How did the Democratic Party let this President become so vilified?

[kentuck]

Because, in politics, if you do not defend yourself, your political opponents will destroy you.

Is the President's record really as indefensible as the Republicans would suggest?

If these character assaults continue, it will make it more difficult for Democrats in 2016. We need a Republican in the White House like we need another hole in the head.

Even with all the positive economic news, such as 5% growth in the last quarter and low unemployment and a booming stock market, the President's favorable ratings are still under 50%. That should not be the case.

Somewhere there is a major problem with communication, methinks?

[dawg]

1. I haven't really seen where he has been vilified. At least, not much more than usual.

Every standard bearer we put up gets trashed. Every single one. Obama gets subjected to that, plus a bonus dose of racism.

Kerry, a genuine war hero, was mocked and called a traitor.

Numerous lies were spread about Gore, and he continues to be a subject of ridicule because of his stand on climate issues.

Clinton was constantly investigated, impeached, and accused of arranging numerous murders.

Our political opponents do not play fair, and many of them are dangerously delusional. Most of us don't want to accept that harsh reality.

[kentuck]

4. But it seems to me...

that it is different with this President? No one seems to be defending him?

[marym625]

6. I don't know how old you are

But the Clinton stuff, with the asswipe Ken Star, was much worse

[kentuck]

7. Still, Clinton had his defenders...

in the media and in the Party. I don't see that with Obama?

[marym625]

9. Well, media has changed a bit

And frankly, the attacks on Clinton were much, much more severe. Murder for goodness sake.

I do see some defense. Msnbc does. But don't forget how much the media has changed. Though it's been decades since the MSM actually acted responsibly, it has still worsened since the 90s.

[RKP5637]

36. I think you hit on the main crux of the problem, MSM for the most part today, sucks. There is

really little truly unbiased investigative reporting and much of it is tabloid journalism covering current events for the most profit.

And, much of this occurred when they discovered news could be a P&L center than just done at a loss. And those changes occurred a long time ago. So, today, we have tabloid and opportunistic biased news, with very little true unbiased investigative reporting. Jack Anderson to me was one of the last.

[marym625]

45. Bingo!

Greg Palast is the last true, honorable, investigative journalist imho.

I suspect that the owners of the MSM, all 5 of them, have somehow made news a current asset. Just made that BS all the more alluring. Probably even have some new accounting practice that allows them to use derivatives to write off anything that doesn't increase the asset.

I am only half joking

[brush]

131. Seymour Hersh also.

He's done a lot of substantive reporting.

[marym625]

134. yes!

I love him. Just forgot at that moment. I think about banking reporting and I immediately think, Greg Palast. Thanks for reminding me about Hersh.

[RiverLover]

138. Investigative journalists have been threatened by the Obama & Bush Admins

Who says this? Plenty of journalists, but here's one for an example~

Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public relations director for a major civil rights organization.

He says:

OpEdNews Op Eds 10/22/2014 at 13:45:43
Obama Pledged Government "Transparency" But Threatens Investigative Reporters
By Sherwood Ross (about the author)

President Obama, who pledged to run a "transparent" administration, instead is threatening reporters with trial and imprisonment if they don't reveal the identities of officials who leak information about government wrongdoing to them.

"I've felt the chill first-hand," Pulitzer Prize-winner David Barstow of The New York Times says. "Trusted sources in Washington are scared to talk by telephone, or by email, or even to meet for coffee, regardless whether the subject touches on national security or not."

He told "The Nation" (Oct. 27, 2014) magazine that the "vindictive" efforts of the Bush and Obama administrations, by trying to force New York Times reporter Jim Risen into betraying his sources, "has already done substantial and lasting damage to journalism in the United States."

Not only is Obama out to punish reporters for writing up his regime's failures but he is threatening any Federal employees who talk to the press with termination or worse. Sally Buzbee, the AP's Washington Bureau Chief, said Transportation Department (DOT) employees are telling her reporters they will be fired "if they're caught talking" to AP. Recently,

Obama's snoopers illegally tapped the phones of AP reporters.

