"I am bound to disappoint some, if not all"

[Clio the Leo]

I think it's possible a lot of us have never read these words and the rest haven't read them for a LONG time.

I am a Democrat....

.... after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times than those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody’s religious beliefs–including my own–on nonbelievers. Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives.

But that is not all that I am. I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.

Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble. I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.

The Audacity of Hope

[Cant trust em]

1. I predict that in 20 years we're going to see a lot of revisionist history being written. nt

[blazerunner]

2. Great pic, such promise.

[Clio the Leo]

4. little known fact: He's wearing one of Robert Gibbs' ties....

... I'm not clear WHY he had to borrow one from him, whether he merely neglected to pack one or the one he had got rejected by the TV folks, but, for whatever reason, he's wearing one of Gibbs' signature pastel ties.

Pity it wasn't the PINK one.

[LeftyAndProud60]

3. Wow. I guess he tried to warn us all. NT

[FrenchieCat]

5. No. He told the truth.........

and as usual, many just didn't listen or didn't want to hear, because they are not good at it.

and for the fact that some unrecced this thread? They won't ever listen!

[CakeGrrl]

6. Exactly. I've always supported, and continue to do so as a REALIST

These new arrivals to the "Obama has lost my support" club -- people who are shocked to tears and are defiantly or mournfully removing bumper stickers from their cars or are now "ashamed" and "embarrassed" to have 'supported' him in defiance of their friends and relatives -- weren't, in my opinion, actually seeing or paying attention to what he was REALLY saying during the campaign...

...not the "hope" and "change" concepts that so many love to deride, but the actual SUBSTANCE of what he wanted to do. And the fact that things would NOT be easy, and that he wouldn't necessarily do what was popular.

[FrenchieCat]

7. The fact is, they deceived themselves,

and Blame him for it....like they blame him for everything else.
That's intellectual dishonesty or ineptitude!

Plus, many talking a bunch of smack about this President now,
have been talking that talk forever. Who are they trying to fool?
They jump into the pile-on as though they just got there,
when it is in fact them, who have been piling on all along.

Whatta a disingenuous circus some who "claim" to be in this party have become!

[Clio the Leo]

19. You know I always have to take up for everyone ....

.... but when people are attacked, the often respond in kind. The Loud Left got a lil' smack Tuesday afternoon and I think the noise was in large part a reaction to that. A defense mechanism.

Obama was upset and in Obama fashion, he went off. ........ and it was AWESOME! lol The irony of being that folks wanted to see him show some spine. Be careful what you wish for right?

[displacedvermoter]

29. And dreamy, too, when he went off and claimed credit for

passing HCR, the bad parts of which you all blamed on Congress while all the good parts were the result of Obama's brilliance.

[jpgray]

8. Listen to this, and tell me what you hear. I'm a pretty good listener.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk

What are you hearing?

If you don't want to click on the videos, one is an ad from his campaign where he makes Billy Tauzin a symbol of what he wants to change in Washington. The other includes his "any bill I sign" promise on the public option, and his comment on the absurdity of a mandate for private insurance.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Look.....you don't have to like him, respect him or any of that.......

and I'm sure that the standards that you hold him to
are the same standards that you yourself live by,
as well as it being the standard that all who you trust and respect follow,
so I can't begrudge you for demanding to have a perfect pristine and pure
politician in the White House yesterday.

I'm just more reasonable and fair to the circumstances,
when I judge anyone. Guess that is why we have differen POV.

Not a problem.

You should do your thing.

Are you gonna make some calls about the Dream act? Call and write to Senators
and the media, in order to do what you can to get it passed?

If so, then great and happy progress to you! :hi:

[jpgray]

11. Not every gripe (or passionate defense) hides a dagger of hate

I like and respect him. Speaking for myself, I'd be the worst community organizer in Chicago's history, and my constitutional law is pretty damn weak. I think he's the smartest and ablest president we've had in a long time. Others think he's a secret corporatist Trojan plant, and if you read too many of those threads, it's easy to start wanting to launch derisive one-liners at any and all critics who appear to be backing up and cheering on the nutjobs. Seeing the crazies take miles and miles, who wants to give an inch?

