Mark my words, this "new and improved" Obama

[XemaSab]

is Re-election Campaigning 101.

First you solidify your base, then you tack hard to the center.

What I'm sayin' is don't get too happy at the thought that the scales have fallen from Obama's eyes. Unless you're all stoked to be hella bummed in six months.

Bah, humbug. :(

[sendero]

1. Fool me once..

... etc. I too am totally not buying Obama's sudden care for the little guy. Where was that care when you could actually do something?

[LWolf]

5. +1,000

[COLGATE4]

82. + another 1000

[Occulus]

68. Yup. Not voting for him again.

This sudden turnaround into Candidate Obama is the last straw. I'm just not that goddamned stupid.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

89. Incase you haven't noticed the Democratic party has also been screwing us

including during the Bush years when the let the republicans roll right over them and during the Obama administration when they had the type of political control not seen in decades yet they pissed it away without passing any major progressive policies.

So I'm not sure you are so shocked that people aren't buying this bullshit "they are worse and they will fuck you" talking point anymore.

[kenfrequed]

120. I agree... but

I'm afraid there aren't any good choices right now. Staying home only increases the chances of repukes taking power. We need to start fighting like mad on local races in the statehouses and for congressional races. A massive shift to the left in all of these areas would force the issue. There are a number of districts that we could win and take back the house with. Of course we have to assure that the right sort of democrats are put into these offices. We do not need any more Ben Nelson type conservadems elected to office.

[sendero]

198. Who cares?

When there is no difference between what happens when a Puke wins and when a Dem wins, why would you give a shit?

[No Elephants]

224. Much as I critique, there is some difference. Granted, not anywhere near as much as there once was.

Not anywhere near as much as I would like, especially on many economic/foreign policy issues, even on wedge issues anymore.

But it is not accurate to say there is none at all.

Is voting for a Democrat who is somewhat different than a Republican enough for you? Or the best thing for the country, short term and/or long term? That is the decision each of us has to make. And, it ain't an easy one.

[kenfrequed]

231. Too simplistic.

There are differences. You have to step in and work on the primary and caucus level to assure that real progressives get party endorsement. We cannot allow the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dog corporatists to continue watering down our party and selling us out. The president is not the only person in this fucking party. If he wants to surround himself with banksters and wallstreet cronies it will be a lot harder if we have a congress that actually slams progressive legislation on his desk again and again.

[No Elephants]

223. As if we can "assure that the right sorts of Democrats are put into these offices,"

even if we could all agree on what the right sorts of Democrats are.

[kenfrequed]

230. I think the majority of DU would say...

Somewhere in the mold of Wellstone, Grayson, Sanders, Ted Kennedy, or Franken. Progressive as hell. A lot of blue dogs went down in 2010. We have to make sure they don't come back and try to tell us that we lost because we ran too far to the left.

[blindpig]

101. How can you tell the difference?

What are the objective differences between now and four years ago as regards foreign policy, the domestic economic policy or environmental policy and implementation?

This administration responded to the Gulf Oil Spill in exactily the manner in which the Bush Administration would have acted. All presidents are the messenger boys of the ruling class.

And do remember that it was this president that put Social Security and Medicare on the table, something the Georges could only have wet dreams about.

Viva la difference.

[The Doctor.]

117. Really? Did you actually ask that?

What is with all the deliberate ignorance around here?

Many new policies are in place, Iraq is being emptied of our troops, and people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable insurance.

There are hundred of differences regardless of your ignorance of them.

Do your own research, I'm getting really sick of trying to enlighten you people.

[rhett o rick]

208. Do you have a clue why OWS is in the streets? I am guessing not. I am guessing

you think they are dirty hippies just like the conservative Dem's do.

Not that is will do any good but they are in the streets, in my opinion, because they feel like i do. Obama is prosecuting medical marijuana cases and food stamp fraud and turning a blind eye to the trillions being stolen by Wall Street. Yes we have gotten some good from Obama but they are fuking band-aids and if we dont cure the patient with getting money out of the election process, then the patient will die.

[blindpig]

286. I am a dirty hippie.

Bit long in the tooth, but still.

I don't think you took the meaning of my post, which was along the lines of "not a dimes worth of difference."

[rhett o rick]

288. Did you intend this for me? I was supporting your post. The Doctor is the one

that thinks getting poked in the eye with a stick is better than getting poked twice.

I understood your post completely. Our only hope is to force our representatives to represent us. Full revolution will end in total disaster, most likely total fascism.

By the way, I heard on the Daily Show that the Senate included a provision in an appropriations bill that would allow the President to arrest anyone, including Americans on American soil, for suspected terrorist activities (which includes almost everything) and hold them indefinitely (until the hostilities end) without trial. Has this been discussed here? I havent found it.

[blindpig]

290. Whoops.

Sorry bout that.

Revolution is more than a bit down the road, but why would you assume that it would be a disaster? Could be, of course, if done in a foolhardy manner, which is why we insist upon an organized, disciplined and steady effort.

I think it has been 'discussed', if you could call it that, with the usual suspects and the usual dissembling, if you get my drift.

[rhett o rick]

307. I should have been more clear when talking about revolution. I meant if we have a violent

revolution. That is what the over-lords want. They could squash us like bugs. I think they will anyway. Especially when Obama is not decreasing the power of the president but working to increase the power. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2455086#2455106.
I was stunned that Georgie Bush was allow to circumvent the Constitution. I thought (foolishly in hindsight) that this would be corrected when we got a Democrat in office. Now Obama is going farther than Bush.

[No Elephants]

226. Dummya negotiated the Iraq exit date and this Administration

attempted to negotiate staying beyond it, but the Iraqis would not agree to give our trooops (and mercenaries?) immunity as to crimes.

Yes, people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. "Affordable" remains to be seen. However, that came at a very high price, to the benefit of health insurers, PHRMA and big health care. Same as Medicate Part D, for which Dummya was responsible--some benefit to seniors, but huge benefit to big Pharma.

"I'm getting really sick of trying to enlighten you people."

LOL!!

[blindpig]

287. I can't believe I still need a sarcasm tag around here. n/t

[EC]

191. Really? You really think that * would have made

BP set up a trust to pay for it? Or even clean it up? Or have any investigation?

[blindpig]

291. Smoke and mirrors

Look at how the trust is being administered, it is basically a PR scam, BP will end up paying pennies on the dollar for the damages done to citizens. The damage done to the environment will take years to calculate and is well beyond BP's ability to pay even if they were so inclined. Independent investigation has been stimied every step of the way and it is clear that we cannot trust the government agencies despite their excellent personel because of political interference.

Bush may not have even gone thru the motions but the results are the same.

[FirstLight]

237. + a Brazillion!

nt

[truebrit71]

300. Exactly..unfortunately too many around here don't like it when Dear Leader gets criticised...

...or held to account for his actions...You know, we should just shut up and listen as he reads those really pretty speeches and count our blessings that it isn't republican implementing the very same policies...

[blindpig]

303. Know them by their acts. n/t

[truebrit71]

304. Indeed!

...

[rhett o rick]

315. And yet they still call themselves Democrats. I would expect Democrats to

be more critical of their leaders than the republicons.

[rhett o rick]

122. That's extortion. Obama is in bed with Wall Street. He prosecutes food stamp violators

and ignores wall street criminals. He spends more DOJ resources on smashing medical marijuana dispensers than on prosecuting the big banks.

Our Corporate-Overlords got us right where they want us. Either vote for Obama or one of the crazies. A one party system and it aint for WE The People.

Why do you think OWS is in the streets? Because they arent buying what you're selling.

[The Doctor.]

147. You need to look up the definition of 'extortion'.

[rhett o rick]

153. I did. The Left is being threatened that if they dont vote for Pres Obama

they will have to pay the price. The conservative Dem's are not trying to sell Obama but trying to scare the left into supporting him. Trying to force someone to take an action via the threat of harm. I call that extortion.

[The Doctor.]

162. So, if I tell you that if you don't fill up your car, you'll run out of gas...

I'm committing extortion.

Got it. :eyes:

I know this is going to get lost on you, but the definition presumes the threat made is carried out by agents of or directly by the one committing extortion. If you don't understand implicit meanings, I can see how telling you that you should brush your teeth or you'll lose them will be seen as 'extortion'. When people become so deliberately obtuse, I pretty much stop taking them seriously. Saying that stating 'if not enough people vote for Obama, the Republicans win' is 'extortion' is simply idiotic.

Also:

Things like extortion and murder are considered 'illegal'. You're literally saying that the poster committed a crime.

So call the FBI and tell them that someone committed extortion on the internet. See how that goes.

[rhett o rick]

203. I must have hit a sensitive spot. Your overreaction is not cool. What many

Obama supports say is that if we dont vote for Obama we will . I dont care what you call it, it is total bullshit.

OWS is in the street because they dont want to play your game. "you must vote for Obama or else".

Obama is more worried about prosecuting marijuana dispensers and food stamp fraud than Wall Street crimes.

[The Doctor.]

292. What overreaction?

You don't know how to employ a word. Branding something as 'extortion' when it is not is just silly. By your definition of extortion, nearly any 'if then' reminder is 'extortion'.

It's like me calling you a murderer for trying to 'kill' an argument.

When someone tells you that not voting for Obama will result in Republican victories, that is a simple statement of fact. 'Extortion' is applied when someone threatens you with the intention of carrying it out.

I can't believe the failure of reason I consistently encounter with the Obama-bashers.

[No Elephants]

229. Actually, he isn't. He just explained exactly what he meant and literal crime was

not any part of his explanation.

[The Doctor.]

293. Actually, he is.

'Extortion' is a crime.

If the poster were engaging in 'extortion' over the internet, that would be a federal crime. So what you do is you call the FBI, tell them that someone engaged in extortion and describe the nature of that 'extortion'.

Then they will laugh at you and hang up.

That's how you know it's not 'extortion'.

Why are Obama-bashers so THICK?

[rhett o rick]

312. "Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a

threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc."

Why are you obsessing on the definition and not the act. Maybe you have a better word. I will be glad to hear it. Why do people continually say that "if you dont vote for Obama, you will get Newt". We all know that. Seems they want to threaten, to scare, maybe even terrorize. I thought that tactic only worked on Foxed-Up News" watchers.

[The Doctor.]

318. Okay, you've convinced me,

Here's the site you can go to and report 'extortion' over the internet:

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

Make sure to include links and details and they'll be sure to get it taken care of. :eyes:

What's funny is how you both left out a link to your quote out as well as selected only the part that supports your position. Here's the rest (emphasis mine);

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,<1> but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.<2>

In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce". Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

More is required to make something 'extortion' than a simple, factual 'if then' statement about how Republicans WILL win if Obama does not receive enough support.

You really don't know how stupid it sounds to call that 'extortion', do you? That's what wingnuts do when they want to denigrate an idea, issue or policy. They take something that can be construed only by the most tenuous of interpretations as something far more and different than the actuality. Think 'Death Panels', the way they use 'Socialism' or call Obama 'Marxist'. It's the same sort of hyperbolic bullshit people are engaging in when they call stating a reality 'Extortion'. It looks so stupid and childish, just like all the teabaggers yelling and screaming that Obama's going to take their guns away. I just don't like seeing it here.

As for the word that you are actually looking for, it is "coercion".

[rhett o rick]

320. LOL. And you had to ask, "What over reaction?" I guess to you it comes down to what the meaning of

"is" is. Whatever the fuk you want to call it, it is bullshit. It might work on your The Third WAy friends but it wont work on me.

[The Doctor.]

323. Wow.

The defense of childishness and the teabag mentality here on our very own DU.

I gave you a thoughtful explanation, answered your request for a 'different description', gave my opinion, and all you have in response is derision.

Not terribly adult of you.

[rhett o rick]

324. Oh yeah!. nm

[No Elephants]

227. Some might call it ideological terrorism.

"Do what I want, or else!"

When my nephew said that to my sister, he was just under three years old.

We all laughed.

I still do.

[rhett o rick]

313. Better words than extortion. They are trying to use fear to change our behavior. That is

terrorism.

[rhett o rick]

314. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, if you think there is only one choice, beware of being

manipulated. I dont think it is accidental that the over-lords have chosen nitwits to run for the republicon nomination.

[RowdyRacer]

135. Yes, I do...

I say let the GOP win, and hand them this steaming pile of shit we call a country. Then, everyone, including the stupid poor people who vote for them,
would be looking to them to fix this mess. I say putting them in control is the best way to convince Americans that they are not going to help us.
For your own good, you need to realize that the Democrats are not going to help you, either...they get their money from the same people that the GOP does.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

160. 8 years of Bushco wasn't enough for people?

The party has gotten even worse- if you care to notice. How many years of total Republican (mis-)rule do you think it will take? How many people are going to needlessly suffer/die before this massive repudiation of Republicans occurs? In truth most people don't like Republicans and the demographics don't favor them in the long run but they keep winning elections because a lot more of us get discouraged at the pace of change and give up voting ensuring Republican victories. We can't win if we don't show up.

[rhett o rick]

204. Tell Obama to prosecute Wall Street crimes and get back to me. nm

[No Elephants]

244. +1

[No Elephants]

232. Both Parties have gotten worse, if anyone cares to notice.

It really is not about Republican vs. Democrat at this point. It is not even, as my sig line has been saying for a long time, about 90% vs. 10%, or about 99% versus 1%. It is about left versus right, and not all righties put an (R) after their names.

I also disagree with your version of why Republicans keep winning elections. For forty years, Democrats won them. Not necessarily the White House during all that time, but Congress.

That was when you really could tell a Democrat from a Republican very easily.

So, if you made a mistake and elected a Republican, things got markedly and very noticeably worse for you. And, when you came to your senses and put a Democrat back in that seat, things got markedly and very noticeably better.

There is no denying BOTH Parties have gone much further right since Nixon and even since Reagan, perhaps in a stupid attempt to win the electoral vote every single election, which is never going to happen anyway.

So, I would be interested in knowing, exactly what is your suggestion for halting the rightward skid of both Parties that is caused by K Street, among other things?

[rhett o rick]

308. Pres Obama has taken over where Bush left off and is increasing the power

of the president in clear violation of the Constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2455086#2455106

[frylock]

140. 81% of liberal dems have obama's back..

what's the problem here? everyone chill the fuck out and whutnot. 81% of liberal democrats have got this shit covered.

[JanMichael]

141. Did you forget the "sarc" smily? nt.

[rhett o rick]

205. Chill out and sit down and shut up. Are you Rahm Emanuel? Tell OWS to chill

out.

[TheMadMonk]

172. It's quite possible that the ONLY hope of saving the nation, is to let them...

...have their way.

Since 2008 and before, there has been far, far too much focus on simple victory for victory's sake, to win at any cost.

And once that victory was achieved, we were told that "attempting to do the (politically) impossible" would throw that victory away.

Compromised, incompetent or complicit? That's the Democratic party right now. Take it rough or take it with lube, if those are my only two choices, I'll take it rough, because I WANT TO BE GOOD AND FUCKING MAD.

[loyalsister]

183. Been there done that

I had some friends who made that argument in 2000. They also have remorse over having voted for Nader.
They weren't the only ones who got screwed. There are a lot of service members who paid a much larger price.

[rhett o rick]

206. You are crazy, but I am with you all the friggin way. I have taken enough.

We were told that if we didnt vote for Al Gore we would have to suffer with Bush. Ok, I understand that. But what the fuk happened to the Democratic Party under Bush?
They completely capitulated and carried his water. They gave him everything he wanted. Their groveling was sickening. Now again we are being told to vote for the groveling, spineless, party or else you get it without the lube. I understand why OWS is in the streets. The fukin New-Democrats have no clue.

[No Elephants]

235. The Democrats know why OWS is in the streets, too.

Liberal Mayors have been harder on OWS than anyone else. Boston (at first, and now again). Portland. SF. And on and on.

I am sure local HHS offices and that famous conference call had nothing to do with the highly similar actions by Democratic mayors, coast to coast.

[rhett o rick]

310. Yes, I agree. nm

[akbacchus_BC]

218. Perhaps Newt will serve them better! Looking at the Rethug nominees,

they feel being President of the US is a joke! Bunch of jokers to me, I could never vote for any of those retards!

[No Elephants]

236. NO ONE I've seen here is talking about voting for Republican.

So, you can let the straw man rest.

[The Doctor.]

116. Yep, not quite that stupid.

But apparently just dumb enough to put Newt or Romney in office.

Oh, and actually, you're wrong about him anyway.

[Inuca]

159. Actually, if you mean it, I think you are n/t

[woo me with science]

93. Yep. That pretty much sums it up. nt

[patrice]

158. And of course you know absolutely everything necessary to coming to that "sum", including

all of the pertinent information in how many thousands of PRIVATE BUSINESS CONTRACTS involved in the fact that American Treasury Bonds are being held hostage for losses in international derivative hedge funds.

My guess is that some people don't really have enough skin in this game, hence some pretty illogical and unscientific thinking, what do you think?

[sendero]

197. Wow..

..you get the prize for posting something you clearly don't even understand yourself.

[pasto76]

139. wow so smart. It's reality. Check out President Gingrich! Wow we'd be better off with him. For sure

[sendero]

195. What an idiotic standard..

... so if a child molester is better than a murderer, we should pick the molester?

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[No Elephants]

238. I don't think you would get universal agreement that a child molester is better than a murderer, or

vice versa.

Which may be exactly the issue of this thread.

Before any knee jerker accuses me of suggesting that Obama is a muderer, please get a grip--and a brain.

[RZM]

328. That all depends on if one or the other sounds better to you

Personally, I'd rather be molested than lose my life. I'd prefer neither, but if forced, I'll pick molested.

The problem with voting for the third party left is that it slightly increases the chance that you'll be murdered. If both outcomes are equally the same to you, then go for it. But if your life is more valuable than your innocence, you might want to think twice. And it's not just you either - everybody you know and care about will share the same fate.

[rhett o rick]

289. Dont you realize that if we have no choice as you allude, we are being manipulated?

Do you think the over-lords are so inept that they cant find better republicon candidates?

"Come on sheeple and move this way. Watch out for the big bad Gingrich monster. There you go. Good little sheeple. Here's a little health care. Not too much."

[MissDeeds]

165. Agree

He's in campaign mode, so the lofty speeches will be trotted out once again. The problem, however, is with the follow through.

Been there. Heard that. Not buying it.

[Skittles]

2. yup

lots of purty speeches coming up

[malthaussen]

3. There are a lot of romantics on DU

Romantic -- a person who believes this time will be different.

-- Mal

[FarPoint]

72. Every Democratic will vote for Obama.

I'm confident of this......We maybe didn't get hope and change but I guarantee we will suffer further in poverty with anyone of the GOP candidates ...may it be 4 years, eight or longer ....If a GOP'er gets elected....it's over, endgame.

[Patiod]

83. And if you're not happy with the Supreme Court now - just sit this election out

It will get worse.

[MADem]

108. Especially if the GOP were stupid enough to give the job to "New Catholic" Newt

Can you imagine that supposedly reformed reprobate tossing a few Opus Dei types up on the bench to keep company with Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas?

They'd probably find a way to roll us back to pre-suffrage days!

[Patiod]

114. Don't you mean a few MORE Opus Dei types?

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to outlaw contraception

[MADem]

124. Yes, I suppose you're quite right.

Put enough rabid, conservative Catholics on the Supremes, and there will be no reasoning with them. Talk about a "Guardian Council!"

[No Elephants]

239. Not outlaw, but say the states can, because contraception is not

constitutionally protected in the original understanding of Scalia. Oh, I mean, the original understanding of the Framers.

[Vincardog]

118. Please provide one shred of evidence that BO will do ANYTHING to reverse the fascist trends of the

SCOTUS. He has threatened to VETO the Defense act that gives him authority to jail Americans without trial or representation because it LIMITS him too much.

[MADem]

125. What does vetoing an act have to do with Supreme Court appointees?

Stick to the point. One issue is legislative, the other is a judicial appointment to the highest court in the land.

And don't throw the "F" word around. It's almost Godwin-like in its absurdity. You just look foolish.

[Vincardog]

126. When the SCOTUS votes to give Corporations unlimited right to influence elections that is FASCISM I

am sorry if you find that silly. When do you see any evidence that BHO is going to counter these influences in his future choice?
He has allowed his administration to be polluted by the worst of the Corporate parasites.

[MADem]

128. You're just babbling now. Dramatic sentences that have no relation to the OP

don't impress or engage me. Obama isn't seated on the SCOTUS (he's EXECUTIVE, not JUDICIAL), and that ruling is not his fault.

Enough with the "F" word. It makes you appear wild-eyed. That's not a compliment.

Work on getting your understanding of the branches of government in order.

[No Elephants]

240. Godwin's "law" was intended as a joke, for pity sake.

As far as addressing appointments, the poster said," When do you see any evidence that BHO is going to counter these influences in his future choice? He has allowed his administration to be polluted by the worst of the Corporate parasites."

READ!

[MADem]

337. And it is a joke, when issues are convoluted and the F word is tossed so liberally. nt

[truebrit71]

299. A veto that will easily be over-turned by Congress...some bold move there...

..:eyes:

[patrice]

146. And there are a lot of people who believe that because ________ has not happened, __________

cannot happen.

[patrice]

148. Which, in politics of course, MAKES ___________ not happen. Which is the objective I rather

suspect, in a significant number of said instances.

[KoKo]

171. Be "Afraid..VERY AFRAID" of those Panopoly of RW Candidates...they are Worse than Obama!

They will DESTROY AMERICA!

(sorry, couldn't resist...but I think it's what's coming)

[patrice]

173. Republicons = WAR & Slavery to the debts they incurred in the '08 Crash to their FOREIGN masters.

[No Elephants]

241. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Not infallible, but the best tool mortals have.

[MADem]

4. A lame duck isn't running for reelection. He can afford to be bolder in his second term.

I wouldn't count your humbugs before they've been baah'd.

The time to be bold is in your second term.

[girl gone mad]

7. I suspect he will be much bolder..

in implementing his neoliberal agenda once he no longer has to worry about losing votes.

[MADem]

10. Time will tell us, with luck and skill in 2012!

I think he'll surprise a lot of people. He won't be as liberal as some want, and he won't be as conservative as some expect.

I always say, if you want to know about a child, look at who raised them. We should take our cues from Obama's maternal grandparents and his mother. The apple generally doesn't fall too far...

IMO.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

245. LOL!

[Marr]

12. Exactly.

I don't see how anyone can look at the last three years and see a president who desperately wanted to enact a liberal agenda. Every step of the way his efforts have been focused on building political cover for neoliberal, top-down policy. If he wins reelection, he won't even have to bother with the political cover.

[The Doctor.]

115. You can't see what you refuse to look at.

It's a simple truth that Obama could not have done more with the opposition he faced without starting a civil war. Yet he did MUCH that was very good.

Having studied the man's past work, the delusion that he is a 'corporatist' or 'neo-liberal' is merely amusing.

After he selects his new cabinet, we'll know for sure.

[Marr]

134. Why his new cabinet? Because the last cabinet proved he was a neoliberal, corporate Democrat?

I'm really curious why you think we should wait for his NEXT cabinet appointments before we render judgement. Not so long ago the cry was, "he's only been in office for (X) months. Hold your judgements". Just how many years do you propose Democrats wait before appraising the man's work?

[The Doctor.]

155. Because his first cabinet was the price of being allowed to run again.

You think if he put actual liberals in his first cabinet he would have either accomplished anything or been allowed to run again?

I was upset about the picks too. It really didn't make sense given his background. But looking at the way everything shaped up, it's reasonable to assume that he was trying not to spook the PTB.

It's also possible that the moment he won office he became a different person, but we'll see by 02/13.

[Marr]

186. Oh, c'mon-- that is a pretty extreme piece of rationalization.

If you really think he's that much of a passive, sniveling weakling, I don't see how you could support him at all.

Isn't it just a tad more reasonable to assume that he picked that staff because he wanted that staff?

[The Doctor.]

202. Obama is nothing if not rational.

There is far more to strength than being strident, uncompromising, and full of pride.

You know why he can't prosecute the former administration for war crimes?

What do you think would happen if he did that?

[Marr]

212. You're describing a man of abject cowardice.

He can't prosecute Wall Street crime because they might do something. He can't prosecute government officials because they might do something. He can't even appoint the cabinet members he wants, because the wealthy might get mad and do something to him.

It just doesn't make much sense. But even if it did-- it would mean Obama is an utter coward who never should've asked for the job. And I don't see how you could expect anything different of such a man in a second term.

Again, I think it's a lot more likely that Obama has simply pushed for the things he wanted, and ignored the things he wanted to ignore.

[Angry Dragon]

306. Most people are hired with a 90 day probationary term

[No Elephants]

247. LOL!

[Shoe Horn]

15. Can only go up...

Personally--->Not really buying it.

He's a great speaker though, they all are.
It's what they do.

[newspeak]

102. unless there is a challenger

I'll sip the poison slowly, instead gulping it down by the repugs. While I'm sipping, I'll work with others for some kind of solution for the majority of people in this country. If that means a real effort to take back the party from the "new democrats" or starting a new party--something. But, I'm not going to see an unconscionable douche bag and his jolly band of psychopaths come back in and finish us off quickly.

Both, may have the same goals, the same economic mindset; however, voting for one over the other may stall the inevitable. Of course, there is always the slim chance that obama does a one-eighty.

[No Elephants]

248. Working toward a solution? How are you doing that, specifically?

"Both, may have the same goals, the same economic mindset; however, voting for one over the other may stall the inevitable."

Or may help keep both Parties on the rightward path they've been on since Reagan.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Time to kick it into high gear. Yes He Can! nt

[woo me with science]

41. My thoughts exactly. nt

[KoKo]

177. ummmm we were "promised that" in the first Campaign. We are asked to BELIEVE ..once again? n/t

[xiamiam]

196. Hope and Change and the War on Terror..illusions..words with no substance

I'm not voting for that again..ever. I'm voting for whomever emerges from ows..hopefully for every public office . The same old same old is gonna produce the same thing. Even if I die tomorrow, I'm not betraying my principles because I am afraid. If we don't stop this charade from both repubs and dems, we're toast..and so is America.

[No Elephants]

246. Either extreme is equally possible. Or, he may simply go on as he has been.

Or something in between.

All of it is speculation, no theory more or less credible than the other.

[robinlynne]

13. why not i your first term while you have a Dem Congress? and last December

when all he had to do was NOTHING and the tax cuts would have expired, saving our economy, basically.

[dionysus]

32. then he'd be pilloried here for letting middle class taxes go up, unemployment benis run out, no end

to DADT... he'd be just as loathed by the same exact people.

it's as if this wasn't hashed and rehashed 10000 times before...

[MADem]

Thanks for catching that--you said it. nt

[MADem]

45. Dupe. nt

[No Elephants]

249. But look what he got in return--ONE whole extension of unemployment

benefits--which his the still Democratic Congress would have given him anyway.

Even Scott Brown would have had a hard time filibustering that one, given the employment picture at the time.

[me b zola]

51. He had the wind at his back when he was elected

He could have afforded to be much bolder then.

[MADem]

56. No he didn't--he didn't even get a hundred days' honeymoon. They were up his ass

when the final result was tabulated and continued to nitpick about everything he did.

Frankly, I thought--and still do think--that a lot of the crabbing about BHO had a distinctly racial tinge to it. The GOP, and some others as well, just couldn't believe that the BLACK GUY got elected.

He got plenty done at the outset, despite constant criticism. People have short memories around here.

[demosincebirth]

62. My belief, too. With plenty off criticism here from the naysayers.

[patrice]

161. I think that was the plan all along, because those who hire them all KNEW the crash was coming &

needed a popular scapegoat.

The internet has been a big help to the Oppressor, because places like DU are to a significant degree nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[me b zola]

73. "They" were up his ass, but the rest of the country was with him

And if you recall "they" were not 49% of the country, but a minority of discredited hard core conservatives. Even the corporate media spoke about the death of the republican party because they had so completely discredited themselves. The overwhelming majority of Americans wanted a change in course, thats why we voted for the "change" candidate. This is why millions flocked to DC in frigid temperatures to welcome President Obama on inauguration day.

But this has all been argued here many times. Yeah, Obama had the backwash 28% hate-filled limbaugh listening goons making filthy noises and jeering him. Over 70% of us had his back. In my lifetime, I am 48, I have never seen such a mandate before. It was clear that conservative economic policies lead nearly imploded the nation. So what does he do? He begins quoting Reagan and using conservative framing to speak about our problems and how to get out of them.

Maybe you have been able to sell that to someone with a shorter memory, but don't try to peddle that snake oil to me.

[leeroysphitz]

96. +1

[Enthusiast]

99. You have captured the truth in your words.

I hate it, but it is so.

[MADem]

109. No, the rest of the country was NOT with him. The vicious, race-based jokes began immediately.

EVERYTHING he did was examined and found wanting by the pouting right wing, and people who didn't think a guy with a black ancestor "deserved" to be in the White House. The birth certificate shit kept on in full flame.

If you're talking about support on DU, I'm sorry--DU is a Very Small Universe. It's not without its ability to influence, but DU is not the Democratic Party--not by a long shot. It is a small subset of a slice of the center to mostly left end of the Democratic Party, along with a few far lefty scolds who think the Democrats are to the right of Attila the Hun and who take potshots for general principle and are tolerated because they're not griping from the GOP side of the fence.

Obama did not have anything NEAR a mandate out in the real world. His weekend working wardrobe, his wife's wardrobe, everything came under the gun. He even caught shit for the damn DOG that Ted Kennedy gave him.

I think you're the one with the short memory, frankly.

[No Elephants]

259. No one has 100% of the country with him. He did have a mandate.

"His weekend working wardrobe, his wife's wardrobe, everything came under the gun"

SO WHAT? Anyone who runs for President has to expect that. Everything Bush and Cheney did came under attack from a certain part of the population, too--namely us-- but they pressed forward with a much lower approval rating than Obama had.

Jesus. Someone who is in the Oval Office doesn't cave to junior high level bs from the people who oppose him, especially not when his overall approval rating is high and his Party controls both Houses of Congress.

[MADem]

336. I've never seen such vicious, race-based hatred directed against a politician in my life.

The crap that was flung at Obama wasn't the same as the crap flung at Bush. Bush was stupid and he demonstrated his stupidity every time he opened his mouth. Obama took crap because of the melanin in his skin and because he had a n'er do well AFRICAN father from Kenya.

I don't regard that sort of vitriolic commentary as "junior high level bs" but that's just me.

[me b zola]

279. I stand by my post

So a couple of people on DU complaining about his dog is what lead him to govern as a republican? Jeez, I'm not getting that logic.

Obama's approval was around the 70% mark at his inauguration. The pollsters didn't poll DU, they polled the nation. So the 28% limbaugh listening knuckle dragging backwash went bat-shit crazy. But they were bat-shit crazy before and will continue to be there after Obama. Perhaps you are comfortable with these clowns dictating the discourse, but I'm not and I can't take seriously any elected official who does.

[sabrina 1]

112. Very well said. He also appointed Goldman Sachs

people, like Geithner to his cabinet, and began giving a helping hand to the discredited Republican Party by appointing Republicans to his cabinet also. That was the time to really step on them, while they were already down. But instead, it was he who helped pull them out of the gutter.

However, he has had three years to see the gratitude he got for his bi-partisanship. He has also had time to see the devastation Republican policies have wrought on this country.

His speech this week could have been taken from the OWS script, as Robert Reich and KO pointed out. But as many have stated already, those are still just words and we will be told in the future, that 'we didn't hear him right' we 'misunderstood' if those words do not turn into action.

We will also be told that Republicans are to blame again, because they are 'obstructionists' and we are 'naive and do not understand the way politics works'.

As someone above said already, 'fool me once'.

But there is one thing he could do to put weight behind those words, and that no Republican or anyone else in Congress, can stop him from doing, and which would resonate with a majority of the American people, which I'm sure he knows or he would not have adapted the script of the Occupy movement.

He can announce his cabinet now, he can let it be known that his future Economic team will not include any of the people who were responsible for the Financial Meltdown, and that he will appoint people who were right about the policies all along, people like Dean Baker, or James Galbraith eg.

No one can influence his cabinet choices, Congress cannot obstruct him in making those choices, and if he were to commit to a Cabinet that has no Goldman Sachs people in it, we the people can do the rest by working hard to get a Progressive Congress in place which will pass his nominees. We did it before and Republicans are once again not very popular. Their failed policies, their Wall Street support, can be effectively used against them.

But no matter who the president is, if those around him are working for Wall Street, nothing will change. That is up to the candidates, alone.

[woo me with science]

185. Excellent post. nt

[No Elephants]

251. Yep. Bigger mandate than he will have in 2012 and probably a bigger one than

any Democratic President will have for quite some time.

Turned to huge Republican victories in the House, Senate and many states in two years.

So much for the success nationwide of a center right Democrat.

[newspeak]

297. yeah, I remember the corporate media

asking if the repug party was neutered? Of course, they could always depend on the plebes with short term memory. He had the majority of the people, he had a mandate. I would have come out with both barrels, telling the people this is what we got to do to stop the financial boulder in it's tracks. When those in congress started with the BS, I would have gone to the public--we need to do this to get the economy back on track and people working and the repugs are blocking every attempt. I'd tell the people the repugs don't care about you, since their blocking our policies.

I really think if he had done that, we probably wouldn't have lost the house. Because what it looked like to the people I know was bush2.

[Enthusiast]

97. I remember a historic level of support

by the American people. The danger to TPTB, and Obama "their man", was that he had too much popular support. They had to nip that in the bud, and they did.

Now this is only my personal opinion not an attack on you.

[MADem]

110. That picture was the last Kumbayah moment.

The crap started getting flung the very next day.

Who didn't want to be there? First President with African ancestry (that was acknowledged, anyway) being sworn in? That was an "historic moment" of massive proportions.

It didn't mean that everyone there wanted to repeat the experience--they just wanted to be able to say they participated in the event.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=2

People who did not like Obama were more vicious and vitriolic than they were to Clinton--and that's saying something. They barely gave him time to unpack before they started in on him.

[Laelth]

132. Crap was thrown at FDR too. He still passed liberal legislation.

Just sayin'.

-Laelth

[MADem]

213. He had massive majorities in the House and Senate, back in the day when

party discipline on both sides of the aisle was enforced.

Just sayin'.

You really can't compare the two, at least not fairly.

[No Elephants]

252. Baloney. Herding Democrats was always like herding cats, especially

when a Northeastern Democrat like FDR (and JFK) had to wrangle the Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats, along with the Northeasterners and the mid westerners--and California was still voting for Republican Presidents.

Or when a Southerner tried to push a liberal agenda, as did LBJ.

That's what happens when you have--and have to have--a "big tent" with everyone coal miners to Yale professors, women, minorities, Dixiecrats, etc.

Hence, Will Rogers famous comment: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

If anything, there is more discipline within the Democratic side of the aisle now than there was when FDR and LBJ were in office, especially LBJ. (FDR, like Obama, had the advantage of people being desperate for change, due to economic collapse.)

You are entitled to your own opinons, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And it's always good to know the difference between a fact and your own opinion.

[MADem]

327. Well, that's just not true. I am entitled to the facts that are written in history books,

and if you don't like them, well, that's your problem.

You plainly need an education in the House and Senate leadership during the FDR era. Party discipline was pretty absolute.

Believe what you'd like, though--you want a fight (for reasons I cannot fathom) and I'm disinclined to give it to you. I would recommend you do some reading; biographies of Russell and Johnson will open your eyes--if you're serious about increasing your understanding.

[No Elephants]

250. "They" were up his ass. So WHAT?

[rhett o rick]

311. I remember that he fired a shot across the left's bow at his inauguration.

He had Rick Warren say the prayer. And then it went bad from there. Rahm Emmanuel, Geitner, Summers, Jeb Bush, etc. etc. and now Jeff Immelt. And now this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2455086#2455106

[KoKo]

178. He had a "Magnificent WIND at His Back" ....and it vanished...Those who explain...never

seem credible, though. I wonder why that is? :shrug:

[BulletproofLandshark]

54. The time to be bold was January 20,2009.

Triangulating because a Republican might get mad at you is the polar opposite of bold. Too bad that's all he knows how to do.

[MADem]

58. That's how you are a one-term President.

Good thing he's not taking advice from you!

[BulletproofLandshark]

59. Yeah, because his advisors been giving him such great advice, right?

If he was doing so well, he wouldn't be trying out this ridiculous charade of being a real Democrat. Those of us who aren't wearing the fucking he-has-a-D-after-his-last-name-and-that's-good-enough blinders realize how much of a lie it all is.

On edit: He'll win reelection in spite of himself. The only thing that's going to save him is the sorry GOP field. It certainly won't be because of his great record or anything.

[MADem]

60. I have to say, it's better than the advice you're handing out.

You don't like the guy.

That much is obvious.

And sorry to tell you this, he is a "real Democrat." Anyone who questions his credentials on that score should have a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves where that bigoted POV came from.

The Democratic Party enjoys a rather large tent and accommodates a wide diversity of views, to include your intolerant ones, which aver that he's not a "real Democrat" because he doesn't share your very narrow view of what a Democrat is.

The party has breadth and depth, from liberal to conservative, from proactive to status quo. You really shouldn't run around making pronouncements about who is, and who isn't, a "real Democrat." It's just not a smart thing to do, because it suggests you have a serious deficit of understanding.

[BulletproofLandshark]

61. I like the guy on a personal level.

What I detest is sycophants, both in his staff and on DU.

[BulletproofLandshark]

63. Also I AM intolerant.

Of his neoliberal bullshit

His perpetual fence-sitting.

And of people that tell me I should tolerate a wannabe Republican so he can fit into some mythical "big tent" that does everything in its power to push out anyone with a remotely progressive point of view. If mediocrity is good enough for you, fine. But I expect more out of a so-called leader.

[MADem]

69. Go on then--take your ball, go home. No one is stopping you.

Stomp your foot, too, if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Just don't make untrue and unfair statements that he's "not a Democrat" because he's NOT LIKE YOU.

If you were the ideal Democrat, why, you'd be in the White House, now, wouldn't you? If your ideas held sway, you'd be content as a pig in shit, because there'd be no one who didn't see the world through your eyes.

But you're not in the White House--you're here on DU, crabbing about the guy who IS there, and suggesting that anyone who doesn't see things your way is suffering from sycophancy, when in fact they're only "guilty" of understanding politics in all its grim reality.

[ellisonz]

75. +1000

As Rachel Maddow noted the other night, "elections have consequences."

[No Elephants]

255. Perhaps "Many assume elections SHOULD have consequnces" would have been truer.

[ellisonz]

285. No comprendo...

...if elections did not have serious consequences they would not be called elections. Rachel Maddow is correct. 2008 had consequences for the Republicans, 2010 had consequences for the Democrats. My point award to MADem stands.

[kenfrequed]

121. Great attitude.

Seriously, I hope you aren't one of the people calling people out to vote. Why don't you just shout "Love it or leave it!"

Seriously, I think you should sympathize with people on the left. They tend to be the people that actually volunteer and believe strongly enough to wear out shoe leather and knock on doors. Scaring off activists is tactically and strategically stupid.

And while we are on it the Democratic party SHOULD move a bit more to the left and anyone that believes otherwise really needs their damned head examined. When we give the working poor and environmentalists and people that believe in equal rights for all no solid reason to vote for us then how the hell do you expect to win any elections? Appealing to upper middle class white people is pretty much a friggin waste of time. The majority don't vote democrat and they are so conditional in their approval and whiny about taxes that they really arent a reliable source of support.

[MADem]

127. If I have to "convince you" and beg and plead for you to vote for Barack Obama over ANY

Republican, then you might be happier in another political party. I sort of thought, silly me, that one would expect to find Democrats on a site called Democratic Underground.

In fact, I do a HUGE amount of GOTV. I precinct walk in every election, and I get in great shape when there's a democratic primary because I get to do it twice. I deliver bodies to the polls at every election day, local, state and federal. I brought over a hundred voters to the polls last Presidential election. I've probably got more "volunteer" hours under my belt than a lot of people here. I don't call myself an "activist," though--I am just a citizen who is a member of the Democratic Party--and I happen to relate very well to other people who are citizens, too.`

I do "sympathize with people on the left." I'm just not stupid and I get how politics works. The party doesn't need to move more to the left--all they need to do is stay to the left of the other team, and not let the other team wrap them around any "culture wars" axles if they can possibly avoid them.

Seriously.

[WiffenPoof]

225. Are You Kidding Me???

Did you actually write:

<The party doesn't need to move more to the left--all they need to do is stay to the left of the other team>

Have you been watching the news at all. Why do you think people are taking to the streets....because they are happy with the Obama presidency??? They are there because they finally gave up on Obama. They kept waiting and waiting and waiting for him to fulfill his campaign promises. It became clear that he was no more sincere than any other politician...despite his rhetoric.

Can you see how the country has moved to the Right over the past 30 years? Can you see that even Democrats are more conservative then they have ever been in the past (as a whole). I was once just considered a Democrat...now my "Democratic" views are considered "left wing" or even radical. So, for you to say that we need to stay just to the left of the other party simply means that as they continue to move further and further to the Right, we're simply going to follow them until the true definition of being a Democrat is all but forgotten. Is this beyond your understanding?

This is why I have a really had time with the so-called "New" Dems.

-P

[No Elephants]

258. As best I can tell, she is not really a big fan of OWS, either, if that helps clear things up.

[kenfrequed]

305. Well that makes sense

I wish people were more up front with their political beliefs and seperated their thoughts about ideals and preferences from the wonkery and strategy talk.

[MADem]

331. FWIW, I am a strong supporter of OWS. I am also an avid

booster of candidate Elizabeth Warren.

I differ with some of the tactics OWS uses, but I support the goals of the movement completely.

I'd recommend you not take the word of people who play fast and loose on message boards and value snark over substance.

[MADem]

330. You have a right to your ill formed opinions, but you don't have a right to post lies about me.

So cut the shit.

Your attitude towards me is consistently childish and reprehensible. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

[MADem]

332. Implied in that comment--in the CONTEXT of it--was "to win an election."

It's exhausting to try to communicate here.

My focus isn't a philosophical exercise on how "liberal" or "progressive" the party can become, in some distant future, with opinion-shaping and a cadre of more proactive candidates on the Liz Warren model. My focus, in the context of this discussion, is on winning 2012. It is FACT that the party does not "need" to go further left to win, at least not THIS time around. If a Third Party movement ever took hold, then they might have something to worry about, but that won't happen in this election cycle.

[kenfrequed]

228. The failing

Of the democratic party for the last thirty years to articulate a populist message that sticks can be traced to a lack of a proper progressive economics. Congressmen that get that and run 'hard left' on those points and bring them home tend to do somewhat better. Presidential candidates that speak to that garner more votes.

Barring an actual progressive move in the economic sphere we are merely rearraning deck chairs on the Titanic. The disintegration of the middle class, the collapse of unions, the monopolization of the airwaves, the pricing of higher education out of the hands of most kids, and the deregulation of everything under the sun are all elements of the prevailing collapse of America. And I am sorry but just 'winning' by staying just marginally to the left of the insane asylum that is the modern republican party is not going to correct any of those things.

You don't get that and it seems, from past discussions, that you have never gotten that. Good luck with your game of xeno's paradox with the repukes.

[MADem]

333. I do not think that "just winning" is sufficient.

I do, however, find it absolutely amazing that people save their best bitchin' for right before the election. Why not put that "ire" to good use two or more years ago?

I get realpolitik just fine--while everyone else is crabbing about how horrible the only viable option is (at this stage, anyway--because it is way easier to complain than DO something), I'll be working to reelect that option, because he beats the alternative.

For once, I'd like to see some of the prima donnas here get off their behinds and work to elect progressive candidates, instead of pontificating from their barcoloungers about how "awful" the existing candidates are.

It seems to me "from past discussions" that way too many people here are professional complainers, who won't do the hard work of supporting progressive candidates--they do need to be grown, you know, and you have to start local. Way too many of the professional gripers just wait to be served, and then get shirty and whining when the same old shit is being offered and they've done nothing to help an alternative succeed.

I just can't muster any sympathy.

[No Elephants]

257. False. I have not seen anyone on DU, let alone anyone on this thread, saying

they plan to vote for a Republican.

And, IMO, you are very wrong about where the Party needs to move.


Again, though, opinions are opinions and you are as entitled to yours as I am to mine. But implying anyone who is to the left of Obama plans to vote for a Republican is simply untrue.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

281. not voting is the equalent of helping the other side as i see it

as an old saying goes "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing:"

[MADem]

329. Well, how nice that you have an opinion, but I didn't say that

anyone who is to the left of Obama plans to vote for a Republican.

[No Elephants]

256. +1

[WiffenPoof]

221. Amazing....

So, I take it that you are a neoliberal. I also agree that President Obama is not a "real Democrat" - and by that I mean a Democrat that upholds traditional Democratic values. If you think he does, then there is no explaining it to you. You are lost in your world of the "new super Dem." So much for the Party of the People.

-P

[MADem]

334. Well, no. You "take it" wrong. I am a pragmatist. nt

[No Elephants]

254. "If you were the ideal Democrat, why, you'd be in the White House, now, wouldn't you?"

Which ear did you pull that argument out of?

Who ever said that ending up in the WH means you are an ideal Democrat?

Bizarre notion.

[MADem]

335. So, then, let's turn your assertion on it head--you are saying that the members of

our Democratic Party wouldn't vote for "the ideal Democrat?" Isn't that what you've been whining about not getting, to this point?

Bizarre notion, indeed.

:eyes:

[MADem]

67. Following a well-advised marching order is not evidence of sycophancy.

It's closer to self-preservation, and preservation of the Presidency for four more years.

He wasn't my candidate in the last Presidential primary, but I managed to get over it.

I'm a realist. He beat the alternative by a long shot.

He beats the alternatives this time, too, and he doesn't need to be battling culture wars bullshit when there are bigger issues confronting us.

[No Elephants]

253. +1

[KoKo]

180. He will WIN a Second Term with Wall Street's Backing... Look at his Donations

He bailed them Out and they will PAY HIM BACK....in BILLIONS. He's even flaunting his "Fundraisers" to us with his peeps posting how much he's raking in with the "35,000 Fundraisers he's doing in NYC. It's been posted here and is out there to see if one Googles. This isn't FAUX/FOX NEWS....this is Actual Reporting of Obama's Fundraisers.

You give him $15 to $250 and you get a "Refrigerator Magnet" in reply with "Mucho Thanks" from Obama/Biden for America Campaign.

What do you do with that Magnet (that's made in CHINA?) Tell me. I threw mine in the garbage...I didn't bother to recycle because I thought that "civilizations beyond me might find it an dig it up and wonder about it."

[hulka38]

209. We've got a vicious but winnable class war on our hands

and we're being drubbed these past few years more than ever. Your comment is like FDR being more concerned about his reelection prospects than defeating the axis. "Good news, Mr. President. You won a fourth term but the 1st and 3rd armies are in full retreat in Europe and we failed to recapture the Philippines." Liberals then would not have stood for that.

[No Elephants]

260. Remember 2010 midterms? And way to go ad hominem whenever someone disagrees with you.

Do you think that makes your arguments look stronger or weaker?

[truebrit71]

302. That went up in smoke the moment Rick Warren started the lord's prayer...

...that was the very first signal that he wasn't what he said he was and he hadn't even made it inot the Oval Office yet...

Man were we ever hood-winked...

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...I'm a fucking moron...

[redqueen]

100. Exactly.

So much of this stuff seems to me to be just simple politics.

[No Elephants]

261. If politics were simple....

[rhett o rick]

123. Your desperation is showing. He has choosen to focus on prosecuting

food stamp abusers and medical marijuana users and leave the Wall Street crooks alone. Did you watch 60 minutes? How about the DAily Show. Obama is soft on Wall Street crime.

Your dream that Obama will suddenly switch from a corporate conservative to a progressive is sad.

[woo me with science]

188. He is not merely leaving the Wall Street crooks alone, he is assisting them.

When you arm-twist attorneys general to support outrageous settlements that fine bankers insultingly tiny fractions of what they stole, prevent them from being criminally prosecuted, and allow them to resume their activities, you are WORKING for the one percent...period.

[rhett o rick]

207. It appears so. nm

[MADem]

215. I'm not desperate. I'm pragmatic. You have a better candidate? Go work for him or her.

Please.

[No Elephants]

262. The Progressive Policy Institute has succeeded in selling "pragmatic"

as a synonym for "This is the best of all possible worlds. Anything more to your liking is unrealistic."

That is a poverty-stricken LIE.

[MADem]

325. Sorry, I've been pragmatic for longer than they've been around.

And I don't see quite how you can call my personal POV a "lie," but whatever.

You have one of those nice days.

[KoKo]

174. Do you actually BELIEVE that second term will "Remake" Obama?

There's a bridge in Brooklyn and some Depreciating Real Estate in other parts of the USA that I'd like to sell you, then. :-(

It makes me sad beyond belief to have to post this...but, I'm older and have a perspective on our Dem Candidates/Presidents going back quite a few years.......

:cry:

[MADem]

214. Hey, you don't like him? Don't vote for him. Go find a candidate that thrills you.

I think his best years are ahead of him.

You're not the only geezer on the hill, here. I'm retired; I've been around the rose bush in the garden a time or two myself.

I really don't see what being "older" has to do with anything save put us closer to our graves. Politics hasn't changed, so much as the COVERAGE of it has. If you don't think that suitcases full of cash weren't flying back and forth, buying favors, making deals, back when FDR was running the show, I've got a bridge to sell YOU. Politicians were screwing around back then, too, there just weren't reporters actively covering it for publication. Cheating, gaming the rules, jury rigging regulations to benefit corporate interests--none of that shit is "new." They're merely doing it with greater gusto, to a greater degree, and with far less shame.

[No Elephants]

263. Your post gives no hint of any knowledge of the history of lobbying.

Something is not so merely because you ASSUME it is. Any support for your claims?

Besides, it is not whether suitcases of money are flying around. It's whether the results favor people or corporations. FDR instituted programs that helped wage earners and also insituted programs that checked corporate greed in VERY significant ways. There is no way that Securities Act of 1934 or the Revisions to the Bankruptcy Act of that era, especially Chapter X, were the product of corporate bucks, not even a little.

Nor were all the New Deal jobs programs.

And when the Supreme Court got in the way, FDR found a way to make even them knuckle under.

Comparing the two Presidents in highly similar situations, one of whom had to invent a wheel and one of whom had FDR's example, is laughable.

[MADem]

326. Go read a few biographies. Start with MASTER OF THE SENATE.

It's the history of LBJ from his days as a teacher in TX on. It will curl your hair.

The only thing "laughable" here is your strident attitude.

You go have one of those nice days, and don't blame me for history.

[No Elephants]

242. Wishful thinking, with no evidence to support it.

[teddy51]

6. Once again, he is much better than the other guy. I know, I know thats not how

it should be, but that's what this country has come to. :wtf:

[Booster]

9. Certainly can't argue with that.

[Shoe Horn]

17. Unless...

..there were other people running and more than two guys.
I know, silly dreams...

[niyad]

71. welcome to DU

[No Elephants]

265. Perhaps not, but is that the discussion we should be having? The one that is worth having?

Which candidate is marginally better?

Is that really the discussion you WANT to have? Is that even an interesting discussion?

Please see Reply 264.

[KoKo]

175. Since WHEN should we settle for "Much Better than the Other Guy?" With what we've been through?

You've gotta be a cruel joke advocate?

[woo me with science]

233. It is very convenient to own BOTH parties.

It is so easy to move rightward, when there is always someone further right.

[No Elephants]

264. It's what WE have allowed the country to come to. Question is, are WE going to

continue to allow it to go in this same unhealthy direction. If not, how do we shift the direction?

For me, those are the only important questions.

[Marr]

8. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that.

Here's a fun game. Note the people who are urging you to swallow this campaign season sales pitch to liberals, and then match them to their past comments about how we shouldn't complain since Obama has always been an obvious centrist.

[No Elephants]

266. Bingo! Good one!

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Tack hard to center? I don't think so.

That would require a turn to the left.

[XemaSab]

28. Touche

:(

[KoKo]

176. That's too "subtle" for many to understand. But, thank you for saying it. n/t

[joshcryer]

14. I don't see a difference.

[Swede]

18. The usual grousing is all.

Goal posts to relocate,etc etc

[joshcryer]

19. I guess I can see a difference in the GOP field, but not in Obama.

Same 'ol centrist trying to reach across the isle.

[Solomon]

78. Always damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

This place is surreal. I haven't seen any change in him either. But I have seen leftwing people fall for the rightwing propaganda that he's a "failure." It's amazing to watch it.

[joshcryer]

154. When I read glowing reviews of his Kansas speech I was compelled to make a post...

...about all of his past, say, 10 speeches, and you'll find the same stuff in them. Fortunately http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/president-obama-at-osawatamie-and.html">someone beat me to it, and I didn't even have to do this.

[JI7]

338. yeah, it's not different from what he has been saying

[Raine]

16. Yup, exactly nt

[quinnox]

20. Strange how Obama is now sounding more like a liberal Democrat

in the run up to election 2012. Why, I have a hunch he will continue this tact, and promise all sorts of things. I'm sure its just a coincidence...

Not buying it, I'm not that naive. His actions have spoken a lot louder than his words, 'nuff said.

[inna]

21. actions speak louder than words...

for those who have been paying attention

[bigtree]

22. typical dumbed-down description of politics

let's pretend politics has been anything other than a challenging process of reconciling disparate and divergent views from around the nation. And, let's pretend that the other forces arrayed against our party and President don't exist.

Let's just focus on the most cynical outcome we can imagine. That way, when things don't happen to go our way on some issue or the other, we can claim that we told everyone so and take no responsibility at all, outside of grousing, for making anything happen.

[EFerrari]

27. Or we can bring our experience to bear and agree with the OP. nt

[Caretha]

46. Explain to me

how I'm responsible for Obama disappointing me one more time if he is re-elected? I'm sure he will be. But, how is it my fault if he doesn't live up to the promises that he campaigns on to win his 2nd term? Really, I'm not his speech writer nor his "speech coach".....I'm only the voter. What should I do if he becomes more centrist and begins to appease the Republican whacko's even more? Not vote for him for his 3rd term?

Please..please explain.

[Solomon]

113. Why don't you explain how every politician always does exactly

what he campaigns on, and that Obama is the exception to the rule? All of them do what they say except for Obama right?

Why is the standard so different? You're responsible for your own disappointment. They told you they want him to fail, and then they told you he is a failure, and then you bought it hook line and sinker.

[Caretha]

192. I'm afraid one of your hobbies

is letting you down.

[No Elephants]

267. And they told you that this was the best any sane person could possibly expect and you fell for it,

hook, line and sinker.

[patrice]

151. THANKS very much for this.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Fumesucker]

33. What a difference three years makes, eh?

:hi:

[Matariki]

24. Perhaps, but better than a stinky Newt.

*sigh*

[defendandprotect]

30. You can stay trapped in that fear-based thinking which only moves us further to the right ...

or we can decide to draft a liberal -- maybe Alan Grayson --

It's a huge liberal voting bloc -- and would be very effective!

Obama threw away his mandate -- let's give it to Grayson and see what he can do

with it!!

[Matariki]

31. I love Grayson, in Congress definitely but maybe not as president.

But to your point, sure, draft a liberal.

It really doesn't matter what my 'thinking' is on the subject. Getting a viable new candidate against the incumbent is pretty much an uphill battle, unless our political system has a serious overhaul.

[defendandprotect]

37. Basically .... they have the $$ but we have the liberal voting bloc --

they also have the computers!!


:evilgrin:

[patrice]

181. How naive can you get? Hurt "the least of these" and the REAL Liberals will abandon you for

whatever they can beg, borrow, or steal to deal with that loss to those who can LEAST afford our political BULLSHIT.

[arcane1]

44. Indeed, I care more about Congress and the state and local elections anyway

Starting from the top down will never work.

If the states and Congress were more sane and responsive to the actual people, that's the environment any president would have to work in. If We The People had a functional Congress with enough votes to override a veto, then the President will have to take that into consideration. And when you have states that are truly representing We, and contesting the federal government, you have an even larger environment the president must trek through.

Our fate does not lie in the Executive branch. It lies in Congress and the states. It lies in the county commissioners and the school boards.

[No Elephants]

268. Starting from the top down worked for the DLC.

We used to win some Presidential elections and lose some, but we held Congress for four decades.

then the DLC took over the Party on the basis of Presidential politics and electoral votes.

Now, almost the entire Party is DLC and we are losing more elections than ever.

[apocalypsehow]

35. LOL - that's hilarious. Absurd, but funny nevertheless.

:rofl:

[xiamiam]

200. great idea..everyone will say no, he couldn't even keep his seat in congress

its a new day..ows happened and grayson is a good candidate now..im moving forward with the times and the folks in the street..politics as usual is..well ..almost dead.

[woo me with science]

234. The corporations that own both parties

count on this response.

It is so easy to move rightward when there is always someone further right...

Lay two choices in front of people, and they will choose one, forgetting that other options were ever possible.

[No Elephants]

269. +1

[mike_c]

25. yup....

No surprise there.

[xchrom]

29. Recommend

[toddwv]

34. Yes. We should all not vote for Obama and let Gingrich win.

I mean, even if Gingrich doesn't win the nomination, ANYONE of the current GOP frontrunners is better than Obama, right? With the war in Iraq about to end, it's disturbing that President Obama didn't even think it important enough to start another expensive long-term "war".

And besides, Obama has done nothing, NOTHING to advance anything liberal/progressive.

What we liberal and progressives need is another hard-right President so that we can properly bitch, amiright?

[quinnox]

36. oh, bullshit

That is not what the OP is saying at all. You pulled all that nonsense out of thin air.

[toddwv]

53. I just reread the op.

Seems pretty straight forward.

I'm going to hold out hope that he will tack further left without the worry of trying to get reelected in this tough political climate.

[patrice]

167. IT'S POLITICS. When there's no consequences to opposing him, which OP gaurantees, guess what?

They don't have to go along with anything WE want, because WE aren't supporting him anyway, so it's ALL REWARDS for them and no punishers for anyone except BHO.

Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

The ONLY effective response to money is VOTES. Reduce the votes and you are guaranteed to drive your issues into a loss, because the opposition knows how the votes are moving and responds accordingly. They LOVE being able to say "Fuck You!" which they have been saying for 3 solid years, because THIS GUY was hired to FAIL, something the so-called "Left" has been doing their level best to insure in order to build their own resumes and feather their own nests, because that's what people who stand to benefit from such things do.

[No Elephants]

271. LOL!

[No Elephants]

270. Not really. Quinnox is correct. Not what the OP said at all.

"I'm going to hold out hope that he will tack further left without the worry of trying to get reelected in this tough political climate."

Hope? Yeah. No reason it won't work this time as well as it did the last time.

[defendandprotect]

42. How about we do something unique ... like voting for a liberal -- !! Remember them?

You're just playing "good cop" -- "bad cop" -- along with Obama.

We're going to be involved with Iraq thru 2024 -- as planned!

We've been bombing them for 30 years! And occupying them for 10 years!!

Think we'll give up on Iraq now?

Wasn't the fact that Dems kept the Bush wars going since '06?

Not enough that they didn't stop the bankrupting of our Treasury by Blackwater and

two wars?

I'm sure we're all enjoying MEDICARE FOR ALL --

And three new trade agreements --

The renewal of oil rig drilling was certainly fun -- especially opening the Arctic --

And a new generation of nuclear reactors for US -- won't that make EXELON happy --


:eyes:

[toddwv]

55. Which liberal do you plan to vote for in the Presidential race?

Just curious who else actually has a chance to beat whatever flavor of the month just happens to be given the Republican nod.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

103. squatting in parks isn't going to get you your utopia. neither is helping the GOP by not voting.

reince priebus applauds you.

[Union Scribe]

143. Classy, Host Dionysus. nt

[No Elephants]

243. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing while expecting a different result.

Thanks for the gratuituous slap at OWS, too.


Boy, even a slim possibility of real change really shakes people up, no matter how much they claim to want it.

[No Elephants]

272. flypaper.

[Caretha]

48. Oh for God's Sake

Last week it was be vwery vwery scared about Cain, the week before it was Good Hair Perry & before that it was Trump....on an on ad nauseum. Grow up, I'm an adult and quit being afraid of the boogy man a long time ago.

[defendandprotect]

65. We're a nation on a march to the LEFT while the "boogeyman" is dangled in front of us!!

[HipChick]

38. President Newt is a much better alternative..

Not!

[defendandprotect]

43. Obama is too far to the right and you're suggesting someone would vote for Newt?

[Caretha]

49. Stick

your hyperbole where the sun don't shine. Your kind bores me and is beginning to bore the rest of the country. You need to take the blinkers off, your schtick is getting very very smelly and old.

[BulletproofLandshark]

57. You must have been one of the "But it's only been a year!" people too, huh?

If you can't offer any better than "President Newt" as a reason to vote for Obama again, that speaks volumes about how little there is about Obama worth voting for.

[kath]

94. "how little there is about Obama worth voting for"

Man, isn't that the sad pathetic truth.

[dionysus]

105. then don't vote for him.

:shrug:

[ecstatic]

130. Seems like some people want Newt picking the SC nominees, etc.

Unbelievable!

[leveymg]

39. He's best when he campaigns - all that follows is just obligation.

A Pro.

[ThomWV]

87. actually all that follows is apology and excuses.

[leveymg]

88. I was being generous . . .

If only we had a Supermajority in Congress and a vast public mandate supporting the Public Option, and cleaning up Wall Street, and the Green/Solar Power Revolution, and exiting the Middle East/Persian Gulf/South Asia wars, and reinstating 4th Amendment protections against warrantless domestic wiretapping . . . oops.

You know what really sucks about this? My teenager is now turned off to politics. I can't get her to do even local campaign volunteer work, much less to march in parades holding up life-size cutouts of Obama, like she did gladly three years ago. That level of disaffection didn't settle in for me until I was in my thirties, and I regained my hopes in 2006 and particularly for "That Hope and Change Thing" in 2008. That was a quick let-down.

I blame the Professional Politicos at the top of the Democratic Party for squandering the best opportunity America has had for real progressive change in eighty years. They've destroyed another generation of grass-roots Democratic activists.

The Politicos truly suck.

[Laelth]

136. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[XemaSab]

339. I fear that Obama has propelled the democrats into a generational wasteland

Young people (and older people) were thrilled when he got elected, but how many of them do you think will EVER turn out with that kind of excitement again?

I mean hell, I've got another 40 years of presidential votes ahead of me (inshallah) and I'm really questioning whether I will ever identify myself with the democratic party again.

All the haters upthread can hear this: I was a huge Obama supporter, and I really wanted to keep supporting him. My faith in him collapsed damn hard, and I'm far from alone.

But seriously, in the 2040 election there will still be a lot of people who remember the 2008 election, and if some dude comes along who promises everyone a pony, there will be people there holding their checkbooks and saying "ORLY?"

[Solomon]

201. Exactly what the right claims.

To a tee. Exact same words.

[KoKo]

182. He is Magnificent on the Campaign Trail...It jacks him up like with all politicians

...I just wonder how many "old ladies fainting...that the throws a water bottle to" are going to be there in this new Campaign.

I think this new campaign might be as "staged" as BUSH II's was in his II Administration. (Caged "Free Speechers" and "Scanned and Selected Venues."

I wished for so much better than what he's delivered. So...yes...I am a disappointed American.

I was stupid for thinking I was electing someone who had a combination of Martin Luther King's Experience and John F. Kennedy's STYLE.

I do blame Teddy Kennedy and Caroline, plus the "Nation Magazine" for promoting him...thinking he was the "CHOSEN" for Kennedy Legacy.

I think we were snookered, big time.

[lib2DaBone]

40. k/r

[Caretha]

50. Perfect

nuf said.

[defendandprotect]

66. Very sadly true -- !!!

Shame on Obama -- !!

[Autumn]

90. That cartoon is missing the poor and elderly under

the middle class.

[woo me with science]

92. Enragingly apt. nt

[Number23]

131. Weren't you the poster that was simply devastated that he was "leaving the country" to go to Hawaii?

To spend the holidays with his family?

Yep -- that WUZ you! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2432610

[Union Scribe]

142. Aw, does Host23 keep a little red notepad and pen next to her computer?

[Number23]

150. Host23? Is that supposed to mean something?

And you're right. A post that big, ignorant and so full of fail that was posted all of two days ago should have totally slipped my mind, right?

Yes, I should focus on much more important things. Like remembering the names of the DOZENS of DUers that are hosts on DU3. Yeah, that makes more sense. Definitely something that a sane person would do...

[Jim_Shorts]

164. Sometimes the hardest thing to do

is to convince a goldfish that he is in water.

[No Elephants]

273. Or to bring to a frog's attention that the water he has been in for a while is about

to reach 212 degrees Farenheit.

[BlueIris]

52. It is neither new nor an improvement.

He has flipped sides so many times, embraced so many disparate, conflicting positions and backed so many bad policies, (from either the leftist or rightist perspective) I don't know what to think anymore. And I don't care.

[Hutzpa]

70. lol

:rofl:

[tomp]

74. tacking hard to the center?

you mean, he's moving left?

[ThomWV]

86. I think a better way to say it is that after talking a good Left game he races to the Right.

[eridani]

76. I doubt that the scales have fallen, but I sure do like the new and improved

--MESSAGING.

[uponit7771]

77. Obama PROMISE METER says these type post are full of shit

[Bandit]

79. Could you describe a "Center" in this country now?

:shrug:

[JoePhilly]

80. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

[treestar]

81. So if he says what you want to hear, it is still not good enough

If only the President could just decree what you wanted!

[ThomWV]

85. Correct. Just talking is not enough, he must push the Congress - which he fears to do apparently.

Because if there is any chance of controversy, if any "left wing" idea enters the conversation, the man shrinks.

That speech he gave, if you bothered to listen to the thing from start to finish, was just another bunch of glad words, no call to action, no indication he was actually going to do anything, just that he understood our pain. Well, fuck him, let him enjoy some pain of his own, like the pain of an unemployed 1-term-President.

[dionysus]

106. he must use the bully pulpit. when he uses the bully pulpit, it's just a "pretty speech"

[Marr]

193. Surely you can see the difference between a campaign speech and

action meant to move some actual piece of legislation.

[No Elephants]

275. Um, no. There is a big difference between using the bully and twisting arms in Congress, on the one

hand, and a campaign speech on the other.

These excuses and rationalizations are so lame and make the President seem way lamer than he is.

[No Elephants]

274. Riiight. Because all the Presidents, Democratic and Republican, who have

susbtantially delivered in the past--not on everything, but substantially--had Super Politician powers and we suddenly elected a mortal?

Please. That decree/dictator/separate branches stuff was played out at least a year ago.

Study FDR and LBJ.

[woo me with science]

91. When it's time for a sale, there's always a shiny new box

and slick, colorful ads.

The difference is we already bought this product once. We know the difference between the picture on the box and the actual ingredients.

:eyes:

[Enthusiast]

95. But it isn't the base.

This is the central mistake people are making.

It isn't the Democratic Party base that is against trickle down economics. It isn't the Democratic Party base that wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. It isn't the Democratic Party base that wants to rein in abuses by Wall Street pirates and prosecute them.

It is not ONLY the Democratic Party base, it is nearly the entire fucking nation. And that is why Obama was so decisively elected to begin with. The reason Obama has lost support is because he abandoned these principles.

Remember this? This was the historical level of support Obama enjoyed when people still believed he was the left of center crusader President that would ride in and stop abuses by Wall Street, the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and military industrial complex.

Obama could still do these things. But he will not. Obama is not THAT president, he never was.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. Agreed.

He has ALWAYS talked a good game.

Talk is dirt cheap.

I am under ZERO illusion that O vs.2 will be any different that O vs.1. If anything, he may govern even further right, as Clinton did in his second term.

[Exultant Democracy]

104. I have also been expecting the return of Candidate Obama

and of course I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him again.

[watercolors]

107. YES HE CAN, YES HE CAN!!

[The Doctor.]

111. Done.

Marked and bookmarked.

So far, he's exceeded my expectations and I've enjoyed watching the bashers have one accusation after another disintegrate like sandcastles.

Obama's a homophobe!
- Most GLBT friendly admin in history of US, DADT gone, DOMA on the block.

Obama's a warmonger!
- Libya liberation legal, legit, and precipitous. Troops coming home from Iraq as we speak.

Obama's a corporatist!
- So far, he's given a black eye to the insurance industry. Now people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable care. Even better, if a right wing acquaintance is right (and I read the bill), then we will soon have a 'public option'. As for the rest of Wall Street, I expect he'll be giving them a black eye too.

I'll PM you this link when he does.

He's up against a lot, and has had to compromise, but he's not done yet. Once he doesn't have an election to win, you'll see for yourself.

[slay]

119. I feel your assessment of the situation is sadly correct

if it wasn't less than a year til the election - I highly doubt he'd be promoting progressive values. I'm still very disappointed in him.

[Number23]

129. Thank goodness this came along. My unrec finger was getting itchy

[greiner3]

133. Screw;

Any DUer who says; I'm sitting this election out, Obama sucks, he's just the same, etc...

Hell, I am so pissed at him I could scream every time he pulls another boner. But hell, imagine if we had ANY Republican in the White House.

So screw you-you know who I'm talking to!

[No Elephants]

276. Who on this thread posted he or she was sitting out this election?

I've been reading and posting on this thread for a long time now and have not seen that. Perhaps I missed it?

Nor have I seen anyone who is criticizing Obama from his left saying anything about voting Republican either.

I've seen about ten posts claiming people are posting that, though, yours being one of them.

[Logical]

137. He is in "Campaign Mode" which is not really him.

[bluedigger]

138. I'll believe he's with us the day he shows Geithner and the WS cabal the door.

I'm not holding my breath.:-(

[polichick]

187. Yes, a cabinet that represents the people rather than corporate interests...

...would be a powerful signal.

[patrice]

144. Self-fulfilling prophecy at work once again. Politicians respond to those whose support is probable.

Their opposition knows quite clearly what "support" is moving away, being lost, and, ergo, they strengthen their opposition to, political-commitment against whatever your objectives are, which further erodes "support", which further strengthens opposition . . . .

If one cares about one's issues, your support has to be at least as equally likely as your non-support, otherwise you have no seat at the table, since you're already a known quantity in the equation.

