboard........

I am now at age 71 circling the toilet bowl about to disappear from view forever.......................WILL YOU LISTEN NOW BEFORE I AM GONE!
You were made just comfortable enough that you didn't reach out a hand to me but let me struggle! ( for the past 20 years you have said to me "Things change" and then went & bought new software from Best Buy who had just screwed me over.!) "Isn't this new tech stuff coooooool......."
The REGULATIONS that are straightjacketing strangling me, have been put in place STEADILY for the past 30 years (that I have witnessed & before) that as I read about them here (BFEE) Repig Pres. 18 years vs Dem Pres. 10 years.......Repig COngress Newt GainGRINCH shut down govt in opposition to Pres Clinton.
NOT BY OBAMA!!!!
Because LGBT was NOT an issue in the 50's, Gay inclined men a were often the first to get married & have families to reassure themselves & the public that they were OK. That is what set me on the present course of my life.............divorce in 1973 ( statistics say that was the year that the post war boom began a downturn) In spite of that I ran the family mural painting business well & with aplomb, earning a modest living ( time/ materials intensive low profit. but workable comfortably until reagan tax reform.........wall street giddiness...middle class played the stock market instead of buying artwork; Madoff thanks you all..............Smitrh Barbney closed my money market account because they suddenly required a min. balance of $5,000. I could no longer short term profit/benefit from the $2,000. deposit for a short run until it was used for materials & sub contractor salaries., 1989 reagan recession forced sale of house, loss but noit foreclosure ( same thing that's happening now on a smaller scale), $200. + cheap fixer in Maine ( still not fixed no $ to do it) in heavily populated NJ
1991-2000 AGISM in hiring................Usurpation of EVERYTHING by the corporations, 80% of MY foods gone from the market replaced by of artificial unhealthy manufactured foods. I AM THE ONE WHO ALERTED the local seed co-op to the Monsanto buyout of 33% of small seed businesses in the NE 4 years ago... They thanked me & weeded out reorganized their stock & suppliers.
Yesterday..........SS income inadequate to cover all BASIC expenses, bank ( yes small local one) gleefully bouncing checks & charging $30. each time
so I begin next month Nov with $800. instead of 891. which wasn't enough last month..... I received the money order from my daughter.can'take it to the bank they'll keep it; PO is closed for lunch 11:45am - 1-45pm................ local Grocery Goddess doesn't do M O's in her stores ( 1 of 2) SHe does carry rack of lamb @ $11.99 per lb.......has reduced the flavors of Raman Noodles to only 4 varieties.........Her demographic? ( average income $20,000 per year, over 55 yrs 55%......Two of my widowed/single female friends live on ONLY $500. per month SS income. I am rich by comparison but I am also still trying to run a business, printer ink $90 a pop, etc........dsl fuel for networking $3.25 per gal.
small independent grocer won't cash it because my daughter wrote it out first to a food bank, crossed it out & initialed it........made it out to me......They sent me to their post office, who couldn't cash it Not enough money in the 'till, then to the SMALL INDEPENDANT, NOT CORPORATE WALMART) discount store where I have been shopping for the last 19 years, ( until inflation overran my income in 2008, they haven't seen much of me lately, But know me & were creative enough to call the PO, check the crossed out info to make it work.and cashed it for me. SO 30 miles traveled, 2 hours spent all so I could buy catfood etc. Tues I won;'t even fgo into detail but 2 hours spent talking to the bank, Orwellian lingo, Netflix $9.44 automatic withdrawal pending they can't stop payment on a DEbit card arrangement so I run down with $10.00 from a friend.........they apply it to the -44. & stiff Netflix any way! THEN my automatic checkbook replacement comes in occurs an overdraft charge so I have paid $46.00 for a lousy box of ugly green checks not even a picture on them! ( My friend says we get free checks with our gold wave accounts, SHE DOES, so MORE OF MY WORK TIME SPENT TODAY TO GO TO THE BANK & CHALLENGE THEM ON THAT! I have had my gold wave account for 20 years..?????????
Through all this..my flake board roof to my storage shed containing about $7,000. worth of paintings, is melting away for lack of $32. to replace the tarp covering it that didn't keep it's waterproof quality for even a year.................Another confrontation with the local hardware store which went from local owners to upscale yuppy owner, 3 years ago aiming to the "building boom" instead of serving local customers. Remember average income $20,000 per year )
I CAN SEE OBAMA MAKING CHANGES WITHIN THE IS HIDEOUS FRAMEWORK. He is almost as handicapped as I am...............SUPPORT HIM DAMMIT
Having lost 5 or 6 working hours to stamping out these grassfires I call my budget,with an upcoming art sale where I might make $10 or 15. selling original XAMAS CARDS....... with in a grotesquely inefficient social structure, ( being as efficient today, as I am, is a real DEFICIT!)
I then volunteered 2 hours of my time to GOTV calls last night as I have done every evening this week, & gotten a commendation from DNC in DC, for being the hardest hitting of the 13 states that don't have a Senatorial candidate up this season as well as from my local Dems ( "their star" LOL. )
CAN YOU DO LESS?

[ThomCat]

175. I'm so sick of that stupid response.

It means nothing. It means that you can't think of anything intelligent to say.

A regulator is pointing out that our administration failed to do their duty, and instead of thinking that this is something we need to fix, you are thinking that the administration did just fine because the republicans would have done worse.

Slightly better than the republicans is not good enough if what was done really wasn't good enough.

On real issues someones you have to stop being a damn apologist and work in issues. It can't always be about being a damn cheerleader.

[G_j]

193. do you ever post something that is not just a drive by?

if so, I haven't seen it.

[QC]

203. No. n/t

[fascisthunter]

215. look in the mirror

I find you to be more aligned with conservatism than anyone else on this thread. Your flame baiting is really amazing... amazing how you continuously get away with it.

[ProudDad]

219. Maybe not better but not much different...

The corporations are getting massive returns on their investment in Obama. Two-thirds of them pay no federal tax on their income. These corporations get to veto any law that would eat into their short-term profits, like a freeze on kicking Americans out of their homes while the banks’ dodgy and probably illegal boom-time mortgages contracts are clarified, or a transition away from climate-destabilising oil and coal. And they rake in a fortune from the reality that 44 percent of the entire federal budget is spent on a largely unnecessary war machine – a figure that is growing rapidly on Obama’s watch.

The fact that corporations have this power over what the US government can do means Obama – or any other President – is unable to approach a problem by asking: how do I fix this? Instead he has to ask: how can we get corporations to consent to a small cosmetic gesture that will, for a while, appease public anxiety and anger about this problem?

