Seriously, did so many people truly believe that president Obama could change the course....

[WCGreen]

our country was on with the flick of a switch...

Did they truly think that the first African American president could effectively govern a country when at least a third of the good old US of A still wants to fight the Civil War.? The racial part not the states’ rights part.

Look at how violent the reaction was to president Obama right from the start.

Perhaps I never really believed that president Obama was the Messiah who would take us to the Promised Land.

Perhaps so many others had such high expectations for the hope and change guy that anything below deliverance to a liberal paradise was going to disappoint.

I think president Obama looked at how the Bush Administration operated and wanted no part of that, that heavy handed Cheney method of running rough shod over the hopes and dreams of the opposition.

President Obama brought this country back from the political Abyss by carefully navigating between the entrenched beaurocrats scorched earth left behind by Bush and the disposed people yearning to be free.

Believe you me; I am not happy with the way things are going.

But all things considered, I think president Obama is doing the best he can.

Remember, the republicans, from the very start, had no compunction of pushing their agenda even though they lost big.

[TlalocW]

1. I really didn't expect a quick switch

But I did expect, and what I think I've somewhat gotten is his being able to outmaneuver them on several issues.

TlalocW

[WCGreen]

5. He is pretty adept at navagating through the mine field...

[roguevalley]

158. I'm tired of posts like the OP. How is signing the indefinite detention bill a problem for him?

Remember that when this president, YES THIS ONE or the next start rounding up Americans out of their homes. We are officially a fascist nation. Fuck Obama for this. And yes, he could have changed a lot but he's just not that in to it.

[Beam Me Up]

177. +1 eom

[Sherman A1]

183. +1, Agreed & Well Said!

[Zalatix]

212. Obama acquired his Keepers

Ever seen Babylon 5? When Mollari became Emperor, the powers behind the previous Emperor put a Keeper on him that controlled his mind and made him do their bidding. If he refused, they would set off these 500 MT nukes to kill tons of his people.

Well, this ain't Babylon 5, but Obama has his Keepers. The Plutocrats are his keepers, they are pretty much threatening to destroy America if he doesn't play along. How would they destroy America? One of several ways. The most obvious way is to get the bond markets, S&P, etc., to declare the US insolvent in its debt. That would mean a currency collapse and absolute anarchy.

On a side note: But if that's the case then Obama should call their bluff. A dollar collapse would destroy the Plutocracy, too...


Make no mistake, Obama has no control here. The Plutocrats have him over a barrel, this is why he is doing this.


Edited to add: And every President since Jimmy Carter (or even further back) has had Plutocrat handlers take him aside and tell him he is their puppet. Some Presidents accept this role willingly. I seriously think that Clinton & Obama had to be beaten into submission. Carter may have outright resisted, and was forced out of office as a result.

[Anatos]

228. There was no such bill

you are talking about an omnibus spending bill with a rider that modifies, but does not create, the power of indefinite detention. And obviously, it was a problem for him because it pissed you off, and he (and I) want you to vote for him.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. There is no question that he was handed a huge mess, for sure.

Somehow, though, I think he could have used the bully pulpit a bit more. Maybe he didn't know how...

And indeed the Republicans have been aggressive from the start. I wish the Democrats could be more like that...

[patrice]

9. Yes! I will not!! forget how his own party has not been up to the challenge.

Thanks for the reminder.

[kenfrequed]

174. Some of us were

As a voter and a citizen we would have stepped up and pushed hard had he led with what we voted for.

And the very democrats that were responsible for stabbing us in the back at every turn were the DLC/Blue Dog/Third way people. Evan Bayh basically organized a senate caucus- the senate blue dogs in December of 2008 with the expressed goal of preventing the country from going too far to the left.

We had been driving off the road, wildly to the right ditch and into the woods towards a cliff. We had gone right wing on the war in iraq, on tax cuts, on cutting social programs, on attacking a woman's right to choose, on appointing the most absurd justices imaginable and here was a group that was trying to step in the way and appoint themselves the people that would step on the scales either way to maintain their goddamned 'New Democrat' power. 'New Democrats' who were obsolete and outmoded in 2000 when a large segment of the non-voting population threw their weight behind someone that was to the left of the party. Even more outmoded in 2006 during the great Blue Wave that preceeded the coming election of president obama.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

22. hmmm, just a thought

Hi California Peggy

Just wanted to reply because it's something I wonder about....

reagarding Obama using the bully pulpit more, I just wonder if he would be heard, anyway?

I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding something---I just think that the media is totally loaded. No matter what he does or says, it's barely covered by media, and what is covered is quickly overshadowed by reporting focused on repukes and their enablers.

Add to that that he's not a showboater, like shrub was....he doesn't constantly make grand entrances onto fabricated photo-op scenes.
.
.
.
.
Also, I notice on DU that posts about successful actions he's taken get comparatively few responses. More sensational headings get many more looks and replies.....


anyway, that being said, I also wish the Democrats could be more aggressive for the sake of The People and The Planet. Repukes easily walk in lockstep; a unified front, a focused priority mission and a dedication to sticking with it might be the thing we need.

[certainot]

148. yes, obama doesnt have the b pulpit. OWS has been the only thing louder than talk radio last 20 yrs

obama does not have the bully pulpit in the classic sense. RW media can blast over anything the dems or left can do.

IMO the left has to count on truth and common sense and that can work. and once in a while they get the bully pulpit, like OWS has done. and obama has it while he's speaking and maybe for a while before and after.

but the RW think tanks have the overmessaging working well. their high paid PR people monitor and notice when the left makes media points and they put together a campaign and start it through the talk radio megaphone and pretty soon its firing on all cylinders.

RW are louder than anything obama or the left can do.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

213. yep..finding ways to break through the wall of noise is paramount right now.

the right-wing noise machine. If you haven't read that book, I recommend it. David Brock

[certainot]

215. thanks for reminding me- he's a hero for exposing all that although the swiftboating of anita hill

parts had a lot more to do with radio

the think tanks can commission all the hit pieces they want and give away as many books as they want but nothing spreads it over the country like a few days or weeks of coordinated repetition from 1000 radio stations

[japple]

178. Thank you, Blanche, for saying what I was thinking.

How did you read my mind?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

214. one of my little known talents

hee hee

[polmaven]

150. You don't really think

that the racist, obstructionist Republicans were going to respond to any type of "bully pulpit" this African American president would try to use, do you?

When they agreed, at the beginning of his term, that their number one agenda is to see that he is a one term president, they meant it. No amount of bully pulpit maneuvering will ever work on them.

[MADem]

173. An unfortunate, succinctly stated, truth, that. nt

[global1]

3. President Obama Accomplished A Lot In The Three Years He's Been At The Helm......

and he did this without the help of the Repugs all along the way. They set out to make him a one term president and they are still working at that. He has forged through their stonewalling everything he's set out to do. If we gave GWB two terms to wreck this country and bring it down to its knees - we own it to Barack Obama to give him two terms to reverse the flow.

[WCGreen]

10. That and the alternative is not an option...

[madokie]

97. Right ON

The least we can do is work our asses off getting him the second term and with a super majority in the congress would be nice too.

[patrice]

4. From day#1, what calls itself "the Left" screamed at him to fight AND pulled the rug out

from under him at the same time, for PROFESSIONAL status, a highly marketable trait ever since the Derivative Crash of '08.

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. No, we thought he would stand up for us

And he turned out to be tainted.

[patrice]

15. This assumes that YOUR definition of "stand up" is THE valid one, even though it

is based on intrinsically limited information about the PRIVATE sources of some of our worst problems in "our" toxic financial sector.

Sometimes "Mic Check!" needs to be "Reality Check!"

[Zalatix]

216. We liberals failed to stand up for us, too.

Where were the big liberal rallies when the Tea Party came onto the scene?

We should have swamped them. Met them nose to nose and showed them our strength in numbers. We did nothing of the sort.

[enough]

7. No, I seriously believed he would try. That's all. Try, stand up, that's all. (nt)

[hifiguy]

116. That's what I expected too.

Instead he just closed the book on the fraud and criminality of the banksters and the Little Chimp's maladministration ASAP. Unless wrongs are confronted, acknowledged and dealt with they will be repeated ad infinitum. Obama didn't even try and that is why I am so disgusted with him.

[Anatos]

229. I'm glad he didn't

throw away everything just to provide you the symbolic martyrdom you are thirsty for.

[jtrockville]

8. Did I "truly believe"? No. Did I "hope"? Damn straight! nt

[patrice]

186. Agreed.

[Maven]

11. Sad to see you buying into this straw-man argument. It was never the speed, it was the direction.

And the direction he took, from the day he appointed all center-right holdovers to his Cabinet, was the wrong one from day one.

[TheKentuckian]

16. There it is. Many will keep pushing the didn't do enough theme just to avoid this

Easiest proof of this ever, no one forced him to go on his Bush on steroids, appoved by the likes of Jeb, Newt, Joe Scum, and Pat Robertson education deform program.

It had nothing to do with racists or TeaPubliKlans, that is all Barack.

My anger is mostly over what he has done, not that he didn't do enough.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

117. X2 -- Absolutely right

[rhett o rick]

164. I agree. nm

[Anatos]

230. I believe

that the rules of the forum frankly prohibit me from identifying what I believe your anger is actually over.

You had naive idealistic ideas, and were disappointed. Too bad, so sad. Tell me, friend, did you support the impeachment of Clinton?

[TheKentuckian]

234. Not over the blow job, I don't think that is gemane to public affairs.

most favored for China and the trade agreements would have triggered a different response but that would never be discussed and wouldn't logically follow considering a majority being required for passage, did I support conviction on the mickey mouse? Hell no.

[Anatos]

235. Not germaine

Somehow I'm finding it hard to believe you would not find it 'germane' if the current President turned out to be a philanderer. My guess would be you'd happily add it to the list of faults and failings you use to tar (and feather) the President.

As a Democrat, Clinton SUCKED compared to Obama. I'm just saying.

[TheKentuckian]

240. You guess wrong and quite poorly based on your own preconceptions. I am no Clintonite

by any definition other than voting for Bubba.

As Democrats they are both a disgrace and I don't see a big gulf in ideology, policy, or appointments. Circumstances are different so that means what is required (and feasible) will vary.

I hope you find a little peace of mind, Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[WCGreen]

20. We truly don't know what went on behind the closed when they all met about the

financial blow out...