Obama has also created the "Insider Threat" program, which The Nation co-authors Norman Solomon and Marcy Wheeler write is "insidious" as it "pressures federal workers to monitor and report fellow employees suspected of ideological or attitudinal deviance." Not surprisingly, The Nation reports, "An atmosphere of fear has intensified inside government." Their magazine article is titled, "The Government's War on Whistleblowers."

The lightning rod of the regime's wrath is Risen, a Pulitzer Prize-winner who revealed the vast scope of illegal secret domestic eavesdropping in his 2006 book "State of War." A New York Times reporter who had covered the CIA, the Agency might just be angry at him for exposing its flawed intelligence work when it slipped nuclear documents to Iran it hoped would screw up their alleged nuclear ops.

What's more, on July 6, 2004, Risen's NYT article, "CIA Held Back Iraqi Arms Data," showed the CIA likely had the data to show Saddam Hussein's regime no longer had any plans to develop WMDs. "But the CIA kept mum about those findings, even as the Bush White House continued to proclaim that invading Iraq was necessary due to its purported WMD's."...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Pledged-Government--by-Sherwood-Ross-Eavesdropping_FEAR_Intelligence_Investigative-Journalism-141022-327.html

[marym625]

139. Thanks for this!

I miss the Chicago Daily News. It was the last of the liberal papers. It was part of how you knew if someone was a Democrat or Republican.

Southside, Irish, Catholic, Daily News, Sox Fan.

Though I am now an atheist and a Cubs fan too. But in cross town games, I want the Sox to win.

Happy New Year!

[RiverLover]

140. LOL!! Happy New Year to you too marym625!!

I love your posts, btw. I'm a fan!!

[marym625]

143. Oh thank you!

What a sweet thing to say. I really appreciate that!

I admit I haven't seen too many of yours, but what I have seen, I'm a fan of yours as well. I wish DU had a follow option.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

254. In fact, MSNBC changed considerably

I miss the days when Rachel and Keith were objective reporters. Ed was doing the same on The Ed Schultz Show (radio). Keith got whacked and the others became the Democratic mouth piece to Fox's Republican noise machine.

So MSNBC provides the President with a lot of cover.

[marym625]

257. True

Edward R.Murrow must be spinning in his grave.

I tweeted Andy Cohen once a few months ago and asked if he missed doing real news. His response was, "is there any real news?" Or something similar. Perfect response.

[Voice for Peace]

25. Krugman is a defender

[JaneyVee]

35. FOX News didn't start until 96.

[marym625]

73. I completely forgot that

It just feels like a lifetime of crap.

[Jamastiene]

241. You must have one heckuva ignore list here on DU.

LOTS of people on DU defend him, unless you are talking about outside of DU. I think most people are intimidated by the right wing types by now. After all, if you try to stand up to them, they will start bombing hospitals, Olympics, and gay bars, and shooting doctors and even presidents. The right wing has a long history of that kind of terrorism.

Most people don't want to subject themselves to that kind of risk. I have some bad memories from the 90s. Seeing all those bloody children from the OKC bombing made me realize just how dangerous the right wing really is. I will only go so far arguing with them and then I'm done and out the door.

As far as the left defending Obama....It would help if Obama had not called us sanctimonious for being against torture... and if he had not started off his administration by going right of center and just staying there since day one. I will never get over the "retard" comment Emmanuel made but even worse Obama didn't call him out on it. The drones, keeping so many Bush policies, keeping so many from the Bush administration, keeping the Bush tax cuts and making some of them permanent.

He made his bed. He'll have to lie in it with his Repuke buddies that he always bends over backwards to try to please. He needs to eventually learn he cannot please them no matter how much he gives them of what they want.

A person has to think of the risk versus reward. It is kind of hard to defend a lot of it and certainly not worth going up against fucking Tea Baggers to do it, knowing full well that half that crowd would just as soon bomb us as debate us. I'm not risking my life for someone who turned on those of us on the left as soon as we voted him in. He made it quite clear the minute he grabbed the prize in 2008 and kept reminding us through the years that the left is on our own and he has no respect for us. Oh well, then. He's on his own now too.

