As a Democrat who has abandoned Obama let me tell you something about it.

[ThomWV]

First off I understand why a good number of loyal Democrats continue to support President Obama, I understand some of the reasons. He does in fact have accomplishments and he leads a competent Administration. His accomplishments are enough to satisfy some Democrats, and not enough for some others.

Before Obama there was Bush of course. I hated Bush before he was sworn in as President. I hated him when he was Governor of Texas. Back then I thought he was the sorriest hunk of scum in the national political pond. Then he stole the election and there he was in the White House. And I was going around telling everyone I could find that he was an incompetent SOB at best and a fraud in any event. People told me I was nuts, and to "let it go".

But I wouldn't let it go, and then came 9/11. Now Mr. pond scum has a 97% approval rating and it seemed like I made up the other 3% all by myself because I can't find anyone else anywhere that agreed with me that the man should be impeached for dereliction of duty. And I went everywhere with the same message - "Open Your Eyes Folks! You are smart people, can't you see through that fraud" and I would point out failing after failing. And I actually lost friends over that.

It took the rest of the country another 5~7 years to figure it out. And during that time we got the destruction of the United States, the destruction of the middle class, the ruin of our finance, economic, and manufacturing systems and sectors.

And a few of us could see it right from the start.

It is my opinion, as a Democrat, that Obama is not good for the Country. What the country needs right now is a strong progressive Democrat in the White House and President Obama has shown time and again that he is not able to fill that need. And the nation falls deeper and deeper into despair and disrepair.

So for those of you who ask why at least one Democrat, me, continues to sound the alarm and then tries to convince other Democrats that this guy is the wrong man for the Presidency and that for the sake of the nation - acting in our own self interest and the interest's of our children, grandchildren, and decedents to come, we want better. And I don't intend to shut up about it either.

PS: For those who think a Primary challenge weakens the eventual candidate let me remind you that President Obama fought through a strong field of Primary Opponents in the 2008 election and had no trouble winning.

Edited to fix some clumsy wording and typos

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I respect and admire your courage in writing your post...

And I largely agree...

Good luck!

[ladjf]

30. I agree with you, as usual. nt

[Demonaut]

94. started with "i hate bush" finished with "Obama bad!"...with no filler in between

sure what's not to agree with:sarcasm:

[SaveAmerica]

248. The point is that his/her instincts were right when the rest of the world (97%) was high-fiving, now

his instincts are setting off alarms in regards to Obama.

[Demonaut]

258. no, the corporatocracy was all behind bush, less than half the country

and the world liked the man, those weren't instincts more common sense..remember "post turtle", anyway these negative posts that have little to do with reality undermine chances that things will change
Obama has no NO support from anyone on the republican side and they are doing EVERYTHING to stop his second term and anything he tries to accomplish
So I refuse to get on that bandwagon..but go ahead and jump right on and see where it leads you

[AllyCat]

263. They are doing everything they can to stop him because there is a "D" after his name and

he is black. They want one ruling party of white men or white women with strong white men behind them calling the shots. Just because they dislike him, doesn't mean he is not harming this country.

[FedUp_Queer]

283. Ok. Fine.

Rather than snark, why don't you articulate why you support Obama (if, in fact, you do)? I know most people I know who have abandoned him (me included) can list many things that he has affirmatively done, not tried to stop and continued from the Bush administration (or made worse).

So, the OP was sincere and merely imparting a sort of "deja vu all over again" statement. Tell us all why you continue to support him. (I know I'd love to see a defense of things like Libya, Somalia and Yemen or continued indefinite detention, continued rendition, the expansion of Bagram air base as a sort of Gitmo-East, the lack of even fighting for a public option, the silence of the White House about the Wisconsin recalls among others). If your explanation is an obstinate Republican Congress, then I guess that will have to satisfy a lot of us that that's all we are going to get.

[RaleighNCDUer]

302. Work on your reading skills. AFTER 9/11 Bush had 80%+ approval

ratings and it took literally YEARS for it to drop back to pre-9/11 numbers.

Like the OP, I knew that if he was an idiot on 9/10, he was still an idiot on 9/12.

And the Republicans are simply playing a game, putting a show on for their idiot constituents - they know that Obama is doing more for their side than they could do themselves. Bush WANTED to privatize SS - he was stopped cold by the Democrats. But when Obama puts SS on the negotiating table, Democrats cheer because HE is (supposedly) a Democrat.

If you think this is a good thing, your name says it all Demo-not.

edit for typo

[Joe Fields]

62. Yeah, when the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face.

It's about time, Peggy.

I've only been warning people about Obama for the past three years. To come out now and whisper your admiration for someone's courage to say what is obvious now is akin to telling everyone that there might be a tornado, once it has touched the ground.

Not once did I hear a word from you,,in all of my warnings. Might it have something to do with the personalities here on DU? Since we all know that I am sometimes caustic in my remarks?

But it really doesn't matter what I, or anyone else says. The "fix" is in.

[SwampG8r]

268. i have seen peggy following this line of thought

for some time now.
i dont post anywhere near as much as i used to but i do come and read most days and peggy has been consistant with this line of thought for a while now.

and to keep the silly to a minimum i happen to agree with you both on it

[Joe Fields]

294. because it has been so obvious for awhile.

I have also seen Peggy be his cheerleader for a long time, way too long.

But at least she sees the light.

[cwydro]

196. Yeah,

me too.

Obama lost me in his handling of the BP oil spill...but since then it has only gotten worse.

Lmao that the Dem convention will be in my hometown.

So ironic somehow.

[chervilant]

276. Lost me

when he appointed Arne Duncan, and continued the corporate assault on teachers and unions.

[Supersedeas]

364. some great points

[Safetykitten]

2. Very good points. But sadly, we are past the point of no return with Obama. He will be defeated in

his re-election. We may just better get used to a Republican era that will transform this country further into a nightmare.

[gateley]

10. You know this for a fact -- Obama will be defeated?

It astonishes me that people view their own opinions as reality.

You may be right, but you may be wrong -- did you ever consider that?

[CakeGrrl]

75. Of course they don't know - but I'll bet they'll do their part to

fulfill their doom prophecy just to prove themselves correct.

Bizarre, bizarre attitude. This is NOT "the base".

[sabrina 1]

111. Presidents have no power. That's what we are being told now

on a regular basis. It is the reason why, even with a majority in both Houses, Obama couldn't get anything done, right? So if that is the case, what difference does it make who occupies the WH? S/he is powerless anyhow.

Unless you are claiming that Republican Presidents have power while Democratic Presidents, even with their Party in power, do not. Could someone please sort this all out, since people are now totally confused by the ever-changing 'logic' here.

[azul]

136. Their power is what the press allows, its censors and propagandists.

The media narrative pulls their strings and things just sort of then happen to benefit the wealthy and their institutions, and to make things worse for labor and civil society.

Just look how we went to war watching fox-hole stations' extravaganza, when we really couldn't afford it and there was no real cause.

[chervilant]

157. hmm...

That is the very CRUX of the matter, and the common theme from those who continue to defend Mr. Obama. How IS it that Obama is powerless, but Dubyah could do whatever he wanted? How?!

[olegramps]

267. By the major news media that refused to inform the citizens.

That is the answer plain and simple. The Founding Fathers made the freedom of the press essential for the maintenance of a democracy. Fully and well informed citizens will make correct decisions. Dictators have realized this for centuries and the free press become their first casualty in establishing their control of the masses. Our situation is no less dire than Orwell's 1984. Big Brother is alive and well.

[russspeakeasy]

165. sabrina ...if you get an answer to your fine question, let me have

the answer too....thanks in advance:hi:

[sabrina 1]

342. I will, russspeakeasy, but so far, sadly, I have nothing to report!

And not much of anything either :-)

[hfojvt]

212. money has power

President's do not have enough power to fight the money. Republicans can get things done as President because they have a majority in Congress. Because there are conservative Democrats from conservative districts who are afraid of the money. Republicans have messages that their moneyed backers have beaten into the public's head for the last 30 years - tax cuts are good, government is bad, social security is gonna go broke, anybody can find a job and get rich, etc., etc., etc. A democrat is trying to swim upstream against a current of propaganda.

And many Democrats do not even try to swim upstream. Clinton didn't fight Reaganomics, he embraced it. He promised a middle class tax cut. He attacked George Bush for raising taxes. He promised economic growth as an answer to almost all problems.

And Obama was the same way. Obama promised to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers and he said "read my lips, no tax increases for couples making less than $250,000 a year." (Not exactly, but basically, and wouldn'tcha know it, that was one promise that he kept, sort of). It becomes even harder to fight Republican ideas when Democratic candidates (at all levels) embrace them rather than fighting them. What did George Bush say?

"In my judgment, and the judgment of a lot of economists -- and the truth of the matter is, it's now become kind of the common wisdom in Washington, D.C. -- the best way to create growth is to let people keep more of their own money." (Applause.) May 2, 2003

"it's become kind of the common wisdom in Washington DC" - that Reaganomics works. Galbraith would call it the "conventional wisdom".

After all, what did Obama say recently about his jobs proposal - a continuation of a tax cut for the rich (payroll tax cut most of which goes to the top 40%)

"We need to begin by extending tax cuts for middle-class families so that you have more money in your paychecks next year. If you’ve got more money in your paycheck, you’re more likely to spend it. And that means small businesses and medium-sized businesses and large businesses will all have more customers. That means they’ll be in a better position to hire."

Now "both" sides agree - tax cuts are good for the economy.

Now when Democrats call in to my Republican Congresswoman's town hall - she uses quotes from Obama against them.

If we ever get a progressive President, he/she will have to be fighting against the legacies of Clinton AND Obama. Assuming they choose to fight instead of going with the flow.

[sabrina 1]

338. Good post, thank you. The parties move ever closer to each

other to the point where they will soon be indistinguishable on matters that are of importance to Big Business. Even when the policies, such as 'tax cuts' have been proven to not work.

You are correct, money talks and what it says is that the people who step up to represent us, care more about that money than they do about future of this country. I could see playing the game of Big Business just to get elected, to a certain extent since there appears to be no way for someone who actually does care about this country's future to even get close to the WH. But once there, it is, imo, worth spending just one term disrupting the hold these Corps have over our political system.

And if someone were to do that, and explain it, the public might just decide that with or without money, they want this person in power. Until someone tries, of course, we'll never know. For now, we get crumbs, the 'left' gets the crumbs when a Dem is elected and the 'right' when of theirs is elected. It keeps the pretext of a genuine two party system going.

And we are left to decide if crumbs are enough to go back and reelect politicians we know are working more for their actual bosses than for us.

How to break this hold over our government is the real question we should all be asking, including people on the right who are not part of the insane wing of their party. Imo, it is probably the most important issue we face since nothing else can get done, until this is resolved. And of course, it is the most difficult. But have we even tried? We are busy slamming each other instead of figuring out how all of us can win.

[stockholmer]

226. the office of POTUS has a huge, growing amount of power, started with Nixon, and has morphed into an

imperial presidency, mostly at the expense of congressional power. Excutive orders, DHS, Patriot Act, executive fiat, the flaunting of the constitution with the empiric wars (Libya is a perfect example), signing statements, the new Super Congress, etc etca ll combine to rip away the shreds of the democratic republic.

This is NOT partisan, it is a continuity of agenda, and it is relentless in its expansion.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-swanson/presidential-power-grows_b_322555.html

http://as.wwu.edu/asreview/going-out-swinging-how-the-bush-administration-d/

http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/the-imperial-president/

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/31/obamas-imperial-presidency

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54540788/29/As-Executive-Power-Grows-So-Does-Secrecy

[sabrina 1]

346. Yes, that is why it is so ironic when we are told that

the President is helpless to do anything about eg, any progressive legislation that the people would like to see. We are TOLD he has no power! When in fact he is probably the most powerful man in the world and has many tools at his disposal to get things done the way he wants.

[bluescribbler]

264. It's actually very simple

Will Rogers said, "I do not belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." That statement is just as true today as it was then. We have blue dog Democrats, like Ben Nelson, who vote as often with the GOPukes as with their own party. The Repigs seem somehow to be able to maintain control over their caucus, while Reid and Pelosi could not do the same. Add to that the fact that the Democrats never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so the obstructionists could prevent any real progressive work from being done.

[closeupready]

285. Thank you, Sabrina. [phone].

:hi:

[UnrepentantLiberal]

142. So the Democratic base is made up of Republicans?

That's bizarre bizarre.

[BlueCaliDem]

194. I don't think it's the base, either.

Well, not the Democratic base, for sure.

[FedUp_Queer]

287. Of course.

Because we can't challenge and point out where he's gone wrong.

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I know I don't want his defeat simply for his defeat's sake. I know I don't want a President Perry or Bachmann. However, more than what I don't want, I DO want an Obama who really fights for things like a public option; who doesn't make backroom deals with big pharma; who shuts down Bagram and Gitmo; who categorically ends extraordinary rendition; who proposes to cut military spending and redirect it into infrastructure and job creation; I want someone to actually walk the picket lines AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

[jeff47]

116. No president (or his party if term-limited) has ever won re-election with an economy this bad.

So even with the Republicans nominating "the crazy", it's an uphill battle for Obama.

[trayfoot]

126. No Black Man had become President

before 2008! Traditions change! Supporting a primary challenge, voting for a reTHUG, or staying home just puts ALL our lives and finances in jeopardy!

[LooseWilly]

132. Traditions change? Well then, maybe it's time to vote for a communist and stop wasting time on Dems

Good News :+

[A Simple Game]

139. I know my tradition has changed. I will no longer vote for

the lesser of two evils. I will vote my conscience.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It doesn't matter if you are traveling at 100 mph or 10 mph when you go over a cliff, you are still going over a cliff. Right now I feel like we are going about 50 mph.

