A Friend of the People

[Occulus]

I think the time has come to say things which have been weighing on my mind most strongly over the past two years, beginning on Inauguration Day and continuing- even escalating- into the present. These are not easy things to say, and my position, until recently, has garnered a 0 recommendation on this site, strong opposition (for whatever that's worth), and condemnation from many who fought so long and hard to elect our current President.

Such behavior toward even legitimate criticism, however misguided, was expected in the days immediately following our current President's election. The most recent Presidential election was one of historic firsts, sweeping promises, and broad enthusiasm. The resounding cries of "Yes, we can" and "hope and change" rang loudly, rang true, and were constant and consistent among the American People.

We were hopeful. We were proud. We were energized.

All of that is in the past.

From healthcare to DADT, DOMA, and EFCA; from our continuing economic catastrophe (call spades spades) to our dwindling global influence, our President has failed us. He has failed us miserably, he has failed us knowingly, and, in my opinion, he has failed us intentionally.

Barack Obama is not now, and has never been, a friend to the American People.

Continued bad acts have shown, however, that he is a very great friend to US corporations (which are not, it should be pointed out, people). "His" health care law proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. His bailout of financial corporations which should have been allowed to crumble under their own weight, hubris, incompetence, and open, shameless greed underscored the point. His "Catfood Commission" and his open support of DADT set that conclusion in stone, and his insistence upon denigrating and devaluing his broadest Progressive constituencies even as recently as this week bronzed it.

Those corporations, his greatest and deathless friends, are ruining us as a nation, and Barack Obama does not care.

America requires a friend of the people, small 'p' and Large 'P'. Barack Obama stepped up to that plate, swung three times, and spectacularly missed, over and over and over again.

For a Constitutional lawyer, Barack Obama comes across as stupid, inattentive, incurious, beholden, biased, unwilling, and spineless. This impression cannot possibly be anything but intentional, given the previous eight years of George W. Bush. Barack Obama knew what needed to be done, mobilized the entire nation, got elected , and then squandered his well-earned and undeniable political capital in the most blatantly obvious ways possible.

Wall Street never should have been bailed out. It should have been allowed to crumble under its own weight, per the "decisions" of the Invisible Hand of the Free MArket.

Teachers should never have been scapegoated and schools should never have been closed.

Gay and lesbian soldiers should never have been discharged. Now it is up to Obama, a man in whom I have no faith at all to end the incredibly unproductive and even harmful practice of DADT.

"Illegal" Immigrants who have lived in the USA from the time they were infants should not be getting deported as they enter middle age. Barack Obama will never stop this.

---

I could go on and on with this, but I'm getting tired of typing. The truth, the proof, is writ large for all to see if they are but willing to open their eyes and look at the record. The milquetoast "achievements" of the Blue Link Lists are just that- milquetoast. Appointing a gay ambassador or setting aside a few million for this or that special cause mentioned during his campaign are just that- milquetoast.

We need a leader. We need a Friend of the People. We deserve someone corporations would see as a Hound of Hell.

Barack Obama is not and never was any of those things.

WE. DESERVE. BETTER.

Now you can rip me apart for my audacious apparel commentary; it will not alter one whit my impression that this 'emperor' is bare-assed naked.

[snappyturtle]

1. Sadly, I can't say I disagree. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. I see nothing that warrants renomination.

So let's....... NOT renominate him.

It's really not complicated.

If his adherents disagree, they can go the 3rd party route.


It's a .... ahem... "free country".

[Lorien]

3. He'll pull an LBJ and proclaim that he won't seek re-election

after his dirty work with the repugs is done. Then the DLC will put another repug Trojan Horse up against whatever far Right whackadoodle the GOP nominates. Democracy is dead, and it's going to be tough to revive it.

[Occulus]

4. Yet the Republican plant Nader is making noises again

How do we counter that?

We need a viable progressive candidate. Nader exists only to elect Republican Presidents.

How do we combat Nader and marginalize him to the point that a true Progressive can be a serious contender?

[Smarmie Doofus]

27. We need someone like Al Lowenstein to make things happen:

>>>>Along with Curtis Gans in 1967, and later that fall joined by Wisconsin's Midge Miller, Lowenstein started the Dump Johnson movement and approached Robert F. Kennedy about challenging President Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries. When Kennedy declined, Lowenstein threw his support behind Eugene McCarthy, to whom he remained loyal even after Kennedy's late entry into the race (after Johnson bowed out).>>>>>>

---wiki

Failing that... we gotta do it ourselves.

Re. Nader: If we nominate Obama we will NEVER get rid of Nader. He/it will be a permanent and significant presence on the national scene.

[pnorman]

5. A very hearty UN-RECOMMEND. from this unprofessional Leftist!!

n/t

[Occulus]

6. Would you care to comment on why?

I really would like to know.

[pnorman]

7. Gladly! Here's from a recent DU posting of mine;

"You can have a new candidate.....
but you know damn well that you are only
advocating for a Republican win...
even a two year old could figure that out."
(quoting from another posting in that thread)

Sneer and hurl epithets all you wish, but Obama is doing his level best, while working within a two-party system, to achieve a Democratic victory in 2012. Is that even possible, or more to the point, aren't those compromises tantamount to selling our souls?

I've been on the Left Side of the Dial for all my adult life, and disdain for working within a two party system is a near-universal theme there. But with a single exception, I've voted consistently Democratic. But I've (also) frequently asked myself this: "Can I in good conscience belong to this`Democratic Underground, given its stated mission?". So far, I've told myself: "YES!". But many of the fire-breathers here seem to (quietly) feel that "a Republican Presidency for the next 8 or 12 years would only PURIFY the Democratic Party, and get it back on course!". So I encourage them to ask themselves the same question.