I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be nasty to each other, and the nasty people should be ignored with a little i. It means the world to me to have a Democrat in the white house, and as I did in '08, I'll work and vote for him in '12. I'm done posting harsh threads about him. While we had the majorities, shoving Democrats around and griping about their faults seemed more useful. With a GOP House, it seems a lot less useful.

(Issa chairing Oversight alone is going to be so fucked up, and yeah I'll call. I always have time to tell people what I think--Dream is no exception :P)

[lamp_shade]

10. Thanks. Reading this again reminds me of why I voted for him.

[impik]

12. These people didn't read his books and didn't listen to his speeches

[old mark]

13. Rec - thanks, so many unrecs cause you don't hate enough, I guess....nt

[Bluenorthwest]

17. So do you agree with the President that some groups of people

are more worthy of equal rights because an invisible being says so? Let me ask you, honestly now, if criticizing a person who opposes my own rights is 'hate' then what is the other doing when actively opposing my rights and saying that his kind are 'sanctified' and special? It seems to me that saying my kind is better than yours in the eyes of God and of myself is a rather hateful thing to say. I suggest that standing up against that to speak for our own families is love. That is correct. Love for our families, and opposition to all who stand in the way of our equal footing under the law.
Tell me, what is the secular definition of 'sanctified'? The PResident says his kind are sanctified and mine are not. In the context of civil law, define 'sanctified'. If you dare to.

[old mark]

23. No, I don't believe"god" esists outside of the minds of human beings, and

I don't believe any one group inately has any more or fewer rights than anyone else.
Where did you get those ideas?
Cut back on the caffiene.

mark

[RichGirl]

14. This is the key line...

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

This is what people have done all along. They have assumed that Obama sees things EXACTLY the way they see them. Now they are acccusing Obama of betraying them.

I supported Hillary in the primaries because I thought she was more liberal. Obama was clearly more of a centrist.

But...I voted for him, under the circumstances I think he's done a great jog and support I him 100%.

[Clio the Leo]

21. You're correct but ...

... you do realize that my a small, one hundredth of a percentage point, Hillary's more hawkish (read "conservative") than the President is, right? .... not a bad thing IMO, but it's true.

But we were fortunate that, either way, they would have been leaders of a lifetime. Glad (in some way) we got them both.

[BlueMTexpat]

27. LOL - was "a great jog" a Freudian slip?

I was a reluctant Hillary supporter when it was clear that it would come down to Hillary or Barack. "Reluctant" because while I liked both, neither was my dream candidate.
I went for Hillary in the primaries not only because I, as a woman could not NOT support the so far best qualified woman candidate for President, but also because I believed that she had more "seasoning," so to speak, at a national level and frankly, because she was the older of the two and would, in light of Barack's definite appeal, have been less likely to be a viable Presidential candidate in later elections. I had no doubt that Barack would be excellent some day, but felt that he had never really faced determined political adversity of the type that he would receive - and in fact, has received - from today's GOP. If he sincerely believes that he will EVER get meaningful compromise from this GOP bunch, then he is still much too politically naive, IMO. After all, Hillary had already survived her own political trial by fire - the "impeachment" ordeal with Bill - and had still managed to come out trumps, even to being elected a Senator in her own right.
When Barack became the nominee, I supported him fully then and support him in large part now. But I will honestly admit to disappointment with many things, the two most important to me being his failure to initiate investigation of BushCo war crimes (this is absolutely a national duty) and his failure to enact HCR without including a public option.
But since I never ever believed that he was as liberal as his idealistic supporters tried to persuade me that he was, I perhaps do not feel the same level of disappointment and certainly not the same "betrayal" as some here who have literally turned against him as if he were their enemy. HE is not. The GOP IS!
Do I like what he says about his "base" or "the left?" Not at all.
But will he lose my support because of it? No.
I have seen too many truly horrible things happen since 2000 because too many so-called liberals abandoned Al Gore and then didn't rise up again fast enough to prevent an election being stolen before their eyes simply because they still didn't like Al. I personally will never EVER be part of anything like that insofar as Barack is concerned.
But that doesn't mean that I am not writing to Barack and to my elected Senators and Rep to let them know exactly how I am disappointed in them and that they had better buck up - A LOT! - and not forget those like me who put them where they are.