The healthcare “reform” trumpeted as Obama’s greatest achievement illustrates how this works. The biggest problem with US healthcare is that squatting between a doctor and his patient are the bloated insurance companies whose job is to turn down any claim from a sick person they possibly can, in order to maximize their profits. Some 45,000 Americans die every year as a result. Obama had within his grasp a way of taming these corporations and saving the lives of all these people. It was called the public option: a government-run healthcare insurance programme that would guarantee affordable care to all American citizens. It was supported by 61 percent of Americans. But it would cut into corporate profits – so Obama’s outgoing chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said its defenders were “fucking retards,” and the administration killed it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dinger]

17. Jesus Here . . . It Ain't Bullshit

It's real.

[Nite Owl]

26. Bullshit? It's the truth

even if some don't like to hear it we have to face up to it.

[emilyg]

30. It's truth. Deal with it.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. K&R

[Tansy_Gold]

4. So my rec leaves it at -0-

But the truth is still the truth, and all the denial in the world can't change that.

El ojo que ves no es ojo porque tú lo veas -- es ojo porque te ve.



Tansy Gold

[mod mom]

7. me too.

[villager]

12. Mine as well - head-meet-sand types are discombobulated...

...which always sets their "unrec" fingers twitching...

[nc4bo]

11. I think it's risen to around -10 by now.

Yea I Rec'd also but there seem to be some very busy little beavers on DU.

[Better Believe It]

18. They didn't like Skinner's post on human nature either. So far 14 unrecommends on it!

[Skittles]

44. beavers?

COWARDS

[defendandprotect]

141. I'm casting a LATE K&R .... never saw the article til now .... too late to rec....

we need a longer period of time to rec --

[saltpoint]

5. Lovely addition to the local discourse a week before

the mid terms.

Unrec'd.

[earth mom]

8. K & R for Truth! Screw the denial here on DU!

[ProSense]

9. .

Truth

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

14. You truth is someone else's questionable opinion. n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

165. Great idea! Suffocate them with verbiage!!

NGU.

[SidDithers]

10. ...

Sid

[HughMoran]

15. -2

[live love laugh]

46. -infinity. nt

[NYCGirl]

19. Mr. Hari seems to have a tenuous relationship with the

truth from time to time. He also thought invading Iraq was a fine idea.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johann_Hari

[QC]

52. Joe Biden also thought invading Iraq was a fine idea. n/t

[NYCGirl]

128. Good thing he isn't a journalist then, like Mr. Hari claims to be. NT

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

20. who's 'us all' ?

[UTUSN]

23. You're so polite. I was going to say, "What's this 'us all' shit?!1' " n/t

[unkachuck]

21. K&R....it may not be pleasant but we need to hear it....n/t

[txlibdem]

62. +1 Best. Comment. Ever.

Darn right. I'm watching Morning Joe and if you believe their spin you'd think that the Repuke resurgence is because President Obama's policies were far too "liberal" for America. Lie. If you take a poll that asks the actual question of what people want (and do not mention the words "D" and "R" and "Obama") most people wanted Obama to make legislation MORE liberal, not the opposite.

If President Obama can be criticized for anything it's not having enough backbone, being too driven by the criticism from the psycho right, too willing to compromise on all liberal principles in the failed hope of getting even one Republican to "come on board" and support his legislation. Fail. Fail. Fail.

Alternate history time: if Obama, who claimed to be a student of FDR, had actually BEEN more like FDR he wouldn't be facing the hell he is most likely to have to suffer through: a Repuke majority in the house with subpoena power and a plan called "Ken Starr 2.0" on steroids.

[treestar]

28. Unrec'd the Pres has not "let us down" and the piece only holds

together being built on its strained interpretation of everything, and the interpretations are wrong to boot.

Geez you'd think we don't need banks at all. Just let them all collapse, M'kay?

[Better Believe It]

34. "we don't need banks at all. Just let them all collapse" Who proposed that?

Links please.

[Dr.Phool]

111. Ignored is making up fantasy statements again?

[Tansy_Gold]

217. That happens sometimes. Yeah, it does.

[txaslftist]

84. Just let 'em all collapse...

Awesome Idea!!

Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGlrz_mlhg&feature=play...

[defendandprotect]

145. Obama let down 76%+ of the public who wanted single payer .....

and swung the decision in favor of his sponsors -- the health care industry --

and Big Pharma --

Here's Rahm "crowing" about it --

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18 ...


If that doesn't make anyone reading it sick to their stomachs, they can't read!

[bread_and_roses]

172. You should get out on the ground more....

I am making election calls all this week, and believe, me, people who don't spend all their time reading arcane explanations of things like how being forced to buy health care from vampire insurance companies are really good for them, or who don't have jobs after a year of trying, or who are looking at local taxes going up because the States and municipalities have no money are mad as hell.

And since the pusillanimous Dems won't get out and tell the truth, won't give people a coherent narrative they can understand about the REAL powers destroying their lives, they are turning on all incumbents - they know they're getting screwed, but the only ones giving them someone to blame are the crazies. The Dems are too deep themselves in corporate pockets to tell the truth.

It's ugly out here.

edit to add inadvertently left out "are good for them"

[ProudDad]

220. If the major "investment banks" who created the problem

had collapsed...

Most of us on Main Street would have never known the difference...

They should have let the bastards collapse...

Then set up community credit unions in their place!

They could have given the $Trillions in phony money the Fed created to those community credit unions to invest in their local economies instead of giving it to the banksters to hoard...

But that would have taken cajones -- not a hot commodity among the employees of the ruling class...

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. I'll give it a kick. And an R, for that matter. nt

[Panaconda]

31. Well I have to say

I knew what was coming.

I also have to say the paucity of relevant discussion about the article here is bizarre.

Imagine if you had just a high school class room and you opened the class with the students reading the article and then asked them to discuss it and what you got were comments such as those found in this thread,

[ProSense]

33. "I also have to say the paucity of relevant discussion about the article here is bizarre."

What's bizarre is repeating this ridiculous claim, as the author of this piece does:

In the Land of the Fee, Obama was brought to power by the “donations” – actually investments – of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, IBM, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, and others.

That's the bullshit claim that has in recent days been completely debunked as the Chamber of Commerce and Rove try to deflect the charges that they're buying our elections.

[grantcart]

105. The people who are reccing this article have absolutely no grasp on the reality

of how the 2008 election was financed.

However it is against the President and therefore qualifies as 'Truth' despite the reality it is completey factually without any basis whatsoever.

[defendandprotect]

148. Here's the reality ....

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18 ...


If that doesn't make anyone reading it sick to their stomachs, they can't read!

Obama and Baucus were heavily financed by the health care industry --

[defendandprotect]

151. And, here's more reality of Obama and "back room" deals with Big Pharma....

Here you go ............