Anyway, that more than likely derailed his first 100 days, the honeymoon so to speak.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Well we do know that he told the Banksters

"This administration is all that is standing between you and the pitchforks."
We did not elect him to protect them, we elected him to protect US from them.
And you know, he ran on 'transparency' and yet your argument is 'closed doors, we can't know' in the first weeks of his administration. Think it through.

[Anatos]

231. We didn't elect him

to crash the economy and destroy the financial system that provides the necessary fiscal support for YOUR current lifestyle, either. This pathetic, childish, imbecilic idea that it isn't the President's job to make sure that American businesses don't wholesale fail all across the economy and plunge our nation into a monetary wasteland, well, it just pisses me off. Think it through.

I thought it was the other side that lacked the capacity for nuance. I guess that was, in its own way, idealistic.

[Dawgs]

105. +1. Couldn't be said any better.

[newspeak]

123. thank you!

"it was the direction." His cabinet appointments, especially, when it affected our financial future. Appointing someone like arne duncan in education also was one of those WTF moments. Now there's a good appointment if you want to weaken the public education sector and strengthen the for profit private educational sector. Cenk, a couple of days ago, had a report about student loan defaults, public versus private, and those from the private have way more public debt and fewer graduates than those in public. And yet, it is our tax money funding these "private" institutions.

And now the repukes in the house, with the help of a traitorous democrat, want to sell out medicare-another grab fest for the insurance industry.

I'm sick of being sold out to corporate profits--that's not why I pay my taxes. I enjoy the public institutions that we have, where my money is not given for corporate profit in turn to be used against my interests by corporate lobbyists.

In my opinion, his cabinet choices to bailout us out of this fekkin mess, was cover WS arse and maintain the mainstreet damaging status quo.

[rhett o rick]

163. "It was never the speed, it was the direction." Well said. And WTF? Jeff Immelt? nm

[mmonk]

12. I believed he and a Democratic Congress could change the direction of the

previous years, yes. But I was wrong. There is not enough conviction and too many dems that share some of the ideology of the Republicans. That's why change didn't come except for insurance adjustments.

[Anatos]

236. He did change the direction of previous years, yes.

The ship of state turns slowly. Your mistake was thinking it was possible for anything or anyone to "change the direction" to a degree you could notice in a time you'd be satisfied with. But change has happened, and it is real. That's why we got "insurance adjustments" (otherwise known to some people as "not dying", which makes it sound a bit less trivial, and 'stiff federal regulation of health insurance' to others, which is more appropriately groundbreaking, because that is a much bigger change than most people account for.)

Seriously, dude, take your piss-poor attitude and stuff it. Maybe there's a website called "Disenchanted Naive Hipsters Underground" you could post at?

[mmonk]

237. My piss poor attitude is attributable to a few very real things.

Dismiss them if you please but they are major. There are serious deficits in the party right now that prevents many from simply doing the right thing on many issues. For example, the Bush Tax cuts were extended before the Republicans took the House and that is but one major example.

[spanone]

13. k&r...

[FarLeftFist]

14. Fixing this country and changing DC will take at least 3 Presidents, all on the same page.

[patrice]

17. Funny how so many harp on how profound the corruption is, but this guy, for some reason, is

supposed to be able to function (not only just like a frakking KING, but also) as though there is NO corruption at all.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. that's human nature, thinking that way.

sadly.

You put it very well.

[ClassWarrior]

50. So because corruption is "profound," he doesn't even have to try?

I'd think "profound corruption" would be even more reason to want one's leader to be... well... a leader.

NGU.

[patrice]

52. I think it is wrong to assume there's 1 & only 1 definition of "try" and that definition is 100%

what I/you/s/he/anyone says it is, other than the person(s) most directly in the position to do whatever.

I also think it is only somewhat less problematic to think if there are more than 1 definition of "try", we know all of them well enough to identify whether they apply - problematic especially in this new-universe of Citizens' United AND the Derivative Crash of 08 that has probably exposed American equity (and we don't know how much) to FOREIGN creditors, while our debtor Financial Sector sits on piles of Treasury Bonds (and lets not even go into where the $$$ came from to purchase those ((tax cuts + bail outs))).

In short, who says he hasn't tried? Who has enough information, PRIVATE BUSINESS information mind you, especially about our toxic financial sector, who has enough of that kind of information, plus enough information about EVERYTHING PO has done, in order to make the determination that he hasn't tried.

If he leads us off of a cliff, he'll still be ... well... a leader.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Wow, you're almost as good as the Rape-Publicans at saying that nothing means anything...

...so therefore you dirty filthy liberals might as well just give up.

NGU.

[patrice]

59. Your saying that that way, doesn't make anything I said less true. Tell me there's ONE and only one

definition of "try" in the context of Presidential powers in this situation.

[ClassWarrior]

62. It doesn't make anything you said any less convoluted, either.

But keep trying to obfuscate.

NGU.

[patrice]

69. Sorry. Reality IS complex. Oversimplifications are in error.

[ClassWarrior]

73. Of course it is. For example, "complex" and "convoluted" may sound similar...

...to someone who's unintelligent, but those words have very different definitions.

That's complex, but hardly convoluted.

NGU.

[patrice]

78. So, reality isn't convoluted? All relationships, especially financial ones, are direct and simple?

Transparent?

PO should have appointed you, not Geitner.

[Estevan]

135. Wow!

SO now she is unintelligent because she doesn't agree with you?

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Funny, if 'profound corruption' is the problem

that the President does not mention that issue. Your theory is that he looks at corruption and gives up when such corruption should motivate action. That in itself is corruption on his part. Taking money is not the only corruption, also letting a culture of crime continue, that is also corruption.

[patrice]

120. No that's YOUR theory. I have said elsewhere, the situation is much more complex and convoluted

than most people can imagine, so your idea of just getting rid of the corruption is an over-simplification.

Real power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It means the opposite of that, because you can hurt people who don't deserve that, so if you're justifying your power with righting wrongs, doing more, or at least avoidable, wrongs won't create that justification. Ergo, the tasks are about teasing out who is who amongst the guilty and the innocent and helping the innocent FIRST. Everyone ASSUMES they know EVERYTHING that he is/has/or ever can do and THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Everyone assumes they know absolutely everything about his actions and at the same time they yell about the bias in our media sources. Now, what is your hypothesis about why these last two facts are true?

"We know everything we need to know about PO in order to come to conclusion x." and "All media lies."

You tell me why this contradiction is sooooooooooooooo common, please.

[patrice]

125. Hpothetical: President gets on tv & makes references to "profound corruption"; what happens next?

[newspeak]

134. it seems the MO

is to cover for the outgoing repug president. Because after the iran-contra BCCI debacle, we were to look forward. Unfortunately, some of the same players found a place in little boot's administration-to our lament.

The corruption being perpetrated has/is hurting the american people. Just like the S&L theft, just like enron and now, the WS corruption. WE ARE the ones that must pay for these con jobs. And many of the american people, have nothing left to pay.

We have the foxes guarding the hen house as usual, but still repugs and some democrats crying about regulations. regulations that have been weakened or killed by our elected officials for the benefit of a few. Who guards the american people from the con artists? because it seems the bigger the player, the more people they screw with little or no punishment.

When little boot's and darth cheney was selected, cheney told the repugs there would be no dealing with the democrats and basically, the decisions were coming from the big house. When they pushed that big pharma, screw senior bill; there were some decent repugs in congress refusing to go a long. They were coerced and threatened to change their vote. That bill increased our deficit, is making huge profits for big pharma and screwing the rest of us. After the repug bullying, shutting out-now it's bi-partisan, reaching across the aisle BS with the new crazier than shite repugs; not the Ike repugs. It seems many of those "old" repugs were purged by the previous administration.

[ClassWarrior]

51. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that if the first three are as timid...

...as President O has been in so many respects.

NGU.

[Ship of Fools]

110. That's what I've said from day #1 of his election!

It was going to take more than one term, two terms of Obama; it was
going to take a couple of generations of leftward moving presidencies. I should
think that 30 years of systemic damage to the institutions of this country
would take at LEAST a couple of generations ... I also believe that's what
Obama meant when he spoke about being transformative ... It's may be arguable,
but I believe he was the spark that has ignited youth revolt everywhere.

Just one woman's (certain to be flamed) opinion.

[JoeyT]

18. No, absolutely no one believed that.

We believed he would at least make an effort at doing what was right. That hope was shot down time after time after time.

I think Obama is doing what he thinks is best for Obama, which is usually not the same thing as what's best for the country.

[patrice]

147. WTF??? "absolutely no one"??? LINK please!

[teddy51]

19. The bigger question is did he really want to change the course? Now lets be

clear. I voted for, donated to, and all around did a raw, raw, raw back in 2008 for an Obama that said "Change you can count on". Well guess what, I am still waiting for that change. Of course there is always a however, what are the alternatives to Obama?

[WCGreen]

23. Well, I never had really high expectations..

Especially after the financial meltdown.

That really put a damper on his presidency.

[patrice]

189. Yeah, and no one talks about the difference between experiencing that campaign & being surprised

by the Crash in the markets in '08 right at the end of the campaign. Could these 2 things have anything to do with one another?

[TheKentuckian]

226. Being surprised, especially as a Senator, is evidence of wrongheaded thinking.

Actions generally have rational reactions. To be surprised by the outcome of more than a generation of increasingly risky, shortsighted, and extraction based policy executed and now mainstreamed is going to cause inherent disparity, which limits circulation, which must and I repeat MUST create a demand crisis which will create poverty and drag down government revenue.

Thrown by the timing? Ok, there is no way to know for certain when the house of cards will crash.

Surprised at the event??? How??????? It can't be THAT much more surprising that an anvil dropped off a ten floor building falling to the ground or a flame being hot.

All things might be possible but not all at once in the same time and space and damn sure just because "anything is possible" doesn't follow that everything is equally probable.

The most probable outcome of our economic policies have always been between awful and utterly disastrous, so far we aren't anywhere close to worse case (yup, really frightening) but many are trying very hard to get us there whether they realize it or not and those so open minded to give the credence and seek rather than accept compromise aren't much better.

[JohnnyRingo]

21. But Fox News promised us he would be the most liberal president in history!

Sean Hannity declared him "even to the left of Ted Kennedy", and the network ran a 24/7 narrative that we would see a massive socialist overhaul of the United States if he was elected.

Bill O'Reilly did one show after another that highlighted guests promising the "messiah" Obama would ignore proper government channels and force his far left agenda on the country.

I can't believe Fox News lied.

[ClassWarrior]

45. Faux didn't have to. Obama did plenty to encourage that impression on his own.

NGU.

