Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama is just who he said he was. Were people not listening?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 12:49 PM
Original message
Obama is just who he said he was. Were people not listening?
I have been a bit amazed by the claim by some progressives that President Obama "betrayed," them. Did they even read what Obama's positions were?

For example, he never promised to end the Iraq war as soon as he took office. He said he would end the war "responsibly," within 18 months. That is exactly how it is headed We will be 99% out of Iraq by the end of August.

Obama said he would get us out of Iraq but step it p in Afghanistan. That is exactly what he has done.

Obama promised to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell," but I do not remember a time frame He seems to be doing it.

Obama was never for gay marriage. He stated clearly that he was for Civil unions. He made no promises in this regard.

Obama stressed his support for the Matthew Shepherd, "Hate Crimes" bill. He promised that if Congress passed it, he would sign it. He did. This bill died every single year under Bush due to his veto threat.

Obama never promised liberal Supreme Court judges, he only said he wanted judges that agreed with his own judicial ideals.

Obama never promised Single Payer health care. In fact, he stated on the campaign trail that he did not think it could be implemented here at this point. He pretty much delivered on the plan he promised, minus the public option, which he could not get 60 votes for.

Obama promised to close GITMO. He has run into big political Resistance from members of Congress and the public. I think it will be closed by 2012.

The one area where I do think Obama has failed was his promise that lobbyist would not serve in his administration He has signed waivers to that rule more than twenty times now. I think sticking with Geitner after the tax revelation came out made him reek with "politics as usual."

I am not crazy about everything Obama has done. Still, to act like he duped his base is absurd. No president is able to fulfill all of his promises. Obama has kept most of his so far. I sense that a lot of Obama supporters got swept up in the frenzy and he became whatever we wanted him to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. but why not run the bastards in...be the Marshal in 'High Noon'?
Obama isn't stupid. And he isn't a chicken hawk like bush limbah oreilly etc. Why go outta his way to help junyer escape? and please don't say Obama isn't going outta his way to help the Rightwing Defectives- it's too obvious that helping the repukkes is his main order of business. See $700 billion wallstrut bailout (in defiance of the very RW Defectives who were its main beneficiarry)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not so fast - he campaigned as a Progressive.
Watch all four LaCrosse Wisconsin vids, and then get back to me

First one here from Oct 1st 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVmOKvk-ag&feature=rela...

Please note that he seems to have spent time analyzing various matters economic - so his disclaimer in late March 2009 that he never paid attention to economic matters is a lie. (or he has serious memory problems.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. When did Obama say he "Never" paid attention to ecomoic matters?
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I think he ran as moderate.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. He most certainly did.
Edited on Sun May-09-10 03:52 PM by truedelphi
But we are not supposed to remember that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
75. he ran as a moderate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. There was more psychological projection on him than I've seen on one person in my lifetime...
... from all sides.For someone who was a fully-developed mature man when he ran for office, one might have thought he was the original Tabula Rasa, the way so many tried to write on him what was in their own beings. It was amazing.

And of course it took place here as well.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. This happened a little with Jimmy Carter when he ran in 1976.
Carter became all things to all people. To the liberals he was a liberal. To the conservative Dems he was a conservative
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I think you have nailed it!
Edited on Sun May-09-10 01:21 PM by MadMaddie
Everyone pinned ALL of their hopes on him, 40 years worth of broken dreams, policy etc. It's still been only 1.5 years since he took office and he is chipping away at many things that don't get the MSM's attention.

He told us he would not be perfect and he would dissapoint us at times.