[bluethruandthru]

15. I knew Obama was very centrist and he was not my primary choice

however, I supported him wholeheartedly when he won the nomination. My problem is that I believed his promises about the public option and getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy. I mistakenly assumed that no real democrat would willingly and enthusiastically put social security in the crosshairs of the deficit hawks. I realize these were my mistakes...but it does affect my support for Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

22. You've got someone better in mind?

Not snark .... serious question.

[bluethruandthru]

28. Someone I'd rather see leading the country?...sure...but

the way our political system is set up, I know that even if Obama is "primaried"...the challenger will almost certainly not win the nomination. I will vote for Obama again since I wouldn't want a republican in the white house.

It bothers me that too often, expressing any dissatisfaction with Obama is met with "so you support president palin?" or something similar. I hope that was not the spirit of your question.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. But his smug anti-equality views are based on dogma alone

So as always, these are self serving words from a man who is not much in touch with himself or reality. This guy, he says that heterosexuals are 'sanctified by God' and others are not. This is dogma. Pure, unfiltered, religious dogma as well as politics defined by his own sexual orientation. This except is one of the most hypocritical press releases I have ever read. Obama taking issue with dogma, when he is not promoting dogma, openly as dogma. What a thing to behold.
What a waste of time this anti-equal rights dogmatist is. His entire sanctimonious 'my kind are better than your kind' ideology stinks to the core.

[Clio the Leo]

24. Your frustration is certainly justified...

... can I ask a serious question? I'm not trying to debate you, I'm really interesting in your thoughts. His argument (if I remember correctly) is that (until DOMA, which last I knew http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=647470">he was fighting) marriage laws were always set on the local/state level. I understand his position to be the Constitution doesn't address who can marry. Other than the broad liberties set forth in the 14th Amendment.

I guess what I'm asking is ... do you think he's not moving fast enough to repeal DOMA, or do you want a Federal law sanctioning gay marriage or? Or do you just object to his (apparent) personal opinion on the matter.

Thanks in advance for your .02.

[tweeternik]

18. Rec'd! -- My belief is that many of our left brethren haven't

really "heard" Obama's message. It involves a long-term "vision". Something every true leader is able to convey.

[rug]

20. Pages 191 - 192.

"We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.

"Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country."



He's disappointed himself.

[Clio the Leo]

25. Which explains why a bunch of progressives are so mad about that part.

I bet if we went through the book we could find several examples of things he's changed on. (And what fun a big old DU book club would be!) But has the overall message changed? We're all entitled to our opinion ... mine is "no."

[Born_A_Truman]

30. Estate tax ...

The estate tax for 2010 is set at zero, but, under current law, will revert to 55 percent for individuals worth more than $1 million if Congress doesn’t act before the end of the year.

The Obama plan, a compromise struck with Senate Republicans, would set the estate tax in 2011 at 35 percent with exemptions beginning at $5 million for individuals and $10 million for families.

(snip)

With Democratic support, the House a year ago passed a bill that would set the estate tax at 45 percent with exemptions beginning at $3.5 million — a decrease from the previous rate of 55 percent but significantly higher than what Obama agreed to. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said the lower, GOP-favored rate in the president’s plan is “a bridge too far.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132813-estate-tax-proposal-draws-fire-from-conservatives-who-want-full-repeal

So we're talking a 10% and $2.5M difference between Pelosi/House and the Obama proposal.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. I re-read this just recently.

It bears pointing out. Thank you for posting this.


He's staying pretty darn true to what he said he would do.

Despite all the crazy problems and the fierce opposition and fithly tricks from the right, and the rise of the tea party, he is still pressing on.

I respect and admire the man. I believe he is doing the best for all of us-

:hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

31. recced and kicked

that gets it up to what three? A positive thread about the President.
:shrug: