I have never seen a president who cares more about doing what's more politically expedient

[FLAprogressive]

than what's right. I don't think President Obama should be ordering tanks into Libya, or going to Madison (which would be one big distraction), but the LEAST he could do, is take a firm stand on both issues, and actually SPEAK directly to the American public. So far we've heard just about jack shit from him, on either issue, while he continues to go around blabbering about "innovation" and "tightening belts" and triangulation bullshit. I think he thinks by not strongly supporting the workers he can get the corporations to fully back him, and more votes from the Republican side. They're either playing him or he's playing along.

[MichiganVote]

1. While I think Obama is an artful dodger, Bush II was far worse than this guy.

[FLAprogressive]

4. Where did I say Bush II was better?

[gateley]

14. You're not addressing me, but you did say you've "never seen a President" which

would indicate Obama is the worst, so that would mean all the others were better, no?

[FLAprogressive]

20. I would argue that Bush was willing to take a stand more often, it was just an evil stand.

[gateley]

45. And I would agree with you on that. Well said. nt

[Bluebear]

41. Bush did not care what was politically expediant. He satisfied his base, period.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

13. Bush II (and the cabal) was far worse than *anybody*. nt

[swilton]

42. Bush was a creep

but he wasn't dishonest about what his political motives were.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. So he wasn't dishonest about "weapons of mass destruction"?

Or about "Clean Skies Initiative"? Or about his plans for Social Security?

[babylonsister]

2. Unrec. nt

[Tesha]

58. Unrec all you like; it's the truth and it's why Democrats are being viewed as such...

...abject failures: A huge number of Democratic
politicians won't stand for up for our principles.

We may believe that Republican principles suck,
but at least they routinely stand up for theirs!

Tesha

[Teaser]

3. I have

[FLAprogressive]

6. Blech, true, but Obama seems worse because he claimed to be something completely different on the

campaign trail.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

9. Yep. I can live with the despair. It's the hope that's killing me. nt

[erodriguez]

87. Well said.

[Poll_Blind]

26. This is one of my bigger beefs as well. I don't feel like Clinton was a fraud and...

...I felt I (more or less) got what I saw on the campaign trail and voted for. I feel as though he openly, brazenly, played just about everyone with his hope of real change in DC.

PB

[Teaser]

48. politicians lie on the campaign trail

even ones I like.

I can't hate the player. Just gotta hate the game.

[hulka38]

70. The game has gotta go.

I dislike the player who claims he will do everything he can to end the game and then plays it expertly for his own benefit. Do you know what kind of cynicism that breeds? It hurts future efforts to engage and bring in the youth and disaffected, creates more cynics and makes it so much harder to change the game in the future. It is extremely frustrating to me.

[FLPanhandle]

69. Who is naive enough to believe politicians promises while campaigning?

No wonder you are disappointed. Learn never to do it again.

[sabrina 1]

73. So if it's naive to support a Democratic candidate who is

talking about Democratic principles on the campaign trail, then should we have supported the one who was actually telling the truth? Would that have been less naive?

Eg,

McCain said he would lift the ban on Offshore Drilling!

Obama slammed him for that, very eloquently in fact. Were we naive to believe Obama?

McCain said he would favor Mandated Insurance.

Obama called it 'unfair to force people to pay for something they cannot afford'. Were we naive to agree with him on that?

McCain said he would set up a Commission to look into the Deficit.

Obama called such commissions 'an endrun around Congress' and promised 'these issues under my administration will be discussed in Congress where they belong, not behind the closed doors of any Commission'. Why on earth did we believe that?

McCain said he would not close Guantanamo.

Obama said he would.


I could on, but just exactly why was it naive to assume that a Democratic candidate would uphold Democratic principles once he got to the WH?

And if we are to be that cynical, then why vote for a Democrat since what you seem to be saying is that we should assume they are lying, and we may as well be 'pragmatic' and vote for the one who is at least telling what he will do?

[Teaser]

74. meh, I understand why a lot of that was done

The ban on offshore drilling was to be lifted by O in order to facilitate climate change legislation.

I would have taken that trade, and would have been glad to see that promise broken, as it's trading a lesser evil for a greater one. Or so it seemed at the time.

