CNN Poll - 46 Percent Say Obama Too Liberal; 10 Percent Say Not Liberal Enough

[TomCADem]

Once again, the false meme is being pushed that President Obama has not been liberal enough, and that he would have even more support if he moved to the left. My question is what is the evidence of this?

Most polls show that far more Americans believe that the Congress and the President are too liberal, rather than not liberal enough. Yet, you have many folks on this board who insist that President Obama is center right and that the left is or should abandon President Obama.

The funny thing is that those folks who gleefully refer to articles about dissatisfaction among those in the left, never explain how apathy or opposition to a President who far more Americans consider to be too liberal, then not liberal enough, is going to support liberal causes.

My take is that the left itself is being buying into Fox News rhetoric. For example, Fox News features multiple interviews of Represenative Massa, and DUers cite to these interviews without asking why Fox News is suddenly giving Massa the time of day? Likewise, Fox News only giving Kucinich a platform when he is blasting the President. Or, Jane Hamsher when she is declaring her alliance with Grover Norquist.

Fox News rarely gives pro-Democratic Democrats interviews. The only way a liberal sees the light of day is if they bash on the President and other Democrats. The mainstream media is not much better. How often do you liberal members of Congress given a forum on Sunday morning news shows to support the President? Rarely.

Yet, we once again buy into the contradictory meme fed to us by the media that: (1) President Obama is being abandoned by most Americans because he is too liberal, and (2) President Obama is being abandoned by the left, because he is not being liberal enough. Its divide and conquer, and we ignore the truth at our peril.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/12/obama.poll/index.html

"The president's ratings also suffer from the growing perception that he is too liberal," he said: Forty-six percent feel that way today, up 10 points from March.

The poll also indicates that one in 10 people polled said Obama has not been liberal enough.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Ten Percenter checking in.

[TomCADem]

25. 44 Percenter and Lifelong Democrat Checking In...

That is the 44 percent who neither believe President Obama is too liberal or not liberal enough.

[Shapton]

58. Me too

I've always been proud to have been a 10 percenter!

[DJ13]

2. Actually I think what they're pushing is just the opposite

They arent pushing him to the left, they want him to further move to the right.

[TomCADem]

13. I Think The President Is More Pragmatic Than Anything...Look at Ted Kennedy

Ted Kennedy supported single payer, but in an article that he wrote, he noted that he was willing to compromise and even work with Republicans to get HCR passed (see article that Ted himself wrote below). Also, Ted Kennedy whole heartedly supported President Obama as he himself notes. President Obama is no different.

Now, look at the so-called liberal House. The President's problems are not from the left, but on trying to gather support among conservative Democrats. Heck, Nancy Pelosi had to agree to restrictions on abortion as the price for a public option! Nancy Pelosi!

The "dissatisfaction" that is being stoked by the media is largely due to the fact that governing is a lot more difficult than simply pounding the table and issuing talking points. Yet, the media stokes anger on the left by highlighting any story or Democrat who says that President Obama has abandoned the left. Thus, we get to scapegoat President Obama for the fact that Americans far and wide are not embracing progressive ideas. Likewise, the right gets to scapegoat Obama on daily basis with Fox News.

So, its not our fault for our apathy and inaction. Its Rahm Emanuel's fault. Then, it is easy to transition and blame President Obama when in the end, we have been manipulated by the corporate media.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

* * *

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

[XemaSab]

3. And what percent think Bush was too liberal? And Arnold?

Getting fucked in the ass is neither liberal nor conservative.

Fucking in the ass is neither liberal nor conservative.

If you view every problem as a nail, the only tool you're going to look for is a hammer, and if every issue is "liberal" or "not liberal," the only poll you're going to look at is the pro-corporate CNN poll.

[Double T]

4. Who cares if he is or isn't liberal enough. BO hasn't accomplished anything of significant.........

importance for the vast majority of Americans.