Even with that reality he is our best chance to break the Right Wing strangulation on this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Agree with you Maddie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
77. +10000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. true, but it shouldn't be past tense
there are still some people that deny Obama is a centrist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Our very own Chauncey Gardiner. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
59. Exactly. It is kind of sad, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm sorry, I had my rose colored headphones one
What were you saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. And that is why I was neither for him nor Hillary but Dennis Kucinich.
However, Dennis wasn't even allowed a place at the debate after the first ones, so we had these two candidates dumped on us as our only choices for the primaries. No, I'm not disappointed. Obama's turning out to be exactly what I expected him or Hillary for that matter to be. However, I have to admit that his very insurance friendly and conservative health care plan was a lot better than the one Congress gave him in the end. At least there was a provision for expanding Medicare beyond those who are over 65. Maybe in 2016 we will get a real liberal in the mode of FDR to run and hopefully win. Our country needs that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. Sadly, Kucinich is unelectable.
Wrongly of course, but he would be tarred and feathered as "too liberal." Since MCgovern, the Democrats balk at nominating someone considered a "radical."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. There is a young liberal out there with star quality who might be
our FDR. We just have to identify him/her and start grooming him/her for 2016. I think by then the populace will be fed up with the centrism as personified by Obama and his Goldman Sachs retinue of thinkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. Boy am I ever hoping you are "correct."
I rarely use the word "right" any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denimgirly Donating Member (929 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. There is no question he is no Progressive, but is more center w/a little right leaning favoritism
I dont think his right leaning is because of his beliefs but the realization that to get things done in washington you have to give into special interests which means to lean more right...e.g. Healthcare reform could have had the Public Option but Obama clearly didnt want it because of his wacky giveaway to Pharma and others...his flip-flip on offshore drilling which made him look bad....and the Financial reform will certainly not end up being strong as is indicated again by the WH fight to water things down. Obama is a compromiser and is why he loves Rahm....he wants a win, regardless of how watered down it gets....a win is a win. I can understand this strategy but its a little demoralizing.

Obama is clearly one of the most intelligent presidents, and speaks very eloquently but he just doesnt have the stomach for fights of principle. So call me crazy if i prefer a man with proverbial masculine body hair and carries a club to work each day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. No shit sherlock, hence why I didn't support him(or Hillary) in the Primaries...
Edited on Sun May-09-10 01:29 PM by Cleobulus
Hell, I disagree with him on damn near all the important issues, or think he doesn't go far enough, but he's slightly better than a Republican, which are only slightly better than a week old dead possum on the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. He's better than Hillary would have been. Not nearly as much as I had hoped for, though. (nt)
Edited on Sun May-09-10 01:44 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
54. Actually, in restrospect- I don't think so
My bet is that Hillary's policies would have been more responsive to progressive constituencies (though one can never know) - though there's no doubt whatsoever that she wouldn't have been pathologically conflict averse in dealing with Republicans and the two bit extortionists in her own party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #54
78. Wow. What a dreamer you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. who was it that said Republicans hope their candidates will do what they promise
and Democrats hope theirs won't.

Obama talked like a DLCer, but people sounded slightly more progressive than Hillary who was doing a pretty scary Lieberman impression.

The problem is, only DLCers can get through the MSM filter. Progressives who aren't owned by Wall Street and corporations can't, and will be ridiculed or worse to drive them out of the race before they get to the top of the ticket, a la Howard Dean in 2004.

The networks are rapidly losing the trust of their audience, especially among those under 30. But if that is no longer a reliable way to take out candidates who aren't bought and paid for, they will return to the methods of the 60's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. Another "why no one has the right to a contrary opinion" piece.
Unrec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
66. Get down off the cross, nobody said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. Wow, I guess he is perfect. Sorry for being disappointed at times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
67. Claims of betrayal were under attack, not disappointment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. You've stated it accurately
People can disagree with his policies, but don't say he betrayed on an issue he never promoted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Public Option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
20. They were too busy saying Hillary was a DLC centrist while ignoring that Obama also is. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Back at you, Keydet!
I was a Clarkie. I think Obama's doing a pretty good job and think Hillary would have too, but they need more pressure from the Left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PopSixSquish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Define "Pressure"
Edited on Sun May-09-10 02:26 PM by PopSixSquish
I find that I get further with my employees when I praise them for what they have accomplished even if it wasn't everything it could have been. I stress the importance of doing more and pushing oneself to achieve bigger things.

What I don't do is yell at them that they've failed and have betrayed me or the company.

It's amazing that more folks don't realize that the first way works better than the second. Screaming at the top of your lungs regardless of your intent or philosopy allows those who make the decisions to easily dismiss you rather than listen...