Anyway, it was all an epic fail.

[sabrina 1]

82. There was no need for any compromise on that.

Strong leaders get what they want, especially when their parties are in the majority.

So sick of the excuses, same excuses over and over again. We know that corporations are running this country and its politicians, both parties.

That's what needs to change. And that is our job. As things are now, no politician will get to the WH unless the real owners of this country are assured that s/he will be cooperative with their goals.

Seeing the Wikileaks cables on Libya, on Egypt, on Tunisia, on Uzbekistan and all the other dictatorships we have been propping up at the expense of millions of human beings, it is clear that no one works too hard for the people. The focus on what the profiteers want and no dictator is ever so bad that they will not compromise with him.

We need leaders who are willing to FIGHT, not compromise with bullies. And we do not have anyone willing to do that. Yet. But that may be changing as more and more people across the globe are waking up.

We were told we had to 'deal with' dictators also. I never bought that. Why? For money, it's always the same motive and it is just not acceptable or even believable anymore.

[Teaser]

83. I disagree

\but I don't really feel like arguing with you, nor do I care if I convince you.

[sabrina 1]

85. Okay, you couldn't convince me anyhow, after all I've learned

over the past few years. The picture is pretty clear, and to more and more people as we are now seeing.

Times are changing. Hopefully Corporate Funded politicians will become a thing of the past.

I know that is the goal now of millions of Americans. We see what their influence has done to this country.

Corporate money has destroyed this country, but it's not too late to turn it around, difficult though it will be.

[FLPanhandle]

79. McCain wasn't elected so we don't know what promises he would have broken

Make no mistake, he would have. They all have since the days of George Washington. Anyone who hears a campaign promise and doesn't take it with an enormous grain of salt is, yes, naive or hasn't been paying attention to politics for very long.

[tpsbmam]

84. I am. Okay, now let me clarify.....

I HAVE known politicians in the past who were honest -- just a few, but they were there. Truly. And I have known those politicians to occasionally change their stance on AN issue -- sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse from my perspective. I've gotten peeved with them and argued with them (either to their faces or via LTEs, etc). I've certainly seen a politician change positions on even more than one important issue -- same goes with me peeved, blah, blah, blah.

In my lifetime, I have never voted for a politician who completely misrepresented who he or she is, what he or she believes, the approach that he or she will take to governing, who he or she wanted to represent as president (i.e., US instead of the richies & corporations), etc. Until 2008.

NOW I've been fucking lied to and I'm really, really beyond peeved. I'm disgusted.

[global1]

18. You Can't Talk About The President Of The World Like That......nt (sarcasm)

[JDPriestly]

31. By the way, why isn't Clinton speaking up for Wisconsin labor?

[RKP5637]

5. I think Citizens United is in the way of everything and is a disaster for the

majority of Americans.

[JDPriestly]

32. Citizens United applied in California, and our state voted straight Democratic Party

It isn't Citizens United. It's the fact that President Obama has disappointed everyone so much.

And once again, he is so afraid of the criticism of the press and the right-wingers that he can't bring himself to do the right thing.

[RKP5637]

34. Yes, there is IMO quite a difference between candidate Obama and President Obama. n/t

[Tesha]

57. In what way is Citizens United standing in the way of Obama being the "fierce advocate" that...

...he claimed he was going to be on the campaign trail?

He's *GOT* the job, at least for 23 more months; he's
now got the Senate and House that he's going to have
for those 23 months. The Citizens United rule can have
no more effect on him if he really intended to be a
good one term President.

Speak out, Obama! Let's have some of that "fierce
advocacy" that you promised!

Tesha

[RKP5637]

64. Funding! He's walking on eggs trying to appease those corp. interests that

will be funding his next election run. IMO I would like to see ALL of this massive funding out of elections and have them publicly financed. How can any of these people take massive amounts of money and then not be beholding to their interests. That's how we're ending up with a corp. run fascist country and "we the people" are standing on the sidelines wondering WTF.