If the man does something I agree with, I'll say so. If not, I'm not going to pretend it's all icing, lollipops, and candy canes. It is, quite simply, not.

[marym625]

244. Well said. n/t

[kentuck]

248. I don't usually put anyone on ignore.

I think you should re-evaluate your conclusions.

[Dont call me Shirley]

209. Ken Starr was just a warm-up to Issa-crackpot. P.O. Has been the most vilified, obstructed,

lied-about President in our history. Just wait, those gop crazy-makers have the nasty all up and down their sleeves for the next 2 years. It's gonna be a gop freak show.

[marym625]

212. I don't doubt that in the least

Si far at least, President Obama has not been accused of murder, as Clinton was by Star. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was coming.

[Dont call me Shirley]

221. But B-i-n-g-a-a-a-z-e-e-e has been close.

[marym625]

223. True. Very true.

You cracked me up! I haven't seen it like that on a while

[Dont call me Shirley]

224. It's the Lindsay Graham pronunciation

[marym625]

225. LMAO!

[LordGlenconner]

226. I was around for that as well

And no, it wasn't worse.

It wasn't worse because it wasn't tied to racism. This president has been subjected to things Bill Clinton couldn't even imagine, like being called a liar by a sitting member of congress during a State of the Union address to having his citizenship questioned over and over again.

It's not even close to being the same as Clinton.

[marym625]

246. President Clinton

Was investigated by a special prosecutor for nearly the entirety of his presidency. Millions were spent on the investigation, which was a daily highlight in the news. They accused him of murder.

You may have been around but I don't think you are remembering all of it.

I am not saying that President Obama hasn't been attacked like crazy, with insane and horrible things. He obviously has been. And there is no doubt he has suffered more death threats, by far, than any President in history, most from racist pigs.

But the Whitewater, and later Lewinsky, investigation was a constant, in the news and publicly discussed, government sanctioned and paid for, witch hunt

[1StrongBlackMan]

251. There are plenty of people here on DU defending him ...

we are mockingly called "worshipers" and whatever, here.

[kentuck]

252. There are a lot...

and that is part of what is confusing?

If the President has these many supporters (worshipers), then how is it that the polls don't reflect it?

What else can we do or say?

[1StrongBlackMan]

253. Wait it out ...

soon enough, the Black guy will no longer be in office, historians will make their judgment and it'll be safe for "the left" to tell us of their support.

[kentuck]

255. Historians will make their judgement...

I think most historians will give him high marks.

He did tell the "left" and all Democrats to "keep his feet to the fire". Some have tried to do that but it has not been easy to do. Some of his defenders are like rock walls - they refuse to budge on their support for the President.

Personally, I have disagreed with the President on a few occasions. I thought it was a major mistake by him to make law almost all of the Bush taxcuts. We really could have used those revenues, in my opinion. Yes, that was an instance where I disagreed with him.

But I have also agreed with the President on most occasions. I have written and posted comments on his accomplishments and explained the circumstances that he inherited when he came into office.

However, if someone disagrees with the President, do not they have a duty to speak up? I would agree that some "name-calling" has definitely gone over the top. But, even then, some would say that was simply a small fire around his feet.

Yes, I will wait out the next two years but I will continue to criticize the President when I think he is wrong? I have a hunch, at least I am hoping, that he gets out his veto pen and shows the Republicans that this country is still from the people. I am hoping he will finish his Presidency in strong fashion.

[pnwmom]

80. Just take a look around here any day. Our opponents aren't the only ones who don't always play fair.

[BlueCaliDem]

93. ^^^This!^^^

[sheshe2]

96. +1

[Union Scribe]

125. Yes, criticism is unfair. And mean.

Just gives me the sniffles it does.

[pnwmom]

161. I have no problem with criticism. But distortions and outright lies are another thing.

And they occur here every day.

[treestar]

173. Some criticism is unfair

It depends on the criticism. Merely being criticism doesn't make something valid. Some people seem to think that's the case. Not so. People who don't like someone will criticize them unfairly. We see that from the right wing all the time. Do we accept right wing criticism merely because it's criticism?