[rufus dog]

8. I could post links to the list, but that wouldn't do any good

So I will state that he sent me a pony.

[Double T]

41. See, That's what I mean.

He gave YOU only half a horse.

[TomCADem]

17. Saving The Country From A Depression and The U.S. Car Industry Isn't Significant?

What is up with "liberals" romanticizing the Bush years or forgetting the profound damage done by Bush. Have we forgotten that the entire financial sector and the world economy were going to plunge off a cliff in the early part of President Obama's term? Remember members of Congress saying that they themselves were withdrawing their savings? What about the death of the U.S. auto industry.

I think this is all pretty obvious. You can argue that President Obama could do even mroe, but to say he has not accomplished anything significant?

Amazing.

[Double T]

40. The Sugar Coated, Over Stimulated, Bailed Out Depression continues.

Ford saved itself, GM and Chrysler are mere shells of their former selves. What about the tens of thousands of long standing small businesses that went under? The only entities that were saved were the BIG banks which turned around and thanked the American people for saving their miserable asses by screwing the hell out of the consumers and small businesses. BO missed ANOTHER opportunity at that point in time to reform banking and blew it. Who kidding who?? Amazing.

[VMI Dem]

5. What percent thought invading Iraq was a good idea?

[katandmoon]

6. So what are you saying? That we should accept how 46% of people respond to CNN as the reality?

Sorry, no can do.

Ten percenter here.

[TomCADem]

19. I See Your Avatar Of Ted Kennedy. Here Is What Ted Kennedy Said...

I see you that you admire Ted Kennedy. Well, here is what Ted Kennedy said near the end of his life with respect to HCR, compromise, and President Obama:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

* * *

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.

Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.

[HughMoran]

23. Watergate killed healthcare reform in 1974?

Wow, now that's an angle I've never heard before.

[rufus dog]

7. I am an Obama supporter

and would say he is not liberal enough.

I also 100% agree with your last paragraph.

[asdjrocky]

9. And 49% of people have less than average intelligence.

What a stupid poll.

[depakid]

30. Actually, the percentage of voters who chose McCain & Palin was 45.7%

:think:

[SnoopDog]

10. Ahhh, the power of propaganda...

Mr. Obama is no liberal....

[TomCADem]

21. Yes, It Convinces The Right Obama Is A Socialist and The Left That He Is Not Liberal

With the left and right thinking that President is some secret agent for the other team.

So, you are absolutely right about the power of corporate propaganda. Divide and conquer.

This is why the fastest way to get on Fox News is to be a Democrat who wants to bitch about President Obama. This is why Bart Stupak has suddenly been the poster boy for Fox News. This is why Jane Hamscher saw daylight on Fox News.

Propaganda.

[SnoopDog]

26. Well, being someone who thinks things thru....

...and base my opinions on reality, President Obama, whom I proudly voted for (as my third choice in Democratic candidate),is
no liberal. Mr. Obama is very 'moderate'. I base my opinions on his political positions.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. The 46 percent

is pretty close to the percentage of the vote McCain got. It would be really surprising if McCain voters don't think Obama is too liberal.

[tekisui]

55. Exactly, this is a stupid poll.

[depakid]

12. Gee- more bogus propaganda from the so called "centrists" -because it's all they've got

The methodology and result from this old CNN piece has been thoroughly debunked several times before.

[Third Doctor]

14. CNN polls are suspect at times

I fall in the 10 percent area.

[Oregone]

15. What a fucked up country

[Jim Sagle]

16. CNN is a hologram and its polls are holograms too. Don't ever mistake them for reality.

[DrToast]

18. Why do you keep posting this old article?

[TomCADem]

24. Okay, Here Is Gallup "Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group"

If you can find a more recent poll, please post it. There are a lot of anecdotal posts that President Obama is losing support because he is not sufficiently liberal. Yet, far more people believe that he is too liberal, rather than not liberal enough. Personally, I am pretty happy with his idealogy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx

<>

[depakid]

29. Since you seem incapable of learning about quantitative methods

and specifically- self labeling and perception of language- how about we cut to the issue chase:

Here's how it breaks down on the sets attitudes, beliefs and values- reflected in positions on issues which makes up a progressive or "conservative" ("moderate" is meaningless here- as it is in real life).