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response,the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insur ...

I still fail to understand how people honestly believe that Obama did not cut closed door deals


------------------------------------------

This was previously posted by another DU'er --

[Mimosa]

210. DefendandProtect, the NYT link doesn't work

However the facts about the backroom deal are available to anybody who'll search.

[Better Believe It]

212. Here's the correct link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insur...

[ProudDad]

221. Some of the numbers...

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835


1 Lawyers/Law Firms $43,154,642
2 Retired $42,892,978
3 Education $22,976,126
4 Misc Business $16,500,999
5 Securities & Investment $14,891,735
6 Health Professionals $11,746,631
7 Business Services $11,503,771
8 Democratic/Liberal $11,106,487
9 Real Estate $10,422,031
10 TV/Movies/Music $9,004,072
11 Civil Servants/Public Officials $8,807,391
12 Computers/Internet $8,521,003
13 Women's Issues $6,906,664
14 Misc Finance $6,398,267
15 Printing & Publishing $5,968,031
16 Other $3,669,123
17 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $3,339,099
18 Commercial Banks $3,316,351
19 Non-Profit Institutions $2,974,895
20 Construction Services $2,915,255

Proving he was a cheap date...

The FIX was in...

And the payback to the corporations, especially banking and finance, the health-industrial complex and the war profiteers has been 10,000 fold...

He also raised a bunch of individual small donations from those that P.T.Barnum used to term the "suckers"...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=200...

[chervilant]

171. hmm...

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money."

Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY

"Obama has been raising campaign cash for two political pots -- Obama 2010 Inc., his Senate re-election committee, and the Hopefund, another war chest. Obama, until his recent conversion on the eve of his presidential run, took more than $1 million from political action committees."

SourceWatch

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

www.politico.com


The Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our government have a vested interest in keeping us (the Hoi Polloi) deluded, divided and divisive. Now, we could argue about 'where Obama got financial support' until the cows come home (and the above information is a mere smattering of the available data), but the fact remains that a growing number of Obama supporters has been criticizing his performance. And, in the words of the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

[Starry Messenger]

65. I can tell you from direct experience

that most high school students are way more thoughtful than some of the posters here. I'm often shocked at the contrast.

[jaxx]

35. I have to unrec this piece.

Articles that are pure conjecture really aren't relevant in the workings of our government. And especially by a Brit. I've noticed the past few days that the Guardian and the Independent have both ran anti-USA articles. Maybe they're going right since their government has, I don't know.

[Better Believe It]

36. That's incredibly vague. Indicate precisely what points you disagree with in the article and why?

[jaxx]

37. #1 Obama hasn't let us all down.

And how the hell has he let down the Brit writer? Conjecture on his part.

All of these are either conjecture or just plain not true:
Feel good fairy tale
refusing to regulate banks
set us all up for more terrorist attacks
set us all up for environmental disaster by refusing to put the brakes on his country’s unprecedented and unmatched emissions of climate-destabilizing gases
And when a week from now he is beaten at the mid-term elections – after having so little to show the American people – by a group of even more irrational Republicans, we will weep for him.

That's just from the first two paragraphs. Save your tears and your ignorance Mr. Johann Hari.

[Skittles]

43. only thinking folk

[jaxx]

48. Who let Brit writers think for them?

[Skittles]

53. what's wrong with that?

ANYONE who tells the truth is fine with me - and my mum is a Brit

[jaxx]

58. He wasn't telling 'the' truth, he was telling 'his' truth.

[defendandprotect]

153. So to criticize the USA is now to be on the "right" .... ???

Rather it is your opinion on the LEFT which is causing you to want to disappear articles like this!

[Egnever]

168. Oh the horror!

[defendandprotect]

192. Your debate is a pumpkin ..... okay ...

[ProudDad]

222. You really don't understand that

the USAmerican "government", and state and most local governments...

Are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporate States of America?

Wow, such naivete in the face of overwhelming evidence from even non-British sources is admirable.

[dkf]

38. HELLO...George Bush bailed out the banks.

Obama was the one who passed financial reform. How soon we forget.

[Better Believe It]

40. Are derivatives still being traded? What Wall Street banksters are now serving time in prison?

[dkf]

45. The Regulatory agencies haven't come out with their rules yet.

We frankly don't know much about how they are implementing things yet. And it's not Obama's role to direct his people to throw the bankers in jail. Who do you think he is? Nixon? He needs to let the justice department do what they must and keep far away from this.

[Better Believe It]

183. That's right. Wall Street is still busy writing those "rules".

[Tansy_Gold]

216. "And it's not Obama's role to direct his people. . . . .

"He needs to let the justice department do what they must and keep far away from this.




Excuse me, but if it's not the president's role to direct his people, then what IS his role? To stand up there and smile his pretty smile and wave?

And why would the president want, let alone "need," to keep "far away from" one of the critical issues affecting the economy?

I really and truly do not mean to suggest that your post makes no freakin' sense whatsofuckin'ever, but, well, your post makes no freakin' sense whatsofuckin'ever.





Tansy Gold

[girl gone mad]

54. So, Obama wasn't President over the last 18 months while..

the Federal Reserve bought 1.5 trillion dollars of worthless mortgage backed securities from the banks?

And what about the now unlimited bailout to Fannie and Freddie, which effectively operate as slush funds for the banks and politically connected insiders?

How soon we forget.

[dkf]

55. TARP was also signed by Bush.

And I'm not sure he has the power to tell the Federal Reserve to stop buying mortgage backed securities...does he?

[girl gone mad]

98. He had the power to appoint someone other than Bernanke to head the Fed.

He could most certainly have chosen someone more qualified.

[txaslftist]

85. financial reform?!!?

LOL.

That legislation was written BY the Banks, for the banks.

Financial Reform.

LOL.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

94. Then why have the banks poured money into Republican coffers and Republicans vowed to repeal it?

"I wrote this legislation, now i'm going to pay someone else to repeal it...genius!"

[sabrina 1]

120. Because they will always get more from Republicans especially

when they are desperate to win. But really, it doesn't make much difference to Wall St. which party is in power.

Clinton signed away the Glass/Steagal Act which started this runaway Capitalism disaster. Only 7 Democrats voted against doing so and one Republican.

They know that the votes will be there, regardless of which party wins, to keep them raking in profits and to cover their crimes for them.

Facts are facts. History records the collusion of both parties with Corporate America to the detriment of ordinary Americans and the country itself.

People trying to warn the Clinton administration, like Brooksley Born were driven out of their jobs by Clinton's, now Obama's economic team.

But, each party can only prop up these criminals so much before their respective bases begin to start seeing the light, so to keep the illusion of a two party system going, switching them around has worked pretty well.