People never let their ignorance stop them from criticizing others who are doing something they don't understand enough about in order to criticize.

All criticism is not automatically valuable. Some of it is just bullshit, unfair, ignorant or bigoted.

[Sheepshank]

196. Piece of shite used car salesman, isn't criticism

it's an ugly attack that does little else that garner and build on other hateful rhetoric.

[1StrongBlackMan]

256. But it seems to be the formula for ...

securing 100+ recs and Greatest Thread status.

[uponit7771]

148. +1

[spanone]

2. it's hard to get your point out when republicans & 90% of media are in sync against you

[proverbialwisdom]

51. All people of conscience can join millennials & become cord-cutters to protest against the MSM. (nt)

[onecaliberal]

3. The corporate reps are all the same team

I don't always agree with POTUS but he's a very good man and the way he has been treated should bring emense shame to this country. The Democrats who can't bring themselves to defend the great things POTUS has done should be booted from office.
People on the left are fed up with dems who act like republicans. If you can't look at election results and understand that, brace yourselves for a republican in the WH.

[marym625]

5. Since this is not in the BOG

I will put my two cents in.

There are aspects of what President Obama has done that are in complete opposition to what he ran under, what liberals and progressives believe in and are outright unconstitutional. To many, those are too important to just ignore.

I give him credit where it is due. He has done some good things. He is no doubt better than any Republican. And, when speaking to those issues with anyone, I will tout those successes.

I am sure I won't get to pass being berated for this, but you asked a question and I answered.

[Man from Pickens]

11. I second that

His war policies abroad and police/surveillance state policies domestically are unconscionable, not to mention his eternal love affair with Wall Street.

The only reason he wasn't disowned by the party by now is that he won two Presidential elections, full stop. Take the party label off and he looks like a "moderate Republican" by his actions.

[marym625]

13. yep

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

17. Well, no, the vast majority of the party agrees with his policies

as a whole. It's a tiny, fringe element of the party that see him as a Republican sellout.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. exactly.....

[marym625]

49. I don't agree with that

But I am not trying to argue.

I truly would like know how anyone can say that President Obama is not in bed with the big banks.

Seriously don't want to get into anything that isn't specifically addressing this issue. And I am asking respectfully, I will respond respectfully. But I cannot see how his actions and policies regarding money can be seen as anything else.

[geek tragedy]

78. Dodd Frank and the CFPB for one.

The fact that the banks #1 priority has been to derail his regulatory agenda and appointees.

And the fact that they tried to run him out of office in 2012.

[marym625]

84. yes, Dodd-Frank was good

It was President Obama's outline that was the formula for the bill. But that was back in 2009 and actually softened by him prior to the final draft.

He has nominated many of the criminal bankers to positions of power, including the worst of them all, the actual author of the End Game memo, Larry Summers. He just nominated another banker, Weiss.

He ran on promises to charge those guilty of the collapse of the world economy and, just like with war crimes and Bush and Cheney, he did nothing of the sort.

He signed into law, just 2 days after the McCutcheon decision, The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act. While on the surface that bill looks all pretty and nice, it actually has helped elections become dependent upon corporate funds.

This last budget bill, which he didn't just not fight but actually lobbied for, undoes much of Dodd-Frank.

Bankers may have been vocally for Romney but President Obama received quite a bit of money from them himself. I wouldn't call an election campaign trying to "run him out of office."

[geek tragedy]

91. Bankers wanted him out. Because he insists on regulating them.

The push out provision that got repealed was never a crucial provision--it was already riddled with loopholes. It was Blanche Lincoln's idea.

[marym625]

94. When has he tried to regulate

Other than Dodd-Frank? He fired Gensler who was actually moving toward better oversight into derivatives.

The banks didn't want him out. They may have preferred Romney but they have contributed to President Obama's campaign and he has rewarded them.

I know he proposed Dodd-Frank and I give him credit for that. I don't know why you don't address the issues I have brought up,. Dodd-Frank is better than what we had right before it was signed into law but it was a far cry from what we had prior to the deregulations by every President and administration from Reagan through bush 2.