Just sayin'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. I'm fascinated by your interpretation. It's all of the above. Praise for
doing some things and encouragement to do others.

No one mentioned "screaming at the top of your lungs."

But, when you look back at Clinton's presidency, most of the pressure - from both Dems and Republicans - was from the right. That's part of the reason he was the president he was. That's good and bad. Obama is very much like Clinton in that he wants people to like him and is determined to find a middle ground between any two points, no matter how disparate.

We had a progressive moment in 2008 and kind of let it fritter away somewhat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
82. Obama & his pal Rahm have made it clear they don't need the left
Unless, of course, things go badly this November or in 2012 then it will be the left's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
84. I must have made half a dozen posts pointing out how Obama was just as centrist as Hillary
Edited on Wed May-12-10 02:00 PM by Clintonista2
Comparing the legislative voting history of the two (it was something like a 95% identical voting record between the two, and the other 5% had Obama sometimes being more conservative).I was eviscerated each time. Some people just don't want to see the truth until it slaps them in the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
namahage Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
23. Interesting take on Obama and Iraq.
But I thought you said that Obama "seems to be OK with Bush's wars"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So will he, or won't he, do something about Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. In general you are correct, Obama ran as what he is: a centrist.
But I'm going to take issue with one thing you said:

For example, he never promised to end the Iraq war as soon as he took office. He said he would end the war "responsibly," within 18 months. That is exactly how it is headed We will be 99% out of Iraq by the end of August.

18 months would have put the deadline just 1 month and 22 days from now. In February 2009 he said that all but 50,000 of them would be out by August 31, 2010. That deadline was two months later than the one he cited during the campaign. And he's re-classified 50,000 of them as 'non-combat' soldiers so that it will look like they won't be there until the end of 2011 when they will finally come out. Or not.

As a veteran I know there is no such thing as a 'non-combat' soldier. But OK, I'll go with what he said in February 2009: 50,000 or less by August 2010.

The troop level at the end of April this yearwas 95,000 (scroll to page 19). In January 2009 there were 142,000 US soldiers in Iraq. That means we had a total of 20 months to get 92,000 soldiers out. So far it's taken 16.5 months to get 47,000 soldiers out, an average of 2,849 per month. We'll have to withdraw 45,000 more soldiers to get the troop level down to 50,000 by the new deadline 3.5 months from now. That's 12,857 soldiers per month.

Obama broke his campaign promise of 18 months. And it doesn't look like he's going to keep his February 2009 promise of 50,000 or less by the end of August this year. I hope I'm wrong. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
29. he did run on "change we can believe in"--what were we to make of that?
Edited on Sun May-09-10 02:23 PM by ima_sinnic
but don't worry, I won't make the mistake of believing anything he says (or I THINK he says) again. If he runs again, he can get his votes from elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Yeah, help elect a Republican, vote 3rd party!! NOT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. aw ...
people aren't going to vote the way you want them to :cry:

:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. by the way, in the OP you imply we shouldn't have voted for him if we didn't like his platform
so which way is it?

your OP is 50# of shit in a 10-# sack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
69. Apparently you made of it that "you" meant actual "you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. I think some of us still think of Dems as having pre-Clinton/DLC values...
...and are disappointed to find that being a Democratic leader these days means being in the tank with corporations.

As an example, I still think of Dems as being pro-environment and am thoroughly disgusted with Obama on his offshore drilling/coal/nuclear positions. I still expect Dems to put the environment before obscene corporate profits. (Just one way that the party has changed.)

imo it's time to reclaim the Democratic party (if possible) or support a third party - one that really does put the people, country and environment before corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. After Dukakis, they decided that only DLC types could win.
Sadly, this may be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I adored Dukakis. Saw him on C-Span a couple of years ago. He was at UKansas policy
institute. What a smart, pragmatic guy.

But, too weird a name and too short and furry to be president. We prefer our presidents to be taller. Beats me why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Dukakis was a great guy but horrible candidate.
He allowed Bush 41 to define him. He would not respond to even the most absurd right wing slander.