Rec'd because the truth is people are disappointed and that is probably putting it mildly.

[wildbilln864]

41. and a k&r! nt

[scarletwoman]

42. K&R. By not mobilizing left populism when it was truly possible and most needed,

we are truly fucked.

[blindpig]

63. They dare not

They know they cannot control it, so they deny the possibility of it's existence.

But it will happen anyway.

[scarletwoman]

103. Exactly! The status quo must be protected at all costs.

Right populism actually entrenches and enshrines the status quo -- they do not challenge the seats of power, instead they seek to reinforce those powers in order to turn them to their purposes of smiting their perceived enemies.

Left populism seeks to tumble those seats of power altogether, which is why it cannot be acknowledged.

sw

[donheld]

47. Rec to see if it would show, alas...

[Kurovski]

50. It's just fucking ridiculous.

that feature might be the death of DU, or its ascendance as home for corporate shills. What-the-fuck-ever.

"President Obama...he is railing against the massive corporate donations to the Republicans – a hypocrisy, for sure, but a popular one, pointing to a better path he might have chosen, and still could, if enough sane Americans shake themselves awake and pressure him hard."

Pressure? Not from DU it would seem.

[defendandprotect]

154. UN's keep an article from rising until it is too late to K&R .... !! We need more than 24 hrs...

[county worker]

49. We have enough time to fight this out after next week. Now do we fight it

out as members of the party who holds the majority in Congress or not?

Stop this shit and get out the vote!

[Better Believe It]

87. The discussion and debates on "the left" will have little or no impact on the election.

In my opinion, 2008 ordinary working class Democratic voters by the millions are not voting because they have not seen any improvement in their economic situation which they expected to see within a few years with a "change" administration and Congress. Very few of these millions have even heard of Democratic Underground much less visit and post here. And I haven't seen any DU'ers urging a few thousand working class people who visit DU to not vote or to vote for Republicans. That just hasn't happened on Democratic Underground but some in desperation will always raised that straw man point.

And I think the writer underscored this when he pointed out:

Contrary to the glib stereotype, Americans aren’t stupid, and they can see what is happening: a recent CNN poll found 60 percent of Americans said Obama “has paid more attention to the problems faced by banks and other financial institutions than to the problems faced by middle class Americans.” They’re right. It’s not that they want him to be “more liberal” or “more conservative”: few think in these terms. No. They are asking – is my job more secure? Is my home more secure? Is my health care more affordable? And the answer is no, not really. They know the people who caused the crash are fatter than ever, while the people who had nothing to do with it take the pain, and Obama is left calling this farce progress. In the absence of a liberal populism that would have actually fixed these problems, all the oxygen goes to the fake populism of the Tea Party. US politics has ended up as a battle between the mostly corrupt and the entirely corrupt.

Remember the campaign slogan "It's the economy stupid"? This election is mainly about the state of the economy and need I say that the economy sucks?

And if we don't see some major improvements in the economy with much lower unemployment, the creation of millions of new good paying jobs, and end to the foreclosures and a general improvement in the living standards of most people, how do you think the 2012 elections will turn out? Most working people don't care much about labels "liberal, smiberal, conservative, neo-cons". They do care their livelihoods and welfare of themselves and their loves ones.

Now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the answer to that question.

Not a pleasant thought at all.

[letterwriter]

56. I have a few problems with Obama

And I might talk about them after next Tuesday.

[inna]

57. kr

+3 now

[rucky]

60. This is a fair and honest assessment. K&R

[Mimosa]

61. This part is so true:

From the link in the OP:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johan...

The healthcare “reform” trumpeted as Obama’s greatest achievement illustrates how this works. The biggest problem with US healthcare is that squatting between a doctor and his patient are the bloated insurance companies whose job is to turn down any claim from a sick person they possibly can, in order to maximize their profits. Some 45,000 Americans die every year as a result. Obama had within his grasp a way of taming these corporations and saving the lives of all these people. It was called the public option: a government-run healthcare insurance programme that would guarantee affordable care to all American citizens. It was supported by 61 percent of Americans. But it would cut into corporate profits – so Obama’s outgoing chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, said its defenders were “fucking retards,” and the administration killed it.

Instead, Obama pursued the polar opposite approach. He guaranteed the healthcare companies that he would never use the bargaining power of the government to force their prices down. His “reform” has been simply to force millions more Americans to buy from the insurance companies – without any mechanism for making that care more affordable. There were a few brilliant tweaks, like making it illegal for the corporations to refuse insurance to people with “pre-existing conditions” – but their share-prices jumped after the package was announced for a reason: Obama overwhelmingly served their interests, not the patients’. At the end of this, millions will be still left uncovered, and others financially broken, so a tiny number of corporations can profit. If Obama can’t stand up to corporations in a situation where Americans are demonstrably being killed in huge numbers and a majority is behind him, isn’t his subservience almost complete?

All this corruption means Obama has very few achievements to show the American people. He is left presenting pitiful corporate-fattening tweaks as the best he could do. They aren’t nothing – but they aren’t much. His inadequate stimulus was slightly bigger than McCain’s would have been, so unemployment is about 2 percent lower. He has restored federal funding for stem cell research, and for abortions abroad. He hasn’t bombed Iran. These make a real difference: they’re reason enough to vote Democratic over Republican. But we have to be honest: the continuities with Bush are far more pronounced than the differences.

[blindpig]

64. indeed

Only the most restrictive blinders could fail to see anything else.

[Dr.Phool]

113. Frontline will have a program on that election night.

"Obama's Deal".

I don't think it will be pretty.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. K & R

Excellent, well-written article.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. K&R

[karynnj]

70. Two questions - Why are you still here? and What has Grayson actually have done that leads

to singling him out - Outrageous comments aside.

This FOREIGN article says, "In the Land of the Fee, Obama was brought to power by the “donations” – actually investments – of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, IBM, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, and others." In fact, this is not really true at all. It is EMPLOYEES working for those companies that gave Obama money. Just like they gave money to Grayson and Feingold. Here is the top line Open Secrets report on that election. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=200... Note that the % from PACs rounds down to zero.

So, why does this writer say that. The likelihood is he has read enough articles - likely articles you posted - that have used open secrets or other disclosure cites and ignored the split between PAC and individual giving. The fact is that a huge part of the population work for a company - and that company must be listed when they give a donation. Therefore, if you used the same standard, even Grayson and Feingold get money from these listed companies.

[Better Believe It]

73. A nice statement in defense of Wall Street "donations" to influence candidates.

Just some Wall Street "rank and file" donations .... right?