"It wasn't his idea" is a cop out. He sure didn't say "no no"

[geek tragedy]

103. You have a cogent argument for why his policies are unsatisfactory.

But you are talking nonsense when you try to claim that imperfect policies are proof that he is owned by the banks.

I cannot help you with that logical disconnect.

[marym625]

105. I didn't say owned

I said in bed with. And I have illustrated valid, logical points. There is no disconnect.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read about the End Game Memo and some recent articles and books by Greg Palast and other respected investigative journalists.

I don't do illogical. I'm sorry you couldn't end the conversation without insult.

[kentuck]

114. I recall that he also said...

...that if you believed him to be wrong, then he expected you to "hold his feet to the fire"? I believe those are the words he used?

[marym625]

130. He did

And those of us that feel as I do, have sure tried. Seems he has flame and heat resistant shoes.

[marym625]

86. Sorry, on the appointees

That's just not true. Many of the appointees came directly from banks

[stevenleser]

133. And?

What does that mean? What did each person do at the 'bank' that upset you?

Just because someone worked at "a bank" means nothing. Working at 'a bank' is not a universally tarnishing event.

What positions at the bank are upsetting to you? If someone works as a teller for a few years re they tarnished? If they work in the loans department are they devils?

I don't call people evil because they worked at a bank or were lawyers or whatever other superficial designation one can come up with.

[marym625]

135. Perhaps if you read

The entire subthread you wouldn't have to ask. Regardless of that, the sarcasm was certainly unwarranted and unneeded.

Do your own research. I'm not playing this game.

Happy New Year

[stevenleser]

142. I read it. There are no specific objections about any appointees listed.

Using a generalized and essentially meaningless label to apply to appointees by a Democratic President in order to attack that Democratic President should always get pushback by thinking people here.

[marym625]

144. Then you need to read again

Pushing back on unsupported things is good. Pushing back because you don't like criticism is just bs.

[sheshe2]

176. thanks steven

+1

[Sheepshank]

201. Just out of curiosity MaryM625

about 75% of you posts were all made in the last 90 days...while you had set up a DU account 2011 you were very quiet until recently. Why suddenly now all the rabid activity? Why not have spoken out so prolifically in the last 4 years?

[marym625]

206. Because I was speaking out elsewhere

And physically able to do more real life work. Health issues have made that much more difficult

Thanks for your interest.

[Sheepshank]

211. ahhh ok n/t

[uponit7771]

147. Yes, 90% of them post on DU

[WillTwain]

21. He has been an enormous disappointment

As you said, he deserves applause for some things, but on balance he has done as much damage as good. Perspective is important. The wealth gap, which was awful before he was elected, got worse. That is the big story. Also, this happened at a time when people are desperate for help. People really expected much more. He squandered our chance not just his. I cannot get over the fact that the disgustingly low minimum wage will go at least eight years without an increase with a democrat in the White House.

[marym625]

27. yep

People keep touting the stock market going up. Exactly how does that help the majority of the people? How does it help the people that need the most help? Hasn't helped all the people who just got screwed with this last budget bill and lost pensions. Sure doesn't help create jobs when the corps are just going to line their own pockets.

Shameful.

[WillTwain]

39. Ostruction?, yes.

But where is the anger? Truman had obstruction from the do nothing congress but turned it into his advantage. Today, nobody even knows about obstruction. He has no fight. It is like something does not work out and he just shrugs his shoulders, cuts a few jokes and moves on. Where is the eye of the tiger?

[marym625]

56. got me.

That has actually been our biggest problem for years, no back bone. Until Bernie and Elizabeth there have been precious few since Teddy died.

But I was referring to the last budget bill that President Obama lobbied for. There are people here on DU that have already been notified that their pension has been cut.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-congress-expected-20141210-column.html

[WillTwain]

60. What will it take?

Do they need to completely go under water before they turn off the bath water.

[marym625]

63. evidently

At a loss at this point. I have not given up but truly just am at a loss for much hope

[NanceGreggs]

42. Exactly how many times ...

... does it have to be pointed out to you that the President doesn't set the minimum wage, before that fact actually sinks in?

You recently posted an OP on the topic, and that fact was explained to you over, and over, and over, and over.