[DCBob]

145. Thank goodness you warned us about this .. many were getting optimistic again.

and ready to work hard to defeat the GOPers. Now we realize its a waste of time. Thanks for the heads up!

[patrice]

149. 1++++++++++++ & Funny isn't it? OP used to be such a big fan. nt

[AtomicKitten]

217. +1

[patrice]

152. You're assuming you know what he's going to do -AND- you're mad at him for not doing what you though

t he was going to do.

Clue: Stay away from poker games.

[great white snark]

163. +1

:crazy:

[Marnie]

156. So he goes semi liberal to get elected again.

Then he goes right back to being a Repocon Republican giving trillions to the biggest most profitable business in the world.
All paid for by the sheeple. ie. us/US

He thinks keeping Blacks enslaved in the North was a great political decision. What makes us think he doesn't look at the average American as just as expendable as the slaves that the damned Yankees got to keep?

Think about it folks, we may very well be of the same political value to Obama that the Black slaves in the North were to Lincoln.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

157. I think we have learned from the 2004 elections that not coming out hard will not win.

Don't get me wrong the formula should have worked for Kerry, but the repukes went for the throat first, and they kept coming. Even though they were full of torro excreto, many people bought it. So we need to come out hard with the facts before the dum-dums twist it in the same nasty manner as 2004.

[patrice]

168. "torro excreto"!!!! LOL! I'm going to use that.

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

277. I wonder if DU will ever make up its collective mind about whether

2000 and 2004 were elections we lost or elections we won that the Rethugs stole from us.

[davidwparker]

166. Right. The story was told when, not only did he win, but

he had majorities in both houses.

Because the Dem party doesn't believe in primary-ing an incumbent, he is the best we have in 2012. He will have my vote. But, he has no leadership skills and played whatever crowd he was in front of.

If I had my primary vote back, I would recast it for Hillary. Thankfully, Edwards played himself out so that I didn't waste my primary vote on the one which I originally supported.

Oh, and if Dennis were really serious about being President, he would have primary-ed Obama for 2012. He won't get my primary vote next time. Neither will whoever wins the Iowa caucus.

[No Elephants]

278. You think Hillary would have been better than Obama?

And you say "Because the Dem party doesn't believe in primary-ing an incumbent..." and then you condemn Kucinich for not trying to primary Obama?

Hint: Kucinich is a Democrat.

When Kennedy tried to primary Carter, they both lost. Now, those facts can be interpreted many different ways, but there is no doubt that that election spooked many Democrats.

I have no brief for kucinich. For better or worse, he was never my candidate in any primary. But an argument against him or anyone has to at least be internally consistent.

[KoKo]

169. Yep...I'm starting to think the same thing, myself. :-(

[scentopine]

170. Who is this Obama person some people here keep going on about? -nt

[patrice]

179. I often wonder that, because he's kind of like one of these:

https://www.google.com/search?q=magic+eye+images&hl=en&rlz=1G1SNNT_ENUS412&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=rV_hTu3FLqPk0QGYhZDXBQ&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=572

[woo me with science]

189. I"m not sure, but I've heard he has very little political influence. nt

[polichick]

184. True, Campaign Obama is a populist fighter while Governing Obama is a corporate enabler...

I'd like to think he's learned some important lessons about standing tall for Democratic principles in the face of sociopaths, but my guess is Governing Obama will be back if he gets a second term.

[EC]

190. This is the second time I've seen this exact

phrasing of displeasure. Sounds wierd. Or is this the second time you've posted this?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

194. Proof's in the pudding

The truth of the matter is that he hasn't been in the crosshairs of an attack dog when it comes to the GOP potential candidates.

The "sea change" started happening right around the time the media started taking Gingrich seriously, and if he continues to gain traction (and displace Romney as the GOP candidate), it will be one hell of a battle. Obama would not be able to sit back and shrug off Gingrich, as he could with Romney / Cain / Bachmann / Santorum or any of the other members of the motley crew.

Gingrich has already "threatened" to use Obama's campaign as his "road map," being right behind him on every stop to shred whatever was said.

And it's not the idea that Gingrich has "substance."

MSNBC put it well earlier today when they said that right or wrong, Gingrich is saying what the "base" wants to hear...red meat, and the facts don't matter.

As far as Obama solidifying the base is concerned, that will be a stretch. I don;t see him as "new and improved." I see him as a man preparing to go head to head with Gingrich, if necessary. I would be willing to bet that if Romney gets the nod, Obama will dial it back a few notches.

[Romulox]

210. "Ponies for sale! February, 2013 delivery!" nt

[StarsInHerHair]

211. yep as fake as the last time

[akbacchus_BC]

216. The new health care is working for some people! No matter what

President Obama does or signs into policy, some people will always be bitching for more.

This President is doing just fine but side tracking here, not too sure he did good by Harper to share information on citizens.

[No Elephants]

280. Social Security and Medicare worked well for some people too.

Remind me which rich industries FDR and LBJ bailed out to get them passed.

NO ONE says the so-called health care reform act did nothing good at all for anyone, so arguing against that is creating a straw man that you can tear down easily.

How about dealing with the argument that the benefits given average folks were outweighed by the benefits given health insurers, big health care and big PHRMA? Because that is the argument I've actually seen made here. Along with the argument that a year was consumed on it.

Besides which, I wasn't aware this thread was about the pros and cons of the health care act.

[WiffenPoof]

219. I'm won't be...

fooled again. President Obama has broken my heart.

[WiffenPoof]

220. It's bad enough when the...

Republican screw us...It is far, far worse when it comes from your own party.

[No Elephants]

282. It's not only about us.

It's far worse for the entire nation when rightist policies come from the alleged left.

To think, a Democratic President was talking about cutting "entitlements" and before he even took his oath of office.

[No Elephants]

222. What's new and improved about that? That's what he did the first time he ran.

[MrSlayer]

283. Well, yeah.

We need to go from the bottom up. The top is lost to us.

[quaker bill]

284. I think to the contrary

He has read the polls and is moving to where the center currently resides. Even he is quick to say that these ideas are supported by 60 or 70 percent of the voters, and has done so regularly. In short, the middle is moving in our direction.

Last election he played one Clinton era trick, if you stake out the middle as your ground, the opponent has to go more extreme to oppose you. He has been playing the same trick for 3 years. To polish it off they did three successive bills, each one designed to save or create thousands of jobs for the cost of a tiny tax increase on the 1%. The republicans obliged by voting all of them down. The point was made. There is nothing radical about employing thousands of teachers, cops, and firefighters at the cost of a 0.3 percent tax increase on the 1%. This proposal was really quite centrist and the polling supports that. The point since 2010 has been to show in as clear and as simple a way as possible that the other side has abandoned the center completely. They have obliged, and with luck they will nominate Newt, a clear symbol of being as far from the center as one can get.

What you are seeing is the early introduction to the campaign, it will play off these themes and get stronger through next November. The whole "go to the base and then pivot to the center" thing is a primary challenge scenario, it is not the unchallenged incumbent pattern.

[LadyInAZ]

294. Most presidents

can't get thing done in the 1st term. sometimes it takes 2nd term for change to occur.

[newspeak]

298. unless your little boot's administration?

who bullied in the big pharma screw seniors bill (which increased the deficit while giving more profits to big pharma), those repugs who were against the bill, were threatened and bullied to pass it. When little boots and darth cheney were selected, they had a little meeting with the repug congresscritters--there would be no compromises, there would be no dealing with the democrats; apparently, all the calls were going to be coming from the WH.

Of course, little boots had massive help by corporate media, to catapult his fabricated war or to sell his obscene tax cuts to the wealthy--I swear everything these greedy vampires touch is a death touch except for the 1% (their base).

Now FDR had a smile on his face and a knife behind his back with dealing with his opponents. Obama seems to just put things on the table (usually those things sacred to the public) even when the repugs don't even ask. The tax cuts should have never been extended, it's just more damage to us. Yeah, they extended the unemployment--still hard to find a job. They stalled the inevitable--maybe by no extensions there would have been more of a cry from the public against the repugs.

[cottonseed]

295. Isn't that called campaigning? And a predictable occurrence over the last 200 years.

[LanternWaste]

296. I imagine that at the end of the day,...

I imagine that at the end of the day, after the campaign is over and we're all settled back into our safe and secure biases, whatever he says, whatever he does, and what he campaigns on will merely strengthen one's opinion of him-- regardless of whether that onion is good or bad.

The Perpetually Peevish & Pissed will remain peevish and pissed, and the Virtually Virtuous and Faithful will remain virtuous and faithful.

Seems to be Human Nature 1301-- which seems to always take priority over Politics 101. :shrug:

[redqueen]

301. Well said.

[JuniperLea]

309. I'll mark you if you mark mine...

He can't go more than two terms... I think we'll be seeing "Campaign Obama" continue to kick ass through his second term. No holds barred.

[Demonaut]

316. Yup.......whatever

[whistler162]

317. A three year nap... hope you don't have bed sores!

[deutsey]

319. It's fairly transparent

What was it someone here called it: "next year's ponies"?

I like what I hear, but I'm waiting for the follow-up before I get all warm and tingly.

[gulliver]

321. I think there are just a lot of hurting people out there...

...who haven't been helped yet. For a few, frustration leads to anger. That leads to blaming Obama and the Dems for not doing enough. The more frustration, the more blame. But this really is just a few people. Maybe 1% of voters. If necessary, and if they don't come to their senses, their votes can be done without. I don't think many of the blowhards would actually sit out the vote and let a Republican anything take power.

I take all this angry left stuff as a cry for help and as blowing off steam. Even economic good news is bad when your own personal news is not good, because it isolates you, and because it makes you feel like others will stop trying to help. It won't happen.

The fact is that a Dem landslide is starting to look more and more likely. People are starting to get a sense of the existential reality of the economic situation now. The Republican presidential primary freak show has also done wonders. It definitely has made the Republican Party much better understood, unfortunately for them.

[Major Hogwash]

322. Bookmarked.

It's going to be an interesting campaign.

Mr. "9-9-9" is already history.
Mitt is drowning in the shallow end of the pool.
Newt thinks this election is about personalities.
And Trump is ready to fire all the others.

Doesn't really take much to solidify the base, does it?