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative - hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following ... The role of government ... The economy ... Social issues ... Security ... The environment ... Energy ... Health care...

In short, a look across the scope of American public opinion reveals a public that holds progressive positions and supports progressive solutions on economic issues, on social issues, on security issues - indeed, on nearly all the key issues confronting the country. For years, the conventional wisdom has maintained just the opposite, but the facts are impossible to ignore.

And there's more:

Pew: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007.
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Summary: http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312

[TomCADem]

31. Good Point, Which Means Most Americans Support The HCR Bills...

Because when they are read the actual provisions in the bills, they actually supports its various provisions:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=ND0C6BQbMYN

[depakid]

33. Actually, the key provisions (in their current form) are not popular

and are poor public policy to boot.

Mandates without the choice of a public option and financing the whole fisaco through McCain's tax on health benefits are losers politically.

Do they support something being done? Of course. Such is their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

[TomCADem]

35. * yawn * Tea Partiers Are Being Manipulated Into Backing A Pro-Wall Street Party

Remember Rick Santelli, the father of the Tea Party movement with his "spontaneous" rant. Then Fox News promoting the anger of the American public through such Fox promoted Tea Party events? The source of that anger was at Wall Street. Yet, this anger is re-directed as support for an anti-regulation party, the GOP.

My take is that folks on the left are similarly being manipulated. If you are pro-Obama Democrat, you simply do not see the light of day between John McCain's 24/7 media appearances. But, if you are willing to attack President Obama from the left, you can even score a prime time slot on Fox News.

I personally think that President Obama has done an admirable job of getting his message out when the deck has been stacked against him. The mainstream media does not simply erode support on the right, but on the left as well.

[depakid]

36. Oh good grief "the left" isn't being "manipulated" -many groups are pissed off

at being taken for granted, gratuitously insulted, or having the President side with corrupt coprorate or what they perceiev to be pro-war military interests.

[TomCADem]

37. Really? So, When A Democrat Or Progressive Appears On Fox...

...to (not surprisingly) bash on the President, the left is not being manipulated? When Paul Krugman gets featured for attacking the stimulus as being too small, but is scarce when he defends the HCR bill, the left is not being manipulated? When the corporate news media runs story, after story, about people being angry at "Big Government" and "taxes" with stories about a demoralized left, Americans of all political idealogies are not being manipulated?

Health Care for American Now has been running a pro-reform campaign, yet the only voices you hear are those attacking any form of HCR, and those on the left demanding single payer. Health Care for American Now is comprised of a coalition of groups that support the current HCR efforts, yet do you ever see such groups on TV?

So, I am sorry. I would love to think that folks on the left are somehow superior to all other idealogical groups, and are immune to corporate media manipulation. Likewise, I would love to think that the corporate media is so benevolent that they would not try to manipulate the left. Republicans are trying to stop any form of HCR, yet they get a free pass from "liberals," who instead focus on the Democratic party, because it is apparently okay for Republicans to refuse to engage in their government.

Call me cynical, but I fully expect that the corporate media is not going to simply focus on the right, but will also try to erode support on the left. And, I think the corporate media has been pretty successful.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Oh, this again....

It really doesn't mean much, except some people like to answer questions. And many, many people, for some reason, answer according to whatever the popular morality is, not on anything their own actions would stem from.

Real questions...

"Would you agree racism is a bad thing?"

"Sure."

"How would you feel if you daughter married a black man?"

"Oh! Well, ummm, OK, I suppose."



"Do you think we should do more for poor people?"

"Of course."

"Do you think we should increase rent subsidies and welfare payments?"

"Huh?"


The disconnects are amazing. Even more amazing is how many politicians run, and win, on being conservatives. How many campaign on how liberal they are?

During Johnson v Goldwater, "Conservative" was a very dirty word, an no politician wanted to be tarred by it. Since then they have managed to make conservatism respectible and patriotic while us poor liberals lamely claim we're not "liberal" we're "progressive."

Gimme a break that this country doesn't tilt toward the right. It brags left and votes right.

[denimgirly]

20. Baffling -- Proof the MSM controls what the Public Thinks -- Obama is DEFINITELY NO Liberal.

[Birthmark]

22. That poll proves beyond doubt...

...that if you bellow something on TV enough times, people will believe it --no matter how far removed from reality it is.

Obama too liberal. :rofl:

[HughMoran]

27. ...guess this gives Obama all the leeway he needs

...since the propaganda swallowing morons in TV land already think he's liberal, perhaps he should take them up on the idea!

[MadBadger]

28. The poll is disturbing in that Americans clearly think in such asolute terms

48% say his presidency is a failure, 47% say its a success. 51% approve of his job and 48%disapprove. So I guess that means that every single person that disapproves think his presidency is a failure? Is there really no middle ground with this country?

[HughMoran]

32. In that sense, the whole country is now as polarized as political sites like DU

Reagan started this shit.

[depakid]

34. Middle ground? Thanks to media deregulation, Americans can't even agree on basic objective facts!

[last_texas_dem]

38. I'd wager a good 50-60% of Americans couldn't accurately define

"liberal" or "conservative" if their lives depended upon it.

[harun]

39. Real Poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7738824

[RainDog]

43. how many of those polled are the same ones who don't know they got a tax break?

they should have combined the two questions.

[otohara]

44. I Wish

he's too cool....but too liberal is ridiculous.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

45. How many people thought that Iraq was involved in September 11th? Yes

people are morons.

[progressoid]

47. CNN poll: 50% believe that aliens have abucted humans.

CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.


While nearly three-quarters of the 1,024 adults questioned for the poll said they had never seen or known anyone who saw a UFO, 54 percent believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. the problem with your statement is that it is about abstract knowledge.

Can you prove there are not aliens or UFOs? Can you prove their beliefs are wrong?
Of course not. Just like some people believe religion... there is no certainty concerning the existence of of deities.

Obama has real and demonstrated policy positions. There is no mystery here.
His policies are either too left or too right for people's tastes. That is real knowledge.
That CNN hosted a poll regarding the extent of extraterrestrial life is irrelevant to this discussion.

[progressoid]

51. It's a belief.

The similarities between faith in ones religion and ones faith in ones political party isn't all that different. And just as some people want to believe that aliens have visited us here, some also want to believe that Obama is A or B or C. Facts are irrelevant.

Obama may have "real and demonstrated policy positions" (that a debate for another thread) but many people don't base their opinions on that. The problem is they don't have the time, inclination, or intelligence, to actually delve into policy details. So they either default to a preconceived notion or they yield to what they hear on TV/radio. And they've been told for over two years how radically liberal he is.

[Arkana]

46. CNN: Trying to be like Fox News for 10 years now!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. They're just repeating what they hear in the media

The right-wingers go on and on about how Obama is "too liberal" and a "Socialist" or "Marxist," and the average person has no clue what these descriptions mean, only that they're supposed to be BAAAAAD.

Meanwhile, the so-called mainstream has pundits sitting around asking, "Is Obama too liberal?"

I have challenged right-wingers on my local paper's website by asking them exactly what they mean when they say "too liberal" or "Socialist" or "Marxist," and not one has ever answered.

I even challenged one of the righties to go to the website of the Socialist Workers Party and tell me how Obama was fulfilling any of their platform.

Silence.

So the answer is, by any objective criteria, Obama is center-right, and it's the right-wing media machine that is telling people that unconditional bailouts of banks, turning health care entirely over to private insurance companies, and other such measures are "liberal."