[JohnnyRingo]

81. I know you're disappointed.

From where I sit, Obama has done so much in his first term I look forward to the next.

Beside The Affordable Care Ammendment and The Lilly Ledbetter Act, one of the first great things he accomplished in his first year was loaning money to save General Motors.

Despite the calls from the other side to let it die on the vine, he took bold responsibility to allow the company a second chance, thereby saving the union contracts that would have been null and void otherwise. Mitt Romney, Darrell Issa, and Sen Dan Burton all said they wanted to see GM shed it's responsibility to "legacy costs'. Needless to say, all the Republican candidates agree.

Let me put a face on this: I'm a fucking legacy cost. ...Me.

I retired from GM in 2003 and suffered the loss of most of my health care and a 50% cut in my pension through the bankruptcy. I was two months from losing my home and having to move away and seeking some kind of menial job for old people. Along came this guy you have the nerve to deem a republican clone to work behind the scenes in restoring my pension through the federal PBGC fund. He literaly saved my dignity from those bastard motherfuckers who are to this day complaining that Obama worked with the corrupt auto union in the biggest socialist sell-out in American history. Are they talking about the same president you are?

Darrell Issa, head of the Congressional Oversight Committee, is demanding every document pertaining to the so called bailout so he can find a reason to tie Obama to union corruption. His goal is to get lazy deadbeats like me off the public dole and drive a stake though the heart of the UAW once and for all. The man you perceive as a republican tool told Issa to kiss his ass.

All Issa needs now is enough people like you to work with him and get the likes of Mitt Romney in the White House and the Republicans can finish me and my union brothers and sisters off for good. Personally, I'm just hoping I don't get so old I outlive my pension and become a burden on my adult sons and my six grandchildren.

I guess you're all upset today, and I understand. You apparently fear that Obama might come to your house some night and drag you off to Gitmo. How do you sleep at night with that sword of Damocles hanging over your head?

[Ineeda]

93. This is exactly what is needed...

stories and realities like yours and those of the millions of people and families that this administration has helped -- DADT beneficiaries, kids with insurance, folks whose jobs have been saved or a student who can now go to college, etc. Not the hypothetical, but the human. I'm so tired of the negative and rampant disappointment. I don't buy into 'the less of two evils' meme. The rethugs are truly evil and this president is absolutely not. I support him 100%.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. Union since age 20

Your sarcasm in the face of other people's suffering is disgusting and not at all a Union principle
Way off the mark. Way off. Not how to do it. Go to your local with this post of yours, and ask an organizer what they think of what you wrote, will you dare to do that, for the sake of the Union? I dare you to.

[JohnnyRingo]

143. What?!!!

My story is a fact, and I literally owe my pension to Barack Obama.

When GM went bankrupt many people came to me and said the government should let the company die along with everybody's pension. They said to my face that "someone will buy the company without the extra baggage" of those negotiated union pensions. They agreed with Romney and other Republicans who wanted the UAW gone for good, and like many other Americans, Obama has been nothing if not a brother in arms against the Republican corporate powers that would watch me wither away in abject poverty.

I can tell you first hand that I would have a hard time finding someone at the union hall who agrees with anyone calling for Obama's ouster. My sarcasm is pretty soft core compared to the reaction one could expect from most of my brothers and sisters if someone dared to go to the hall and speak about giving Obama one term because he just isn't quite liberal enough for them.

Now you want me to watch my manners around some weeping hand wringer fretting over a few issues Obama hasn't taken care of, complaining that they never saw all that "hope & change" they were promised?

No I will not. I will volunteer my time and energy to knock on doors, phone bank, and donate as much of that pension Obama saved for me that I can afford to ensure a second term. Many of those UAW members will right there with me. I'll take your dare at the next retiree meeting. I promise I'll go in and tell the story about how some holier than thou democrat on a blog post told me not to be sarcastic to someone who thinks Obama is a disappointment across the board. They could use a little chuckle this time of year.

[stevenleser]

165. I think you misinterpreted his/her post. They were posting what Republicans would say about it

and disagreeing with it.

[patrice]

191. ?????????????????? Are you confused?

[patrice]

190. 1+++++++++

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I am far more cynical than that

to be honest the US is behaving like an Empire, and the President is in charge of that. There are interests at the rarified levels that the political class moves that cannot be changed. I will be even more cynical. He didn't want to either...

This is what Empires do... it really does not matter who is at the top.

Yup the Republicans have been what they have been... that is where your racism comes in. But truly things like NOT having single payer even on the table tells me that the business and political elites did not want it there.

As I said, I am far more cynical than you

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. No, but either *he* did or he was lying.

No, I never for a moment believed that Obama *would* keep his promises.

But either he was elected on a platform of... well, not very much, really - posters of him staring messianically off into the the distance, over captions like "HOPE" and "CHANGE". And if people condemn him for not living up to that, he has only himself to blame for presenting that unrealistic image.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Even FDR only halved unemployment in his first term.

And GDP grew only 8% per year during the same period.

So Obama's done almost as well as.. Almost as well as Herbert Hoover.

[Yo_Mama]

34. Your facts are close to right, but consider the context

FDR took office in 1933, after the GD had hit bottom.

Obama took office in 2009, before the bottom. It makes a huge difference. There's a structural element to boom/bust cycles fueled by lending. It just takes time.




Editing to add link to Wiki GD article, from where these graphs came:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

[MannyGoldstein]

35. So at what point can we declare that the bottom occurred *this* time?

And I think your Wikipedia graph is inaccurate, but I don't have time right now to research...

[Yo_Mama]

41. Close to right is as near as anyone can get

Because the US did not keep a lot of economic stats at the time. There is good import/export data and some decent income data/production data, decent banking data, stock exchange data, freight data and not much else. There has been a lot of economic research done on that era, and different scholars have come up with different results.

There are still errors in economic data, but to answer your question about the bottom:

Peak US unemployment in the downturn was 10.1% in October of 2009. We are now at 8.6%.

Wage and salary disbursements troughed in Q3 2009, at 6.251 trillion (from a peak of 6.6 trillion in Q1 2008). They have since rebounded to 6.641 trillion in Q3 2011, past the previous peak.

Real GDP troughed at 12.641 trillion in Q2 2009, from a previous peak of 13.326 trillion in Q4 2007. We have since rebounded to 13,337 trillion in Q3 2011, just past the previous peak, although all of these figures could be revised for years to come. Note that that interval is by far and away the worst in post-war experience. The downturn really lasted about three years.

So we came off bottom and have struggled back to a level comparable to where we came in. Wherever the bottom truly was, it is long gone. But structurally this was more similar to a depression or an old-fashioned panic than any "recession" in US history.

There is one measure I use that does not agree with what I just wrote. It is real personal income excluding current transfer payments. You can get it in Table 2.1 at BEA.gov.

Real personal income excluding current government transfer payments has not rebounded, even in aggregate. It peaked at 9.843 trillion in Q1 2008 and fell to a shocking trough of 8.845 trillion in Q4 of 2009. It has since improved. Currently in Q3 2011 it is figured at 9.166 trillion. This is not a good indicator - the private economy is still keeping people poor.

Real per capita personal income (includes social benefits) peaked in the last cycle at $33,794 in Q2 of 2008. It troughed at an excruciating $31,782 in Q4 of 2009. It then rebounded to an interim high of $32,670 in Q1 of 2011, but then started to fall again due to the Fed's QE2 and the stupid DC move of giving high tax breaks to wealthy people while raising federal taxes on the poorest people (surely one of the stupidest moves ever committed in US economic history). So as of Q3 2011 it had fallen again to $32,335.

So by that measure, I would say that you are correct and we have entered a second downturn. What I believe will happen is that inflation will now fall out and personal disposable incomes will start rising again, which will prevent another recession from truly taking hold, but they cannot really get off the bottom until we stop our epically stupid and self-destructive policies of redistributing income from the poorer people to the wealthier people, which is the policy the US administration has now adopted on a bipartisan basis.

On a per capita basis, and on a private income basis, the economy still truly sucks. But the forces that led to this were mostly over a decade in the making and Obama couldn't have affected them.

Because of his hideous policy errors in the last year, Obama has lost my support. I might as well have voted for the ghost of Ronald Reagan. But in fairness, the first part of this tragic economic decline was not at all Obama's fault - it comes from the bubble policy of two prior administrations (Clinton and Bush). Nothing Obama could have done could have prevented the contraction in force when he took office from playing out.

In the last year, this administration has made the economy worse than it otherwise would have been, in cooperation with the Fed. That is true. But only in the last year.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Do you believe that the official unemployment number is valid?

Or is it better to measure the percentage of working-age Americans who are unemployed?

I believe that the percentage of unemployed working-age Americans has steadily increased since Obama took office.

Thank you for your wonderful post. My questioning you in no way means that I don't appreciate your information!

[Yo_Mama]

53. It's not invalid, but it doesn't tell the whole picture by a long shot.

Even the alternative measures don't:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The alternative measures provide a more rounded picture, however. U-4 through U-6 all show unemployment peaking last November!

U-6 shows the peak at 17% and now down to 15.6%. We are gaining some jobs, but it seems likely that many of those jobs are either self-created or very low-paying. I look at tax receipts to measure income from jobs, and I am now finally seeing a real uptick in HI receipts (charged on all wages) that is significant enough to indicate that the economy is picking up a little.

You may well be right about the real level of joblessness. We are now gaining jobs:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
The last few months have been good.

But the population has increased too, and I think retirements are masking some level of joblessness. The employment population ratio has improved only over the last couple of months. What happens when holiday jobs disappear and if auto production shifts down?

In November of 2010 the emp/pop ratio was 58.2%. It then rose a bit to 58.5 and fell. By July it was 58.1%. After that it has improved to 58.5% in small increments. So here again, until the last couple of months I would have said that you were correct - that real unemployment kept worsening:
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.0 58.7 58.5 58.5 58.2
2010 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.4 58.5 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.1 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.5

What will tell the tale will be what happens in January - March of 2012. This has been an unsteady trend, but we were at 58.5% in July of 2010 and 58.5% in November of 2011 isn't really THAT encouraging, although it is a statistically significant change from July's 58.1%.

I don't think you can say from the employment/population ratio that the jobs situation truly has improved - not when you look at the longer-term sequence. Until the emp/pop ratio improves to at least 58.8, I don't think you CAN make the case that the employment situation is really improving. We have to break out of this oscillation around 58.3 that we have been in for a year and a half before we can truly claim that joblessness is at least easing. The bald fact is that until October, every month in 2011 had an emp/pop ratio worse than the same month in 2010.