[Tesha]

66. On his current trajectory, he will lose his next election run...

...because even if he has tons of money, there will
be no one left to do the work of running his campaign.
And what makes him think Corporations are going to
support him anyway? They sort-of supported supported
the Democrats in 2008 because Bush and the Republicans
had deprived them of too many quarters worth of profits
and McCain/Palin was a DoA alternative, but they returned
to their roots in 2010 and supported the Republicans
full-on. They *WON'T* be supporting Obama in 2012 no
matter how much he kisses their asses.

Tesha

[RKP5637]

67. Yep, agree!!! n/t

[thanks_imjustlurking]

7. In our current political system,

if you get that high (or even almost that high) you are by definition almost certainly bought and paid for. Unfortunately. There are exceptions, but not many.

[gateley]

8. He couldn't have said anything too strongly anti-Libyan until all our citizens had

been evacuated.

Kind of on the fence about WI, et al. On one hand I agree about supporting the workers, but on the other hand he can't interfere in States' business.

[FLAprogressive]

10. I don't think he should go there, but making a strong statement could not be seen as meddling.

[gateley]

17. Can't predict how Gaddafi would react, though. He WOULDN'T have been meddling,

but it could have pissed off Gaddafi and he might have retaliated in some way. Better not to take the chance. I think this is one case where his caution is warranted. Can't say that about all his decisions, though.

[JDPriestly]

35. Obama could simply make a speech congratulating the employees

of the state of Wisconsin for their willingness to compromise on their wages and benefits and then go on to criticize some other parts of the bill in some gentle way. He should just bring attention to the willingness of the public sector union members in Wisconsin to help in dealing with the budget problems. He could not be criticized for doing that. It would place Governor Walker in the position of needing to show that he too is willing to compromise.

That is all that Obama would have to do to really make a difference. It does not take a political genius to figure this out.

Obama should single out those union members for their good efforts to deal with the situation without giving up their fundamental rights. The fundamental right to organize that Wisconsin union members are defending does not have anything to do with the budget problems that Walker claims Wisconsin has. And Obama should point that out.

He is just acting cowardly. He just doesn't want to offend big money. He is not a Democrat.

[Tesha]

59. Maybe we need to evacuate our citizens from WI first? Maybe *THEN* he'll speak out?

When the last Democrats and Trade Unionists are safely
out of Cheddernian Curdistan?

Tesha

[hulka38]

71. lol!

[Tx4obama]

11. I'm sorry but that just sounds like BS to me.

Yesterday after Obama got the Americans out of Libya, Obama did come out strong against Gaddafi and also imposed sanctions.
The UN voted against Gaddahi today.
And as far as the union issue, as far as we know the heads of the unions might be asking Obama NOT to get involved just yet - we don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
The grassroots and unions and 'Organizing for Obama' are doing a great job of uniting all the democrats right now. And as long as the Wisconsin senate dems stay in Illinois the senate can't vote on the bill.
50 states had solidarity rallies today.
In my opinion it is best for Obama to not speak on the union issue for now.

[JoePhilly]

15. +100

[tabatha]

23. +1000

[moobu2]

24. +10,000

[JDPriestly]

36. Tx4Obama. Would you advise Obama to simply thank the union members

for having shown the willingness to forgo pay rises and take a partial pay cut? He could also thank the unions for their having shown the willingness to negotiate in good faith. That is all he would have to do. That is all he would have to say. It would help the union members a lot and get support to their side. And I understand that the union members have stated that they are willing to cooperate on some of the changes to their pay even though the alleged budget problems were manufactured by Walker.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Tesha]

60. That's fine as long as Obama wants to run for re-election with the same support *FROM* Labor...

...that he gave *TO* Labor: None!

Tesha

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

16. I've never seen a President

where no matter what he says, some people in his own party completely ignore it and make up their own narrative.

Statement by the President on violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen

President Obama on the Situation in Libya

President Obama orders unilateral sanctions on Libya

Obama says Gadhafi must leave Libya 'now'



On edit, qualified because the RW does this to most Democrats.