[BigBearJohn]

218. Wow! Wish I said that!! Doesn't get any simpler than that. Nail meet head.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It doesn't matter if you are traveling at 100 mph or 10 mph when you go over a cliff, you are still going over a cliff.

[A Simple Game]

255. I'm just afraid we will need to hit bottom before things get better.

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a bad feeling about it.

I don't think either party is on our side right now.

On edit: If you want to say it, it's yours, help yourself to it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

310. Seems the attitude the tea-baggers are taking

Let's destroy this country to get our way.

[chervilant]

160. Oh, hon, I have REALLY bad news for you:

For 2007-2010, real GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent; in the previously published estimates, real GDP had increased at an average annual rate of less than 0.1 percent.

This is current GDP Data, released at "8:30 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011BEA 11-38" by the US DOC, BEA. I copied the entire press release, fearing it would have a briefer lifespan than an ice cube in a forest fire. I have seen NOTHING about this data in the M$M or on either of the 'left-leaning' blogs I frequent. Not a SINGLE economist has acknowledged this data.

In other words, by definition, our nation has been in a depression these past four years. However, just as they did in the 80s, the Big Dogs in the financial arena are obfuscating and/or omitting key information, so that much of the citizenry remains deluded and/or uninformed.

(Of note is the fact that our much vaunted financial 'experts' FINALLY stopped using the word 'Panic' to define 'economic downturns' after the Knickerbocker Trust got it's knickers in a bunch...)

[stockholmer]

229. BOTH of the two parties are putting your lives and finances in jeopardy, it is madness to support

one or the other if the outcome will be the same ruinous situation at the end of the day.

[RaleighNCDUer]

313. Yeah! Stick with Obama

so only the lives and finances of the bottom 50% will be in jeopardy!

[jeff47]

345. Voting out the incumbent in a bad economy isn't a tradition.

It's an attempt to change course.

"Supporting a primary challenge, voting for a reTHUG, or staying home just puts ALL our lives and finances in jeopardy!"

Given the Obama administration's terrible history on the economy, voting for anyone is putting our finances (and thus lives) in jeopardy.

[kimbutgar]

295. Your words are the best part of this post.

So many posters think that what they post are the last word when it's only ones opinion. Thank you for your insight into what we progressives do when we over think.

While I am not 100% happy with Obama like I was not 100% happy with Clinton the alternative is far worst. And if you like sites like this if a republican get's into the white house say good bye to this type of dialogue. Love him or disappointed in him we can not sit on our hands and not vote on election day 2012 and let a republican finish destroying this country and all the hard work several generations back did to get us better working conditions and the American Dream.

[RaleighNCDUer]

303. Right or wrong, the difference will be nimimal.

A Third Way corporatist vs outright fascist - the biggest difference is the fascist will increase the pain level so fast that the people will rebel. They don't understand the concept of moderation.

But either way, the country I grew up with is finished.

[Emit]

11. Hey, I'm not ready to just give up and let Repugs win

and I doubt a majority of others are either ~ it's waaaay too soon in my book to just sit back and usher in the Repugs

Chances for a realistic Dem Primary challenger are nil, but a Repug defeat is still a strong possibilty, imho

[gateley]

14. Agree - key being "realistic", and I also agree that a Repug

defeat is not impossible.

[defendandprotect]

85. Usher in a liberal Democrat -- !!! Let's work on that --!! Are you saying all we have is Obama???

All we have is the choice to further move the party into corporate/fascism -- ?

[lumpy]

22. Polish the old crystal ball, it's dusty.

v

[Dragonfli]

70. Presidents have no power to transform the country, that is why Obama hasn't

Or so I am told on a daily basis. If the president can't do anything then the threat of a repug president rings hollow.
Unless all the Obama supporters are wrong, it doesn't matter who is president, it doesn't matter at all, he is not a dictator right?

[smokey nj]

88. +1!

[defendandprotect]

84. Agree -- Obama has now created a Dem Party which is anti-SS and anti-Medicare ....

either Obama goes or the party is finished --

Which should it be?

[stockholmer]

232. Obama just gave the systemic controllers 'left-cover' to ram thru continuation of the trend towards

corporate fascism. He is nothing but a feel-good sock puppet, doing his master's bidding. Same as W Bush, same as Clinton, same as Bush Sr., same as Reagan, same as Carter, same as Nixon, same as LBJ.

JFK was the last to try to really buck the system, and Dallas put an end to that.

[Melissa G]

275. Not sure I totally agree about Carter, but mostly yes.

"JFK was the last to try to really buck the system, and Dallas put an end to that."

[stockholmer]

298. under Carter, Robert Gates started up what would morph in al Qaeda, and the despicable

Zbigniew "Its easier to kill a million people...than it is to control them" Brzezinski laid the foundation for what is now a fully actualized Arc of Crisis. Carter was the least bad of that horrid lot listed, and I think meant well, but was simply a CFR globalist frontman, (again providing left cover) at the end of the day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The USA seeds of al-Qaeda started in 1978 and 1979, under Robert Gates of the Carter regime, now he has been the Sec of Defense under both Bush and Obama. Al Qaeda is a West-created/funded insta-war/invasion/liberty crackdown/fear machine, an artificial hydra, utilizing the 150 year-old methods the British practised in the middle east.


http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%e2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%e2%80%9carc-of-crisis%e2%80%9d/



The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a 3 part BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis.


The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0&feature=related part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8&feature=related part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1z2g&feature=related part 3



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zbigniew Brzezinski


http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=cambodia_662


1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge


China and the US sustain the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplies the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”




September 4, 1997: Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment


“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America’s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Th US empire's currency (the rapidly-dying dollar) is backed up, collateralized by oil, and the oil is backed up by the global Anglo-American war machine.

This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 2 to 5 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).

This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766,00.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-lenczowski/the-arc-of-crisis-its-central-sector

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_chessboard.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0

-----------------------------------------------------------
2 key books by Zbigniew Brzezinski

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299979870&sr=8

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5

http://wearechange.org.uk/london/wp-content/themes/arras-theme/resources/misc/Zbigniew%20Brzezinski-Between%20Two%20Ages.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East
and Central Asia
The Mumbai Attacks and the “Strategy of Tension”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24770171/Creating-an-Arch-of-Conflict

[Melissa G]

328. Thanks for all the reading!

I agree with you that Carter was the least bad of the lot and probably meant well.

However, even if we were to get a true progressive in the White House and shockingly enough they did not instantly kill this person off, ( and those are 2 BIG ifs!) The PTB is so incredibly entrenched in our system, I wonder how real change could be effective?

We need to change the whole basis of knowledge. We need to bring back teach ins for the age we want to create. I think it all begins with a jobs program and universal health care then moving into free education. This is all currently blocked by the ownership of the media and the voting machines.

Thanks for all you do, stockholmer! :yourock:

[defendandprotect]

340. Gates was also primary player in "October Surprise" -- GOP Treason -- !!

SAVING LINK TO YOUR POST --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1764458&mesg_id=1771593


Never sure about Carter -- are we supposed to think he was this dumb?

Otoh, CIA was certainly doing a job on him --

Those helicopters that went down in the desert destroying the rescue missions --

They were headed up by Ollie North who commanded them -- Secord second in command!!

They just forgot to attach the equipment which would keep sand out of the engines!!!


Agree with your analysis of Carter -- but then he is still playing the role -- or is he

just nuts? He continues to confuse me and gather that's the intention!!




What I've read about AlQaeda was that it was a very old organization picked up by the

NAZIS and turned over to the CIA post-WWII.

But certainly Brzezinski makes clear that we went thru ISI Pakistan to create/fund Taliban

and Al Qaeda ... "in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a

Vietnam-type experience." We went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in.

We were funding Taliban/Al Qaeda up to 9/11 and probably beyond.







Heartily agree with this --

BBC - the Power of Nightmares

The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

Islam is a peaceful religion which is why we had to demonize it --

We also created and shipped into the ME those religious books we heard so much about on TV?

I'll include a link to that info at the end of the post -- !!


I've never seen the series but will save the links and try to watch soon --




And . . . Wow! on this one ...


1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge

China and the US sustain the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplies the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”


Re Iran -- VP Biden has been after this for a year saying that "Israel should attack Iran" --

actually he says, "Israel would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !!! Yikes!


Yes -- oil is a national security issue -- MIC -- CIA

And, corporate/fascism can't exist without the support of MIC/CIA --


EVERY DU'ER SHOULD READ THIS ...


This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 2 to 5 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).

This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766...

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-len...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopo...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0



--------------- THANKS FOR THE INFO -- I'LL SAVE IT AND USE IT WHEN I CAN --

MEANWHILE -- HERE'S THE INFO ON THE VIOLENT RELIGIOUS BOOKS ....

The Jihad Schoolbook Scandal...

Why has the US been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?

And why is President Bush hiding it?

By Jared Israel




The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.

Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm




:) Thanks for the info -- !!

And would remind us all that the greatest threat to all of us is capitalism's Global Warming

-- not something that can be underestimated in effecting human planning!!

[defendandprotect]

339. Agree 1000% --- K/R for your post -- !!

[krabigirl]

192. eh, you give too much credit to the GOP. They won't be nominating anyone electable imo.

Perry? Bachmann? Lol, really? The tea party pretty much controls the GOP...and are pretty much hated by the general public. If the repubs did nominate a moderate like HUntsman or maybe Romney, or someone anti-war like Paul, then they'd have much more of a chance.

Obama is not popular, but the tea party is less popular.

[SwampG8r]

272. i agree

why spend money now when everything you want is hand delivered?
by 2016 the teaparty is an old old joke
they can use now until 2016 for grooming and focus grouping to pick their candidate for 2016 and solidify congress in this election
for the gop its win/win and all they have to do to make the base happy over there is act all mad that they are getting whatever they propose

[RaleighNCDUer]

315. How old are you? Too young to remember people LOLing about

GWB and Reagan?

Ever see 'Back To The Future'? The reaction of Prof Brown when told that in 1985 the president would be Ronald Reagan? EVERYBODY on our side thought that, until it happened. Just as everybody in 1989 KNEW that the best argument against GWB was his own record in Texas.

If Obama does not soon recognize that he is vulnerable to the Republicans, and start governing like a DEMOCRAT, then he CAN go down - even if the opponent is Perry or Bachmann. He is not going to win by being a half-assed Republican.

As Harry Truman put it "Given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the people will vote for the Republican every time."

[Speed8098]

236. While Obama should govern more from the left

I firmly disagree that anyone in the field of right wing candidates can defeat him in 2012. That's not to say someone from the left might present a formidable challenge and possibly win the nomination, but the fanatics on the right don't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the White House

We may just better get used to a Republican era that will transform this country further into a nightmare.

It is that kind of defeatist attitude that I hate. :mad: I will NOT get used to a republican era and I will use my vote and my voice in my community to make sure that no one I know jumps on your train.

Wake up Safetykitten and rattle your community. The next time you're in a grocery store line or any place crowded enough so those around you can hear you speaking to your friends or companions, speak loudly about the truth. Make people hear you whether they want to or not, and if they have the nerve to disagree with you, make sure you are armed with facts that will make their jaw drop in disbelief. Inform yourself and those who think as you do. Make it a point to talk politics in public places. While you may get dirty looks and some may make comments under their breath, you will be making a small difference in your circle of the world. If everyone does the same, the small circles we affect will become large circles. Publicly shame those that don't vote. Loudly ask a stranger who seems to disagree with your stance if they voted, not who they voted for, only if they voted. If they say no, then put a look of disbelief on your face and tell them they have no right to complain.

The only way we can stop this right wing machine is to make sure we are loud and clear. Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote. Give them rides to the polls on election day if you have to, I do, But never ever capitulate to this bizarro world the right wing is trying to lead us into. NEVER!!!!!!!


:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[INdemo]

282. The Obama campaign has raised about 100 million so far

and counting..........Romney might have 28 mill....The corporate world* has their puppet with Obama so we are screwed either way..


* including the Koch Bros..with the Keystone pipe line about to be approved
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210

[Speed8098]

291. What does anythnig you said have to do

with my post?

GOTV is the only way to change things. Complacency get's you what you deserve.

[INdemo]

317. I was referring to the original post in this thread meaning

a primary challenger,even if they could get enough support behind them to challenge Obama would not have a chance of reaching the amount of campaign funding needed to compete since Obama has raise the amount I mentioned..Just got the wrong post when I replied ..thats all

[olegramps]

262. If WE let what you suggest to become reality, it will be a disaster.

It is ridiculous to believe that President Obama could overcome the disaster that he inherited when the Republicans were dedicated to destroying him at any cost. They are so driven with contempt to the extent that they are more than willing to sacrifice the welfare of the nation to achieve their evil goals. If you want to empower President Obama to achieve our goals the key is electing actual Democrats and canning DINOs. If a candidate does not adhere to the party's platform support should be withdrawn. They are more dangerous than the Republicans since they corrupt the party by giving credibility to the Republicans' endowment of the rich at the expense of the working class. I can only hope that more leaders from unions enter the race against these stealth representatives that only undermine progressive goals and have the guts to unify the party.

[ingac70]

3. Um, he wasn't challenging an incumbent Pres.....

A primary challenge weakens a sitting President. Ask Jimmy Carter. And a primary challenge WILL NOT HAPPEN. Ya'll can choke that shit up.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Find the mythical "strong Progressive" who can win the Presidency

and take back the House and get all of his/her agenda passed. There's always a mythical savior out there, just over the hill, he's coming to save us!

[WCGreen]

9. He/she is hanging around with the unicorns....

[leftstreet]

12. They only come out during campaign season n/t

[gateley]

19. I sometimes wonder what a strong Progressive could do

in the current DC climate. S/he'd be met with just as much obstruction, maybe even more since if a Progressive was elected, they'd be even more pissed that their plan didn't work.

[TwilightGardener]

36. I've come to the conclusion that Bill Clinton will be the last Democrat

who will ever be allowed to have an economy flourish under his watch. It grinds Repub gears that even after Monica, he still had THAT accomplishment. Republicans in Congress and in the business world will never again let Democrats own economic success. Of course, that means punishing Americans for electing a Democrat by fucking up the economy...

[gateley]

43. You're probably right. What a nightmare. And the irony is,

we know the economy couldn't flourish under a Republican administration, especially now since they've become even more pro-business and don't even bother hiding it. "Corporations are people, my friend."

I remember hearing someone say that his dad, a working-class stiff, always voted Democratic stating "all I know is that when Democrats are in control, I make money, when Republicans are in control, I lose money." Refreshingly uncomplicated.

[stlsaxman]

240. It's so obvious and simple very few remember/see it/admit resposibility...

We, Obama's Base, were still drunk and giddy from the 2008 election- thinking that we could sleep through 2010 and everything would still be fine 'cause, after all, we had accomplished the miraculous task of electing Obama. Every single person that thought they didn't need to vote in the off-year election is responsible for the TEA party rise to power, and the debacle we have today.

2012 needs to bring back a Democratic majority in Congress as well as re-instating Obama.

[Torpedo54]

253. Actually we tried that already

but in the event you had a memory lapse, there is a very good reason as to why Obama lost the House. Focusing on healthcare reform while the country was burning down around him was just bad politics and bad timing. He needs to go.

[RaleighNCDUer]

319. Weird how people can't seem to recognize how shoring up and strengthening

employer-based health insurance at a time when the economy is shedding jobs is a fundamentally bad idea. And, with a mandate to purchase private insurance falling upon those who no longer have jobs, or full-time jobs, that the Insurance Company Assistance Act actually hurts more people than it helps.

(And, Welcome to DU! It gets a little rough here sometimes, but it's worth it.)

[Tesha]

363. You are absolutely misrepresenting the situation, at least here in NH.

We, the Party faithful, were out there on the streets
doing the very same thing we did in 2008. The difference
was that the electorate had shifted dramatically in its
feelings. The Federal Democrats were viewed as having
accomplished none of their campaign promises and opposition
to Obama had greatly emboldened the Republicans.

Nobody was "drunk and giddy"; we all knew the death march
we were set out upon, and this season's promising to be
even worse.

Tesha

[Inuca]

49. Somewhat related

A few days ago, Tweety said soemthing I had not thought of and that may be true, namely that the Rs can live with a D COngress, not happy, of course, but they accept it as part of the way things are in politics. The presidency OTOH they think they are ENTITLED to it, and will therefore ferociously attack anybody who dares "steal" what is rightfuly theirs.

[TwilightGardener]

57. I think he's right. There's a reason why removing Obama and/or

seeing him fail is openly declared as Job #1. That should shock and disgust most American voters--one would think our national well-being is always Job #1 among elected leaders of either party. I think Repubs see Democratic Presidencies as occasional lapses in a great ever-rightward march, and it's not so bad if the "lapses" also happen to coincide with times of great strife and trouble.

[jeff47]

117. It's not about actually getting things done.

It's about how you get them done. Obama's flaw has been to only back issues where he has the votes. That tactic results in conservative victories. Status-quo or regression always starts with more votes because politicians are risk-averse.

If you want progress, you have to propose what doesn't have enough votes to pass, and then fight to get the votes for part of your proposal. To which you respond "that's a great start" and then push for more.

The New Deal did not have enough votes to pass when it was proposed.
The Great Society did not have enough votes to pass when it was proposed.
The Civil Rights Act did not have enough votes to pass when it was proposed.

So no, such a liberal president wouldn't be viewed as 'failure' by liberals for not getting everything. They'd be viewed as a success for getting something. Obama starts with Republican proposals and moves further to the right. For example, the ACA was originally designed by the Heritage Foundation as the Republican answer to Clinton's health care reform efforts.

We want someone to start with liberal proposals and compromise so that the final result has some liberal parts. We do not expect perfection. But we do expect some liberal things from a Democratic president.

[Enthusiast]

224. Nice post. I agree.

Obama has nearly made an art form out of this. Start from a position of weakness then cave in to Republican demands.

[on point]

154. For one thing, veto a few loony ideas and make congress pass them with 2/3

Another thing is change the conversation and conventional wisdom. Counter act the propaganda of the fascist corp right, educate people, motivate people.

Obama is destroying the energy of the people. We worked damn hard to sweep Washington in 2008. We were working hard to get single payer. But everytime people try to move things in a progressive direction he undercuts us with a backroom deal that is a total cave to the repukes. He is single-handily taking the fight out of folks.

Except I think people have woken up now and want to back someone who really is on their side!!

[russspeakeasy]

173. But if s/he'd had fought and did it in the open, instead of the

backroom deals, the willingness to put SS and medicare on the chopping block, he would have had me and people like me on his side...and promoting his re election.
Instead, we got the new boss, same as the old boss...I've heard he is so damn smart...yeah, smart in class, dumb on the bus.
I won't support him..I will probably write in Howard Dean. We get the government we deserve and I guess that old saying is true again...unfortunately. :nuke:

[Enthusiast]

228. Look how populist anger mounted

with Ryan's medicare proposal. If Obama had taken advantage of this anger his popularity would have soared. Same with the populist outrage over the Walker and Kasich arrogant overreach. Obama did NOTHING to capitalize on this. Obama's approval rating could be stratospheric. For some unfathomable reason apparently he doesn't want the electorate to support Democrats.

[russspeakeasy]

261. My feelings exactly.

[Generic Other]

286. You are so right about that!

He retreats when he has the advantage. When he attacks, he attacks his own flank.

[Enthusiast]

289. It is just that obvious.

Of course we hate to admit it. But I can see no advantage to pretending.

[polmaven]

28. That mythical Progressive

also needs to order a large enough majority in the Senate to get the progressive agenda the House passes approved - hell, even voted on - by the Senate.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

321. Nonsense. The Republicans got bills through congress, and the Senate,

without a super-majority. What you have to do is pass progressive legislation with just enough of a sweetener (or conversely, backed up by credible threats) to get some of the opposition to back it.

We don't NEED 60+ votes to get something through the Senate. We need to make opposition Senators see something to their own advantage in supporting the legislation.

We have a Senate Majority leader who thinks he is a minority leader. He can't even get his own party behind him. REID needs to go.

[ladjf]

37. There are thousands of "strong progressives". The lack of one

is not the problem. The problem is that our electoral system is designed to disqualify the truly
qualified and to elect the inept.

[TwilightGardener]

40. No, the one who can get elected is the one who's qualified.

The only real test is election. Every one else is theory.

[ladjf]

59. When I used the word "qualified" I was using the term to describe

an individual who would be able to be a strong, effective leader who would do good things for America.

Bush was "elected" in 2000 with the help of political operatives and the Supreme Court.
He did not turn out to be "qualified" to be a leader who did good things for America although he did
accept the Presidency based on crooked electoral processes.

[Torpedo54]

256. Except bu$h did no "accept" the presidency.

He conspired with his daddys operatives and stole it. Probably twice.

[cstanleytech]

187. More like its designed to try and discourage a candidate thats to extreme one way or the other

from gaining office, it sadly doesnt always work though like with Bush.

[Enthusiast]

230. It's pretty clear...............nt

[Whisp]

65. I don't understand that part either.

who? The next pundit/blogger/ whoever that REALLY GIVES IT TO OBAMA, and the cheering and wild silly talk starts - knowing that the hero of the flavourful moment has not a chance nor any interest in being President does not chill the excitement to replace Obama.

I say let us work with what we have, Obama is not perfect just like the rest of the 100% of us, but to give him up for some unknown mystical creature with magical powers is really being irresponsible.

[TwilightGardener]

67. He/she's got the socialism of Bernie Sanders, the southernness of Bill Clinton,

the eloquence of Barack Obama, the perfect liberal record of DK or Feingold, the inspiring feminism of Hillary Clinton, and the good looks and charm of JFK, and is also eminently electable. This person exists, dammit! I know it does, because people here are so sure of it.

[sudopod]

73. You mean like the President?

Is this meant to be some kind of ironic?

[TwilightGardener]

102. No irony. I think Obama's a moderate Dem, with a conservative streak.

I said that in 2008. It works for me, since I'm moderate/centrist. I certainly don't think he's as progressive as DU and the rest of the lefty blogs. I also think he's as progressive as can be elected in these times.

[Occulus]

147. Obama is a center-right conservative.

He is in no way anything I have ever defined or even seen defined as "progressive".

[liberation]

200. There is no such thing as a "moderate/centrist."

Politics is defined by ideology, which can be either progressive or regressive, since we live in a dynamic world wether you like it or not. Most "moderates" are, really at the end of the day, conservatives who realize how toxic the term "conservative" has become.

The irony of the projection (and projection is one of the principal characteristics of conservative trains of thought)) is that, just like you have done in your posts, "moderates" consider populist/left/progressive politicians to be "unelectable." And I say irony, because it does not seem to register with the "moderate/centrist" contingent why it is that they have to do all sorts of naming gymnastics in order to avoid the bad connotations associated with the braiding of their actual political leaning: "conservatism."



We're living currently under one of the highest levels of social inequality, not just in our country's history but the world. That is usually the breeding ground for revolution/revolt or at the very least populist movements. And here you are, harping about how a "leftie" would be unelectable. And if indeed a populist candidate is unelectable in times of maximal social inequality, when the majority of the people in this country are getting screwed, then it is because the system is hopelessly corrupt. And if you support such a system, then you are indeed a "conservative" (in the actual sense of what it means in politics).

[Enthusiast]

234. Damn good post right there.......nt

[fascisthunter]

257. beautifully articulated

I agree

[Maven]

300. EXCELLENT POST

:applause:

[green917]

318. Well said!

I like the way Kinky Friedman puts it:

"The only thing you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos!"

[Enthusiast]

233. I think you are mistaken.

A more liberal candidate could have taken advantage of the populist outrage over the assult on the American worker. The entire nation was united in holding Wall Street and the banker thieves accountable for the crash. Obama did not capitalize on this populism.

No, I disagree, a more liberal candidate would be embraced like never before. Because THIS is where the American poeple are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

322. And that is why we don't have candidates such as you described above -

because 'moderates' like you will always vote against them. Never mind that it was the left wing of the party who ALWAYS have been proved to be correct in the long run.

Why don't you try being on the winning side from the beginning, for a change?

[CakeGrrl]

76. I keep asking, but I think we know why there's no answer. -nt

[azul]

137. Like JFK or RFK?

Those were not just warning shots across the bow?

[Historic NY]

141. Christmas is coming...perhaps everyone will get ponies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I "abandoned" Obama during his first campaign when he said he would escalate a lost war.

Up until then I was ready for some nose holding because "At least he's not a Clinton".

[gateley]

6. Understood. I'm still in the Obama camp, but I can see why

others aren't.

I've always felt that it was just mostly the progressives who were so critical and that the majority of Democrats were just fine with what he's doing (I'm thinking of most of the other Dems I know).

But the lack of jobs cuts across party lines, AND penetrates to those who otherwise might not be paying attention, so I think there are more and more heading to your side of the camp.

I'm holding on. :7

[tawadi]

195. +1

Holding on as well, and hoping for real change SOON on the employment front.

[LaurenG]

7. I was raised in Texas and I agree, I have never thought so poorly of any other president

in my lifetime. I recommended this because I understand your sentiment perfectly.

What I think we need to come to terms with is that there will be no primary challenger. Now what?

[lumpy]

18. Anyone who doesn't think Geo.W. Bush was among the

worst of the worst presidents in a life time must not been around very long.

[otohara]

25. Who Are You Talking About

raised in Texas?

[LaurenG]

31. George Bush Governor of Texas and later the worst president ever. nt

[nashville_brook]

8. very well said...

just to add, we have to get the $$ out of law making. we can't have both parties bought off. we're headed for a Malthusian nightmare, and i'm not sure we can steer clear of it at this point.

i'm usually not so gloomy.

[NorthCarolina]

13. Exactly....well said! n/t

[Solomon]

15. kudos to you all for admitting that you're abandoning him.

[TwilightGardener]

45. That's the fightin' spirit. These are the ones you want with you in the foxholes and

trenches, I tell ya.

[Solomon]

92. yep. i was thinking the same

thing.

[frylock]

182. fighting spirit, like the centrist battle cry of "he doesn't have the votes!"

that kind of fighting spirit, where obama doesn't even TRY to wrangle the fucking vote?

[personman]

190. Better than Obama in your fox hole and losing count of the knives in your back. nt

Seeing him put cuts to social security and medicare/medicaid on the table, protecting the previous administration from war crimes prosecution, no opposition to the death penalty that is disproportionately used against African Americans, a gift to private medical insurance like a private insurance mandate...

It's amazing that I'm still an anarchist who votes democrat, and I expect I still will be in 2012. I'm a registered independent, because so-called liberal democrats are half the machine. No solution to our real problems.

[TransitJohn]

198. Why stay in the foxhole when our general already ceded the battlefield to the enemy? eom

n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

166. You make it sound like we had to be his parents...

Perhaps that is what it has come with Americans generally and Democrats in particular.

The term, "abandon" has no place here. The OP is in my view offers a reality check on how we decide to evaluate out political leaders and where we should have not disengaged. Had we done more careful homework, we would have known sooner what kind of strong leadership was needed after Bush II.


He could still decide to lead, but Obama's got quite a lot of shitty advisors around him.

[defendandprotect]

350. Well... here's how it works ... voters vote for you, you betray them, then they abandon you ...!!

[Cleita]

16. I was among that 3% who thought Bush was, at the very least,

incompetent when it came to 9-11, but I really thought he knew and did nothing because his masters the PNAC wanted a Pearl Harbor type of event to invade Iraq. However, it's considered not PC to air that view these days so I will stop with that said. However your final statement is an argument for why Obama shouldn't be primaried, he will have no problem winning. Considering the Republican candidate field of crazy that is rising to oppose him in the next election, I feel he will have no problem winning 2012 and as wishy washy as he may be for the next term, he will be much better than anything the right has to throw at us. Metaphorically I picture him bailing a leaking boat in a sea of sharks. Sure we want him to repair the boat so it doesn't sink, but he bails instead or maybe he can't reach shore to repair the boat. Anyway, the die is cast. Obama will get his second term whether there is a primary challenge or not.

[ThomWV]

34. Well said.

I agree with you. When the Republican's nominated McCain I knew the Party was nuts. He could not win. And then he picked Palin, a nut job I had never heard of at the time of the Republican Convention.

And what are they doing this time around? Every nutcase to be found has decided to run as a Republican and anytime one of the sane ones pops he head up it gets blown off. I think Romney's about as useless as tits on a turtle but of all the one's they've got running he's got the most sense - if not one single iota of scruples.

[RaleighNCDUer]

324. I think you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.

If he doesn't take a strong Democratic stand that will draw independents to him, he is not going to have a second term, with or without a primary challenge.

"Given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a republican, the people will choose the Republican every time."

Harry S Truman

Obama was elected in 08 by talking like a Democrat. He will lose in 12 by acting like a Republican.

[defendandprotect]

351. Agree!! Question is ... will Obama completely take the Dem Party down with him ....

[leftstreet]

17. K&R

[w8liftinglady]

20. I appreciate the sentiment.

I voted for kucinich in the primaries in 2008.
I would love to see a more left-leaning administration.
The reality is - I live in Red Hell.
A progressive has not mad him/herself known.
I DAMN sure do not support any Republican.
Obama has my vote. I refuse to sit this one out.
I will vote for him and EVERY Democrat that runs on the Texas ticket.

[chervilant]

168. Red hell...

Such an apt description of Texas and most of its citizens...

[ProSense]

21. "It is my opinion, and a Democrat, that the man is not good for the Country. "

Oh brother!

"What the country needs right now is a strong progressive Democrat in the White House and President Obama has shown time and again that he is not able to fill that need. "

What this country needs is more focus on issues and less on memes like "hippie punching."

The entire point of all this noise has been to create the impression that the President is weak, deserves all the blame for all the problems he inherited, the Republican obstruction that seeks to destroy not only the gains he has made, but also the country as a whole, and all in the name of a primary challenge.

It's not going to happen, no matter how forceful the spin.

[lumpy]

39. NIce to hear from someone who has some common sense.

Thank you. Some people have the impression that problems can be solved when every possible obstuction has been put in the way of progress; when the opposition has declared that the only objective is to bring down the presidency; when people are looking for that political savior to bring this country back to normalcy after 8 years of destuctive leadership and unbending corporate manipulations.
Bush was right, leading would be whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship.

[Enthusiast]

237. We have the impression that Obama is weak

because he is weak. Nothing could be more obvious.

If it isn't weakness we must consider the alternative -that he is, in fact, a filthy Republican.

[crim son]

23. You have articulated what I realized some time ago.

Thank you.

[montanacowboy]

24. I am with you 110%

If he is our candidate I fear that a Rick Perry will be president. People want a strong candidate who stands firm for their party's beliefs and Obama has shown over and over and over again, he wants to kiss the ring of the republicon gangsters at our expense.

He needs a strong primary challenger and I also will not shut up about it.

[Telly Savalas]

159. Anybody who dicks around this long without even bothering to express

publicly a desire to run for office much less putting in an effort to campaign is not a strong challenger.

[MissDeeds]

26. Well said

We do indeed need a primary challenge.

K&R

[Walk away]

27. If there were a primary challenge The President would win it.

No other Democrat could raise the money or support. A primary would be a good opportunity for progressives to vote against this moderate Democrat but not much else. If you don't think that could create a good deal of hate and resentment and cost millions of dollars, then you have a short memory.

So lets say you get to vote for Kucinich or Saunders in a primary. Will you then vote for Obama in the general election? Or have you abandoned him completely to vote for Perry or some other republican? Or will you just waste your vote and write in your primary choice?

Republicans can always count on Democrats shooting themselves in the foot politically. The right wing always sticks together and usually wins. I honestly think they will prevail in 2012. It remains to be seen if it's with the help of our Democratic base.

[adhd_what_huh]

29. pound sand you quitters!

[DainBramaged]

38. REALLY? Really.......

I guess those of us who speak out against the tide are quitters? And "pound sand". Is that like you being polite and stuff and not wanting to just come right ouyt and say frack you buddy? And no response except "pound sand"? I expected better of the tribe of zombies.

[Dragonfli]

74. Off topic : Thanks for the gift of continued ability to type! (you know what I mean)

:pals:

[DainBramaged]

78. I am TRULY happy to see you here again!!

From the heart. When all else fails, people KNOW they can turn to me.


ALL my best

DB

:evilgrin: :loveya: :fistbump:

[EFerrari]

53. The OP is explicitly not quitting anything. nt

[otohara]

32. There Will Be No Primary Challenge

deal with it.

[Martin Eden]

41. Is that a good thing?

Do you think the Democratic Party, our country, and our party's chances of winning the general election are better off without a vigorous primary in which crucial issues are debated?

[otohara]

60. Yes

Can you even comprehend the divide such an action would cause?
We lived through Bush
I will not be a part of a movement to challenge the first AA President.
It would be ugly and hurtful to many.

Four more years of Obama vs any one of those creeps on the right sounds heavenly.

[Historic NY]

143. I actually beginning to think the other side is pushing this memo...

to divide. Sanders is not a registered Democrat...can't run...& Kucinich couldn't carry any state outside maybe his own. He hasn't made any traction in the past and won't in the future.

[Angry Dragon]

33. I do not see anyone stepping up and saying:

'I will be a better Democrat than Obama.
I will fight for Democratic principals'

It takes more than someone just wanting to be president
to lead this country. It will take a person with fire
in their belly, it will take a person that is willing
to fight and get bloody for their principals. I do
not see anyone stepping up.

[lumpy]

46. Stepping up? I don't see any of the anti-Obama posters

stepping up. It is easy to gripe but not easy to lead

[Angry Dragon]

68. A leader has to have a message

If you have a message and follow through with that message, people will follow.
If the message and path do not match it is hard for people to follow.
That is what I think has happened to the President.
The message and path do not match.
A lot of people are saying that they love the message but does not match the path.

[lumpy]

80. If that path is littered with potholes and boulders, traveling that

path is bound to be bumpy.

[defendandprotect]

89. Not against corporate money which seems to have cemented Obama in place -- !!

[villager]

35. Good, thoughtful post

And those steps on your journey represent many of my own.

After 9/11 there was a definite "pod people" phase, where people who clearly knew better somehow felt obliged to "support" the Great Impostor, even though it was clear that his own dereliction of duty -- as you note -- helped bring it on (putting aside any deliberate involvement Cheney may have had in helping the "unforeseen" events happen...)

And sadly, Obama hasn't been up to the historical moment. I wish he had been. I wish he was someone who I could admire and support.

instead, he encapsulates everything wrong with the modern Democratic party, certainly since the Reagan era: Routine capitulation to bullies, and no sense of what, ultimately and unwaveringly, they stand for.

[Peacetrain]

42. As a Democrat who is sticking by President Obama..

I am saving this.. You and I are now officially on the opposite sides of the fence.

[lumpy]

83. I am still on the left side of the aisle. I will continue to be loyal to

my party. The Republicans capitalistic principles remain to same. We still adhere to Democratic principles in spite of the rocks and slurs that are thrown our way.

[MilesColtrane]

44. What does "abandoned" mean in real terms?

Since you're being all honest, why not go all the way and tell us what you are going to do when it's time to pull the lever in 2012?

[ThomWV]

51. Because, as I have learned, that will get a post Blocked in a heartbeat

I can only tell you this. Though in truth every person's vote is their own I can say at least that my opinion strongly influences three other voters and I can guarantee that they show up at the polls.

[scheming daemons]

54. You answered the question. You're not pulling the lever for Obama in Nov 2012. Got it.

[lumpy]

61. Guess that's it. Some posters here might as well go for broke

and gamble on a not-so-very-sure thing. Get the stars out of our eyes and give Obama a decent Congress and some moral support and maybe he can get things done, even if he isn't a miracle worker.
God ain't gonna' do it.

[Politicub]

153. Some people have the luxury of going for broke. I do not. Obama's record is progressive on

LGBT rights. If the GOP gets swept in by the people waiting for the perfect progressive, it could all get swept away in a second.

[defendandprotect]

307. Putting SS and Medicare "on the table" is progresdsive? That's the nuts and bolts of the New Deal!!

When Obama is calling for an overturning of DOMA, then he will be progressive on LG rights --

"The perfect progressive" -- is there a class somewhere on DU for "pink pony" euphemisms?

Obama is by not means a progressive, leave alone perfect -- except in his record of pro-

corporate decisions and back room deals for the benefit of corporations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

326. Nonsense. He could have put DADT behind him in his first three months.

Instead, he kept it open as an issue right up into the 2010 elections - part of his 'strategy' that cost us the House.

He talked a good fight through his campaign, and I argued very strongly in his favor for it to my sister and her wife who favored Hillary. Then he gets elected and does NOTHING for two years.

This is progressive on LGBT rights?

And he STILL has not TOUCHED DOMA.

[Politicub]

359. He has ordered the justice department not to defend DOMA

And since it's an act of the legislature, he's unable to do away with the odious law without an act of Congress.

But I don't have any doubts that he will sign a bill rescinding DOMA should it come to his desk.

And in the meantime, Obama's admin has been progressive with a number of pro LGBT policies in the HHS, for example. Perhaps you missed his signature on hate crimes legislation or the bill that began the process of ending DADT?

But don't let reason get in the way of bashing his record on LGBT civil rights.

[RaleighNCDUer]

366. Justice Dept does not HAVE to defend DOMA.

They would only get involved in a case was to reach the federal appeals level - and with the Bush-era courts still running things the odds of any cases getting beyond state level in the next 18 months is pretty much negligible.

And, HE has no contol over what comes to his desk. Any miniscule moves have have been made came through congress. However, he IS responsible for the lack of movement AFTER they've been signed.

You've been conned.

[Politicub]

367. Yeah, surely I've been conned. You must be the only informed person on DU.

How fortunate that you are enlightening us all. /sarc

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

325. It's is astonishing how so many of those saying 'Stick with Obama'

are the same people saying we should support the all Blue Dogs who supposedly kept him from achieving his agenda (whatever it was) in his first two years.

[TwilightGardener]

58. You know three weak-minded individuals?

And you can make them obey you in the privacy of the voting booth? That's kinda...weird...

[ThomWV]

66. Nope, it doesn't work like that. We call the secrete method "the dinner table"

Try it some time.

Here's how it works. We talk about the world and the events of the day. And we have agreements and disagreements and some discussions go on for a long time but in the end for the most part at least myself and three others are of like mind in things political. As to the guarantee of everyone going to the polls, well that comes from me being the sort of Elder of the tribe, if you want to think of it that way. I absolutely insist that every member of the family be informed and vote - and we do. Oh, the three I mention are my wife, my son, and my daughter-in-law. There are three grandchildren too, two of which will reach voting age before the next election.

[TwilightGardener]

71. LOL--in other words, by the end of dinner I loudly dominate the discussion, and my family

just goes along with whatever I say to shut me the hell up.

[saras]

205. Projection?

[fascisthunter]

259. now it's personal

awwww

[MilesColtrane]

72. I don't know that I could continue to post on a site that censors my...

true political opinions.

How/why do you do it?

[scheming daemons]

47. Well... what's your plan B for when you finally realize there WON'T be a primary challenge?

At that point, you can do only one of three things:

- Vote for Obama
- Vote for the Republican
- Not vote


What will you do then?

[mitchtv]

69. There's always write in

I reserve that option

[defendandprotect]

113. EXCELLENT POINT ... BUT HOW DOES THAT REALLY WORK .... ????

Someone raised that point on the POLL I posted re a panel to find liberal

candidates for 2012 --

I thought it would be official if for instance the majority of voters did a

write in for a candidate we all agreed on --

but others have had it's not official unless the candiate is registered?


Not sure -- think we need some official info on write in's???


HELP!!

:)

[Walk away]

124. Save yourself a trip. Write it on a sheet of toilet paper and flush it!

Then blow yourself a kiss in the bathroom mirror for helping deliver us President Perry! Enjoy your rights while you still have them :-)

[RaleighNCDUer]

327. Don't worry about that - after all, President Perry will be unable to do ANYTHING

if he's faced with a Democratic majority House and Senate, right? There is nothing so helpless as a president who has opposition in Congress.

[Walk away]

361. Take a look at who's Senate seats are in play in 2012 and say good bye...

to a Democrat having anything to say about this country for the next twenty years.

[defendandprotect]

91. What happened in 2010 -- ???? You have an even worse situation now re Obama...!!!

[Cool Logic]

48. Hate...? No wonder your glass is half-empty.

In any case, as long as you invest yourself in the notion of a savior...the notion that one man can change everything, you will continue to be disappointed.

[Romulox]

50. *I* didn't abandon ANYBODY--I'm still wanting to end the wars, renegotiate NAFTA, end the Drug War..

It's the President's positions which have radically changed since 2008, not mine. :hi:

[green917]

323. +1,000,000,000 n/t

[uponit7771]

52. Ignoring congress = Obama bashing...

[defendandprotect]

93. If it's all about Congress ....

Then obviously we should give up the Presidency -- and give up the Senate --

and just try to control the House which is all the GOP has --

AND THEN WE CAN DICTATE ON ALL ISSUES AS THE REPUGS HAVE BEEN DOING!!!



:rofl: -- :rofl: --

[MakingANoise]

55. Have you people even considered this???

Look, I'm as disappointed as most of you, however, have you considered that if he wins re-election, with him running again after that, that maybe then he will actually push through the agenda that he campaigned on in 2012?

I think he has a very good shot at being re-elected, especially compared to the box of rocks on the GOP side, keep this in mind...

[ThomWV]

63. I want to be polite, you have earned it.

I agree with your conclusion, though your first sentence sort of confused me. I figure it was just typos though.

Anyway, this is sort of my point: I'm not concerned with Obama's reelection, that is a political matter and its his problem, not mine. What I am concerned about is the future of the nation, and moving as Obama has for the last 3 years is not going to hold us together.

[lumpy]

96. Obama's reelection should be your problem also, unless you

are planning to desert the Democratic party and if that is the case then you should retire from this Democratic forum. This is a forum for Democrats and Obama is our Democratic leader. Let us know your intentions please, we deserve that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

330. I haven't seen that Obama is either Democratic or a leader.

Besides, wanting a 'leader' is a very RW thing - I want an executive who will stand up for democratic, and Democratic, principles in the face of RW opposition.

If it is not going to be Obama, then someone else.

"If yer not with us, yer agin us." Where have I heard that before?

[WinkyDink]

81. No. Wishful thinking.

[Ganja Ninja]

86. Have you ever considered that what you see is all you're ever gonna get?

That's far more likely then some sudden transformation from a passive aloof non-confrontational politician into aggressive dynamic crusader fighting tooth and claw for liberal causes.

[BigBearJohn]

217. AMEN!!

[defendandprotect]

95. Vote for a "maybe" .... ? We've seen Obama's record ... !!!

This is a man involved in back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C

industry in order to tramsple single payer which the nation desperately needs!!

And then his #1 guy -- Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel -- "Crowed" about having

'PRESERVED THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM" -- and How GRATEFUL business should

be to Obama!!!


:eyes:

[jeff47]

121. We stopped believing the campaign promises long ago.

Each of us reached a point where we no longer believed Obama's pretty speeches. Where that point was located varied from person to person. We all have our own personal tipping points.

The disillusioned have given up on Obama's promises, so promising wonderful things for his second term is not going to help. And given the terrible job handling politics during his first term, it seems unlikely they were holding back because of concerns about re-election.

"I think he has a very good shot at being re-elected, especially compared to the box of rocks on the GOP side, keep this in mind..."

No president (or his party if term-limited) has won re-election with an economy this bad. Even with the Republicans nominating "the crazy", it's not going to be an easy election for Obama.

Kinda why some of us have been upset that the "pragmatists" shot down any attempts to do something about the economy after they botched the stimulus bill. So we lost in 2010 because of the economy, and the pragmatists continued to shoot down any attempts to do something about the economy. Then Obama went all-in on deficit reduction for some insane reason. 60%+ think jobs are most important, and Obama goes all-in on cutting jobs. It's another tone-deaf and moronic move by the White House's political operation, and so his numbers are dropping.

He's now promising a lovely speech about jobs after labor day. Unfortunately, the time for action was late 2009/early 2010. He's too late for action, and speeches aren't going to cut it anymore.

[Nay]

225. Amen, Jeff. You said it better than I could. nt

[uponit7771]

254. Who the fuck is "we"?!!?!?!??!!? Obama >80% avg approval amongst liberal democracts

[RaleighNCDUer]

332. Name em. nt

[jeff47]

344. Well, one might guess it's the other ~20%........

There's also a significant number of people who have posted that they always tell pollsters they "approve" when they really don't. They believe they're "helping the team" by lying.

[chervilant]

278. A SPEECH about jobs?!?

I wonder if he'll be patronizing in that speech... No, probably condescending... No, wait, more likely he'll be mendacious...

I will be homeless in four weeks and two days. No job, no HOPE of a job...

Pretty speeches will not help me, or the hundreds of thousands of other US citizens in similar circumstances.

[mochajava666]

280. +1

[Little Star]

56. What you said!! k&r

[Horse with no Name]

64. Solidarity brother.

That's what it is all about.

:thumbsup: K&R.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. Kevin McCarthy's character --

in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - at the end, when he is trying to stop cars and warn people of the menace but is ignored. That's how I have been feeling the past 13+ years now. It feels like a hard, lonely life sometimes. :hug: But our future depends on our vigilance and willingness to say what needs saying, regardless.

Hang tough, my friend, more and more people are getting the message.

[lumpy]

90. Apparently the message is the same as Mitch McConnell's,

bring Obama down no matter what.

[defendandprotect]

97. More fear-based thinking -- !! Rather, let's move government to the left -- !!!

[sabrina 1]

129. Mitch McConnell supports progressive issues?

Since when? :eyes:

I swear, these 'you must want Palin' talking points are going to kill this party. There is virtually no intelligent discussion anymore, ever since the Rahm wing of the Party, the Third Wayers decided to emulate the stupidity of the Karl Rove school of political discussion.

How about addressing the real issues raised in the OP?? How do we get a government that supports what a majority of the American people want? Do you have any ideas as to how to go about that? We tried 'electing Democrats' and heard nothing but excuses as to why they couldn't do it.

So, what do we do next, assuming it is the Country, and not the Party, either one, that is a priority for people.

[lumpy]

180. What maks you think McConnell supports progressive issues?

McConnell has stated the most important agenda is to bring Obama down. People who advocate the impossible task of substituting a primary contender against Obama is helping the GOP agenda by dissing Obama with derogatory remarks; and that is what most of the conversation has been about. The "excuses" as to why Obama has been unable to buck Congress are valid. Give the man a DECENT Democratic Congress and maybe he will be able to get something done. That is the ONLY way the majority of the American people can get what they want. That is "what we must do next". Nothing will be accomplished by a split in the Democratic party and this negative expression of party discontent might just bring that about. A 3rd party or primary contender solution is not workable at this time, if ever.

[WinkyDink]

239. Try reading the above post and noting punctuation.

Mr. Intelligence.

[RaleighNCDUer]

333. So the guy who has been dissing the 'professional left', labor, Keynesian

economists, progressives in his own party will suddenly start supporting progressives?

What evidence is there for that?

[WinkyDink]

79. He squandered the chance to make the US more equitable by his whack desire to be some "Middle Way"

Great Figure.

[lumpy]

184. Derogatory expressions like "whack desire to be some

"Middle Way" Great Figure (referring to Obama) is not consistent with intelligent conversation regarding political issues. Appreciate any ideas as to strenghtening the Democratic Party so Obama might have a better chance of fulfilling his objectives. Or is that your interest?

[WinkyDink]

238. Oh, PARDON ME, ALPHONSE. I apologize for lowering the DU level of discourse!

What, pray, do you believe are Obama's heretofore unobservable objectives that are in line with traditional Democratic Party tenets?

The Democratic Party needs no "strengthening"; it needs leaders who do not support non-Democratic results.

[Demonaut]

82. awesome strategery, nt

actually posts like this are part of the problem, he's been hamstrung this first term, love the critique about Harry Reid though..oh yeah, no critique.

[ecstatic]

87. You deserve whatever happens if Perry /Bachman/etc. wins

All I ask is that you don't complain when they pass more bigoted laws at the federal level. I'm at the point now where I'll be OK either way. Good luck.

[defendandprotect]

99. Evidently, all we have is FEAR to work with? Be frightened rabbits and vote for Obama... ???

[Demonaut]

100. solution?

[defendandprotect]

104. Look for a liberal candidate -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, for one can run on a Dem ticket ...

If you don't like Bernie -- move to the idea of setting up a liberal panel --

Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, Matt Damon -- and others -- probably 8-10 people --

to collect info from liberal groups --


We need TWO strong anti-war candidates --

We need two candidates who strongly support New Deal Social Security and safety nets --

and Medicare/Medicaid --


They would get feedback from those groups on possible democratic candidates --


From women's groups which support ERA and Roe vs Wade --

From ENVIRONMENTALISTS who understand the urgency of Global Warming --

From liberal legal groups which want to restore our Constitutional rights --

From labor groups -- family support groups -- who support unions and workers --

From doctors and nurses who now support MEDICARE FOR ALL -- 76% and more support among citizens!

From ANTI-WAR groups -- 80% of Americans want an end to the wars!

[ecstatic]

106. Get those candidates for 2016. Your idea sounds a

little delusional, but there's nothing wrong with trying to set that up for 2016. If you have any common sense you'd know that primarying Obama in 2012 would not work. It has never worked before. Many people would stay home due to the racial fallout.

So why not suck it up, work on 2016 and at least try to avoid the White House going into teaparty control (if you truly care about the issues you listed, why would you do that?).

[defendandprotect]

110. Give Obama another crack at SS and Medicare? PLUS, we don't have the time re Global Warming --

Anyone who doesn't understand that is "delusional"---!

This is an America which voted overwhelmingly for Obama -- so what "racial" fallout

are you talking about -- other than the fake GOP DETESTED T-baggers?


If you want there to be anything left of the Dem Party, think 2012!!



Work also to rid the Dem Party of Koch Bros influences over it and its candidates --

Koch Bros. funded the DLC as they funded the T-baggers!!


"Our Congress is under the control of OIL and COAL industries" -- Al Gore/Rolling Stone



And you're saying "don't worry, be happy" .... until 2016!!! ---





:nuke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

334. Obama loves Reagan so much he shouldn't mind if we emulate him -

mount a primary challenge to the sitting president of his own party. Lose that challenge. Come back 4 years later and change the face of America.

I'd gladly put up with 4 years of Mittens if it meant in 16 we had somebody who would move this country to the left for the next 35 years, the way Reagan moved it to the right.

[ecstatic]

335. "I'd gladly put up with 4 years of Mittens "

That tells us everything we need to know about you. What a joke.

“Liberal” Sock Puppets – Right Wing/Corporate Operatives Attacking Democrats From The "Left"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x967422

[RaleighNCDUer]

343. Don't read too well, do you.

Putting it in simple terms for you, I would trade 4 more years of insanity for a following three decades during which we dismantle our overseas empire, adopt fair trade over free trade, empower unions and working people, establish single-payer healthcare, establish a base living wage tied to inflation as opposed to an ineffective minimum wage which is not indexed to inflation, return corporations to being the financial constructs they are instead of calling them 'people', make the owners and managers of those corporations responsible for their decisions on how the corporation is run instead of letting them cross their arms and say "it wasn't me - it was the corporation that did it".

Read through that link you most graciously posted - I posted heavily in it. Where do I ever take a pro-Republican position? In fact, I specifically postulated that there are a few - not many, but a few - RW shills, making outrageous distortions of lefty positions, to make the left look ridiculous. Those shills (not sock puppets - different critter altogether) would NEVER advocate for 'just 4 years of Mittens in trade for 30 years of real progress'.

No. I said I'll put up with a very limited term of crap to get the rewards FROM THE LEFT that follow - in the same way that the Republicans 'suffered' through Carter to get Reagan and 35 years of unchallenged Republican control (and don't give me crap about the Clinton years - it was Clinton that deregulated the banks, gutted the welfare system which caused the massive increase in homelessness even during his own term, and including families, not just the typical aimless young men and veterans.

You don't think you could put up with Mittens for four years if guaranteed the passage of FDR's New Bill of Rights at the end of that four years?

Or would you rather continue with alternating Republican and Repbulican-lite administrations for the next three decades, constantly pulling or drifting the country ever further to the right, as we've done the LAST 30 years?

[Demonaut]

115. so is the intent to "push" Obama into a more progressive stance or to defeat him? nt

[defendandprotect]

156. If you're asking would I prefer Sen. Bernie Sanders as President -- Of course!!!

Too many connections between Obama and DLC -- Third Way --

wouldn't give Obama another crack at anything that's left of the New Deal --

or anything else, really!!

And, I really doubt that Obama is going to be "pushed" anywhere to the left --

if that were possible would have already happened --

Obama has only from Day #1 moved further and further and further to the RIGHT!!


I woluldn't be surprised to wake up one morning to find we were attacking Iran!!

VP Biden has been pushing that idea for more than a year, saying tht "Israel would

be justified in attacking Iran" -- !!!


Yikes!!




PS: If you're not familiar with Koch Bros. having funded the DLC -- as well as the

criminals Pfizer and Chevron Corps -- here's some info, if you're interested --


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1759941&mesg_id=1768366

[RegieRocker]

368. Loudly voice your dissatisfaction to the very last possible minute.

Don't be frightened little sheep.

[ecstatic]

105. It's not about fear, it's about common sense

Read the news. Read the new laws teabaggers have passed since Nov 10. I bet you are not even aware of most of what they've passed--laws limiting/ending choice, unions, and discrimination against immigrants.

We have two options: a second term for Pres. Obama or a teaparty president. You're an adult. Cast your vote and then OWN it.

The problem I have with your type is the irrationality. The only person you hurt when enabling the GOP to another term is yourself. Obama is a wealthy man, he will be fine whether he wins or not.

[defendandprotect]

161. If you read the posts, they are all fear-based ....

Did you notice that T-baggers -- funded by Koch Bros. and run out of a PR firm which

guarantees them publicity -- are one of the most hated groups in America?


So how is this happening other than by lies -- ? And stolen elections -- ??



This is a liberal nation --

80% of the public want an end to the wars -- why would they vote for RW or GOP?

76% of the public want government-run health care -- why would they vote for RW or GOP?

70% of the public or more want marijuana legalized -- " " " " " " ?

Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution --

details below -- why would they vote for RW or GOP?


Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF at link) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribu... /



You might also try some Noam Chomsky --

but here's some other info if you're interested ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1759941&mesg_id=1768366

[lumpy]

101. Jesus Christ ! Some people want the moon without getting out

of their easy chairs. Instead of working to strengthen the party those easy chair people do their damnedest to cause friction. Instead of coming forth with ideas it becomes a bitch session.We can be disappointed in the outcome of some legislation etc, but it does not one bit of good to continue bitching about it.

[Demonaut]

103. [phone]

[Occulus]

148. You forgot to mention it's too soon to talk about legislation that hasn't been passed yet

But, as someone else observed the other day, the length of time between "we don't know what the legislations says, so quit bitching" and "it's already been passed, so quit bitching" appears to be .00001 seconds.

So, you fail. Thanks for playing, but... you fail.

[jeff47]

123. You should add some more insults to your post. That's bound to bring the disillusioned back. (nt)

[Occulus]

149. People like that are a LARGE reason why I won't be voting for Obama again.

With supporters like those, I definitely do not want him in office again!

[sabrina 1]

131. That is not the only option.

First you have to have a goal. My goal is and always was to push for Democratic Party ideals as stated in their platform. So, we have tried electing a Democratic majority and taking the WH. That, we were then told, couldn't work because of the Republicans, IN THE MINORITY!

Independents then abandoned the party in 2010 disappointed that helping elect them did not achieve the goals they supported.

Since the goals have not changed, what do we do next, what has not yet been tried?

Maybe, and this is just a thought, if we put all our efforts into Congress, forget the WH other than to vote for this president, and focus on Congress, get a huge majority and even if the Party drives away enough people to lose the WH as they did in 2010, we would be in control. A repub President would have no power, right? I mean that's how it is now, we are told. With Congress Repubs have been able to control the WH even though they do not hold it.

How do you proprose we actually WIN, which means getting the ideas we support put into action. Doing the same things over and over that have failed, doesn't seem worth while to me.

[ecstatic]

193. I agree with the focus on congress part

As far as us doing the same thing over and over--you're right---but not in the way you think. What we do over and over again is vote democrats in one year, then vote them out the next. That is why democrats in power continue to think we're in a center or right leaning country. Only through showing them that we do support democratic ideas will we ever get progressive/democratic things passed.

[B Calm]

107. Obama fooled me once into voting for him and I got a republican.

[defendandprotect]

162. +1 ---

[meow mix]

108. im not some blindly allegiant zombie like they want.. i guess.

embracing the rw madness of this WH will only ensure it will never end. i see few options

[mnhtnbb]

109. We had our chance for a strong, principled Democrat with Howard Dean.

Look what the media did to him.

Obama is not a dumb guy but he certainly isn't a principled progressive. He never was.
He told his story--in print--and those who were in love ignored the warning signs.

I don't know where we go from here. I'm not optimistic. I think the best times in
this country are behind us and that makes me very sad and worried for the next generation.

[defendandprotect]

112. We have to keep trying for a liberal candidate and to restore the Party ....

We need two strong anti-war candidates for 2012 --

Bernie Sanders would be an excellent candidate who could run on the

Dem ticket --

And there are many others who can run -- Alan Grayson --

but we need a list of candidates based on recommendations from various

liberal groups --


Environmentalists -- anti-War groups -- Doctors and nurses who support universal

health care -- women's groups who support ERA and Roe vs Wade -- labor and unions --

teachers -- legal groups which work to restore our Constitutional rights --

ALL LIBERAL GROUPS SHOULD BE CONSULTED -- and probably take only a few weeks to come

up with a list of preferred candidates who could run on the Dem ticket --




http://www.stophoping.org

[brooklynite]

114. And once again I ask...

What are the voices in favor of a Primary challenge going to actually -do- to further this essential step, other than pound at their keyboards?

[okieinpain]

118. a strong progressive president would get eaten alive. can you

even name a strong progressive Governor

[defendandprotect]

163. True -- and you might be questioning where is our liberal leadeship -- ???

"Europeans have long noted that liberals/progressives have an odd way of being

assassinated or otherwise eliminated" --

We've also long known that the RW violence doesn't stop at assassination of known

liberal leaders -- it works to keep any liberal leadership from rising.


The other day as I was listening to the radio in the car, my breath actually stopped

when I heard a commentator discussing the protests in Great Britain and in an amazed

voice began to comment that he couldn't remember a time in history when GB was so

bereft of longstanding liberal leadership!


Imagine that this has been going on all over the world --

[Major Hogwash]

119. You would have been happier with a President McCain.

Because whining, complaining, moaning, and sniviling about Bush for 8 years is not an easy habit to break.
You would have been happier if McCain would have won, so this habit would continue.

[Historic NY]

144. I beginning to think this a Rove inspired plot.

[defendandprotect]

167. Rove is busy attacking Perry, some think to bring Jeb Bush foward ... because Obama is so weak ..!!!

So we can stick with Obama and the destruction of the Dem Party or we

can begin to do something about finding two strong anti-war candidates for 2012!!


If your interested, vote here --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739418

[Rosco T.]

120. If you 'abandoned' Obama.. you've abandoned the Dems....

.. an the country as a whole.

Might as well donate to the RNC and be honest about it.

You got your opinion, I got mine.

[defendandprotect]

169. NO -- Koch Bros. funded DLC within the party is what divided the party ....

We now have a party eaten away by the cancer of Koch Bros DLC and its infiltration

and influence over the party and its candidates -- including presidential candidates!

THIS is where the division begins --

If you can't stand up for the party of FDR and the New Deal, what are you standing up for?

[lumpy]

204. The idea is to bring Democrats together, not create division

within the party. What you have to say is not helping to make that happen. In fact it is creating more division. Why not come forth with some constructive ideas instead of spouting questionable accusations and contributing nothing less than negativity. I am a life long FDR/NewDeal Democrat having been born during that era and I remain standing up for those principles. I cannot accept being questioned about my loyalty to those principles. I cannot accept your statements and I question whether your loyalty is to the Democratic party or where else you stand politically.

[defendandprotect]

337. .. but Koch Bros. DLC didn't create division ... ???? ROFL

Try answering the question ---

And if you question my loyalty to New Deal principles or to the Dem Party again, I will ALERT

on your post -- !!

[RaleighNCDUer]

356. You do understand, don't you, that there is a difference between

loyalty to "the party" and loyalty to FDR Democratic ideals?

Would you stand by party solidarity if the party was taken over by Dixiecrats? Yes? No?

How about if the party was taken over by Koch Brothers funded fifth columnists whose only goal is to turn the Democratic party into Republican-lite, and undo all of the New Deal? Support them just because they call themselves 'Democrats'?

When the party abandons the party's ideals, then it is time to stand with the ideals and let the party hang.

[HipChick]

122. I doubt a strong progressive Democrat will ever be in the WH

[defendandprotect]

171. Don't give up --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739418


http://www.stophoping.org

[phleshdef]

125. A real primary challenge to an incumbent Pres end up politically delegitimizing them.

Thats just the condition of our voting society. Most voters do not look at it and say "oh wonderful, Democracy at work, what a joy!". They look at it and say either "he or she is so bad, their own party doesn't even want them" or they say "wow, that party is so fucked up and disunified, it can't even hold itself together to back its own incumbent".

There is no other Democrat that is going to be able to get much more than Obama has out of a government where the conservative point of view has always had enough power to stand in the way of the liberal point of view. The fact of the matter is, in order to get the progressive agenda through, laws have to be passed.

In order to pursue the conservative agenda, all you have to do is stall and obstruct. They don't really need to pass much of anything. Obstruction alone can lead to the defunding of government, to the point where it has no choice but to shrink.

Its a whole lot easier to stall and obstruct than it is to write and pass comprehensive legislations that get things done. This is why conservatives inherently have a much easier battle to fight than progressives have ever had. Only when Congress has been willing to entertain progressive solutions have we been able to entertain really good, progressive legislation. No matter who you may think is the right person for the job, I can guarantee you that the only thing you would get out of switching out Barack Obama for someone like Bernie Sanders is twice as much stalling and obstructing and even more yelling and a complete flat line on even keeping the basics of the government operating efficiently.

[defendandprotect]

172. And you don't think that Obama putting SS and Medicare "on the table" has delegitimized the party ..

and his presidency as a Democrat????


Wow --

[lumpy]

207. What the hell are you talking about now ? Obama putting

SS and Medicare "on the table" ? WOW is right.You must be running out of ammunition. Get real!

[defendandprotect]

336. Did you separate from all media over the last months?

[lumpy]

206. I can only hope that people here stop and read you post

because you put your finger on the reality of our political system at this point in time. Thank you for your post, it made me feel hopeful/good after reading what has been expressed by some on this forum.

[sad sally]

127. Can't remember who said it, but went something like this:

people think that the President is a benevolent despot determining our fortunes and way of life when in reality, the President is just sitting in the co-pilot seat of a plane that’s already on auto-pilot.

So maybe it doesn't really matter - most of us can only decide what we're going to be able to afford to eat today and not much else...

[defendandprotect]

174. Maybe it does matter -- not only for jobs and economy --

but for stability within the nation --

and for Global Warming which is happening NOW -- !!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739418


http://www.stophoping.org

[mike_c]

128. agreed 100 percent....

What ThomWV said!

[noiretextatique]

130. a strong progressive would never get the black vote

perhaps a small percentage of it, but probably not a significant percentage. no group is more "in love" with obama than african- americans, except perhaps the wealthiest 1% of americans. his approval rating among african-americans is still @ 80%

[defendandprotect]

175. That's vastly untrue -- they were among the FIRST to criticize Obama ... same as

they were the FIRST to criticize Clarence Thomas as a "Judas" --


Have you actually missed Cornell Wilde's very negative comments about Obama?

Or Harry Belafonte's very negative comments about Obama -- ????

[lumpy]

Now that is racist !

x

[Raine]

133. Agree, well said! nt

:thumbsup:

[SixthSense]

134. Two words

Elizabeth Warren

[ThomWV]

135. One word

Amen!

[Vidar]

138. Excellent arguments and I completely agree.

[pezDispenser]

140. baby steps

First off, let me say I probably largely agree with your sentiments toward Obama. Where we part ways is in patience. I don't believe the progression of the country from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush lends itself to a true progressive. I believe one of the better things to come out of the Clinton years was to push the country left. A little. Had the election not been stolen, the country could have moved a little more left. It's a big ship that turns slowly. I'm hoping 5 more years of Obama is the start of that slow, but steady, leftward turn.

[bhikkhu]

145. A well-written and balanced post

...but I disagree. I think Obama is good for the country, and has forged the only path forward as well as could be done. In a time when people are more polarized than ever, we have as a president one who is committed to the idea of the US as a union of diverse peoples, stronger together than apart, and willing to build bridges out of the belief that they can only make us stronger. I think he has more belief in the basic values of the country than anyone else I know of on either side.

[humbled_opinion]

146. I largely agree with you but, I remain hopeful.

It is very important for all of us to get involved and let the President know what we want him to do, sure it seems like common sense to us, put in a Works Program, More Stimulus for infrastructure, Roads, Bridges, construction, cut all government over to green energy, Lead the renewable energy revolution, bring the troops home faster, end all the wars, increase taxes on the wealthy so they actually pay a fair share, use incentives to get small business to hire more people, offer more credits for education, open more schools, open government health care clinics, etc...

and we have to understand that he has to work within the confines of the office, he cannot dicatate, the centrists and Independents won't allow either side to run roughshod. So he has alot of work to do but he really does need to lead. Stand up for and speak for the principles that we support. Tell us what will work and then lead us to the promised land.

If he has truly lost his way, if he truly has somehow been manipulated to believe in the NEOCON approach, if he has adopted the conservative platform which is not impossible, since he is young and impressionable and I believe could be manipulated by them, than I think it would be wise for senior Democratic leadership to speak with him about stepping down or being primaried.

I nor anyone here should support any President that offers cuts to the Social compact programs of S.S. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc....

[defendandprotect]

177. Obama has been ignoring the will of the people ---

those who have leverage over Obama are corporate/fascists not the people --



80% of the country want an end to the wars --

76% and more -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care for everyone --

70% and more of the nation want marijuan legalized --



Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribu... /


Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF at link) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.






Does it seem likely to you that ANY of those people will be voting for the RW or GOP?

Of course not -- the biggest danger we face is another 2010 where Dems don't come out to vote!!



http://www.stophoping.org


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739418

[xiamiam]

191. + 100000000 trillion..nt

[liberation]

209. "Hope" and "denial" are not synonyms

FYI ;-)

[tabasco]

150. Phony. n/t

[on point]

151. a three percent-er who agrees with you 100%

Obama would have been a nice follow up to Clinton. He is a decent guy who could have followed along and kept the country going. Even his DLC corporate leanings would not have been so bad because they could be negotiated.

But now we have a country ruined by Bush and the crazy right wing and their delusional nonsense. They are engaged in a war on the country in order to take it over and create their religious fascist corporate state.

Now is not the time for nice guys. The country is in very bad shape and we desperately need someone who will begin reversing the damage. Not someone who will keep compromising at every step as it slides ever further towards disaster.

Obama is not up to the job, either temperamentally, or perhaps in his convictions as he is NOT a progressive, but is one of those DLC infiltrators that is leading the country to trouble.

Yes he is better than a crazy repuke, but that is not saying much. Just a few years ago his positions would have been clearly identified as republican positions. I am NOT voting for a republican, even if he calls himself a dem, because they are leading the country in the WRONG direction.

[Fearless]

152. I agree 100% on all accounts.

And count me in on the Bush thing too.

[StarsInHerHair]

155. K&R to 113

[DeSwiss]

158. K&R n/t

[Ricochet21]

164. I gave up too

when he let the people of Wisc hang out to dry. He won't take a stand. Sure, he's thousands of times better than any reposcum, but we need an FDR type now. Strong, Make waves. Lead.

[defendandprotect]

181. Let's not give up ....

We can find two strong anti-war candidates -- liberals who will fight back on

all the issues --

This is a liberal nation --

Liberals are a huge voting bloc --

Let's not have a repeat of 2010 when Dems stayed home!





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1739418


http://www.stophoping.org

[Bronco Bob]

170. Allow me to stand up and give you an hearty applause

I absolutely agree with everything you said!

[cstanleytech]

176. Question for you

Since the passing of the Twenty-second Amendment how many first term sitting presidents have had their party nominate someone else and that someone else who won goes on to win the election? A ballback number will do.

[jerseyjack]

178. Not one thin dime or one phone call on his behalf from me.

[grantcart]

179. The fact that you don't understand the difference between a

an aggressive primary in an open field

and a primary against an incumbent in office (which is fundamentally a no confidence vote) speaks volumes.

There will be no primary against Obama.

You will be free however to support a third party candidate or stay at home or since you feel that "Obama is not good for the country" vote Republican.

[cliffordu]

183. JIMMYCARTER JIMMYCARTER JIMMYCARTER

RINSE, REPEAT.

[struggle4progress]

185. If you want Progressive political wins, work to build a practical Progressive political movement,

that actually works to empower workers, that works for health and safety laws and environmental protection, that works for teachers and public education, that works for health care -- every day, between elections, by mobilizing ordinary people to pressure their local and state govements, that goes after mayors and city council members and governors and state legislative bodies, that turns out for local and state agency hearings, that aims at congress and federal regulatory agencies, that develops grassroots support

find ten people in your community who will get together every other week to work on two or three issues important to all of you

who needs a stop light or where is handicapped access a problem? who's hungry or who can't get medicine? reform the drug laws and stop building private prisons. less money for war and more money for health care. whatever

do the nuts and bolts work. otherwise, it's just empty yammering

[SteveG]

186. The reality is this

Obama may be a waas... but do you really want Perry or Bachmann as President? That's the realistic choice. If you don't vote or support Obama, that's what we will have to deal with. Their policies will put us into an economic depression that will make the 1930's look like a joyride.

[blkmusclmachine]

188. The dismantling of this Country has been going on for far more than 7-8 years:

They've been slowly, methodically setting the System up for failure for decades. Right now we're in "End Game." Frequently I wonder about the post-9/11 unPatriot Acts GWB signed off on. The last REAL Dem in the WH met a bad fate one sunny afternoon in Dallas TX.

[xiamiam]

189. Great post that many of us feel. An anti war candidate could do it

I expect a miracle. We just witnessed miracles in the middle east this year. WE have the right to vote and this is a democracy, is it not? We also have the ability to turn off the manipulation by turning off msm. I can't believe the naysayers who threaten with Bachman or Palin. I have to believe we're smarter and better than that..and more imaginative than accepting the lesser of two evils. I just can't do it.

This is a great thread. We should be having this discussion.

[tavalon]

197. I wholly agree

But the only one out there who fits that bill is a party man and he won't primary Obama, so we get to play abused spouse again.

[begin_within]

199. We didn't abandon Obama. He abandoned us.

We are not required to stick to him through his ideological meanderings.

[grahamhgreen]

201. Well put, thank you!

[lumpy]

211. I have a suggestion for all you disgruntled people who are

ready to throw in the towel at the Democratic party. Why don't you form you own little party? Might as well give it a try and would certainly be more contructive than continuing to bitch about President Obama not being able to present you with instant gratification. And Goodnight and Good Luck.

[grahamhgreen]

270. Oh no. We are the party, it's Obama who has the problem. HE can go form his own.

[Tesha]

365. Most of us want *OUR PARTY* back from the DLC/Turd Wave folks who hijacked it. (NT)

[Duke Newcombe]

202. --Slow clap--- K&R

Thank you...just, thank you.

[DollyM]

203. I miss Hillary . . .

She was my first choice for President. I got behind Obama because he was the Democrat choice. I have tried and tried to continue to show support for him (aka: make excuses for him)but enough is enough. I wish we didn't have this system where the standing President has to be our only choice for the next election. I still think Hillary has more balls than Obama does any day!

[0n1n3]

215. I don't

Ask anyone from NY if they miss Hillary. Big words, little action. She's always been like that.

[Beacool]

249. Hear, hear!!!

Unfortunately, we are stuck with Obama for the duration.

:-(

[avaistheone1]

208. oh yes.

k&r

:kick:

[PhoenixAbove]

210. Look... I'm new here...

and I know none of you know me from a hole in the wall but I'm one of those "swing voters" that can be so very annoying. I'm an Independent (un-enrolled in Massachusetts) and I honestly don't know whether I'm going to write in someone or actually cast a vote for President Obama again. I know I'd like to see a democratic primary because the President has moved too far to the right. He just has. And no, this is not Rove talking so take that message back to the DNC.

As for what I'll be doing in the 2012 election (if I'm not frakking homeless), I'll be fervently hoping that Elizabeth Warren runs against Senator Scott Brown and if she does, my feet will be on the ground for her. I'm not going to even bother working for the WH and I wouldn't send any money even if I could afford to. What I can do is dial my fingers to the bone for Warren.

So that's my plan. Feel sorry for all those who live in "Red Hell."

[Sherman A1]

213. You have said everything exceptionally eloquently

I have nothing to add, but to completely agree. :thumbsup:

[Stellar]

214. I'll be voting for him again...

Who else is there to vote for. Is this a to vote or not to vote for discussion?

[JohnnyRingo]

216. Show me this truly progressive candidate who can capture the majority of voters, and we'll talk.

The candidate has to reach the middle and be charismatic enough to snag some of the right as well, and still be liberal enough to be a true progressive. I would think if there was someone that amazing out there, I'd already have heard of him/her.

If you're looking at Kucinich or an admitted socialist like Sanders who will be lucky to garner 25% of the votes, I'll go for for the incumbent.

[ObaMania]

219. Agree wholeheartedly. n/t

:toast:

[eridani]

220. I feel the same way, but I don't see any way of running a primary challenge that would

--achieve the goals you have described. In fact, if we start yesterday, we barely have the time to get a progressive populist nominated in 2016. The only way to keep the country from going down the tubes is to get enough progressive Dems in Congress to block Republican and conservadem nonsense.

[democrank]

221. The Democratic Party center has continued a shift to the right.

Otherwise, there would be little argument about President Obama today. For me, it started with Obama`s choice of Rick Warren and continued with his keeping so many Bush people (and policies) in place. There is really very little difference between President Obama and a moderate Republican. In fact, in the foreign policy arena,Obama is quite hawkish. Now he`s talking about "shared sacrifice" even though his policies continue to favor the rich and powerful.

President Obama squandered a historic opportunity. That`s why more and more former supporters are speaking out.If you`re a Democrat who votes on policy rather than personality, I`ll bet you`re deeply disappointed. All the "lead from behind" chatter you hear about him is the absolute truth. We didn`t "win" anything with this guy.

This is the first time in my nearly 50 years of voting for a Democrat that I`ve ever felt this way.

[Enthusiast]

222. But Obama proposed a payroll tax holiday!

If enacted it will correct everything. And if we get some "shared sacrifice" and three more free trade deals going why this ol' economy will just be humming along. :sarcasm:

[quaker bill]

223. A primary challenge is stupid

A successful primary challenge proves the republican narritive, specifically that this Democratic Party President was not effective. It would invariably make their candidates more appealing to the majority of voters if "even his own party" rejects his leadership.

The ballot box is the wrong place to get what you and I actually desire done.

What should be done is to work to elect the existing and likely candidates who will do the least harm, and then take it to the streets. Wisconsin needs to be a small example that fades in relevance when compared to the much larger events, hopefully peaceful but economically disruptive events, that are going on now. The country needs to become somewhat if not largely ungovernable when government fails to produce jobs (by hiring people), back up worker rights and benefits, or cuts the social safety net.

Ideology needs to be flushed from the mix. Ideology becomes dominant when the society is calm and governable. People go to practical solutions that start working next week only when they have no other good choices. It is well past time that things are placed in those terms.

[JohnnyRingo]

314. Thanx for saying that.

Some people here seem to think Fox News will lay low if we run a candidate against the president we seated three years ago. They don't worry about the endless comments about how the Democrats elected a failed candidate and can never be trusted again. Even worse, they believe no one pays any attention to Hannity, O'Reilly, and the other Republican operatives on that network.

Fox spent the run up to the election of 2008 telling its viewers that Obama is "the most liberal senator in history". "Even to the left of Ted Kennedy" they cried. Imagine if we found someone more liberal to mount a primary (no one has found anyone yet) against Obama. Fox News would have a field day and both Obama and the challenger would go down in flames.

Sometimes I think some members here secretly work for Rupert Murdoch, toiling endlessly to give him the perfect storm to use against Obama in 2012.

[avebury]

227. Obama is no FDR

[RBInMaine]

231. There has been the most progressive legislation since LBJ, and NO ONE more liberal can win. Get Real

[Kolesar]

297. You're harshing their circle-tear-jerk

:cry:

[AnnieK401]

235. Obama's Inner Progressive

I am as frustrated as anyone that Obama keeps giving into the Repugs. However, the fact is that it is either going to be Obama or the Republican nominee as the next POTUS. I considered sitting out, but I think it is too important to defeat the Republican nominee. And consider this, Obama will be in a position that he will no longer be worried about reelection - I hope his "inner progressive" will come out, and he will not be so willing to give into the R's. However, we have to remember that it takes a divided Congress to pass laws. The POTUS can only do so much. Also, I have been cutting Obama a great deal of slack due to what he inherited and what he has been up against - a Republican party that has been willing to vote against the good of the country to keep him from having any victories and do and say anything to destroy him. I will not be voting FOR Obama but AGAINST the dangerous Republican agenda. A primary challenge for Obama seems to me like a waste of time and effort and has the potential to weaken him in what will probably be an incredibly close race. Remember Ralph Nader in 2000! Yes, I know he had great intentions, but the reality is that without him we might not have had the hellish 8 yrs. of Bush. Think about it.

[irislake]

241. What difference will it make if he is defeated?

Your presidents are mere puppets. Wall Street and the MIC control Obama. He will NOT protect Social Security or Medicare. Incredibly Ron Paul would be the best bet. But with your crooked voting system he couldn't possibly win -- and if he did he would be assassinated PDQ!

You need another revolution. And the sooner the better. Then you can put all the criminals in your FEMA camps. The military will help you. Support your troops! They support Ron Paul.

[socialindependocrat]

242. The Repubs will block any Democrat

Any Democrat will be blocked by the conservatives. They are pounding Obama because he is on the side of the people and is too progressive for them. Progressives want him to be more progressive and he's trying to show he can play ball.

The Tea Party expanded their ranks and now they are showing what religious bigots they actually are.
The conservatives have pissed off some of their party.

Now we have a op to vote in a lot of Dems and let Obama run with a free rein.

If you put your support elsewhere you will just dilute support for Obama and the Repubs will take over.

If that happens we'll be in a heap of a mess.
These people will blindly support the wealthy and big business
We will continue to make less and less.
We will become slaves to the wealthy.

AND what if they really want to drive the world toward Armageddon

You have a choice: Poverty and brimstone or Giving Obama the freedom to make change.

Reduce your backing of Obama and you may loose everything!

[Timbuk3]

243. Field Your Primary Challenger

No one is stopping you, are they?

[judesedit]

244. If Obama wins this primary, you will vote for a rethug?? Are you that stupid?

Really pathetic thinking. Like Obama can do everything himself. Wake up. The GOP is doing everything they can to make him fail. They don't give one shit about what happens to this country. It's all about THEIR money. You want to watch this country go down the tubes further, continue Bush/Cheney catastrophe? Help the rethugs get elected, fool. Unless you're a GOP plant and are just stirring things up.

[samplegirl]

245. and.....................what is your alternative to Obama???

because we all know there simply is none! They are not going to run a good strong progressive at this point!

[Javaman]

246. Myself being from Texas...

I had the dubious honor of living under morons* reign of terror here before he* took it nationally.

One day back in, I think it was 1998, he was jogging on the Town Lake trail.

A cement truck rolled over and just missed him*.

I think back to that moment often. I think what all our lives would have been like if that cement truck driver woke up a little earlier, maybe not stopped for a donut instead of rushing to work, if he had just not been delayed a bit in traffic.

Ahhh, I can dream.

I digress, regarding your post, I agree.

[oldlib]

247. I would think that Obama's problem was a GOOP plot,

except that he has implicated himself by his own actions, or lack of actions.

[OwnedByFerrets]

250. Count me as one of the 3%

[BlueMTexpat]

251. So from where is this miraculous perfect progressive alternative to

President Obama - one who is capable of winning the 2012 election - going to come?

Sorry, this OP is worthy of FR, IMO. In response to your PS, there was NO incumbent Dem in the WH in 2008. That is a very significant difference.

As one who has seen too many genuinely progressive alternatives fall by the wayside in head-to-head matchups with Repubs in my 67+ years, either because of Dirty Tricks, liberal apathy, selection via Supreme Court/rigging electronic voting machines or out-and-out fraud, I do not have one whit of sympathy for those who will not actively vote for ANY Democratic alternative against a Rethug.

None whatsoever.

And I will have not one whit of sympathy with the moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth that I will see here on DU from these same fair-weather Dems (I've always been a Dem for the long-haul) if the unthinkable occurs and a Rethug is elected in 2012.

We will have to agree to disagree. Heartily disagree.

[Howler]

252. Well said ThomWV! I agree !!!!! n/t

n/t

[fascisthunter]

260. very well stated (nt)

[CorpsAreNotPeople]

265. Kick and Rec

[Bonn1997]

266. If a Republican was doing what Obama has done, no one on this forum would support him.

[NoodleyAppendage]

269. I'm with you 100%. We NEED an FDR and all we got was a Carter.

It is NOT in Obama's nature to be a strong, bold leader. He seeks consensus too much to be the progressive "bull in a china shop" that our country needs at this moment.

J

[randr]

271. He has a long way to go to fill Carter's shoes!

[NoodleyAppendage]

274. True. I was being charitable. n/t

J

[orbitalman]

273. I am on the verge. n/t

[hlthe2b]

277. I see no successful path to getting a "strong progressive" Dem in the WH in 2012

None at all. I do see a very clear path for those efforts to result in enabling a horrific Rethug candidate to "win" the Presidency.

While I admire your idealism, I've found that idealism at the expense of realism doesn't result in progress. It merely continues to set us further back. :shrug:

[dmallind]

279. I don't disagree with much at all BUT

one of two people will br President in 2013 - Obama or the Rep nominee. No matter how much any of us wishes we had more choice or different choices (and I wish that too) we do not. No primary candidate is in sight and none would stand a chance with a 74% approval rating for Obama amongst Dems. People can get all bent out of shape about ideology or conscience or the lesser of two evils, but that's pie in the sky theorizing. Two people have a chance. We all have to live with who wins. Not supporting the best choice of those two means the worst choice is more likely to win. Doesn't matter a fig how much we want a realistic C, we only get, right now, A or B.

The way to deal with this is to start the long hard slog of establishing C from the local level to the states and to the nation many many years from now. As for now we get the Dem or the Rep, and the Dem is Obama, not Kucinich, or Grijalva, or anyone else.

[bertman]

281. Big REC. I agree, ThomWV. This President has served his DLC and Corporate masters well.

Now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Buying in to the idea that we must eliminate the deficit at a time when the country/world are in a depression was the first major sign of President Obama's fealty to Corporate America. When he selected Summers and Geithner it was clear that there was going to be a major problem.

The sad part is that even if he were to REALLY change his direction and start trying to be an effective fighter for the working class, no one would believe him because he has said one thing and done the opposite so many times that he has no credibility. I don't think for a moment that he would change direction because the man does not have the courage to stand up to the PTB.

[closeupready]

284. K&R

nt

[craigmatic]

288. You have to find a challenger first until then this is just pie in the sky.

[RaleighNCDUer]

331. And that only starts with the recognition of the NEED for a challenger.

So long as Dems stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes, they will not recognize any such thing.

[Mr Dixon]

290. Only reply needed

"Honest to God,


Republicans must all be sitting in their back rooms and just
cackling like hell right now. Think about it. They developed a strategy to
hamstring the president completely - a strategy that's bulletproof thanks to
our country's Constitution - knowing that it would rally their base but also
hoping that it would cause moderates and lefties alike to become disgusted
with Obama's weakness even though we all know who's really responsible for
what's going on. And it worked! In fact, it's worked better than they could
possibly have imagined. They can probably barely keep from spitting up their
beers right now."



Kevin Drum from Mother Jones Magazine said:

[ThomWV]

299. We've been plagued by weak Presidents before, Obama is just another one of them

You insinuate that there was nothing Obama could have done differently. I do not agree with you. He did not need to come out capitulating on every major matter before the country, he did not have to cede the argument before it began. In my eyes he either weak or cowardly, and neither will do in a President of the United States. As I said above, I believe he is bad for the country. It makes no difference to me that a Republican might be worse and it does not make me take a bad choice because one of the other choices is worse. I prefer not to make the bad choice in the first place. You can continue to support him if you like, but don't expect any improvement in the state of the Nation if you do because he's just not up to the task.

[woo me with science]

292. Hear hear. It will continue until we stop it.

And the sooner people realize that both parties are part of an orchestrated game leading to economic enslavement, the better.

[defendandprotect]

355. +1000% -- n/t

[kitschinsink]

293. agreed! It's just frustrating to see all the capitulating.

[jimlup]

296. Well I was in that 3% too...

And I somehow suspect it was actually bigger than 3%. Maybe some wives wouldn't say anything on the phone poll because their husbands were listening or something but that 3% number must not be correct. I knew from the start that Bush was a jackass and at best helped cause 9/11 by his administration's incompetence.

I'm 53 so I've been watching this political game for awhile now. Unless something changes quickly we are pretty much stuck with Obama in 2012. I don't see a more progressive option through the democratic party.

An extreme position would be the following (and I almost hold it but don't):

1. Vote 3rd party in 2012 presidential because (despite movement on health care and several other desperately needed fixes) Obama is not good enough.

2. The Reptilians actually win in 2012 - partially because the progressive wing of the democratic party stayed home or wasn't "enthusiastic".

3. The replacement for Obama (Romney or God help us Perry) gets the blame for the inevitable shit that is due to hit the fan. (This will happen even in an Obama 2nd term so it might be a moot point.)

4. That the Reptilian in the White House gets blamed for the crap falling from the sky in 2016 (and it will be either way) - a real progressive has a chance of being elected as a democrat because the cycle has turned back again much like it was in 2008.

That is an extremist progressive position. I don't hold it. I personally think we have to go with Obama and move him left as much as we can. It is the only game in town. If we lose in 2012 then we do have a real window in 2016. If we win - then we have to seriously look at strategies for moving Obama left and for forcing a real progressive democratic agenda.

[Zorra]

301. +1.

[colsohlibgal]

304. I Feel Much The Same Way

The problem is how do we proceed from here keeping the fact in mind that there could well be a couple of Supreme Court Vacancies for the next president to fill.

A lot of us feel like we're between a rock and a hard place. Like John Fugelsang says, I hate republicans for forcing me to vote for democrats.

There are some true progessives to be sure, just not enough of them, so the choice more than not becomes between bad and much worse. So the truth is we don't live in a democracy, we now live in an oligarchy. Given what passes as MSN now and the almost incredible gullibility of a large swath of the middle class, not much will change till, sadly, things get much much worse. The good/bad news is that we could well get to that point.

[Honeycombe8]

305. So this is a post to convince Dems to vote for a challenger. The choice is O or a Republican.

That's it. If you read your history, you will see that.

A primary challenger will serve no useful purpose, except to weaken the sitting President.

The Party is not going to turn on the leader of the Party, the sitting President. No, the choice is the sitting President or a Republican. That's it.

So abandon O if you must. I am disappointed in him, too. But I recognize that he's the only game in town, outside the Republicans. He ... is....it. There is no way a challenger could take the nomination away from a sitting President, and then, go on to win a General Election. It just won't happen.

So write in Kucinich or whoever you want to be the nominee. That's your choice. It's a free country. But for those who want to make their vote count....it's eitehr a vote for the sitting President, or a vote for (Romney or Perry or ????).

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

306. Given the choice between Obama and say Rick Perry

I'll take Obama.

Maybe you can find your perfect candidate in the land of make believe.

[joanbarnes]

308. I must be one of the 3%, I've been with you all along...

Don't forget the fraud of Nixon, Reagan and Pappy Bush!

[The_Casual_Observer]

309. The right hates Obama because he's a socialist, the left hates him

because he a right wing corporatist. Where is the truth?

[piggy2000]

311. Ride or Die....

When I voted for President Obama, I knew that he wasn't a miracle worker. I did take civics and government classes. We do not live in a kingdom.

On the other hand, America had 8 years of W. Bush which meant the powerful had 8 years to loot the Government and change the way things were done. The time to get out in the streets and protest was in 2000 when 5 guys in black robes decided the election. President Obama has said time and time again that it was not going to be easy. It sickens me when I hear people throwing him under the bus. Stop acting like children!! Get out and see what you can do locally to create the wave to protect the things that you like in your Government. Politics decides who get what! And the Tea Baggers got out to vote in 2010 in great numbers. Stop the hate on President Obama!!

I will make sure that I can do what I can locally. I knew this was a long term game, so right now....I am ride or die!!

[xiamiam]

312. any truly anti war candidate would do. doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. nt

[Dawson Leery]

316. .

[Erda]

320. How quickly we've forgotten how the country was when Bush. . .

left office. The world hated America. American officials thought it would take at least a decade before the American tourist would be welcome abroad. President Obama changed that. The economy was in a free fall. I find this Obama-bashing a weak excuse for our not demonstrating, boycotting, being out in full force. The Vietnam war was stopped by American citizens who demonstrated in the streets. Civil rights legislation was passed because Americans demanded it. Wisconsin has reminded us of what it takes to challenge unfair policy.

Have we forgotten that President Obama did weigh in on Wisconsin and then was told to stop interfering where he didn't belong? Even some citizens of Wisconsin objected to his comments, noting that not all of Wisconsin agreed with the protesters.

Have we forgotten the ugly racism that underlies much of the disgusting Tea Party rhetoric? The voodoo witch doctor with Obama's face, the lynching references, the Magic Negro, the tar baby image, the disrespect of the President that is common on rightwing radio and Fox? The comments that he shouldn't have a 10-day vacation, even though he is one of the hardest working Presidents that we have had. And yet, with all this commentary he remains positive and optimistic.

I am a liberal but I realize that there are parts of this country, people even in my own family who think differently from me. People who don't want unemployment insurance extended (a friend of mine had that opinion because she thought it made people lazy), people who don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare, people who would sit out a recall election because somehow, they found an excuse for not getting to the polls to vote, people who think government regulation hurts industry, people who fear religious and ethnic groups other than their own. Schools that tolerate "Wiggers' Day" or who will not permit an African American valedictorian. People who hate differences in sexuality. People who think women should return to the kitchen and be "barefoot and pregnant." People who are ignorant, lazy, intolerant, too busy to pay attention. But there are also people who will take action if the situation affects them. We are reaching that critical point. The draft caused Vietnam protest. Economic conditions are waking people up now as they are immediately affected.

I think President Obama is one of the shrewdest politicians we've had in office. He has told us that the path to universal healthcare is through incremental steps: Americans will, over time refine the Healthcare law. The most difficult step was passing it, especially given the healthcare lobby. Once it becomes a universal right, ways to improve it will emerge. Let us not forget that this is also a jobs bill, as the insurance industry will have to hire people to support its expanded customer base.

FDR was hated and loved. General Smedley Butler said that there were forces who tried to enlist him to overthrow FDR by force. FDR worked out a deal with these forces.

I agree that being conciliatory is not what many of us want. We want anger, rage - the same type of macho fist pounding that we saw just prior to the war in Iraq when we went after the wrong enemy and played into the hands of the Bush Administration. But that also plays into the scary, angry black man meme. I've watched with pride as President Obama put Donald Trump in his place with humor, invited lead republicans to debate healthcare and then humiliated them, put Paul Ryan in his place to his face over the Ryan Medicare voucher plan.

I appreciate the many accomplishments of this President in two short years. The country then voted for Republicans and look where we are. If we want change then let's do what LBJ said: "Make me do it."

I'll proudly vote for this intelligent, articulate and caring President in 2012 and do what I can to see that he has an intelligent Congress to work with.

This Obama-bashing in my view is dishonest and places the tremendous burden of changing our society on the back of one man without putting our own skin in the game.

[lumpy]

329. A thoughtful post. Thanks. The wild-eyed posts really have

gotten me in a foul mood and it is refreshing to read some calm reasoning.

[WI_DEM]

341. Good post, but I assume if Obama is renominated (as is likely) you will vote for him?

[ThomWV]

348. Only one thing would get me to vote for Obama again - if Rich Trumka said it was necessary

If the Unions say hold your nose and vote for him, then I will. But if he's not endorsed by the Unions then you are looking at a line I will not cross.

[Ikonoklast]

349. Then you will be voting for Obama.

Trumka will support this president, bet the farm on it.

[ThomWV]

357. You bet your farm on it, I'm keeping mine.

[defendandprotect]

354. Looks like Trumka has bailed -- but only to a NEUTRAL position ... evidently they haven't learned ..

anything over the last decades of dwindling membership --

but then again, maybe Trumka is also not who we thought he was -- ???

[ThomWV]

358. My god have you got that backwards

It is not Trumka that is not who we thought he was, it is Obama who is not who we thought he was - or who he told us he was.

[defendandprotect]

360. We have to expect BOTH to stand by the principles of the Dem Party ... don't we ?

The same with the women's organizations which have watched strong support

for equality and Roe vs Wade dwindle within the Dem Party -- including

affirmative action -- yet they have unconditionally supported the party

no matter its silence and failure to counter the Repug party rw propaganda.


What we support we will get more of --

It's time to stand against the deterioration of the Dem Party platform --

we need a new candidate for 2012 --



And we certainly need to find out what's left of the Dem Party after 20 years

of Koch Bros. funding the DLC, infiltrating the party, influencing its agenda

and its candidates!!

[Hippo_Tron]

347. You're right, leading a competent administration is enough to earn my vote

Obama would have to compromise far more than he has to get me to risk going back to an administration that sits idly by while a major city drowns.

[defendandprotect]

352. "Competent" to take us into a second decade of war in ME -- ???

$150 BILLION I think it is now invested in new nuke warheads -- ?

Isn't that GE?

Huge new numbers for the MIC -- !!

That's competent?


So -- like Obama -- there is no saying "uncle" on compromise -- ???


Look to your LEFT -- not to your right -- the New Deal was about ending FEAR --

not spreading it.

[dionysus]

353. as always, the dems in congress and th repukes get a free pass.

[sabrina 1]

362. Yes, they do, while Progressive Dems

who worked hard to ge this President elected, are trashed on a regular basis by the WH staff and his most loyal supporters.

I really wish they would learn who the enemy is and start trashing Republicans, instead of sucking up to them and validating their rotten ideas.