About the best case I can support with data now is that aggregate real income from employment is increasing over the last few months, but that is still not helping the bottom line for Americans as a whole because social benefits (esp. unemployment) have dropped so much that in income terms, American workers are still losing ground. Also, I believe that the emp/pop ratio is up about 0.2% from just people losing unemployment and doing whatever odd jobs they can pick up for money, which is not what most Americans would call being "employed". If you are out picking up cans for recycling cash, that makes you "employed" under the Household Survey rules. But it is not "employed" under common sense rules.

[izquierdista]

28. If he wanted no part of Bush.....

...how do you explain all the holdovers and the continued policies?

[WCGreen]

29. It's a lot harder than you think to completely purge an administration from the prior one....

Especially when you enter the door dealing with a catastrophic economic event unfolding...

[izquierdista]

33. He didn't even try

It's a given that Cheney still has 100 moles in each Cabinet department reporting to him, but to keep Gates on? Reauthorize the Patriot Act? Extend the tax cuts when doing nothing would let them expire? Keep the same Pentagon brass Bush had? Reappoint Bernanke? Wait months and months to appoint a new slate of US attorneys? He's not even trying. The only thing Obama changes is his underwear.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. No it is not. He intentionally appointed 'a team of rivals'

and went on and on about bipartisanship and reaching out to the other Party by including them in high positions. Every other President has used only his own people, no other has retained Sec of Defense or any of that, no other has appointed so many of the other Party, he did that intentionally.
He also spent 3 years lecturing me that Republicans are 'honest brokers' with 'great ideas' and harping on the need for post partisan walks in the rain with 'my good friend Tom Coburn'. He'd criticize my Democratic Rep, turn around and praise Chuck Grassely as an honest man.
This 'oh, it is harder than you think' routine is not supported by history recent or distant.

[newspeak]

138. you do remember when little boots-cheney

did the purge in CIA-FBI? Only loyalists need apply. How about the justice department? So, obama is either comfortable with those loyalists or someone else is pulling the strings.

[patrice]

61. Toxic Financial Sector. You have to get the best possible inside information about their problems &

who better than some of those who helped crash it in the first place.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

131. Who would be better? Obviously, those who did not help the crash. Obvious to some.

[patrice]

145. I want to see the wreckage re-built/recycled into profit-sharing & various forms of co - operatives.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

175. I want to see banksters on their way to Texas prisons, without air-conditioning.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. I didn't, and I'm surprised he's gotten anything at all done...

what with a Republican Party newly refreshed with teabaggers and a large number of Democrats proving they will never be satisfied.

Is he perfect? Of course not-- no one is. He's just one pretty good guy getting through the day. After day, after day...

The vast amount of energy complaining about his "failures" could most likely be put to better use.

[Bonobo]

31. "I never believed that president Obama was the Messiah who would take us to the Promised Land"

You could fill a barn with all the straw in your OP.

Expecting that Obama WOULDN'T set the precedent that US teenagers could be killed with by secret orders from the President alone is NOT "expecting a messiah", pal.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

85. If you are refering to the son of the al qaeda member

then he was *not* the target.

its been stated here on DU i don't know how many times that Ibrahim al-Banna was the target of the attack, so why are you posting such obvious falsehoods that Obama targeted Alwaki's son(assuming thats the case your refering to, if not then i apologize in advance)

[thucythucy]

32. "Republicans, from the very start

had no compunction [about] pushing their agenda even though they lost big."

Which is why I get so frustrated at President Obama's seemingly never-ending appeals for "biparisanship" and "compromise."

Everyone here knows he is a very intelligent man, perhaps the most intelligent president we've had since JFK. And yet, it seems only recently to have dawned on him that Republicans have no interest whatsoever in helping him govern. That they would quite literally prefer to see the country burn down around us, rather than do anything that might improve things and somehow rebound to the President's advantage. Indeed, I think there is nothing Republican leaders would enjoy so much as another Great Depression or another 9-11, just so they could blame this administration.

Furthermore, the President and many Democrats seem to have this illusion that Americans (and I'm talking about your average voter here, not political junkies like yours truly and folks on DU) care about process as much as they care about results. For example, that somehow voters would have recoiled in horror had Harry Reid invoked "the nuclear option" and ended the fillabuster rules long enough, say, to pass card check and a trillion and a half dollar stimulus. The Republicans used the threat of "the nuclear option" time and again when they were in the majority to get everything from conservative judges appointed to passing the Bush tax cuts. Had a truly effective stimulus been passed in 2009, and the economy started mending in 2010, NOBODY but diehard Repubs would be grousing about how it was done. (Just as, with the unemployment rate still high, nobody cares that Obama had to compromise away a truly effective stimulus to get anything passed at all. When your house is on the line and your kids aren't getting enough to eat, what counts is results, pure and simple).

As you said, Republicans have no problem ramming their agenda through in whatever way they can. What's more, they act strategically to cut off Democratic power at the roots: destroying ACORN, attacking unions and Planned Parenthood, suppressing the vote including early voting (which favors working people), etc. The Democratic version of that would have been, upon winning the majority of both houses and the presidency, to:

eliminate funding for "abstinance only sex education" and "faith based initiatives"--which are government subsidies of right wing churches; cutting or at least threatening to cut the huge and bloated budgets of military bases in places like South Carolina and Texas and other red state subsidies, ELIMINATING any talk of vouchers that funnel off taxpayer money away from the public schools; shutting off access to the Armed Forces Network for right wingers like Rush Limbaugh (or at least ensuring that the network also features Democratic voices in equal time with Republicans)...and ENDING the Bush tax cuts for the rich at the earliest possible opportunity!

I could go on and on. None of that has happened. Even if we don't get the bases cut, the subsidies chopped--at the very least the GOP would be playing defense, the way we ALWAYS seem to be playing defense- trying to defend Social Security and Medicaid, trying to keep the EPA from being gutted, etc. It seems I've spent my entire life fighting this shit. Silly me, I thought with the election of a Democratic president, and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, we'd finally get back to trying to build a progressive society, rather than always hanging on by our fingernails to keep from slipping into some social Darwinian/Ayn Randian abyss.

Now of course it's too late--Republicans, who were on the ropes in 2009, have the House, the plurality of state houses (where they are busy gerrymandering more safe GOP districts and rewriting election laws to suppress Democratic turnout) and the distinct possibility of taking the Senate in 2012. It's as if Democrats learned nothing from 1994-2000.

I like this President. I admire his intelligence, his personal fortitude, his persistance, and his ultra-cool demeanor. But I am very disappointed in how things have gone these past three years.

What our president seems to lack is the zest for confrontation, as well as compromise, that informed so much of what FDR, Truman, and LBJ said and did. (I can't, for instance, imagine any of those men forgiving a turncoat Democrat who spoke at a GOP convention the way President Obama forgave Leiberman. A "Leiberman" in a party led by FDR, Truman, or LBJ would have been bounced from his committee chairmanships--at the very least--and frozen out of the White House forever). FDR "welcomed their hatred," Truman gave them "hell," JFK publicly cursed out corporate CEOs. And yes, I know, we can't have Obama acting like "an angry Black man." But to hell with that. People's lives are on the line. Our entire future is at stake. Maybe it's time for a little desk pounding and a few raised voices on our side.

The president's speech last week was certainly a step in the right direction. One could do worse than channel the trust busting side of Teddy Roosevelt. I hope we see more of that.

The GOP will hate this president, no matter what he does. So why not do what's right, or at least try to do what's right and go down fighting, rather than what's expedient?

The audacity of hope, and all that?

Sorry if I've ranted. I'm so glad I got that off my chest!

And just in case there's any doubt--of course I will vote for, support, and encourage this president as best I can. I have his back.

I just want to be absolutely certain he has mine.

[XemaSab]

43. .

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Yeah, what you said

I remember when Democrats had guts.

[Demit]

108. GREAT post. Says everything I've felt over the last few years, as I've watched this president

miss opportunities and back away from confrontation, while stepping up prosecution of whistleblowers & medical marijuana growers and doubling down on his predecessor's unitary power grabs. And blithely allowing his spokesmen to bash his (supposed) base.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt over & over in the beginning. But his continued obsession with bipartisanship only pleases the so-called 'centrist' media, who hold it up as a value in itself so that they may conveniently ignore discussing the real causes of Washington gridlock: Republican fanaticism and the stranglehold that corporations have on government.

I want to encourage this president too—to, as you say, do what's right, or at least try to do what's right. My problem is, I don't know what giving him another four years would be encouraging him to do. It might encourage him to think that what he did in his first four years is just hunky-dory. And it's not, not by me.

[Martin Eden]

137. Best Post I've seen ...

... especially considering all the threads & posts with DUers stating they will NOT vote for Obama in the general election.

[patrice]

192. Why not "do what's right and . . ?" because his/our enemies CAN punish him by HURTING people.

If he was doing what was expedient he wouldn't be risking his presidency on caring about the fact that he has responsibility for what OTHERS can do to hurt us financially and otherwise. He'd do whatever is politically expedient and let stuff others do just happen, because he can always say something TTE "THEY did it to you. It wasn't my fault." Sound familiar? Plausible Deniability is a HIGHLY MARKETABLE QUALITY.

[thucythucy]

209. I think I understand your point,

Patrice: that President Obama worries about the real life consequences of government action or failure to act, while the GOP doesn't give a f-k. We don't want people to suffer as they would, for instance, if unemployment benefits were cut off because of some Republican hissyfit. And so Democrats in general and President Obama in particular caves, again and again and again.

The problem is that, since the Republicans know this, they can basically get Obama to do anything, sacrifice anything, in return for short term relief. And it keeps getting worse. Over the summer, in order to raise the debt ceiling, Republicans forced a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts on the top .1%, negating virtually any possibility of implementing anything in the next two to four years in terms of shoring up the social safety net, infrastructure, environment--let alone another stimulus, which this economy desperately needs. That cave bought us, what, ten months of unemployment benefits? Now it looks like, in return for an additional TWO months of benefits, Obama is giving up, again, raising taxes on billionaires, and conceding that he'll have to decide sooner rather than later whether or not we should risk destroying a significant portion of our water supply so that Texas oil millionaires can make more millions. How did the debate shift from jobs to deficits, anyway? Why are Democrats buying the Republican hokum that the problem is deficits (and government regulation!) instead of jobs jobs jobs? Every economist worth a grain of salt is saying we need to increase demand, which means stimulus, that cutting social programs risks sending the economy back into a tailspin. So what are we doing? Cutting (nondefense) spending!