[tpsbmam]

86. There's always a first for everything!

I don't think I've ever agreed with you before ProSense, but I do this time. There is no way I'm going to second guess this particular president on his approach to these foreign policy issues that have been pressing in the last few months and have been sometimes very tricky for an American President to deal with. And while I haven't always agreed with him, as in his weak support for the Egyptian people protesting, I also readily acknowledge that these are all very tricky and there's much I don't know about, including what's going on behind the scenes.

And frankly, I've been incredibly grateful that we have him in office while all this goes on and not some reactionary moron like GWB or Cheney or McCain or... Palin.

That's not to say Obama won't make a mess of things, it is to say that I trust him to handle things more than any of the Republicans who were in office or who were trying to win the WH instead of him.

[flamingdem]

90. +100

[Scurrilous]

91. ...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[H2O Man]

21. I agree.

I think that he's been busy in his re-election campaign for about a year now. He needs to focus more on helping American families, the working class, and the poor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. If he does not show some substantive stuff soon he may well be a one term president

It is not that there will be a Reagan style landslide against him so much as fewer of the base out working hard for him.

[JDPriestly]

38. I was impressed with Dick Durbin's speech today in Illinois.

Maybe he would be willing to run in Obama's place. I don't think Obama could make it through a primary challenge if a better Democrat stepped up, someone who could be more sincere. We don't want a radical on either side. We just want someone who is more of a Democrat, less beholden to big business.

[Tesha]

62. It's pretty hard to imagine Labor laboring very hard for him now. (NT)

[Poiuyt]

25. Sadly, I agree

After the 8 year Bush nightmare, we really needed someone who could get us back on the right track. President Obama, it seems, is more interested in avoiding conflict with the Republicans than in restoring a country of the people. Obama has the gift to inspire a nation like few presidents before him have, but he neglected to use that gift during his honeymoon after taking office. This country needs an FDR type president who can lead with vision and inspirational skills. Obama has both, but hasn't used them.

I still support President Obama, I just wish for more.

[ladjf]

27. America was seriously damaged by George Bush and his henchmen.

Obama has done very little to correct the Bush damage. (IMO)

[JoePhilly]

28. I think he takes what it means to be President more seriously than ...

any President in my lifetime.

The GOP sees the Presidency as the place where, as GW Bush said, "I have political capitol, and I intend to spend it."

I don't think Obama sees it that way. I think that he ACTUALLY sees himself as the President of ALL of America, including those who did not vote for him.

We know that the GOP never sees it that way ... but that is actually what the founders expected of a US President.

I think Obama takes the position extremely seriously, which is why we don;t see very much knee jerk action from his administration. I think he is making decisions not only based on an immediate goal, but to also make sure that his decisions will ultimately stand up over time.

[bluestate10]

30. Right.

But your accurate description of true leadership are lost on some. True leadership is about getting results in the face of relentless hostility.

[JoePhilly]

39. At times I am ticked with him ...

because as a partisan, in some ways I want him to be like Bush and the GOP ... emotionally, I want him to tell them to go %$%# off.

But, if I am honest, I have always hated how a GOP President does exactly that. The act as if they are only President for roughly half the country.

Its wrong.

My sense is that Obama is trying to do what is best for the entire country ... even that part who hates his guts no matter what he does. He is not trying to "win them over" ... he knows he will never be able to do so. And yet I think he is trying to make their lives better too ... even if they will hate him no matter what.

The mess he inherited is so huge, who knows how much he can fix. But I think that he is trying to fix as much as he can given what he has to work with.

[JDPriestly]

40. I voted for Obama because I wanted a Democratic president who would

implement democratic policies. Obama has failed me. He is not Democrat, big D or little d.

Face it. He could care less about American workers. He is mostly interested in pushing through trade deals. If Obama spent half the time trying to get jobs and investments in the US that he spends on trying to push trade deals and military ventures through Congress, our country might really recover from the Bush recession. But, no. Obama hands money to the banks and they invest it overseas. While most of the blame for the bank bail-outs belongs to Bush, Obama has done absolutely nothing to rectify it, nothing meaningful to get Americans back into their homes, and very little to change the trade policies of his predecessors that have caused so much unemployment here. In fact, Obama has worked hard to extend those destructive trade policies.