[karynnj]

81. Many of those companies are not "Wall Street"

In addition, there are people - real people - who work for the Wall Street companies. Many live in my state - and not all are making millions. Many are simply good people living their lives. I never stopped to think how many worked in the financial district until 911 - in one daughter's school, they were given permission to take out their cell phones (banned during the school day) and encouraged to share them so people could contact their families. No one in her class lost a parent, but one of my younger daughter's had a boy in his class who did. I don't know if many were political or gave to a candidate - I new they attended things their kids were in at school.

But, continue with your polemics. I'm sure you don't work for an evil company or know anyone who does. What I have seen is that you are willing to demonize everyone working for a bank, financial institution, insurance company etc. It does not seem a thoughtful look at the who contributes.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. you are mean

No wonder you know a bunch of banksters and looters of America and wish to frame them as the PTA. How dare you ask others why they are here, what is your authority? It is presumed, that is stolen authority, that which is not your own, taken up by you and used as if it were your own. Sounds like you and your PTA should get along fine. Invoking 9-11 and pulling that shit. Pitiful.

[KoKo]

101. You have the AUDACITY to ASK just WHY a Long Term DU'er "is still here?"

That's quite a Loaded Question.

Let me ask "YOU"..WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE...SHEESH!????????????

[Joe Fields]

143. so, you've never heard of corporate bundling?

[defendandprotect]

155. Was going to be mean enough to use the word ..... NAIVE .....

[latebloomer]

72. K&R

Very good article.

[Better Believe It]

78. 70 Unrecommendations! Is that a record?

They are out in force today. They just don't want people to read the truth and will do anything to hide it .... personal attacks, unrecommendations, off-topic responses, etc.,

Oh well, that hasn't worked out very well for them here, has it?

[defendandprotect]

156. It shows us what they fear ... recognition of corporate influence over Obama + Dem Party -- !!!

It has worked as far as so loading the article with UN's that it kept it

from rising for so long that I was too late to rec!!

We need more than 24 hours to rec an article now --

[McCamy Taylor]

74. If the Banks are Obama's BFFs they would not be funding candidates who want to impeach.

[TheKentuckian]

76. Because he dared to wag his finger at them for a lil populist cred and personal taxes

Also because the TeaPubliKlan constituency will not push a single bit to reign them in while portions of the Democratic coalition demand accountability.

He also is not a best friend but a servant. Those people use up resources and pitch them out when they outlive their usefulness to them. Obama blunted the comeuppance big time and now it's back to the pawns without any division of loyalty.

[defendandprotect]

157. And no one ever places a PLACE or SHOW bet .... ????

[McCamy Taylor]

75. The message here is "They all do it...so stay home."

[Joe Fields]

147. I believe, at this particular time in our history, that this is a message

worth listening to.

[defendandprotect]

158. Message is corporate takeover of government is also being worked thru Dem Party....

not just Repug Party --

Trust everyone will go out and vote against as many Repugs as possible and

continue the PUSH TO THE LEFT we began in '06 -- probably 2000/2004, as well --

and then we can double back and deal with pro-corporate Dems.

KEEP PUSHING TO THE LEFT --

[defendandprotect]

160. kicky --

[deaniac21]

79. I thought the car was all covered with dirt but slowly going in the

right direction with the republicans in the back seat. Now I'm confused.

[txaslftist]

82. It's not about Dems and Republicans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGlrz_mlhg&feature=play...

[Edweird]

86. K&R

[Better Believe It]

89. 105 Recommendations 78 Unrecommendations Recommends Winning! Wannabe Censors Losing!

It's a personal popularity contest isn't that right .... according to the unrecommenders?

Of course, I don't unrecommend anyones post because I don't like the poster or because I think it's too liberal or conservative and therefore don't agree with it.

Just Recs

Recommendations only -- unrecommendations are not counted (24 hours)
General Discussion
I Once Spent Almost Four Years Posting on a Right-wing Forum,
196 recs : By MineralMan

General Discussion
The Real Reason President Obama Has Let Us All Down
105 recs : By Better Believe It

Political Videos
Abused & arrested for being Democrat at Eric Cantor event
93 recs : By Tx4obama

General Discussion
What is this "both sides" BS?
79 recs : By Atticus

General Discussion
Now We Know
74 recs : By WilliamPitt

Once again.

How and why unrecommending is obviously undemocratic because of how it actually functions.

First, if this system is going to continue I believe the total number of both recommends/unrecommends could and should be listed for every post.

If this information is available for administrators/moderators, why not share this information with all DU'ers? What in the world would be wrong with that? I haven't read any objections to doing that.

However, I still refuse to use the unrecommend feature and I hope most DU'ers won't and here's why.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing that post from that location should be clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a peoples censorhip!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And some want it that way! In the case of DU administrators it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like and yet that is what it is now being used for!

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

[JNelson6563]

90. Oh my!

I think you should take a week off of DU. Obviously this stuff means more to you than is healthy. It is an obscure DB in a sea o9f them. Really. Take some time off.

Julie

[Better Believe It]

92. You don't see the humor in numerous recommend/unrecommend "personality" contests on DU?

Perhaps I just have a better sense of humor.

Whatever.

[JNelson6563]

115. Perhaps

Sorry, you came off as genuinely upset about the rec/unrec situation. Judging by the other replies to your post nobody else got the "joke" either.

Julie

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. Why don't you contact Skinner about censoring conservative opinion on here?

That seems a far more grave violation of free speech as you see it that the recommend/unreccomend feature.

One vote per individual, recommend or unreccomend is about as Democratic as you can get. Sorry you don't like that.

On Edit: and all of this is besides the fact that the greatest page is supposed to be the BEST DU has to offer. Maybe people feel that article isn't the best DU has to offer, but the best the Independent has to offer.

[Better Believe It]

95. I'm against censoring any conservative, moderate and centrist Democrats here ....

including supporters of the DLC on Democratic Underground by unrecommending their posts or using any other tactic.

So you think the only people who should be censored (unrecommended) here are liberals or the "left"?

Now, encouraginright-wing reactionary supporters of the Republican Party to post here, including so-called "moderate" Republicans that some Democrats love collaborating with, is a whole different kettle of fish for me. How about yourself? Do you think these "bi-partisan" Republican party supporters should have a forum here by registering on DU?

I don't. And I've never voted for any Republican and won't.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

97. I believe that every person should have their opinion represented.

As long as they express that opinion in accordance with the rules...ie, no conservatives or Republicans allowed.

One vote for Rec or Unrec does that. What bothers you about the idea that some people disagree with what constitutes the "BEST" of DU?

I've seen posts that are nothing but blank or just "deleted" make it to the greatest page. I unrec those because that makes DU look asinine.

[Better Believe It]

99. I agree. with you and your exception for conservatives and Republicans. However ....

"What bothers you about the idea that some people disagree with what constitutes the "BEST" of DU?"