His death penalty answer in his second debate with Bush destroyed him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. He over-estimated the intelligence of US voters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
70. He over estimated his own.
His support for off-shore drilling is just a single case in point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. It's only the case until they get the messaging right. Progressive ideas...
...could be presented as the way to save our country and our planet - but that would take real leadership, not pandering to status quo beneficiaries. Most people are followers and will fall into line behind a strong, sure leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
39. Bullshit. He cynically played fast-and-loose, being all things to all people
The Vietnam Era term "Plausible Deniability" rings in my ears.

He is now being caught for some of the accidental moments of actually taking stands; something that is foreign to his nature. Yes, he made a point of saying that he was going to fight in Afghanistan, but this was to dissuade those who would marginalize him as an un-masculine liberal, and even as he did so, he repeatedly cast himself as "against the war" and a friend of peace-lovers. He tried to have it both ways, and those who would cherry-pick and claim that this wasn't a betrayal haven't an ethic to their names.

Just as Reagan made selfishness a virtue, Obama has made fence-sitting and appeasement for personal gain one. The constantly bleated claim is that after lying to "them" for position, he'll suddenly shed his corporatist skin and become the hero of populism. Our "faith" is based on an unfounded claim that he's lying to "them" and not us; our "hopes" are to spring from our certainty that he's a liar. I'm not all warm and fuzzy with that.

Take this quote from his autobiography: "I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." This is NOT SOMETHING ONE SHOULD BE PROUD OF, IT'S A FRONTAL ADMISSION OF OPPORTUNISM. He goes on to say that "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete.", waving it in our face that he's after approval of HIMSELF, not HIS POLICIES OR BELIEFS or even a willingness to go through the motions. This basically presumes that the cult of the individual is infinitely superior to what one stands for or IF ONE ACTUALLY STANDS FOR MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL. He's the Pied Piper, and it's going to backfire.

To the liberals, he was warm to gun control, but to the backwoods crazies, he was the gun-owners friend.

To environmentalists, he was everything, and he's done some good things, but he's the mining companies' pal and at a time when DRASTIC action on global warming is necessary to the survival of civilization, he'll chart a middle course and accomplish nothing, as in Copenhagen.

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

He ABSOLUTELY brought this on himself. He and his scorched-earth partisans deliberately minimize the effect of merrily letting people get the wrong impression about him and using their support for tactical gain. It's like a cynical one-night stand, where you KNOW that the other person has sweet and vulnerable hopes for a future with you, but you're just there for a sloppin' good time, and what the hell's your problem anyway? The marginalization of idealists has been nothing short of morally ugly.

He's a corporatist. He plays crappy games with religion that have horrible and dangerous implications for our present and future. With moistened finger in the air, he hid behind Congress throughout the health-care giveaway, only to ride in like the Lone Ranger to save the day when it got too hot. There doesn't seem to be much there there, and to even point that out gets people foaming at the mouth.

He played games with people's expectations, and regardless of the selective examples of having advertised himself accurately, he played games and his people used every trick of glad-handing and appeasement that they could. Middle-of-the-roaders have an advantage in campaigning, but they have many disadvantages in leading: they're doomed to fighting a two-front war, they're not adept at taking stands and they are often more concerned with position than justice.

Enough already. Sadly, he may very well be the best we can get, even though he's a somewhat right-of-center moderate corporatist, but demanding us to also proclaim him forthright is an insult and indefensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Extremely sad, but true...
Edited on Sun May-09-10 04:25 PM by polichick
Except for the part about him being the best we can get - I would add "for now."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. No, you were not listening.
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #39
57. + 1 million --absolutely spot-on
the detestable use of people's hurts, needs, and higher visions after the debacle of bushco is a huge and indefensible crime. I see a total lack of moral center, nothing that can't be pushed aside for personal gain, no real "there" there, simply a talented opportunist knowing what buttons to push and how to push them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #57
71. I wouldn't necessarily go that far...
...but I'll hold your coat if you feel like you want to give it a whirl.

The cult of personality just reeks, and it's tiresome. We're to be happy that he just exists at all and the bleary blatherings of praise seemingly resist all evidence of anything not quite nice.