[JoePhilly]

46. Explains why Obama saved the US auto industry ... right?

The bank bailout passed before Obama was President, and once in charge he did restructure it ... it could have been far worse if he did nothing.

Since Obama took office, and passed the stimulus, the trend in unemployment and jobs is changed directions in a big way. The trend lines are mirror images of each other. So to claim he is spending no time on this and all on foreigh trade is simply wrong.

And the trade policies you complain about cut both ways. Because of them we will lose some jobs, and we also gain some via exports goods. But if you think that the US will be closing down its foreign markets you are crazy. The global economy is not something that Obama created, its been growing for about 40 years ... and Americans who did not see it coming were in many cases willfully ignorant. Let me explain that. Americans have been moving between the states to find better jobs for many years. The rest of the world wants cable TV, they want wireless ... there is no hiding from that reality.

So to pretend that the US is an economic island is foolish. The jobs of many Americans actually depend on foreign trade.

As you and I discuss this, the unemployment rate is 9.0%. The month the stimulus passed, it was 8.4%, and heading to 10.2% by November of 2009. The direction has turned.

And who do we credit, speaker Boehner?

[JDPriestly]

56. Obama did not do nearly enough.

Free trade has beaten our economy down for many, many years. That is why Americans have lost their homes and have so little money, why wages have declined.

The unemployment figures appear to be lower, but that is because so many of us have simply given up looking for jobs, taken early retirement, become homeless, just given up. Obama does not acknowledge the reality.

Jobs have been gained, but they pay less than the jobs that have been lost. Someone posted the percentages of lower income jobs, middle income jobs and higher income jobs lost and gained over the past years. Those numbers reflect the cruel reality, the true impact of free trade. They confirm that free trade is bad for Americans. there really isn't any other explanation for our economic decline.

For example, the reason that our state budgets cannot be balanced without sacrificing the middle class is that state governments rely to a great extent on property and income taxes for revenue. Of course, properties have lost value and many people who face foreclosure not only owe the bank but also the tax authorities. As for the revenue from income taxes, it, too, has declined as pay has declined.

Obama has offered no plan for raising incomes, housing values or even increasing jobs. The tax cuts for the rich are counterproductive.

Yes, the Republicans balk and refuse to compromise. But frankly, Obama has not developed a plan that is comprehensive, inspiring and appealing to the American people. He offers little disjointed fragments. That is the problem with Obama. He has no clue as to how to proceed.

And of course, he has no clue, because he refuses to look at our trade policy. In the end, it is our trade policy that is our problem.

From your comments, it appears that you are probably doing quite well. Good for you. But many, many Americans are not so fortunate. Their jobs have been outsourced. Banks pay no interest on savings. Wall Street investments cannot be trusted.

To deny the damage that free trade has done to our economy is very comfortable but not honest.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

29. Obama has turned his golden rule into the enemy of effective leadership...

Obama said, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the right." In his earnest effort to stay true to his mantra, he's lost his ability to lead.

[aquart]

33. Our special forces are in Libya. US, Britain, France.

I don't much defend Obama but the holdup was a problem with getting our citizens out. As soon as they were clear and could not be taken as hostages or killed for reprisal, we showed up in Libya.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. That report is poorly sourced and many think it is untrue

[mmonk]

37. I understood what your post meant.

By expedient would mean the path of least political controversy under present political conditions and you may be right. I had rather he be more definitive concerning what is going on in Wisconsin and across the nation. There really isn't a middle and it seems like conflict avoidance. Believe you me the right isn't conflict averse at all. They ram their ideology and tactics down our throats. Bush took advantage of any and all openings to do the ideological thing. I'm still at a point of wondering where Obama exactly is on issues enough to take decisive action.

[grahamhgreen]

47. Yup.

[Monique1]

49. what I heard today

at the rally in Phx - Obama did take a stand for the Unions and they were proud of it. What I was told he sent them a letter. What do you want him to do besides him turning this into a political fiasco?

[Monique1]

51. and I need to tell you

it was an official labor leader who mentioned this

[grahamhgreen]

55. Do you have a link to the letter?

I still actually expect him to come around.....