[Occulus]

8. Why are you responding with a false premise? n/t

[pnorman]

9. A "false premise", or an embarrassing question that you refuse to acknowledge?

nt

[Occulus]

10. You did not begin with a question or an answer.

You began with a false premise:

"You can have a new candidate.....
but you know damn well that you are only
advocating for a Republican win..."

It's particularly distressing to see you post that when you yourself have advocated for a Republican candidate in the past- which, I should point out, I did not do in my OP.

[pnorman]

14. It's a false premise" ONLY because you don't like it.

Here is the question that you seem to be unable to find:

I've been on the Left Side of the Dial for all my adult life, and disdain for working within a two party system is a near-universal theme there. But with a single exception, I've voted consistently Democratic. But I've (also) frequently asked myself this: "Can I in good conscience belong to this`Democratic Underground, given its stated mission?". So far, I've told myself: "YES!". But many of the fire-breathers here seem to (quietly) feel that "a Republican Presidency for the next 8 or 12 years would only PURIFY the Democratic Party, and get it back on course!". So I encourage them to ask themselves the same question

I've marked off that question, so can you see it now? If so, please ask yourself the same question, and kindly post your reply here.

As for my "advocating" for a Republican candidate", that's known as "projecting"!

[Occulus]

16. No. You began with the equation {candidate_new} == {victory_Republican}

I made no such claim. I did not advocate for any particular candidate from any particular party, and never even as much as hinted at a third party challenger. I merely stated that we deserve better than President Obama.

Candidate Obama would fit that bill rather well.

You went on to blather about working within the two party system, while at the same time admitting you voted for a Republican once. I, thankfully, am unable to admit to that failing; I've always voted straight-ticket Democrat.

I made no claims to party pony President Palin purity, nor made any such inference. I expressed my dismay and disappointment, but at no time gave any indication that, given a choice between Obama and a hard-right Christian Reconstructionist Conservative Republican, I would vote for the Republican, nor did I at any point in my OP express even a desire for a third-party candidate. I don't know where you're getting that.

Your objections, and this entire back-and-forth, are based entirely upon your own false premise.

[pnorman]

20. I believe that I had made my position clearly enough.

I have no interest in engaging in a food fight, particularly against your word-salad. So Bon Appetit!

[Occulus]

21. Oh, you made your position perfectly clear to me.

I am merely observing that it's based upon a false premise.

I advocate for a truly Democratic challenger to President Obama in 2012. That in no way means that I advocate for a Republican winner.

To claim otherwise, as you have been, is to argue from a false premise.

Oh, and: word salad bears no resemblance to anything I've stated here and is, in fact, an accusation of mental illness. Word salad refers to a particular method of non-conversation in which the subject is unable to string together relevant topics.

Wikipedia gives an example of 'word salad' as "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

[pnorman]

22. Bon Appetit!

(sigh!)

[TexasObserver]

11. Sadly, the OP is too accurate.

[cate94]

12. I wish I could tell you how wrong you are

but I am afraid your OP is true.

WE. DESERVE. BETTER.

[Occulus]

13. In your post, you could have, but you didn't.

Your reply to this post is your second chance.

[cate94]

15. I agree with your original OP

I wish I didn't agree.
I wish you were wrong about everything you stated.
Unfortunately, I think you are right.

Sorry if that didn't come across.

[Occulus]

17. Accepted. I wish I was wrong, too.

I'll vote for the man if he's the only viable Democratic choice, but at this moment, that's looking doubtful, not because I believe there will be a choice between Obama and a Republican like Palin, but because I believe he will face a serious primary challenger from within the Democratic party- a situation I strongly endorse at this moment.

Some people, including one on this thread, seem to believe that the choice will be only Obama vs. a Republican, like Palin, and that those dissatisfied with Obama wish for a third party candidate, or a Republican. Of course, as you can see above, they make these statements about people dissatisfied with Obama based upon nothing at all, which leads me to believe they're either trolling or simply projecting their own wishes.

I see that sentiment as deeply Naderesque, and resent the implication. Most likely, it will be Obama vs. another Democrat vs. a Republican. No third party need be involved.

[TBF]

18. Recommend - at first I thought he was just inexperienced or

naive, but the gloves have come off now and Mr. Obama is showing himself as a backer of the Elites. The tax "compromise" has thankfully pointed this out so that there can be no doubt - the defunding of Social Security should be enraging most of this country (the 90% plus who have little to no savings for retirement - especially after our 401K's were looted in 2008). This man is no friend to the workers.

[Occulus]

19. I really have refrained from jumping on any particular bandwagon

but it became impossible to defend Obama on some things beginning on Inauguration Day.

It's only gone downhill since then. :(

[blindpig]

23. All of that said, he is just a front man.

And you'll never get 'someone the corporations would see as a Hound of Hell' out of our electoral system, the whole thing is set up to prevent that, the mega cash aspect of the system which gives moneyed interests effective control.

Our relief an only come from our own efforts exercised en masse.

[Occulus]

24. I'm not certain of that.

There are new forms of media, after all, that are not beholden to corporate power and the millions it takes in payment to those powers to air a spot on primetime television.

Consider this: Facebook has more daily users than the United States has citizens. What if a Democratic candidate were to tap that?

[blindpig]

26. Facebook is a corporate enitity

Take Wikileaks treatment as an indication of how well that will work. In any case there is no way that people with all the money will be out spent. Nothing can substitute for feet in the street, it is our one sure power.

[kgnu_fan]

25. Current American voting system is NOT a friend of the People. Money buys our Presidents.