Holding the throne--or more correctly, denying it to the reactionaries--is supposed to be a victory itself, but if its price is the neutering of any real liberalism and a confounded mania for ceding points to those who have systematically dismantled much of what is good about this country, then mustering even a feeble hurrah is beyond me. Furthering Clinton's confounded folly of dragging the party ever farther to the right is not something to be cheered; it bodes ill for the future.

You touch on a very raw nerve here: the callous helping of oneself to the hopes of others for personal glory, and the seeming ability to say or do pretty much anything for the immediate tactical advantage doesn't make one swell with warmth to watch.

It's like we're constantly being DEMANDED and insulted into betting heavily on an unfounded premise: that he'll turn and suddenly reveal himself to be the friend of the common person at the expense of those with power.

In a way, the whole thing makes a perverse sense: so very many are so very convinced that he's really not like his voting record and well-shown values that this has become the accepted "truth". All the while, those who are either running interference for him or are closet ultra-moderates themselves are free to point out the actual record and tweak anyone who would expect liberalism.

The crime is that Obama and his chief facilitators know full well what they're doing: suckering the weak with tender hopes. It also plays well for those who like to characterize leftists as people with no core who will do anything for advantage.

Then there's the issue of LEADERSHIP. Most people crave forthright leadership, not caving on New York trials or wimping out on Miranda or backing off from anything spinal in a health care proposal or making window-dressing feeble gestures with finance reform. Don't ask, don't tell; in fact, just shut the fuck up and be happy it's not McCain. Imagine how much worse blahdy blahdy blah. Thank your lucky stars he just IS.

Fine. That's what we've got, and we're not going to change the situation much, but we SHOULD do what we can, because this isn't intermittent aristocracy, where we periodically crown a king and shut the fuck up until we get the next chance, it's a constituent republic where we have the right to influence the powers that be continually.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mochajava666 Donating Member (771 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
65. +1
"Take this quote from his autobiography: "I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." This is NOT SOMETHING ONE SHOULD BE PROUD OF, IT'S A FRONTAL ADMISSION OF OPPORTUNISM."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
41. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
46. Your are incorrect or at least intentionally incomplete
Obama made many clear, specific and detailed promises in regard to GLBT rights in that he promised to bring an end to DOMA. He campaigned, in fact, on the idea that he was more opposed to it more fully than his rival Clinton. He said he would use his position as President to offer the needed leadership to Congress and the States to end that law. So you are so wrong about that one point, without even going into the rest, that you should be embarrassed to post such falsehoods at all, much less in defense of discrimination left unaddressed.
It is just an absurd claim you make, and on top of that, your facts are made up out of nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dumpdabaggers Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
56. Obama said he supported Civil Unions.
That is indisputable. Had he come right out in support of gay marriage he would have probably lost the election. Sadly, that is just the kind of "white trash" issue the right would have used to defeat him. It hurt John Kerry badly in states like Ohio in 2004. Even though he never embraced gay marriage, Karl Rove convinced a slew of rednecks that he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
47. I was.
That's why I didn't want him nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
51. President Obama did not need 60 votes for a public option due to reconciliation.
I agree with a lot of your post though.

Even those fun little candidate issue match tests only had me agreeing with Obama and Clinton about 40% of the time and Kucinich about 60% of the time.

I feel like I am agreeing with President Obama about 40% of the time, which is not too bad for someone on the far left such as myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
52. K&R for the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
55. You don't win Ad Age's Marketer of the Year
unless your really good at selling a product to as many people as possible. Advertising is about manipulating feelings and emotions in order to sell a product. That's what his team did.
People projected their hopes on him because his campaign was designed to achieve that result. I expect the disillusionment will increase as people come face to face with the real person behind the marketing campaign.