If he actually did something left-of-center (and I'm still waiting), it would be so unheard of in recent decades that the average uninformed person wouldn't even recognize it as left-of-center.

[grahamhgreen]

50. This is due the the fact that RW media peresents his policies as "socialist" when they are "corporar

"corporatist", or extremely right wing (mandatory private insurance, war/rendition/torture, bank bailouts,)


In other words the bank bailout has been sold to the american people as liberal socialism, when really it is closer to corporate fascism.

[ShortnFiery]

52. MANUFACTURED POLL! There's LITTLE to NOTHING genuinely LIBERAL about Obama's behavior as President.

Continued - WARS, extradition, GITMO, Patriot Act, Cover up of abuse pictures, PROTECTION of BushCo's War CRIMES.

And this Corporate LOVING give-away of Mandates via the present HRC bill.

WTF is LIBERAL about the Obama Administration other than pretty speeches with platitudes and happy talk?!?

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Well almost half the country thinks he's too liberal

Many of the points you raised are quite valid and they reflect the fact that Obama is not liberal on many issues.

However, so many people disagree with you. Don't be surprised to see Obama move even further to the right in order to satisfy people who think he's too liberal. Only 10% think he's too convservative. Obama will definitely be catering to the almost 50% that think he's too liberal.

It looks to be like Obama will probably become more conservative.

[Jim Sagle]

56. Ahh yess...the old inevitability con.

:boring:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Because the media tell them that he's "too liberal" or "far left" every day

like clockwork.

One thing I learned back during the days when I was doing personals ads dating is that there are an awful lot of men out there (and undoubtedly women, too) who are incapable of expressing an opinion that isn't straight from something they heard on TV.

[Kaleva]

54. It depends on what one uses as a reference.

[TomCADem]

62. Isn't Perception Reality In Politics? Four Times More People Say President Obama...

It too liberal than not liberal enough.

Now, President Obama may not fit your platonic ideal of liberalism, but the fact of the matter is that far more people believe he is too liberal, than the other way around. Perception is reality in politics.

[jenmito]

57. Thank the "liberal" media for that impression. n/t

[Hansel]

59. Any poll taken at this time is worthless.

There is a lot of emotion right now because of the HCR bill and the huge sums of money that have been pumped in to make Obama seem far more liberal and far more dishonest than he really is. After the bill passes things will settle down. Polls taken a couple of months after that will be more relevant.

There were polls right after 911 that had Bush at like 85%. Now we know that wasn't rational. A few months after things settled down again.

People are freaked out by big change and crisis. So what else is new?

[Kalun D]

60. Reflection

This poll is a reflection of how effective the fascist corporate whore media like CNN is

Obama is the diametric opposite of liberal. That so many think Obama is too liberal when he's not liberal at all is a sign of how effective the wholly corporate owned Orwellian boob tube has become.

[bigwillq]

61. Obama is not liberal enough for me

But that doesn't make him not liberal nor does it make him not liberal enough.

[bullwinkle428]

64. Another classic example of how the Repukes are MUCH better at

messaging than the Democrats have ever been! They just repeat the same, simple little bite-sized Neanderthal talking points over and over again, while the Democrats keep attempting to deal in nuance.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Fuck CNN!

[Vinca]

66. If that many people believe he is liberal, they aren't paying attention.

[Doctor_J]

67. Big Media must go

literally

Edit: You are absolutely right about Dems who believe Fox "News". DU is riddled with them

[mikekohr]

68. 45.7% voted against Obama in the general election

and only 18% of the American electorate self identify as "liberal." I suspect the 10% number that say Obama is not liberal enough comes from the left end of the spectrum.

NOTHING has changed since the election except the noise level. 52-53% of the electorate approve of the job President Obama is doing.
He won 52.9% of the popular vote in November. That is not a co-incidence.

mike kohr

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

70. Cokie Roberts said she thought Obama was too Hawaiian.