[Tx4obama]

50. Libya Protests: Obama Says Muammar Gaddafi Must 'Leave Now'

Excerpt

02/26/11 10:55 PM

WASHINGTON — Ratcheting up the pressure, President Barack Obama on Saturday said Moammar Gadhafi has lost his legitimacy to rule and urged the Libyan leader to leave power immediately.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/26/libya-protests...

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

p.s. You can't take a more firmer stand than that

[Tx4obama]

52. And previously....

White House caution in response to Gaddafi's actions was guided by fears for the safety of Americans
Article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Tatiana]

53. Well, Clinton was worse. But Obama does give him a run for his money.

As a poster above stated, I think the anger and frustration towards Obama stems from the fact that voters (and we all voted for him) feel like they've been sold a bill of goods. You knew with Clinton (and Gore) that they were conservative Southern Dems. Clinton flat out said during the campaign that he wanted to promote business, reform welfare, and raise the income tax on the wealthy. He did those things. Even NAFTA wasn't a surprise, given his pro-corporation stance. So I felt like I got what I voted for.

With Obama, let's be honest, the rhetoric in no way matches the reality. It's not even close. At least Clinton knew he had to throw the base something. He raised taxes on the wealthy. He signed FMLA into law. He encouraged higher ed via Hope tax credits. He threw us a few bones. And given a booming economy, the rich got richer, but the lower and middle classes also enjoyed some economic success. Obama honestly governs as though progressives are the minority and Republicans are his base. I've said many times, there is no line in the sand with this President. At least with Clinton, he called the Republicans' bluff and actually let them shut the government down. Obama would never have to guts, leadership, or moral fortitude to do so, IMO. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if that's the case.

I think we really have to do like that right did after Goldwater... really re-tool and start building relationships locally from the ground up. We can bitch all day about Obama, but he's never going to turn into the leader we voted for, in my opinion. I think if we focus on a genuine, vast people-generated movement, he will have the sense to not interfere and let nature take its course.

All hope isn't lost. It's just time to stop pinning our hopes on a man and start doing things for ourselves, as our fellow Wisconsinites have shown us.

[Tx4obama]

54. Here's a bizarre comment I saw on Palin's FB page

David Da'Jew Rothstein: Sarah i support you and Omar Qaddafi! I do not like president Obama either! Who does president Obama think he is telling Omar Qaddafi to leave the country and step down?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150096802933...

[icnorth]

63. After reading your David Da'Jew Rothstein's quote

I strayed over to Barbie's Blog to read this: Ted Barnes: "You one smart ladie. You speek for all us thinking peeple."

[Tx4obama]

89. LOL., they really do have a hard time with English over there ;)

A couple of weeks ago I saw someone's comment over there that said: "Sarah please post something about Egypt so we will know how to think."
Honest to God that is what it said.

[Vinca]

65. He's afraid of stepping on toesies.

He still thinks he'll get the right wingers to like him! Heck, he can't even get them to admit he's an American citizen. This is a time for a strong and forceful leader, not a hand holder.

[hulka38]

68. Absolutely true. n/t

[randr]

72. The teabaggers rose to power without any significant leadership

Why do we not think we can do the same? Is the WI situation not an indication of our true power?

[NNN0LHI]

75. President Obama's number one job is to ignore the loons and get reelected

And in the process keep some rapture ready Republican away from the White House.

At least that is how I see it.

Don

[GeorgeGist]

76. As far as I am aware ...

Obama has no COURAGE whatsoever.

[dionysus]

78. HE'S TEH COWARD!1!!!

[dionysus]

77. .

[Major Hogwash]

80. This is why Palin thinks she has a chance. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of that.

But, her and Mitt are just biding their time hoping that the Democrats can NOT stay united, even in the face of losing our bargaining rights in unions!!!

The Republicans already are counting on Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming to stay red, with several states in the midwest, and the South.

We vote again in 20 months -- I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR UNION BUSTING REPUBLICANS!!!

[malaise]

81. Then you missed eight years of Bush and Cheney

It was all politics

[Ilsa]

88. He inspires me tp do nothing to assist in his re-election. Aside from

a GOPer possibly getting the presidency, i'm not inclined to go all out for him.