Worst of all is Republicans haven't yet found anything Obama won't give up in the long term in order to avoid short term disruption. Which means they just keep escalating their demands. And each cave makes taking a stand the next time around that much more difficult. Who on earth will believe him now, if he says, "I will veto any bill that..."? How many times has he said those words? How many times has he actually vetoed anything? David Brooks on the PBS NewsHour tonight was practically giddy at how successful Republicans have been rolling Democrats in general and the president in particular. He's got a huge majority in favor of raising taxes on the rich--he's got a Congress with a 9% approval rating--and he's STILL "negotiating" from a position of weakness.

If Obama had made a stand in the summer of 2009, and said (as Clinton did in 1993), GOP or no GOP, this is the program that HAS to pass, we might not be in the mess we're in today. Furthermore, I think, given his popularity at the time (remember when he was at 60% approval?) people would have rallied behind him (I sure would have) and it might have happened. Instead, we get cave after cave after cave. We get him offering to "compromise" even before what should have been a real fight even began. "Everything is on the table" for Democrats, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But those precious Bush tax cuts--God forbid we go after them!

Latest headline: funds for elderly people to help offset their heating bills this winter have been cut by a billion or more, while the defense budget (which went up 70% under Bush) will be INCREASED. You want to try to tell me that elders in New England, forced to choose between paying for food or paying for heat, aren't going to suffer? Or that we need more money for our bloated military-industrial complex?

Americans are suffering already, hugely. At least, if we were fighting to end this mess with direct, strong leadership from our president, they might feel like their suffering served a higher purpose--as those who suffered during WWII felt, as union members getting their heads busted by copper mine thugs felt in the 1920s and '30s. Instead, they--and I--see no end to this suffering, which is occurring against a constant, insidious erosion of everything that makes life livable in this society for the vast majority of people living here.

My strong conviction is: it didn't have to be this way.

Again, I've vented. Part of my frustration, my anger, is I want this president to succeed. As a nation we desperately need him to succeed, to win, to prevail. I don't buy that he's simply a pawn of Wall Street, that this is all some labrynthine plot. I'm hoping against hope he'll somehow prevail.

I suspect there are others here who feel as I do. We WANT to support this president, but sifting through the wreckage of "the audacity of hope" sure makes it tough.

Okay, end of rant.

Best wishes.

[DevonRex]

36. I honestly don't know why you bothered

to write this. I agree with you and I see a few (relatively) others do.

[CakeGrrl]

37. And has managed an impressive amount of accomplishments in spite of all that.

For all the incessant complaints about what a failure he's been from some corners, where is the challenger who should so easily knock him off the perch of the Presidency if that's really the case?

[ClassWarrior]

48. Wow, it seems like all you talk about is a primary challenge to Obama.

You must really be spoiling for one.

NGU.

[Major Hogwash]

38. Obama has already changed the way Washington works.

One of his biggest promises come true. From the very first day that he started his job in the White House, President Obama has acted with all Americans in mind, not just those who voted for him.
He has set the bar very, very high for the next president that will follow him.

It is always darkest before the dawn.
Things will never be the same in this country as they once were, for the better.
There is no longer any doubt about what the Republican party stands for now: defending the outrageous taxless gains of wealthy individuals, defending the conglomeration of the large oil companies, defending the illegal actions by the largest banks in the country, and protecting the immoral gouging by huge pharmacological companies.

Al Gore warned everyone in 2000 what the Republicans were all about.
The Republicans have pulled the last rabbit out of their hat, and it is a dead rabbit!!
There is nothing they can do about it - they can't stop progress in this country!

The only thing that bothers me even a little is that Robert D Novak is not alive today to see the self-destruction of the GOP.
That's something that would have been interesting to watch on tv, his spouting and fuming denials that the GOP was not going to implode like the Whig party did over a 100 years ago.

"The times, they are a-changing."

[patrice]

55. The legislative process is quite a bit more transparent than it was, but still not enough.

[AverageJoe90]

89. TBH, I'm not quite as optimistic as you are, but........

At least he's done some good.

[donheld]

39. No, but i did think he'd try

Try a lot harder than he did. NDAA/SOPA

[Taverner]

40. I think we're all fucked no matter what

[ClassWarrior]

42. That's what happens when you convince someone that you'll do something.

They expect you to try.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

44. In fact, this thread is a good example of the "Flounder Syndrome."

"Flounder! You fucked up. You trusted us."



NGU.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. I expected him to TRY

But he's acted as if his job is not to offend the Republicans, and they know it.

Like all bullies, they go after anyone they perceive as weak.

[patrice]

54. Like it or not, his job was not to tip the train-wreck teetering on the edge of the cliff

into the abyss.

[HangOnKids]

56. patrice his job was to save it

And he has not.

[patrice]

64. Tell me exactly how he could have gotten precisely the PRIVATE BUSINESS information he needed

in order to save it? -please.

Nationalize business contract law?

I don't think so.

[HangOnKids]

67. He is the Pesident patrice

He gets anything he wants.

[ClassWarrior]

70. Yeah, once again we're told he's ALL POWERFUL... or he's totally powerless...

...depending on how the person arguing wants to make Dems look bad.

NGU.

[patrice]

193. "told he's ALL POWERFUL"?? LINK please.

[patrice]

80. Wow. You really do think he's a king. Wonder how the U.S.A. will feel when he orders PRIVATE

businesses and banks and such to hand over whatever he needs to know in order to get Democrats in Congress to write absolutely perfect laws in order to save our asses from what, in significant part, we did to ourselves.

[HangOnKids]

82. King?

Perfect laws? What we did to ourselves? So many mixed messages. Sad. The part about what we did to ourselves is quite Randian patrice. And again sad.

[patrice]

122. So you're going to discount the effects of MSM propaganda & commercialism? All Americans have

proactively and fully informed themselves and acted in accordance with their civil responsibilities, so these horrible things that have happened were done TO them?

e.g.
We didn't just pretty much cheer ourselves right into an immoral and illegal war that is part of what has ruined this country financially?

[patrice]

126. Insults are the inevitable recourse of the weak.

[patrice]

129. If you don't understand, perhaps a question is in order. That is unless, your

understanding is perfection, so all issues are the short-comings of others, couldn't possibly be you.

just in case you need a little help.

[patrice]

128. So you prefer a culture of victimhood?

[ClassWarrior]

57. What the hell are you talking about?

You know, the Rape-Publicans are also in the habit of telling liberals that if we stand for ANYTHING, the world will come to an end tomorrow.

NGU.

[HangOnKids]

60. The edge of a cliff thing

is weirdly cartoonish. Maybe I am dreaming but didn't he ask us to hold him accountable?

[ClassWarrior]

63. Yeah. But admitting that doesn't keep Dems divided.

NGU.

[patrice]

156. Victimhood again. What about autonomy? Those who do not WANT to be divided will NOT

be divided.

[patrice]

149. You are assuming that YOU know with 100% validity what to hold him accountable for.

Have you EVER asked yourself whether you do in fact know what you actually need to know?

[patrice]

66. So, let it all go over into the abyss and THAT way we'll know for sure what of our financial

sector is flubber and what isn't?

What about what isn't? Might we lose vitally significant value in anything that doesn't survive the pit?

What about the flubber? Will there be enough of it? enough to give momentum to less resilient entities? Would a flubber-financial sector even be good for anyone except itself? Can we eat flubber?

[ClassWarrior]

68. Again, what the hell are you talking about?

It really sounds like you're holding a private conversation with the voices in your head.

How would single payer or investigating the crimes of the Bush** administration, for instance, send anything into your mythical "abyss??"



NGU.

[HangOnKids]

75. Private conversation in her head sums it up

Sad. Not getting this abyss thingy.

[patrice]

77. Our economy IS being held hostage, is it not?

[HangOnKids]

72. Flubber and The Pit? WTF?

Have you been drinking or are have you been watching too many cartoons again?

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. to be perfectly honest,,,,he is doing pretty much what I expected..I knew he was a centrist

more or or less in the same political league that Bill Clinton was and he is doing pretty much what - with some differences than what Hillary would have done. Thus I am really not "disappointed." Still many people really were caught up in all the talk of "the new FDR" and the slogan - "change we can believe in" and really imagined - contrary to the evidence I must say - that they were electing a slightly more pragmatic version of Michael Moore. Thus they are very disappointed. But as a progressive I believe we should always push the progressive principles at every opportunity. I do think that following the Wall Street meltdown and the sweeping mandate for change - he could have at least tried to push a considerably more progressive agenda. But he didn't want to. That is not where he is coming from. But, to be honest I knew that when I supported hiim. Still the role of the progressive is to push the progressive envelope at every opportunity as far as it can possibly go.

[Fearless]

71. When you campaign on hope people are going to be left disappointed...

Hope is ambiguous and defined internally by each voter. For instance, there are a lot of things that I desperately want to see this nation do, and the slightest chance that these things could come true is a powerful motivator.

[akbacchus_BC]

74. You need to get a grip on the situation. First of all, the President got an anti-gay guy

to his inauguration. Frankly, I felt sorry for him as he inherited a lot of shit but he got into the White House with a majority and he flunked with his bipartisan crap!

No other president in the US got so much support and frigging blew it! Wars and more wars, resusicating rules when UNESCO decided to include Palentine for educational purposes, even went as low to prohibit Castro to attend a function in Trindad because the venue was at the Hilton Hotel.

obama has fucked up and he wants peace in the middle east! No other country in this world did a kangaroo court and got rid of Saddam! Bush and his cohorts still running around and Obama doing bipartisan shit over and over!

You all need to speak up, same shit happening here in Canada. Harper was Bush lap dog, now they signed a border treaty to fuck Americans and Canadians if you even got caught with a small bit of marijuana (sorry for spelling). And do not forget, all your parking offences show up at the border!

The more I think about it, Harper and Obama are two peas in a fucking pod!

[patrice]

76. Guess what, to me, this isn't even that much about him. To me, it's about the best chances

we have had for a long time to significantly increase the right to organize and maybe even EFCA 2.0 and it's about the best chance we have had ever for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, HR 676, or some version thereof. It's also the most crucial point to act in support of alternative energy and environmental protection. It's now, or an entirely different kind of chances, if any at all, in '16 or '20.

All of which possibilities all you all can kiss goodbye if we fail in the executive or legislative efforts in 2012 and turning folks off to Obama is a sure-fire way to make that happen, so pardon me if I wonder about all of this concern for our agenda relative to PO the weakling, when there's no more sure death to our agenda than 4-8 years of some Royal Repuglycan Jerk.

[akbacchus_BC]

79. Bet you know that more people you insure, the cost will be less ... Why the US does not have single

payer medicare boggles my mind but in the end, it is all the money the politicians need when election time comes around and make a wild guess who supports them!

The system is fuced up and it needs changing but nobody is going to bell the cat!


And before I forget, didn't Obama promised to close Gitmo! Can you imagine a loved one locked up for so many years. OBama is fucking useless!

[thucythucy]

210. I thought I was done for the night

but I had to respond to this.

"The right to organize." Which would have been significantly enhanced if card check had been a priority. It also didn't help that pretty much every Democrat on the national scene, up to and including the president, allowed ACORN to be dismantled by some two bit thug with a digital camera. That alone was a major monstrosity of a cave. After all ACORN has done over the years to get poor people and working people to register to vote (and thus help Democrats get elected)--to get kicked to the curb like that at the first whiff of a phony scandal--it still makes me sick to think of it.

But I agree, given the alternatives we have no choice but to back Obama in 2012, if only to forstall an even worse and far more evil alternative. And with any luck the GOP will implode much as it did in 2008.

But it's a hell of situation to be in: when your best hope is that the people who want to sell us into servitude are truly as stupid as they seem on TV.

[progressoid]

83. "I think president Obama is doing the best he can"

The same can be said for Bush. He did the best he could too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. Well said.

[patrice]

152. NOT true. I'm amazed you think he couldn't have done the war better. Assuming it was a given for him

, something he had been preparing to do at least since 1997, why didn't he do it better?

Bush did NOT do the best he can.

[a simple pattern]

170. The purpose of that war was not "WIN IRAQ"

it was "create boondoggle, steal money" and they both did fine, just fine

[newspeak]

225. yeah, little boots did the best he could

and was very successful in making his "friends" and his family richer, while almost bankrupting the american people so they could "drown" all of those "socialist" programs and allow his greedy friends more access through privatizing the public sector. Then the americans who are already suffering can pay even more for services, while working for crummy wages.

little boots was very successful for accomplishing what he set out to do.

[DesertFlower]

84. i've been disappointed, but maybe i expected too much.

he'll still get my vote.

[DeathToTheOil]

86. Highly Recommended!

You Americans are a great people, but one of your flaws is "The Ideal." It just doesn't exist in the real world.

[newspeak]

136. no, it's more like charlie having the football taken away

and we keep doing it over and over again. Well, you know, business as usual is killing many american people. It's amazing how reagan, poppy, little boot's fed us the trickle on theory, that seems to be supported by some democrats; and yet, stopping it for the health and well being of many americans is so damn hard to do. Now I wonder why? Maybe because it still aids the very few, while crushing the rest of us, still.

[harmonicon]

87. I think having that much wool over your eyes would be very itchy.

Yet you can still type!!

There is a lot of rationalizing going on in what you wrote, and all of it is really very transparent.

[patrice]

195. It's only rationalizing when the other guy does it. (google Attribution Error in Social Psychology).

When you do it, it's called reasoning.

In either instance it has to do with empirical REALITY, instead of the baseless abstractions called "Ideals".

Discussions of empirical reality from a variety of perspectives are good for those strong enough to engage in them.

[AverageJoe90]

88. I mostly agree, although I believe Obama needs to start stepping up and KICKING ASS a little more...

.......and hopefully, he will do just that.

[99th_Monkey]

90. I expected Obama to DO what Obama SAID HE WOULD DO. period.

And he didn't.

Bush -- that little pea-brain twit -- at least did one thing right ... he just fucking DID whatever crazy foolish thing he wanted to do, and used the WH to do it all over the rest of us. So then by comparison Obama, like ... came into office almost asking permission to actually BE president .. once elected. Meanwhile he was enlisting all the Wall St. crooks who everyone knows are crooks, to "steer his economic policy" ... please.

I did NOT vote for ReThuglican-Lite, I voted for real honest to goodness progressive change, from a constitutional law expert, and what I got was more endless ME wars, more pot busts in violation of state laws, and now more "indedinite detensions" of US Citizens by the US MIlitary on US soil, in direct violation of Posse Comitatus and the US Constitution.

Obama gets a fail from me, sorry.

I'll vote for him, but not happily.

And I'm not donating money or working on his campaign..
just too much betrayal on his part to warrant that.

I'm putting my organizing time, resources and energy
into the Occupy movement, where I KNOW what I get
in return, and I sleep better nights to boot.

[deutsey]

92. +1

[deutsey]

91. He's pretty much been what I expected, unfortunately

Even though I voted for him, I was never on the bandwagon, especially after I heard that Summers and Geithner were on his team.

It is ironic that Bush, who lost the popular vote (and the electoral, imo) in 2000, was able to ramrod much of his agenda through (granted, he exploited 9/11 to do so), while Obama won by a huge margin with a large, energized electorate and has been politically hamstrung, to put it nicely. Others, of course, may see it more cynically.

Either way, I think that shows where the real power is in this country and it ain't with us...or it's not with us in the current electoral system.

That's why we need to keep organizing and agitating for our own interests because nobody else is going to.

[TBF]

94. There's really no need to patronize -

we all realize what we're dealing with here.

[Myrina]

98. No, but I at least thought he'd try.

Not spend 3.5 years scolding his supporters to kiss and make up with the GOP.

[eomer]

99. We'll never know what he could have convinced the Democratic majority to do

in 2009/2010, because he chose instead to play bipartisan footsie with the Republicans, from which we got nothing (as anyone could have predicted).

[WCGreen]

107. He did promise to change the way we do business in DC

The problem is the GOP part of the country decided to go ultra partisan.

[eomer]

159. A foolish promise (or a disingenuous one), followed by a predictable result.

He owns the result. It was either a very stupid approach or else one that he intended all along to fail and used only as a pretense to humor us. Either way he is the one responsible for the horrible result because it was his approach, not mine.

Knowing in advance that the GOP was what it was, he could have instead chosen to get some really important stuff done. By trying and failing at that bipartisan BS, he squandered our opportunity to improve the lives of many people who instead are suffering worse than they had to.

[fascisthunter]

101. Nobody hear stated changing the country would be as easy as flipping a switch

"President Obama brought this country back from the political Abyss by carefully navigating between the entrenched beaurocrats scorched earth left behind by Bush and the disposed people yearning to be free."

Um no... we are still on the same path and accelerating towards having less rights than before.

[certainot]

151. i've seen it implied often. it was primary framing for the RW media as soon as obama got in

right wing radio has been claiming since obama won that HE was claiming to be the messiah, that he was going to fix everything, solve all the problems, get the economy roaring.

and a lot of that has been showing up from trolls and some progressives absorbed it also.

[patrice]

196. 1+++++++++++++ but I don't know whether to be happy or sad that they're hanging with us.

By their memes you shall know them.

[fascisthunter]

198. feel free to come out and accuse me of such a thing.... instead of implying it

[certainot]

211. you wrote NO ONE here - i didn't imply anything about you

plenty of people got it wrong and were fooled, many without being trolls

[fascisthunter]

218. sorry certainot

[Wait Wut]

103. No, I never expected overnite success.

During the campaign, I saw many, many others who did. I kept my mouth shut and shouldn't have. I knew they weren't basing their worship of him on reality. I was 100% behind him...but, not at first. I didn't jump on the Hope and Change bus until long after I had learned more about him and truly listened to what he was saying. There was no promise of a quick turnaround. On the contrary, he said it would take time. I listened. I knew he was going to run head first into obstruction. I knew that the mess he was walking into was a lot worse than any of us had imagined. And I had hope for him. I still do.

Despite being called a "cheerleader", I never was one. The others were and were let down. I should have told them to pay closer attention. I was more concerned about getting him elected than ensuring his supporters were casting their vote with realistic hopes.

Now, I have to listen to those same people whine because things weren't done "fast enough", not "good enough", not "liberal enough".

[patrice]

200. You speak very precisely for me. That's exactly my experience.

This man has not lied to us.

Things HAVE been very tough and having various entities out there intentionally acting to foment negativity toward him has only changed what he is capable of doing and is making everything much tougher for him and for ALL of us.

Oh, but don't mind all of that. People will get their rocks off playing revolutionary on the internet and there's nothing wrong with that. Free Speech and all, you know. It's not like what some people are doing is anything like shouting fire in a locked and darkened theater or anything like that. That's Act II.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Nope, starting with the McClurkin hate rallies

I knew he was a cynical, conservative man. Dogma and mediocre rhetoric do not add up for me to 'smartest guy in the room' they add up to 'bigoted politician'.

[Dawgs]

106. It's his judgement and lack of fight, not the results.

It's stupid to think that others believed things would change over night.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. well said, Mr. Green

I, for one, knew better.
The issues he inherited are not easily solved especially when the Republicans do everything they possibly can to thwart his every effort.

[MNBrewer]

111. He not only hasn't changed course, he has gone full speed ahead on some of the worst Bush Era abuses

A Police State you can believe in!!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

112. I didn't expect an overnight cure-all to 20-30 years of bad policies and bad decisions-

mostly coming from Republicans. I also didn't believe that Obama would be able to fix the economy and reverse all of Bush's damage within 4 years (though it is moving in the right direction). I'm thrilled, however, with everything that he's accomplished so far despite the fact that members of both parties in Congress, particularly the GOP Tea Party, have done a ruthlessly effective job of kneecapping him at every turn. Lest anybody accuse me of "making excuses" for President Obama's failure to deliver on some initiatives (i.e. closing Gitmo down) or not being able to do more than he did on some issues, I feel that the level of obstructionism perpetrated by the GOP, which has been nothing short of massive and unprecedented, cannot simply be overlooked nor simply chalked up to poor Presidential leadership on Obama's part. Failing to re-elect him next year and possibly even allowing the Republican Tea Party to take full control of Congress next year would be a HUGE mistake IMHO.

[patrice]

202. Re Gitmo. I saw an analysis the other night, from a reliable source

(I'll go look for it in a while) that said what happened in the NDAA could help him with his legal problems in closing Gitmo, now that he's the one who decides about the detention of non-citizen persons. What do you think?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

217. I didn't realize that

but if it's true, then it might have been worth ultimately refusing to veto it.

[TheKentuckian]

241. Yeah, he lacked the fortitude and will to just move or start trial proceedings

with a generational majority and instead went for threading the needle with a new Gitmo north, which required appropriation and then went on to sign unconstitutional restrictions on executive authority on his own agenda is going to waiver Gitmo away?

Really?

[krucial]

113. Right on the money

Republicans of today,are the same as those who used to fight against the civil rights movement during MLK,and it is so bad that they would rather sink the country than do anyhting to hepl,that they believe might make Obama looks good.
The worse the economy gets under Obama,the happier they are.I would sya that even of the economy was good and everything elese going right,these Republicans would still find a reason to demonize Obama and his wife.He getds ripped for going to hisd grandmothers funeral,he gets ripped for going on vacation,he gets ripped for commenting on sports,he gets ripped for playing golf,he gets ripped for playibg basket ball,he gets ripped for doing nothing or is slow to do something,and he gets ripped for doing something,and blamed for jumpig too fast to do it,they think every thing he does is criminal,and many wanted him impeached from the time he got elected.
They are,and have been extremley mad and upse,t because he won the election,worse yet,he kept his muslim name,thats is like a slap in the face to them.

Obama is a combination of every thingRepublicans hate,he is a minority,his mother was a White Liberal,his father was Black,a African and a Muslim/Arab,all the things they hate with a passion
They have been in perpetual rage ever since Obama won,and also said their mission was to see him fail,and make him a one term president,so far they have kept their promise.
Then again,Obama have not help his cause much, by constantly caving in and trying to be nice to them,all it has done for him is garner him more hatred and scorn from his detractors,but he dont seem to get it,he keeps trying to appeal to their better instinct,but the fact is they have none
So he should just go ahead and do what he has promised his supporters when he was running for the office of president

[patrice]

203. Re his getting ripped by Repukes: I think they're getting even for what a miserable fucking piece of

crap failure W was.

[mistertrickster]

114. Yes . . . with Obama-for-America he could have

He had e-mails of 2 million Americans who had pre-volunteered for whatever he was ready to do.

Even before he was President, he asked for a national day of service, and some friends of mine and I organized a river clean-up and got on the evening news.

Then he became President and the only thing I got from Obama-for-America was "send money."

He screwed up, big time. Not us, him.

Eventually, people got so frustrated that the Occupy Wall Street movement was born--in spite of Obama's lack of support.

Now he and the Democrats don't get to lead anything . . . we're left to muddle through on our own.

[bhikkhu]

115. What would have satisfied me -

Ending the Iraq war. Starting no new wars. Ending torture and secret imprisonment. Cutting the massive Pentagon budget.

I'd say ending the Afghanistan war too, but then he ran on expanding the Afghanistan war. The current draw-down is encouraging, but in any case, the first four points there have been done, and I do see them as a change in course. How could one not?

Bonus stuff (that's not likely to happen) - joining the ICC, signing the international ban on landmines, brokering peace between Israel and the Palestinians...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

118. No Republicans, racists or otherwise, forced him to choose Timothy Geithner. That just 1 example.

[patrice]

121. You do understand the nature of our particular corruption, don't you? Republicans aren't

the only thing that can pressure a President effectively.

wow.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

132. "our particular corruption"? What do you mean "our," Kemo Sabe.

I expect to vote for other Democrats. But I'm not going to participate in approving any corruption or actions that that further and protect the corruption.

Let me know when HE-OTHER-THAN-GINGRICH has an Administration that will vigurously investigate and prosecute banksters.

[patrice]

144. Unless you're living completely off of "the grid" & surviving entirely on your own abilities,

we will not bite the hands that feeds us and those hands won't bite the hands that feed them, e.g. Derivative Crash of '08, e.g. cheerleading ourselves into the Invasion & Occupation of an INNOCENT nation known as Iraq.

Not happy about this corruption/weakness, but that IS the way it is and it intrinsically limits anyone's ability to respond to the oppression effectively.

Reality, including our fucked-up government, is, to a significant degree, a product of who/what we are, ergo . . .

NOTHING'S going to change unless each one of us at least begins to change ourselves and . . .

All externalizations/projections of those individual responsibilities to authentically change are mitigated by entropy.

[totodeinhere]

140. I voted for him thinking he would try to stand up to that corruption, not use it as an excuse. n/t

[shanti]

130. no, but i expected a difference

from his predecessor!

[Orsino]

133. You can't undo 30-50 years of harm in four years.

Especially when you don't fully commit to reversing any trends.

[SomethingFishy]

139. Nope had no hopes of that...

And I'm getting tired of this old bullshit line. The FACT is while Obama has done some good things and many things he couldn't do were not his fault, he has also made some of the worst appointments ever. He has made some seriously questionable decisions starting all the way back to Rick Warren.

Sure much about Obama's presidency is debatable, but the truth lies somewhere between "Obama is no better than Bush" and
"President Obama brought this country back from the political Abyss by carefully navigating between the entrenched beaurocrats scorched earth left behind by Bush and the disposed people yearning to be free."

Obama is not the hero and he's not the villain he's just another politician more worried about being re-elected and how history will judge him then he is about the people he's governing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

141. Certainly not. Centrists like Obama are too fond of the status quo.

[hfojvt]

142. "how violent the reaction was to President Obama from the start"

So the big rallies in Chicago and on inauguration day were "violent reactions"?

Compare that to the scene MM shows in Fahrenheit 911. I think it goes something like this

"They pelted his limosine with eggs. For the first time in history, the traditional walk was scrapped. IN ORDER TO PREVENT AN EVEN BIGGER RIOT the limosine hit the gas..."

So choosing not to fight to end the Bush tax cuts was "the best Obama could do"?

Sorry, but I think the "best he can do" would involve a little bit more fight and a lot less Republican rhetoric.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/165

I am not judging him as much by results. If he had tried and failed, I could appreciate that.

I have repeatedly quoted Biden. "Failure at some point is inevitable. Giving up is unforgiveable."

Obama las December "I know some people want me to fight, but I am not gonna, I am gonna surrender instead."

Then since then, he has been fighting to spread the Republican message - tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy. His jobs program? Largely social security tax cuts, 47% of which goto the richest 20% of Americans.

I give him an F- for effort. Not results, effort.

[yurbud]

146. It wasn't Bush's methods we objected to, it was the POLICIES

If he had pursued the same policies coloring entirely within the lines, he still would have been a disaster.

To the extent that people are unhappy with Obama, it is not so much with the process, but the results and often the starting points.

And on some issues, like his choice of economic advisors, ed secretary, and foreign policy, he followed the broad outlines of the Bushies.

I will vote for him over any Republican but we have to hold his feet to the fire to keep him from serving up more DLC corporate toadying shit.

[Roland99]

153. What? Obama gave up on us FROM THE GET GO!!

he hired BoA and Goldman execs for his economic team and cast aside the progressives he had around him during the campaign

he's kept Guantanamo open.

he's continued spying, illegally, on Americans.

he's (and the Dems in the Senate) have caved to the GOP at every turn.

[certainot]

154. a lot of new voters fell into the trap of high expectations set by the right media, espec RW radio

the right claimed obama was claiming to be the messiah and savior and a lot of new voters got sucked into it.

1000 RW radio stations got that going very well and it flowed into all media, with trolls on blogs too, and then any disappointment was an obama failure. they're still woking that game very well and a lot of the left still get sucked in.

also a lot of new voters also had not been paying attention to anything other than MSM and had no clue how corrupt and media dominant the right has been the last 25 years, stealing and sabotaging elections, etc. and were way over the top expecting a black dem pres to be able to do much at all.

[Cheap_Trick]

155. He's not doing the best he CAN.

He's doing the best he's ALLOWED to do.

He's allowed to do just enough to keep the right all pissy, all for show.

Hillary would not be allowed to do any different.

Kucinich would not be allowed to do any different.

If he tries to overstep his boundaries, TPTB will give him a ride through Dealey Plaza.


From Bill Hicks:

"...No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'"


All Hail the United States of Koch.

[patrice]

157. AND they CAN do a LOT more than just shoot a President, like start more wars and such.

Somehow people use the word "corruption" only to apply to whoever they think the opposition is. They don't get how completely ALL pervasive this thing is.

[newspeak]

224. then if that is the case

then it appears it doesn't matter who we vote for, all will just maintain the status quo. Maintain it until enough people finally wake up and see what's being perpetrated on the country, and it is not for the good of the country. FDR apparently betrayed his class; but there is not class warfare, right? Those traitors attempted a coup. You can take gross corruption so much; when it starts hurting the majority of the people and nothing is done to stop it, well, that's when the people will be in the streets. Oh, wait, I think they're catching on.

[NNN0LHI]

160. They knew

If someone acts like they didn't know they are either being disingenuous or exhibiting their ignorance.

Either way I am am not buying what they are selling. I have watched Americans march themselves right off the cliff when they elected Reagan twice. Lets just hope they don't march us all off again.

Don

[krucial]

161. Not a Liberal

I never saw Obama as a real Liberal,but he made some great promise when he was running,and never believe he would morph so muc into a Bush lite person,and as for me I am very deepy disspointed even more that many people,even though I know the deck was stacked against him from even before he won,so i was eleated when he won.
As some people say he did some good things,but overall he as took the "Bush lite" position when he could have stood up to the right,he dissed those of us on the left who supported him and told us to quit whining while he cozied up,bent over,caven in,and try to appease the right..
To Sum up,I am also Arican American,but I dont give anyone a pass based on their race,and wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it.
So if Obama dont cease and desist from continuing, and sometimes even exceding the Bush Lite Polices,he wont get my vote in 2012.

[leveymg]

162. I think he is what he does, and a lot of that is substantially the same as Bush

That started in the first few days of his Administration when he said he wouldn't investigate BushCo's many crimes. "Looking forward. . ." He thus made himself and his Administration an accessory after the fact.

The proof of what he is manifests in what he tolerates by not prosecuting and lets continue, like Wall Street's looting of the Treasury with no corresponding conditions being placed on the banks to return capital and jobs to the U.S. that continue to hemorrage offshore.

In terms of national security, he closed down one war only to greatly expand another and set off half a dozen more on a semi-covert level. He continued mass warrantless surveillance and profiling (a violation on the 4th Amendment), reneged on his promise to close Gitmo, and now the latest straw is the Indefinite Detention Act, itself a crime against the Constitution.

Nobody forced him to do any of this. It's just what he is - a smart Wall Street Bank Lawyer and a very conventional National Security Mandarin.

[Modern_Matthew]

166. I'll give you this one, because I believe...

That there's no leader on this planet that's capable of making Capitalism easy to swallow now. Its time has come to an end.

[PatrynXX]

167. didn't expect a flick of a switch, but

didn't expect him to try and reverse the current.

like this 9volt battery I have. It's sorta dead.. but put it on your tongue and you'll find it isn't dead. freaking battery reversed it's polarity. which has happened but rarely. so if I ran it on an electronic tester it's dead but on the old ones, it'll make a click negative. if you switch it around it does a click positive. (higher than 9volts?? o_O) hey anyone know how batteries work? wtf

say like this pipeline thing. if he wants to try to get re elected, he'll stick to his guns and veto. there's no reason for that to be in there and tired of Repukes holding the american people hostage.... we are tired of being used.

[Dr Fate]

168. Besides- he cant fire any of the conservatives in his cabinet until we give him 300 Liberal Senators

There is NOTHING he can do about his Bush era appointees and other conservatives who have advocated trickle down economics.

It's obvious that he wanted no part of the Bush administration, but he was forced to keep many Bush administration economists on board b/c the liberals refused to vote in the midterms.

Maybe if we elected 300- no 401 -far left liberal Senators, then he can fire them.

It's not "Yes he can"- it's Yes *WE* can.

[Maven]

171. ...

[patrice]

205. It's not just the numbers the mid-terms didn't produce. It's also the message that sent!

[newspeak]

223. first of all "far left"

Last edited Sat Dec 17, 2011, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

seems to be regular old FDR democrats now days. Second, he had the house and senate (yes, maybe by narrow margins before 2010. And what difference would it make for his cabinet choices-HIS CHOICES- HIS CABINET. Hell, little boots before he was selected was already making a list of his cabinet choices.

[sulphurdunn]

169. Obama is the smartest man

to hold the Oval Office since Bill Clinton. Of course he's doing the best he can, but that best doesn't make him a liberal. He's a DLC Blue Dog just like the Big Dog before him. He just played a liberal because it went with being black and was a slam dunk campaign strategy to sell to chumps like me in 2008. Get used to it. Any failure to hold him to the same standard of accountability as Clinton or to blame conservative racism for his inability to leash the Blue Dogs or subdue the Republicans is a racist apologia in itself. The man is President of the United States, totally competent in his job, and if he doesn't do what progressives want it's because he chooses not to and probably never intended to.

[hughee99]

172. Don't worry, if we can't lower expectations for Obama by next years election

we can always disparage those who expect more as the "Where's my pony" crowd.

I'm just hopping we don't end up with a campaign "Obama '12: Really, who else are you gonna vote for?"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

176. If voting for him in 2008 could not change the course, why should we vote for him again?

[Beam Me Up]

179. Obama is not a LEADER. This country needs a strong ethical compass OPPOSING those who

wish to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A strong LEADER speaks against injustice and provides a clear vision for a nation united through diversity.

Lets face it once and for all: Obama serves the interests of the 1% who put him in office just as his predecessor did before him. A more charismatic, articulate and "politically correct" face can not hide this truth.

[Skittles]

180. LOL

the apologists get more dramatic the closer the election - I guess MAGIC WAND is now FLICK OF THE SWITCH and a pony is THE PROMISED LAND.

[McCamy Taylor]

181. Ah, the difference no "unrec" can make. It will change DU forever---until they bring it back.

[caseymoz]

197. At least the first dozen replies aren't different variations of . . .

"What idiot would unrec this?"

I have to admit, I got a little tired of that. And though I hardly ever used it, I liked the unrec button.

[Major Hogwash]

206. I don't think the "unrec" was a good idea.

Because it turned DU into a scoring game in which people would come here to "rec" a thread, or come here to "unrec" a thread.

It was a hugh waste of time.

[alarimer]

182. He clearly lied to us all about his intentions.

He has broken nearly every single promise he made and he retreats on others all the fucking time.

I am so sick of this guy.

[Lasher]

184. Well he got his daughters a dog.

That counts as a Promise Kept according to Politifact.

[Number23]

188. Politifact and the ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE disagree with you

He has broken nearly every single promise he made and he retreats on others all the fucking time.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

[Sherman A1]

185. Did he not campaign on "change"?

Was there not a promise of more openness?

Yes, he got a huge mess, but one need remember that he did ask for the job.

[Luciferous]

187. No, but he's not even attempting to change the course, and people

shouldn't make excuses for him.

[caseymoz]

194. I already cut him a break. He broke it.

Let's see if I understand you: he has the power now to assassinate American citizens, and has done it. And you're telling me he's not powerful enough to order even a little more transparency in government? That he wasn't powerful enough not to appoint Geithner? Or keep Summers on, and not be so generous with TARP? Not put his foot down on banker bonuses? Not powerful to stop pushing court cases that expand executive powers? Not powerful enough to order that cases concerning illegal detainment be dismissed if they involve any secret information whatsoever? That he wasn't powerful enough to get reforms done even for the short time when Dems had the house and 60 in the senate?

This list goes on and on.

You should only judge what Obama's doing as "strategy," or "the best he can" if it eventually works or if you find out in retrospect. Right now, the preponderance of evidence you can actually see, rather than presume, says he's a centrist (read: Right of Reagan, left of Bachmann) who has no intention of fulfilling most of his promises.

You think I'm wrong? How do you explain his vote as Senator during the 2008 elections, exempting telecoms that spied on us from prosecution or lawsuits? That was one everyone was expecting him to vote against, and it wouldn't have hurt him to do the obvious, though doing what he did might have hurt him. His supporters were stunned at it. It was a risk, but he felt compelled to take it. Why? Who did he owe the favor to? Or, perhaps, who was he sending a message to? Or did he actually believe the telecoms shouldn't be prosecuted?

And really, if you think that any President we put in office would have been just as stymied and paralyzed, why even waste a shrewed, fighting dynamo like Obama in that futile position, then? Maybe the Republicans have the right idea. Let's put some stupid ass in there to take up space fighting the useless battle and then put Obama in charge of a mess he can do something about, like, say, the Library of Congress. There's no use wasting a talented, honest, faithful, dedicated guy like Obama in the morass like the Presidency. So, you see, your argument is self-defeating.

You just don't want to admit we were all taken. I don't blame you.

[fascisthunter]

199. sorry, he failed

no amount of sophistry can mask his actions and inactions.

[julian09]

201. Obama agrees to two month extension of unemployment and payroll tax cuts for 60 day review of oil

pipeline. He previously threathened a veto. Will he disappoint union or environmentalists? Backed into corner again, unions have the money. Can't let repugs say he was against jobs. Can't win for losing.

[newspeak]

220. watched KO last night

the repugs are saying the pipeline may create thousands of jobs, which is bunk. The pipeline may create less than fifty permanent jobs. But, who wants it in their backyard?

You can negotiate destructive deals that helps some people for a short while, but hurts everyone in the long term (except maybe the 1%). When Newt threatened to shut down the government-bullying to get what the repugs wanted-Clinton told him to go ahead. If you want to see more people in the streets, just shut down the government. Because, we'd have the gray panthers, the federal employees and others with pitchforks going after the repugs.

[Major Hogwash]

204. Thank you WCGreen

This is a great thread.

[Gman]

207. Ummm.... yes they did think that

to the point of trashing anyone that supported Hillary to get him the nomination. Then, literally less than 48 hours (actually closer to 36 hours) after the election was called for Obama, people here were already trashing here. I know who the very first DU'er was to have the dubious honor of turning on Obama so quickly.

[ZombieHorde]

208. We should create fake positions, argue agianst them,

and then pat ourselves on the back for being so smart.

Sooo much easier than addressing real positions.

[MadHound]

219. No, but most Americans who voted for him thought he would at least put up a fight

Instead, we've been treated again and again to the spectacle of a serial caver.

Usually most presidents have at least one veto fight to their credit, Obama, he has none, zip, zero, nada. Just one more example of his lack of fight.

[Paladin]

222. Well Said, MadHound

I wonder if Obama will ever catch on to the obvious fact that giving in to conservatives doesn't earn their support or admiration---it just encourages them to take further advantage of you. Like I've said before, Lyndon Johnson had plenty of faults, but he would have neutralized the Tea Party and its Congressional lapdogs in sort order, rather than allow them to gain such power and influence.

[jwirr]

221. I did not expect him to fix it in a short time and I recognize that the rethugs are doing everything

they can to obstruct. What gets me is when he goes for the compromise so fast every time there is a decision to be made - this pipeline thing is an example. Not going to veto it now.

[TheKentuckian]

227. Worse is his position is generally in the neighborhood of where the TeaPubliKlans

said they were at last discussion, might tweak it a bit either way but in the neighborhood, even the ballpark.

From there he looks to split the difference between their old fake positions and their new fake positions.

Obama may or may not get it, I think he does and is playing mofos but certain hyper-kind and wildly optimistic people that believe their is some bottom to the well of the avarice and hatred and twisted fear.
Some poor schmucks believe the predator class, the theocrats and dominist, the neocons and unitary executive fuckers, and the faaaaarrrrrrr Reich will at least accept surrender but short off assimilation and knowing one's place in the hive they will suffer no agreement.

Well...unless on occasion they can set up conditions where they can avoid any cupability for their own policy being enacted, can rail against it in the short term, and in the end maintain their scheme (yes, every policy is painstakingly constructed to perform purposes announced and hidden toward their overarching ideology).

[jpgray]

232. Think about this for a moment

Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers are the best Obama can do. Jeffrey Immelt is the best he can do. Deals with Billy Tauzin, wrecking House plans for drug re-importation and price negotiation are the best he can do. Putting Social Security and Medicare at direct risk is the best he can do. Continuing extraordinary rendition is the best he can do.

These are all wholly unforced errors, having nothing to do with Congress and showing not a strait-jacket of immobility but a free will and ability to act. Which is what you might expect from the most powerful person on the fucking planet.

Asking that bad unforced actions be avoided and the worst excesses of the prior executive be undone is hardly the fantastic dreams of a liberal paradise. It's the baseline of responsibility for any decent president.

But no, we must have a kind and gentle opposition, a completely united party, fair and balanced media, vast majorities in both houses, a friendly judiciary, and nice weather before the fucking leader of the free world can be fairly expected to do something.

The worse things are, the more desperate our needs, the less we should expect anything of use out of our leaders. What a wonderful recipe to justify incompetence and failure when it is the least supportable.

[NorthCarolina]

233. Exactly, if you wanted "Change" you should have voted for a candidate running on that premise.

Oh wait......

[MjolnirTime]

239. He's doing a good job and will continue to do so.