I don't trust any marketing especially the extremely manipulative variety. Obama handpicked three of the top behavioral scientists to advise him. They did their jobs well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
58. Anyone that read this during the election was not surprised:

"When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office." http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

If we look in the U.S., Obama is a moderate. He is a moderate conservative in the rest of the world. I read THIS during the election. I mean, really, were people that fooled when he did not oppose FISA?
Obama ran after Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton (DLC-Dem), and W Bush. We were not going to get a big time progressive after that. We had Hillary and Obama as the front runners. The country took a slight shift to the middle after years of neo-con rule. Rethugs are scared, progressives are angry. And some of us get that it was what it was. I just cannot be outraged on a daily basis. I simply disagree with Obama sometimes. Never outraged though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
60. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lindsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. You nailed it dumpdabaggers...Thanks for laying it out it point by
point. However, you did forget one thing - He signed on to move FORWARD with Stem Sell Research which is a big issue for me due to many family health issues. Thanks for your post :-).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tranche Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. that's what he says while campaigning
he'd disappoint too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
62. Some of us listened to him, and were prepared to be disappointed.
However, the alternative would have been even more disappointing and would have turned Iran to glass within his first week in office.

There was no alternative in the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
63. I guess I misheard when he said he was a fierce advocate...
...thanks ever so much for clearing everything up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #63
68. .....
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
72. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
73. Glad to say that I knew who I was voting for, and...
I'm happy with my decision :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
74. Your list is long on excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-10 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
76. I don't understand it, either. There was no compelling evidence that suggested
that he's liberal. Never existed. Sorry, folks. No matter how much the M$M repreated this meme--following the right wing--it just simply was not true. I'm not so certain that he is more liberal than Hillary. She was the one for single payer, not him. From the very beginning he equivocated on that issue. While he "would have liked single payer," it's not doable and would "require too much change." People don't remember that??

Anyway, there was never any indication whatsoever that Barack Obama is a liberal. If people had paid attention to his respective records in the IL state legislature and the U.S. Senate, they would have seen for themselves.

Even Bill Maher claimed that he has been duped by Obama's "liberalism". Bill is an idiot sometimes. Obama NEVER claimed to be liberal. I think people project their vision of this man of what they want him to be rather than what he is. Another corporate Democrat with DLC leanings.

And while I still support him because I know that I cannot stomach worse, I have to admit that he even surprised me with how conservative he truly is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
79. LALALA?
It's called being disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
80. You're wrong.
I didn't want to come out of my self-imposed exile, but some memories are too damned short -- or too damned selective -- and where faulty memory isn't the culprit, it appears ignorance and/or laziness is.

This is the second time today, on a casual skim of DU, that I've seen the first of these two claims, both of which are dead wrong:

1. Obama promised to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell," but I do not remember a time frame He seems to be doing it.

November 29, 2007:

As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Dont Ask, Dont Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office.

-- Senator Barack Obama to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)

2. Obama was never for gay marriage. He stated clearly that he was for Civil unions. He made no promises in this regard.

Read it and weep:




Press release:

Obama Once Backed Full Gay Marriage
Windy City Times releases 1996 survey answers

CHICAGO January 13, 2009 During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper.

President-elect Obamas answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages. There was no use of the phrase civil unions.

This answer is among those included in this weeks Windy City Times feature on Obamas evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspapers archives.

More recently, as Obama has run for higher office, from U.S. senate to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage, but favors civil unions.

The Jan. 14 Windy City Times has articles by Publisher and Executive Editor Tracy Baim looking at Obamas marriage record, including from a 2004 interview she conducted with the U.S. senate hopeful, and also an article by Timothy Stewart-Winter, a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago, who is writing his dissertation on lesbian and gay politics in Chicago. Stewart-Winter provides a look at the context of Obamas race in 1996 against incumbent Alice Palmer.

The full articles and copies of the Outlines and IMPACT 1996 questionnaires are available online at www.windycitymediagroup.com starting Jan. 14, and at hundreds of Chicago-area delivery locations.

Now, can we put these two myths to bed one and for all?

And will somebody please bookmark this post for future reference? 'Cause I'm sick to death of repeating it all over and over and over again.

Outta here until the next thing that makes me scream out loud at the monitor -- which, I hope, will not be these tired old chestnuts again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-12-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. He also "evolved" from supporting a single payer health care system
to believing that mandating the purchase of private insurance was all the "reform" we needed and the same as providing access to care.

The higher up the ladder he goes, the more apt he is to forget about the people who supported him on the lower rungs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC