Serious question. How much of the Obama support is hatred for the right-wing?

[Dawgs]

I'm thoroughly disappointed with President Obama, but if I got a call from a polling company I would definitely say I was supporting him. And, my main reason would be to piss off the Republicans.

If I was sitting around with a bunch of other progressives I would tell them of my dislike for President Obama and discuss how disappointed I am with him.

No matter how he gets support I think it's good news for Obama, although I'm not sure I would want a lot my approval numbers to be based on 'better than the other guys'.

Ask yourself...

If you don't approve of Obama would you say you support him if asked by a polling company?

Or, if you do support him, do you realize that much of his support might be 'dislike of Republicans', and not necessarily approval for what he's done?

Thoughts?

[great white snark]

1. Considering his job approval among Dems is 80%.

Well, you figure it out.

"Lesser of two evils" vote is the province of the fringe.

[CakeGrrl]

8. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. +2

:thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

50. You said it.

:thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

59. Probably true. I am fringe and I see President Obama as a lessor of two evils.

I am fringe because I think we should stop fighting in our wars and increase our non-violent humanitarian aid.

[JoePhilly]

2. About 6%.

I paid very close attention to what Obama said during the primaries, and during the general elections. He's doing pretty much everything he said he'd do.

[Dawgs]

3. He said he wouldn't fight for healthcare or ending tax cuts for the rich, but fight for war?

Hmmm.

[mkultra]

10. He is doing what he said he would do

Yes, he said we would go to war. He only vaguely alluded to the idea of a public option but did put in a bill that limits Insuarance profits and requires universal coverage. He said he would let the tax cuts reverse, but he made the RIGHT choice to let a little more debt build up to allow the unemployed to survive a while longer.

I also think he saved the economy from another great depression.

[Dawgs]

19. "only vaguely alluded to the idea of a public option"

Now I've heard anything. People like you would defend Bush for the Iraq war if his name was Obama.

Give it up already. We're fucked.

[JoePhilly]

23. Speaking of Iraq ...

Obama has removed as many troops from Iraq as he said he would.

[Dawgs]

27. No more than Bush said he would have removed.

You guys are running out of talking points. And I don't remember candidate Obama saying that he would be bi-partisan by starting from the middle and compromising to the right; which he's done on every position since he's taken office.

[JoePhilly]

32. Bush adopted Obama's timeline in July of 2008.

Obama in January 2007 introduces legislation to remove troops in 14 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act_of_2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

Here is Bush accepting "concept" of a timeline in July of 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Here is how Huffington Post saw Bush's change of course on timelines for withdraw.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/report-bush-pushed-back-i_n_128570.html

Can you provide Bush's plan for withdraw that precedes Obama's Jan 2007 proposed legislation? I've looked, but can't find it.

[Dawgs]

33. My point is that Obama's position was no better than what the Republicans were willing to accept.

The previous argument was that Obama brought the troops home from Iraq. I was just pointing out that it wasn't something to be bragging about, considering the Republicans were willing to do the same thing.

[JoePhilly]

37. No they weren't. If they were, they would have adopted Obama's

timeline in Jan 2007.

Bush only adopts the Obama timeline in July 2008 so that right wingers, and those not paying attention the the actual series of events, can claim that Obama adopted bush's timeline, and not the other way around.

My point, that responds directly to you, is that Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do. The fact that Bush adopted that view on the way out the door is irrelevant.

In a similar vein, folks jump up and down about Obama killing OBL ... so what they he said he do exactly what he did prior to be elected.

Same with the bank bailouts ... Obama voted FOR those BEFORE he got elected. Now lots of folks who voted for him are outraged at him as if it was some sort of surprise.

[Dawgs]

38. My argument had nothing to do with Iraq, or OBL, or the bank bailouts.

I agree with all of them. I never said I didn't.

But, that doesn't excuse him for his lack of leadership on the more important issues for many of us progressives.

That's what I'm arguing here.. not Iraq.

[JoePhilly]

40. "lack of leadership" .... "more important issues"

The phrase "lack of leadership" is at a minimum, amorphous, or perhaps even meaningless, unless there are SPECIFIC actions you can name that would have caused different outcomes.

The founders created 3 co-equal branches of government. Obama can't force specific pieces of legislation, and so lacking a definition of the specific "leadership actions" you think would have caused congress to act, saying "lack of leadership" repeatedly doesn't mean much.

The phrase "more important issues" ... you asked about approval of Obama. I suppose for some, that boils down to a small number of issues, or even just one. That's not me. I look at all of it in deciding, "do I approve".

[Dawgs]

47. Fine. Obama gets zero credit for any bills that get passed in Congress. n/t.

[Avant Guardian]

70. We hear the same excuse for every failure

'Obama has no say with the congress'

It's is a one size fits all excuse for lack of bold leadership.

[JoePhilly]

49. So you can't name SPECIFIC actions ... got it.

See, I give Obama credit for getting as much out of Congress as he can, given the political reality that exists. From what I can tell, you would approve of Obama more if there had been no healthcare reform.

[JoePhilly]

17. Got 30 million more people covered ... said he'd add troops to Afganistan.

Hmmmm.

[Dawgs]

20. Doesn't change the fact that he's not a fighter.

Unless you want to make up stuff, like others have.

[JoePhilly]

22. You named two things, I refuted them factually.

Had no need to make anything up.

[Dawgs]

25. No you didn't. I said he didn't fight for healthcare, and he didn't.

Unless starting from the center and compromising to the right is fighting.

And, show me one put of proof that he fought for ending 'tax cuts for the rich'. I know you can't because he didn't. Telling me that 'he had to' is not proof of fighting.

[JoePhilly]

29. This is fun ...

You think he did not fight on healthcare because of no public option. I think he did fight because 30 million more people get covered and those with pre-existing conditions (like my 13 year old neice, who had cancer at 2) can not not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions (she is now covered, was not for a long time).

On the tax cuts for the rich, your problem is that he made 2 promises and, thanks to weak Dems and obstructionist GOP had to keep one, and delay the other. See, he promised to not raise taxes on those making under 250k. That's about 95% of the country. And to KEEP that promise, he could not end the tax cuts. If he had broken the promise to those making under 250k, we'd have heard about nothing else until the election. It would have been non-stop "read my lips" all over again. He delayed ending the tax cuts for the rich to keep the promise to not raise taxes on those under 250k.

I should mention that he also got unemployment extensions as part of that same compromise. I suspect that if he raised taxes on those under 250k, and also let those unemployment benefits die, he'd have been crucified for that too, with claim that it proved he was against the middle class.

[Dawgs]

30. Thanks for proving that he didn't fight.

He passed a weak (right-center) HC bill with close to a super-majority = not hard.

And you provided no proof that he he fought for tax cuts for the rich, just more talking points.

If he actually fought, he might have been able to get tax cuts for the rich ended and unemployment benefits extended. At worst, he might have got a compromise. Instead, we only got one year of employment extensions and at least two more years of tax cuts for the rich. A real leader would have at least tried.

[JoePhilly]

35. Let's examine both in terms of votes to pass.

Healthcare legislation. For a 6 month period while that was being debated, Obama technically had a 60 Dem senators (time between Franken being seated, and Kennedy's death.

Now, during that time period, even with no public option, the bill did not pass the senate. Why? Because (a) now GOP Senator would vote for it and (b) about 4 Dem Senators were not going to vote for it. But I'll focus on 2. Here is your challenge. Explain the tactic that Obama should have used to get Lieberman and Ben Nelson to vote YES. Simply describe what mechanism Obama has at his disposal to force even those 2 to vote yes. One DU member respond to this challenge by saying that Obama should have used the DOJ to blackmail them (I thought that was creative). But so far, no one I have every asked this question can come up with an actual realistic answer. You might recall that Obama did try to bribe Nelson with the "CornHusker kickback", or maybe you don't. Regardless, I'd love to know what it is Obama could have done to get even those 2 votes (I'll ignore the other 2).

On the tax cuts. He did try. He asked congress to pass legislation to extend only the tax cuts for those under 250k. Neither the House or the Senate would. Even if they changed the target to 1 million, or even 5 million dollars. Even with that change, he House and Senate dems were unwilling to do it. And so I ask again, what SPECIFIC tactic should Obama have used to force the Dems in congress to pass such legislation?

If you can describe specifically HOW he gets them to do it, YOU are the one speaking in talking points. Oh, and saying "leadership" over and over does not change the vote count unless you can provide the SPECIFIC actions that would have caused our blue-dog friends to go along.

I would suggest that your anger is misplaced.

[Dawgs]

39. Okay.

Healthcare legislation is easy. He could have started with something much more progressive and compromised to the middle (public option and medicare for all over 55). Instead, he negotiated with the health insurance industry to something that suited them - a mandate, and ended up with something center right (Romney care).

On tax cuts, are you saying that the Congress refused to pass giving tax cuts to only those under 250k, but instead agreed with Obama to extend ALL of them. That makes no sense at all, especially considering that most Democrats are against the Bush tax cuts. Sounds like the dumb leading the really dumb.

A real leader, with a large majority, wouldn't have caved so quickly.

Also, you might recall that the House passed HR 4853, which extended tax cuts to those under 250K, or maybe you don't.

I would suggest your head is in the sand.

[JoePhilly]

43. I notice you ignore the blue dogs in both responses.

health care ... Congress writes the legislation, not Obama.

But let's make believe that they started with a public option, and medicare under 55. What happens next? Well, in the senate, the bill never comes to a vote because all of the bluedogs vote NO, and everyone in the the GOP votes NO (39 or 40 depending on when). You need 60 votes for cloture, and you have at best, 55 or 56. How do you get the other 4 or 5 ... again, be specific ... you are the President.

What do YOU do now? You are Obama. How will you get the blue dogs to shift (and maybe on1 GOP member) to change.

On the Tax cuts ... ummm ... you may need to go read HR 4853. It extended BOTH the middle class tax cuts AND those for the rich, along with some other things. Here is a nice summary of it.
http://www.examiner.com/employee-benefits-in-philadelphia/president-obama-signs-h-r-4853-extends-several-employee-benefits-set-to-expire

Congress (both chambers) needed to pass a bill extending ONLY the middle class tax cuts. And they would not.

[Dawgs]

45. They DID start with a public option.

If they would have started with single payer they could have negotiated WITH THE BLUE DOGS to a public option and medicare for those over 55; and they would have had 60 votes.

Instead, Obama (not Congress) worked with the insurance companies behind closed doors to come up with the bill. You're either lying or being disingenuous if you think this wasn't Obama's bill.

Same with tax cuts for the rich. He compromised with the enemy by letting them come up with the starting point.

[JoePhilly]

48. How exactly would that negotiation with the bluedogs have gone?

What SPECIFICALLY do the bluedogs get in return? Do you think they'd just say "oh ok, we'll give you the public option" if the starting point was different? you think that's how it works?

So now Obama wrote the HC bill? I'm sure you have proof of that before you'd call me a liar.

On the tax cuts ... hate to break the news to you ... but the Dem Congress punted the ball to Obama. He had one month to find a deal, or raised taxes on 95% Americans, breaking his promise not to do so. If Obama was trying to make this deal all along, why wait until the final hour?

In both cases, the DEMS in Congress have the responsibility to "set the starting point".

But look, I get it ... Obama hates you. Just a little less than the GOP does.

[Dawgs]

51. That's exactly how it works. You been following politics for very long?

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama gets credit for healthcare or Congress gets it. Which is it?

Obama showed ZERO public fight to end the tax cuts. That's all I wanted. If he couldn't get it then so be it.

Obama doesn't hate me. He's done a lot of great things. I'm happy with the auto bailout, ending DADT, getting OBL, and a lot more. That doesn't mean we can't try to push him to do more - just like he asked.

[JoePhilly]

54. Where is your link on Obama writing the HCR bill.

In a number of my posts, I give you sources.

Where is your source on Obama writing the HCR bill?

And, I've been following politics since the 80s, long enough to know that Congress plays a very important role, particularly in legislation around things like Healthcare and Taxation (the Constitution ensure that).

You seem to hold the naive view that think that either Congress OR the President gets ALL of the credit, or ALL of the blame.

Maybe that's the problem.

[Dawgs]

58. Fine. If Congress wrote the bill, then Obama gets zero credit for it.

Some here want to have it both ways. If it's a bad bill then we should blame the Democrats in Congress. If it's good then Obama should get credit.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[jefferson_dem]

52. Dawgs: "It won't be Obama's fault. He wants the public option."

Ooops.

Dawgs (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-19-09 08:58 AM

9. It won't be Obama's fault. He wants the public option.

Your focus should be on those that prevent him from getting a bill with public option included; which will be all the Republicans and about 10 Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8483148&mesg_id=8483241

[Dawgs]

57. What does that have to do with what I said in the post you responded to?

Obama told us he wanted the public option, and then caved to the insurance companies. I've been consistent on that for over a year now.

[jefferson_dem]

60. Oh, so when you said "Obama wants the public option" and slammed others...

for unfairly criticizing him...you didn't really mean it? Do you think enough of those "blue dogs" you said were to blame flip toward the public opinion only to have Obama stand in their way? Of course not.

What happened to the old sensible "Dawgs"? :shrug:

[Dawgs]

62. "What happened to the old sensible "Dawgs"?"

Obama happened. He decided that compromising with the insurance companies and republicans was more important than fighting for something he once believed in.

[great white snark]

68. Blam!

:thumbsup:

[olegramps]

63. As president of all the citizens he should have taken his case to the people.

This is what FDR did when he said "Make me do it." You go the people, like Huey Long did, and you tell the people that the scum bag Repulsions are nothing more than corporate shills who are robbing the people blind and depriving them what the deserve.

[JoePhilly]

72. Explain how doing so gets Lieberman to vote YES.

Higher up in this sub thread, I go in to lots of detail on this issue.

We all know that the GOP was NEVER going to vote YES. NEVER. They were screaming NO in reference to specific proposals that they had made before. Adding their own amendments and then voting against those. There was no amount of arm-twisting that was getting ANYONE in the GOP to vote YES. They are committed to stopping absolutely anything Obama tries to do.

Now, we also know there are about 6 bluedogs. But let's pretend there are only 2 left, YOU as President have somehow convienced the other 4 to vote yes ... you only need these 2 ... Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

Be specific. What leverage do you have? The reality is you have none. Obama even tried to bribe nelson with the Corn Husker Kick-back (recall that??).

But look ... I'll make it easier. Let's imagine that you got Nelson to vote YES, somehow.

Now all you need is Lieberman. The Senator from Aetna. The Independent Senator, who endorsed JOHN MCCAIN in the 2008 election.

Again ... BE SPECIFIC ... how do you as President make Lieberman vote YES?

Oh ... did I mention that Lieberman isn't planning to run for re-election?

Good luck.

[Johnny2X2X]

4. For me

Obama is simply not Liberal enough, but he represents his party. The Democratic Party in general pursues a lot of the same policies as the Republican party of 15 years ago. Obama looks like a Republican to me in a lot of ways, but maybe he's just a pragmatist.

Obama will get my vote, but only because I am terrified of what the Republicans are currently doing to this Country. Their stated intention of undoing the New Deal will turn our communities into 3rd World slums. I fear for our Country if we go much further to the right.

[Hawaii Hiker]

7. I agree w/you...Obama is not liberal enough for me either, but

the republican party of 2011 is downright. terrrifying.

Perhaps 40 years ago or so, there was actually a fairly reasonable republican party with the likes of Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, etc...Javits was way more liberal than many of the southern dixiecrats at the time....And Javits was way more liberal than many of TODAYS democratic senators..

The republicans of today are basically the Nazi Party...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. That's really hard to say

because as long as the right-wing controls one of the two major political parties, Democrats- pretty much any of them- are literally the only sane alternative to the Republicans. I think that Obama is doing/has done largely what he promised during the campaign with what he was given to work with. He can't enact his every agenda item on his own and he hasn't had ANY cooperation whatsoever from the Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress made things difficult if not impossible to accomplish certain things (i.e. public option, Gitmo). If we truly want to get progressive legislation through, we need to keep Obama in the WH and give him a more progressive Congress to work with.

[Johnny2X2X]

9. It's the Country

I cannot believe the move hard right by the Country. I mean it's frightening to think that all of the Progressive policies that made America a great Country for nearly a hundred years are being thrown away in favor of what amounts to a caste system of indentured servitude. I had thought the pendulum had already swung as far right as it was going to in this Country under Bush, but it just keeps going further Right and I don't see an end. Face it people, Obama would be a Conservative in any other decade except this one. But, he's at least sane IMO and the Republicans aren't sane right now.

There will be nothing left of this once fair Country if the Republicans are once again handed the reigns. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Public Education, Public Works of Any kind(including parks and roads) will all be on the endangered species list very soon. The vision the Conservative Elite has for this Country is horrific and not the kind of place I want to live.

[aaaaaa5a]

6. Speaking for myself personally… a lot of it!

I strongly support Obama.

If it were President Clinton, I would strongly support her.

If it were President Gore, I would strongly support him.


etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.



For the record, I do not view myself as an ideologue. I am an independent. I do try to view both sides openly. But in my view we have reached a point where there is only one side.


Look at this list of 10.

Tax cuts have failed. (This can no longer even be disputed)

Science is fact.

Racism/Bigotry is wrong.

Its okay to be smart, intellectual and attend a good school

Government can do good things like FEMA, EPA, Education, etc.

Women are equal citizens

Government should not sponsor religion

Sexual Orientation/rights

People from the Northeast/urban areas/big cities are great Americans too

War is not always the best first choice (Especially when you personally don't have to pick up a gun and fight)



Based on those 10 basic principles, if you support even most of them then you can't be a conservative. By definition, you are on our side. And this is why I fight.

[ccharles000]

41. ...

+1

[JAnthony]

11. I think we all were hoping for more than we got, he has

disappointed us in some of his decisions.

But the Republican Party is an embarrassment to this nation, not like the old Eisenhower Republican Party, not even like the Reagan Republican Party, (but closer to that than what we had with Ike).

Unfortunately, the Republican Party will be why Obama runs largely unopposed in Democratic Primaries, and why he will get 80-95% of the votes he got four year ago. He may lose several million votes, but he's likely to get mine. He would have to cave on a few more issues before ...... strike that.... no, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER I would not vote for him again against anything the Republicans throw at us as an alternative.

[uponit7771]

14. "we all" were NOT, > 80% of "we all" paid attention to what Obama said during his campaign

[Dawgs]

26. So, at this point, you don't think Afghanistan is a "dumb war"? n/t

[JoePhilly]

44. I think lots of the "disapproval" is... a flipped version of the OP's question ...

How many who are disappointed now, were so angry at the GOP back in 2007-2008, that they did not listen closely to Obama as a candidate?

How many saw the end of Bush as preceding what would be rapid shift in the state of everything?

[JAnthony]

55. I never said we "all"were >80% listening to what he said

I honestly don't know what you are trying to imply by twisting my words.

FAIL

[Vattel]

12. I am extremely unhappy with Obama on many fronts

but I would be in the 80% who approve because I would say that I "somewhat approve" of his performance. Supporters, as measured in the recent poll, included those who strongly apporve and those who somewhat approve (damning with faint praise?). He has done a lot of good things, he's way better than Bush, and so in spite of his many failures as a President and as a human being (his disrespect for certain basic rights is a failure as a human being), my answer would help his poll numbers.

[Wait Wut]

15. I will always support the Democrat.

Many of them have irritated or disappointed me at some time or another. I would throw daily tantrums over Pres. Clinton. Pres. Obama has disappointed me, but he's also done more than any other Democratic (and obviously Republican) President in my lifetime. I believe with stronger support from Democrats in government he would be able to get more accomplished.

I don't vote Democrat because I hate the right wing. I vote Democrat because I believe in what the party stands for.

That said:

OBAMA / BIDEN 2012!!!!!!!!!

:patriot:

:dem:

[treestar]

16. Are you disappointed with any other Democrats?

this focus on the President is almost scary. How much power do we want a President to have?

That said, of course a lot of it is hatred of Republicans. There are still a sizeable number of them around. Enough to get Congress in 2010, for instance. Once that happened, there's no point in being "disappointed" in Obama, since his hands are tied.

Why so many think they can ignore Republicans influence and luxuriate in "disappointment" makes no sense at all.

[polichick]

34. Hell, I'm disgusted with most of them - a corporate whore is a corporate whore...

...regardless of party. What we're facing in this country is the complete takeover of the government by corporations (as Eisenhower warned), with very few principled Dems even trying to fight it.

[CakeGrrl]

18. At the end of the day, it's the vote tally.

Everything else is noise.

It's not about "Obama supporters" feeling bad (or some of you thinking that they ought to) that some Progressives are only holding their noses when they vote for him.

The bottom line in 2012 is the President vs. the Republican field you are seeing unfold.

To me, that choice is clear. And given the political climate in this country, I have no problem saying I support what this President has done. This is not a case of someone doing a 180 degree turn from their campaign. Those who listened to him are not in shock over what's transpiring.

[JoePhilly]

46. My view as well. If you listened ...

You are not very surprised.

Said he'd increase troops in Afganistan.
Said he'd reduce Iraq troops to about 50k in 16 months.
Said he'd kill OBL if Pakistan would not / could not.
Voted for the bank bailouts PRIOR to the election.
Got 800 Billion stimulus.
Saved Auto industry.

Over and over, he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he'd do, and folks act surprised and upset.

[last_texas_dem]

21. I could have written your post.

I find myself doing precisely the same thing regarding Obama: defending him to conservatives and politically ignorant people who badmouth him but voicing my reservations about him to fellow liberals and other thinking people.

Most of the liberals and Democrats I know who actually keep up with politics (that part may be key here) feel the same way; most would express approval if they were polled, but are far from happy with Obama or the state of the country right now.

To the defend-Obama-at-all-costs faction on here, this makes me and most of the Democrats I run into and associate with part of the looney left-wing fringe (kind of hilarious when you consider where I live-- how many far left "crazy" liberals do you think live in southeast TX?). Oh well, these folks may as well delude themselves on this point if it makes them happy; at this point, I'm not sure there's any way to get through to them.

[Dawgs]

24. Thanks.

:hi:

I see many DU these days defending Obama for the Afganistan war escalation and never ending occupation like it's something we should have expected from him. Even though he told us he was against "dumb wars" and there is no real proof anymore that Afganinstan is a threat, or us staying there is in our best interest. They're starting to sound like uninformed Bush supporters defending the Iraq war. 'I'll defend the President no matter what he does as long as he is doing it.' is what supporters of the other party do, not us.

Glad to see that you're seeing the same thing as me. The only Democrat I know that still supports President Obama 100% is my Mom. Every other Progressive/Democrat I know is tired of the spin and disrespect from this "Democratic" President. They are more than unhappy.

I also live in a very red area (the suburbs of Atlanta).

[bigwillq]

28. I'm told polling companies that I highly support Obama

even when I don't, but I wouldn't say what support I do have for Obama is out of hatred for the GOP.

[polichick]

31. Yes, imo he's the lesser of corporate evils but I would say I support him if polled...

However, after 30+ years as a Dem activist, I tell Dems who call me that I'm done giving money and time to the party and will only support individual liberals from here on in - at least until there is a true populist movement to support.

[Jakes Progress]

36. At least half.

[johnaries]

42. What I can't understand is how we can repeatedly post Obama's

many, many positive and progressive accomplishments (see especially ProSense's posts) and yet people still ignore them.

No, I don't agree with everything he's done. But his record is over-whelming! No President has accomplished as much as he has since FDR.

[jefferson_dem]

53. Some of our friends choose to ignore reality...

for some reason. It's very strange.

You are correct: The most impressive list of *progressive* accomplishments since FDR. Sure, there's much more to be done. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

[provis99]

61. give me a break. He hasn't even accomplished what Nixon did.

[Marengo]

71. So true, and so incredibly sad. N/T

[Skittles]

56. I'd say a great percentage of it is

[bklyncowgirl]

64. I'm a realist. I don't get to vote for perfect.

Sure I support Obama. Now, I don't agree with everything he has done. I'd like to see him dump his economic advisers especially Geithner, get us the hell out of Afghanistan, tell the GOP to go take a hike and raise taxes on the rich, do a WPA type jobs program and while he's out it, pull the rug out from under the Mexican drug cartels and Afghan warlords by legalizing marijuana and taxing the hell out of it using the proceeds to fund treatment and maintenance programs for addicts of hard drugs.

Sadly, most of these things are not going to happen. On the other hand, Obama is head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidate. Will I vote for him? Yup. Do I expect him to do everything I think he should do. No.

[DCBob]

65. How much of Obama's lack of support is due to ignorance of the threat from the right-wing?

Many on the left, I believe, are naive to what will happen to this country is the RW takes over both chambers and the WH. What is happening now will look like a liberal Shangrila compared to what it could become under a conservative RW regine.

[JoePhilly]

69. I think a lot of the lack of support is from folks who didn't listen

to what he said as a candidate because they were so thrilled to see the end of the Bush era ... they saw the end of Bush as if minutes after, the entire would would change immediately.

And then, when Obama had not caused this monumental shift within his first year they started screaming.

[quaker bill]

66. My support for democrats in general

is motivated by an utter rejection of the right-wing to a significant extent. One cannot abstract this sort of thing as the only real alternative to electing democrats in most places and races is letting the right-wing run the country. I look forward to living in a place where the democrats are the least progressive viable candidates on the ballot. I have not found my way there yet, given such a place exists.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

67. IMHO:If it was 2008 and we knew then what we know now, he probably wouldn't have been nominated.

The continued prosecution of and expansion of horribly expensive, unnecessary wars alone would have been a deal breaker for me.