Here's is what bothers me. The recommend/unrecommend procedure really doesn't do that. Something else happens.

How and why unrecommending is obviously undemocratic because of how it actually functions.

I still refuse to use the unrecommend feature and I hope most DU'ers won't and here's why.

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing that post from that location should be clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse! Now where I come from that's called censorship!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a wonderful "peoples democratic censorhip"! That reminds me of the old "people's democratic dictatorships" that we saw in Eastern Europe and North Korea!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And some want it that way! In the case of DU administrators it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like and yet that is what it is now being used for!

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

If this information is available for administrators/moderators, why not share this information with all DU'ers? What in the world would be wrong with that? I haven't read any objections to doing that.

[JeffR]

106. Clearly you have no understanding of what censorship is.

And you're going to remarkable lengths to demonstrate your lack of understanding.

[CBR]

102. ...

[Arkana]

107. Shut off your computer, go outside, and take a deep breath of fresh air

because if you are seriously crapping your pants with rage over someone voting down your thread on an internet message board, your problems go WAY beyond DU.

[Better Believe It]

123. I didn't know that laughing at childlike unsuccessful attempts at censorship is a sign of rage!

[Bobbie Jo]

130. Rage? No.

Perhaps obsession would be more accurate.

Unrec....for those keeping track.

[SidDithers]

108. ROFL at your validation through recs and unrecs...

Sid

[AndrewP]

177. +1

[BzaDem]

137. Wow. You actually compared rating down a thread with "censoring" the thread.

The problem is that net-unrecommended threads should not be on the greatest page in the first place -- not that they are removed later from the greatest page. Perhaps the solution to the problem is to not list anything on the greatest page unless it has +5 after 24 hours (or some other time)? Then your "removing from the greatest page" bullshit won't even be true in a technical sense, since something not there in the first place can't be removed.

[Better Believe It]

202. Do you understand what the word "remove" means? You seem to be having extreme difficulty with it.

How about the two words "front page"?

Does that also baffle you?

Now let's take a giant leap forward.

Do you understand the sentence "Removing posts from DU'ers front page is censorship"?

Sorry.

I bet you're really confused now.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

91. K&R.

[affrayer]

96. I'm Curious...

What did you want Obama to do?

Before the election I repeatedly said: "You have to be insane to run for president because the massive mess left by Bush Jr and the republicans was indeed insurmountable."

Guess what? It was indeed insurmountable...and add to it the near total obstructionism of the republicans in the Senate and things could only get worse. Sure I would have liked Obama to have done a much better job of fixing the country. But let's be realistic, did you really expect him to have done much better then what he's done so far?

Is Obama in bed with corporate interests? Let me put that another way. Is there anyway for Obama to get things done without appearing to be in bed with someone?

I'm afraid the truth is that if we can fix the country and get it back on track it's going to take more than just four years and probably more like ten. In that time who ever is in charge will have to make stinky deals to move the country in the right direction...this isn't a movie about lollipops and rainbows.

[Better Believe It]

100. The obstructionism by Republicans was easily surmontable under Senate rules.

The problem was Democrats refused to use their power to take on, challenge and defeat the Republican minority.

The Republicans won't be so kind to Democrats if they take control of the Senate in 2012.

This unwillingness to function like a partisan political party and Obama constant quest for compromise and bi-partisanship will lead to huge Republican gains and possible control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

This policy of capitulation and surrender to Senate Republicans has been fully documented and explained in great detail in hundreds of posts written by many liberals/progressives over the past year.

Who really thinks Senate Democratic leaders have developed a reputation as hardball partisan fighters for the past two years? Why, no one even makes that absurd claim on Democratic Underground!

[KoKo]

104. Agree and no one has ever posted "evidence" to REFUTE what you say..

Instead it's "SILENCE."

Just get to the Polls and VOTE DEM. (which I agree with for this cycle..WE MUST VOTE DEM)..but this "Call to Vote Dem" is getting kind of "OLD NEWS"...and starts to wear thinly on Dems who've been wearing the same Dem Clothers for years...always hoping for "new threads"...but they are always "trotted out to VOTE DEM ...because THE REPUGS will have you in SOUP KITCHENS!)

At some point your "thin cloth clothes" just don't protect you from the CHILL WINDS THAT BLOW!

[Dr.Phool]

114. Our own worst enemies were conservadems in the Senate.

We knew Grassley and his pals were assholes, but the ones who were really selling us out were our supposed friends, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, etc. Obama didn't even try to reign them in.

[Better Believe It]

237. Perhaps that's because President Obama agrees more with them than say Senators Feingold or Sanders.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AndrewP]

178. Whoa....reality enters the conversation! n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

228. Let's see. . . . .

What did you want Obama to do?

I personally, even though you didn't address your (I assume rhetorical) question to me, wanted Obama to lead. I wanted him to take a leadership position in his party and in his administration that would direct efforts toward fixing the problems he inherited from boooosh.

Before the election I repeatedly said: "You have to be insane to run for president because the massive mess left by Bush Jr and the republicans was indeed insurmountable."

I take it then that you consider the president to be insane? And you consider the problems left by boooosh and cheeeeney to be so severe that they are not solvable? That is what you've just written: anyone who runs for president has to be insane, Obama ran for president, therefore Obama is insane. Is that really what you meant?

Guess what? It was indeed insurmountable...and add to it the near total obstructionism of the republicans in the Senate and things could only get worse. Sure I would have liked Obama to have done a much better job of fixing the country. But let's be realistic, did you really expect him to have done much better then what he's done so far?

Now you've confirmed that the problems are insurmountable. There is no way to fix anything. We should all give up, jump off a cliff, slit our wrists, or just learn to love Big Brother.

Despite your confirmation that there is no way to solve the problems, you admit you'd have liked Obama to have done a better job. In other words, you're not satisfied with what he's done either! Maybe you're less dissatisfied than some of us, but you still wish he'd done more. So, are you saying you think he COULD have done more but just didn't? Or are you saying he couldn't have done any more even if he'd tried harder?

And then you write that we should be realistic, which implies that your own expectations were not realistic, and you project your own unrealistic expectations onto others as though it's a bad thing.

Again, personally, yes, I expected Obama, with hefty majorities in both houses, to have done a lot better. When he said he wouldn't sign a HCR bill without a public option, I expected him to mean what he was saying. I didn't expect him to go into negotiations, either directly or via his surrogates, with compromises already made. I expected him to enact tax reform that gave working people a break AND pushed more of the burden onto the uber-wealthy. I remember a strident Obama supporter telling me back in November '08, when I voiced my concerns about Obama's economic team, that we only needed to wait until the boooosh tax cuts expire. Well, how's that going? What I expected was that we wouldn't be almost two years into the Obama administration and still be waiting to find out!

Is Obama in bed with corporate interests? Let me put that another way. Is there anyway for Obama to get things done without appearing to be in bed with someone?

Why not answer your own question instead of just rephrasing it? Or how about this: What has Obama done for the working people of this country by appearing to be in bed with corporate interests? How many manufacturing and manufacturing-support jobs have returned to our economy as a result of Obama's coziness with corporate interests? (Manufacturing is the heart of any economy, and without it there IS no economy.)

Then answer this question: Is it a good thing for Obama to be in bed with or even APPEAR to be in bed with the people and companies and legislators and regulators who CAUSED the collapse of our economy?

I'm afraid the truth is that if we can fix the country and get it back on track it's going to take more than just four years and probably more like ten. In that time who ever is in charge will have to make stinky deals to move the country in the right direction...this isn't a movie about lollipops and rainbows.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too -- either the problems are insurmountable or they aren't. Let's go with the premise that they aren't, that they CAN be fixed. That, of course, poses problems (pun intended) for some of the statements you made earlier. But let's just go with this last one.

Let's assume, as you have, that the country can be fixed and it's going to take 10 years. Two of those years are already gone, and those were the two years filled with the most enthusiasm and hope and promise, not to mention strong majorities in both houses of congress. Those two years were the most likely to provide the impetus to the change Obama campaigned on. Oh, sure, we had blue dogs and we had the Franken-Coleman fight, but there was still that massive public support that could have been nurtured and encouraged.

What happened? Where did all that enthusiasm go?

It wasn't that Obama didn't deliver 100% on 100% of his promises. It was that even while he was delivering sorta kinda on some of them, the main issues of the economy -- jobs and housing -- were getting worse and worse and worse and worse, just as they had under boooosh. If the train wreck was slowing down and doing a little less damage, it was only because there wasn't as much left to wreck. Huge sums had been given to the banks with virtually no strings under boooosh with Obama's assistance, and the uber-wealthy bankers refused to cut their bloated salaries and bonuses or submit really to any meaningful regulation, all in the name of preventing a collapse. But when the jobs of American workers were on the line with GM and Ford and Chrysler, there was no help unless and until the workers were forced to make 'concessions.'

Why couldn't Obama have gone on TV, on the internet, and said publicly, "Look, it was the workers who made GM and Ford and Chrysler and GE and Whirlpool and all the other great American companies the envy of developing nations for a century. It is unAmerican for executives who have never pushed a broom or held an impact wrench or ripped a tire out of its mold or anything else productive to demand huge salaries while the workers are forced to give up benefits they were promised and they have earned. It is unChristian, for those of you who adhere to that faith, for corporations to give unearned wealth in the form of stock dividends to the already wealthy while the workers who produce that wealth worry about how they'll send their kids to college."

Obama could have done a lot of things other than what he did.

His stimulus hand-outs only delayed the inevitable. He saved some jobs -- teachers, firefighters -- for a year or so, but now teachers and firefighters, police and public works employees are being laid off because the money has run out and there's been no new revenue stream created. George Steinbrenner's heirs paid no tax on the unearned billion$$ they inherited because Barack Obama was quite content not to address the imperial inequities in the booooosh tax revisions.

Strike while the iron's hot. Make hay while the sun shines. That's what Obama didn't do. He didn't use his mandate to consolidate his, for lack of a better term, power. He could have done so much, so very very much, so much MORE than he did. And I think what lost him his base was his lack of passion and his lack of an appearance of caring. Even if in policy he wasn't a continuation of the previous administration, there was a cold detachment that set in, as if it just wasn't the same Obama.

It's not that everyone has turned against him, or that none of us who are disappointed will vote for the Democrats. Yes, he still draws enthusiastic crowds and yes, there's always someone to upload a bunch of cool pictures to DU.

No one posts the pictures of the people at the end of the unemployment benefits who have sold everything they can sell and are now without resources. We know the statistics -- homelessness is on the rise, food pantry use is on the rise, foreclosures are a major issue of the economy instead of an occasional catastrophe for an individual. More children live in poverty. More people are without affordable health care. Health insurance premiums are rising. Gas prices are rising.

So where is all the progress that Obama made by making stinky deals with corporate interests? And why, WHY, did he have to make them? Why didn't he rally the people instead of cozying up to the oligarchs?

Again, either the problems are surmountable or they are not. If they are insurmountable, if there is no way around them, then we give up and learn to live with them.

If they are surmountable, and the leader does nothing to surmount them, then he is not a success.

If they are surmountable, and the leader does the wrong things to surmount them (meaning things that are not viable solutions or that he knows will make them worse), then he is not a success.

If they are surmountable, and the leader does things that might surmount them but fails, then he is not a success but at least he has tried.

If they are surmountable, and the leader does things that might surmount them and rallies the populace to his cause, he might fail but he might also succeed. Maybe not the first time, maybe not the second, but he will almost certainly have laid the foundation for success that others can build on.




Tansy Gold

[gulliver]

112. Ignore this guy. He's taking work away from American dimwits.

I don't think we should be importing idiocy or simpering stupidity from overseas when we have plenty of it right here in America.

[Better Believe It]

184. Enough from doughs furinners! Let's hear it from real Mericans!

[firedupdem]

116. "us all"

This guy doesn't speak for me or anybody else I know. I'm sure he was let down before the president was inaugurated. No mention of the votes required to get anything done..it's all on Obama. Zero credibility and whiny garbage.

[BzaDem]

117. As usual, all of the article's premises are wrong, which (obviously) leads to the wrong conclusion.

"So when Obama set us all up for another global crash"

False

"When Obama set us all up for more terror attacks"

Wrong

"When Obama set us all up for environmental disaster"

Not true

"So it is unsurprising that his Presidency has largely served their interests"

Bullshit

"They proceeded to ensure that any reregulation to prevent another crash was gutted"

Untrue


So as usual, when the wrong premises are plugged in, you get the wrong conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out. Not really surprising.

[impik]

124. "Let US ALL DOWN"? Since when this person speaks for me?

[Better Believe It]

126. He's referring to progressives and the "left".

[BzaDem]

127. I think the poster's point is, most progressives do NOT feel that Obama has let them down

so the OP, rather than speaking for all progressives and the "left," is instead speaking for a tiny minority of progressives and the "left."

[Joe Fields]

150. Yeah. The true democrats. Or at least the FDR dems.

[slipslidingaway]

125. knr nt

[Better Believe It]

129. For the unrecommend grouplet. Final Tally 137 Recommendations!

Thank you to all those progressives, the majority, who are not afraid to handle the truth.


Recommendations only -- unrecommendations are not counted (24 hours)

General Discussion
Now We Know
213 recs : By WilliamPitt

General Discussion
The Real Reason President Obama Has Let Us All Down
137 recs : By Better Believe It

General Discussion
Contempt on Karl Rove's face before his turn on Face the Nation when being served with our subpoena
137 recs : By GreenTea

General Discussion
What is this "both sides" BS?
136 recs : By Atticus

Latest Breaking News
Senator Inhofe lands plane on closed runway
87 recs : By RamboLiberal

[SunsetDreams]

132. Wow it bothers you that much, that you took the trouble of comparing other threads?

Seriously take a break.

[BzaDem]

134. "Thank you to all those progressives, the majority, who are not afraid to handle the truth."

I think the problem is that the group you talk about is neither the majority nor handling "the truth."

Rather, they comprise less than 15% of liberal democrats nationally (the lowest percentage under any President since John F Kennedy), and they are easily manipulated by fact-free OPs riddled with obviously incorrect premises.

[Better Believe It]

139. I believe you're mistaken. I think far more than 15% of DU'ers consider themselves progressives

and not centrist or moderate Democrats but we've never had a scientific poll conducted to determine that.

[depakid]

211. It's curious that Gallup polls based on self labelling are sometimes considered Gospel

whereas other Gallup polls are decried for faulty methodology.

Kind of reminds me of when the Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft crashed. The engineers couldn't seem to agree on which measure to use- metric or US customary units. So they used them both, failed to cross check- and ended up with asymmetric torque!

[AndrewP]

179. Go for a 10 minute walk and relax n/t

[creon]

131. inevitable

Obama was bound to disappoint; as surely as night follows day.

[SunsetDreams]

133. "Obama was bound to disappoint; as surely as night follows day."

What really sounds "inevitable" is your opinion on Obama.

he was "bound to disappoint"

[Joe Fields]

149. I, for one said long ago that I wouldn't wish the presidency on ANYONE

who followed GWB. I remember distinctly saying that there were too many problems that Bush and his cronies created for anyone who directly followed him to be successful. Not so much a jab at Obama. Just old fashioned common sense for anyone paying attention.

[creon]

174. True.

I agree.
The task given to Obama was very difficult if not impossible.
We do not have a working majority in this country; if there is one, it does not last for long.
The Democratic Party in Congress is weak; divided; fractious and self willed.

Life is unfair -- and, sometimes, deserve does have a lot to do with it.

[creon]

173. perhaps

You work with what you have. What Obama has are the Democratic party members in the House and Senate. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[bertman]

135. Too late to REC, so here's a KICK. Excellent commentary. Sums up my feelings.

[bertman]

136. Too late to REC, so here's a KICK. Excellent commentary. Sums up my view.

[Joe Fields]

142. This is what I tried to tell everyone here during the primaries and

during the presidential campaign. I wish more people could see the corruption at the core of politics. Obama was bought and paid for by Wall Street before he won the Democratic primaries. I tried to show everyone by listing his top five corporate contributors who, when all was said and done donated over THREE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS to his campaign. Didn't anyone think that these major players in the global economy just might want a few favors in return? At the detriment to the people he was elected to serve?

[ibegurpard]

163. And yet you're supporting his bid to privatize education..

[Joe Fields]

164. yep, because our current public education system is a disgrace.

[ibegurpard]

166. nothing wrong with public education where I am

so...care to explain why that is?

[Joe Fields]

213. I don't know where that is, but if you let me know...

I'll do some research and get back to you, because I think that was a total B.S. statement. Care to tell me where you're at? I'll be more than happy to research it.

[ibegurpard]

234. oh, going to come at me with standardized testing scores?

same ones that the privatizing pimps are using to convince the public that their schools are failing them even in areas where they're not?
save yourself some time.

[MadBadger]

152. Speak for yourself.

[bread_and_roses]

170. Sorry I saw this too late to R - a K will have to do

It's spot on.

[grahamhgreen]

185. Agreed but if the Dems lose the election, progressives will have no voice at all.

[Taverner]

188. He hasn't let me down

But congress sure has...

[JuniperLea]

200. FFS! I thought I hid this BS!

What a load of tripe.

[laughingliberal]

204. Kick nt

[Peacetrain]

214. Speak for yourself.. there is no me in that us..

[ProudDad]

218. BINGO!!! (n/t)

[johnaries]

227. Obama said "yes WE can", and then WE all just sat down.

Obama didn't fail us. WE failed Obama. I can't beleive some of the hypocrisy I have seen. We criticized W for using the "Unitary Executive" theory to bypass the Constituion. Yet, many people want Obama to do the same thing?

WTF?

Obama is trying to do what we ELECTED him to do and restore the rule of Law and do things the right way - and people are bitching about it?

Again, WTF?

[TheKentuckian]

229. False smokescreen

If he was about restoring law and order then there would be investigations and prosecutions of many a crime, a restoration rather than a continued onslaught on our civil liberties, and there would be no aiding and abetting crimes against our population and habitat.

You don't get the law and order card to pull as an excuse for inaction and evidence as a move from the unitary executive while pulling the shit Obama is and the crimes he allows to pass without accountability.

The lame use of the "he's not a unitary executive" line is beyond hollow, the man leapfrogged the very constitution that his powers flow from and took upon himself the power to supersede the entire judiciary process and order the murder of a US citizen without even the benefit of a charge filed or an indictment handed down, much less a trial. Perhaps the most egregious power grab and history and some dare to have the gall to hide behind that sheer curtain????

He also rather than wind it down has actually increased the use of the Chimp's unconstitutional private army of the executive.

Pretty sad using perhaps his worst area as a defense. Fucking pitiful.

We can also speak of his blatant disregard of defending the law again and his criminal cover up on behalf of BOP and the oil industry.

The paragon of virtue and justice bit is so lame as to actually be disgusting.

[Tansy_Gold]

230. What you said! +bazillions!

TG, NTY

[ibegurpard]

233. bullshit

he told us all to shut up

[Better Believe It]

236. You think OFA and others should have organized mass marches and other protests demanding

Medicare for All, a federal moratorium on foreclosures, really big WPA type public works programs, passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, an end to DADT, etc.,

That would have been terrific.

Why do you think OFA (with 13 million supporters), Move-on (with 4 million members) and other liberal organizations failed to do that?

[roamer65]

231. Why did Al Gore not run in 2008?

I think we can see the reasons now very clearly. Cleaning up after the Moron is an impossible task. I don't blame him for not wanting the job. I consdiered even voting for McCain just so the problems could get dumped right back where they started...with the Rethuglicans...but I just cannot pull the lever for a puke.

I wish President Obama well on dealing with an impossible task.