Is fifty times the charm? How about a hundred times, or even a thousand?

[WillTwain]

46. Explained by those from a pew in the Obama church.

If you explained it fifty times, I explained it fifty times. too. The president has tremendous influence on legislation (Iraq War, Tax cuts for the rich, passing Social Security, Civil Rights legislation). Using your logic, why even have a president, he does not do anything. And he gets no credit for the ACA. Come on maybe 51 is the charm.

The only democratic president to not sign a minimum wage increase, inspire of having 59 senators for a while and 56-58 for two years. As another DUer said, "appalling'"

[jeff47]

55. If only 59 was 60.

[WillTwain]

57. 60 - Like the ACA got

[jeff47]

70. Which ACA bill?

The ACA actually took two bills to pass. One got 60. The other did not, and was passed through reconciliation.

[WillTwain]

71. The one that go t 60

[jeff47]

74. The fact that the final bill could not should clue you in that a minimum wage bill

was not going to happen. The last hike was in 2009. Not gonna get another one passed for a couple years, at which point Republicans controlled the House.

You have utterly unrealistic views of what a president can do, because the media has told you for years that the president runs the government.

Did W end Social Security? It was his big goal after the 2004 election. If you were correct about the presidency, that would have happened.

[WillTwain]

76. W. was opposed by democratic majorities in the senate and house. On the contrary Obama enjoyed big

majorities in the house and senate.

If you check the record, The minimum wage increase 22 times and at times for many more than three years in a row. Any president worth anything would realize you strike when the iron is hot not compromise when the iron is hot. What a terrible politician and talk about lack of vision. He is a awful judge of Washington politics.

[NanceGreggs]

62. The fact that Congress has control over certain things ...

... rather than the president having that control, does not equate to "the president does not do anything".

The explanations you were given on your OP on this topic were based on the FACT of how the minimum wage is dealt with, and by which branch of gov't. Your "explanations", however, were based on nothing other than your own insistence that the president was empowered to do something he is NOT empowered to do.

You apparently don't understand how the branches of gov't work, which is a pretty basic stuff. Perhaps when you master that simple concept, you'll be able to discuss the more complex issues of the day with some modicum of intelligent thought.

[WillTwain]

66. You seem to not grasp the concept of the president sets the agenda.

Because we disagree, i do not have a modicum of intelligent thought. Tell that to the brilliant men with a modicum of intelligence, Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz, who also feel the minimum wage not being increased is a travesty. Honestly, Obama rarely mentioned the minimum wage - for a guy that says he is focused like a laser on helping the middle-class.

The only president other than RONALD REAGAN to not convince congress to send him a bill. But he sure fought hard for Wall Street and pension raiding.

Come on. He is not the guy you think he is.

[NanceGreggs]

72. It is not a matter of disagreement ...

... it is a matter of dealing with FACTS versus dealing with your obvious lack of knowledge of the facts.

It IS a fact that the minimum wage, as it now stands, is a travesty. It is NOT a fact that the president can single-handedly raise it.

Seriously, dude - trying to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who insists that the FACTS are other than what they are is like trying to discuss astronomy with someone who insists the sun rotates around the Earth.

"He is not the guy you think he is." Really? I think he is the president who, by virtue of our system of gov't, is fully aware of what his powers are, and what powers lie with other branches of gov't.

The fact that you are unable to grasp the simple concept of separation of powers speaks for itself.

[WillTwain]

75. Why are you so angry and mean-spirited.

It is NOT a fact that the president can single-handedly raise it. Well, no shit.

One of the voices in your head must have said that because I never did.

Do you realize Bush passed tax cuts for the rich with a 50-50 senate. He actually had 49 senators for a while and passed legislation.

Any democratic president that cannot rally for a minimum wage increase with 59 senators is hopeless.
Or he saves his energy for Wall Street deregulation, pension raiding and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

This is why the middle class is devastated.

Politics is a game of chess, you must be a checkers fan.

[NanceGreggs]

85. Oh, dear.

I am neither angry nor mean-spirited. I am simply pointing out that you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Yes, politics is a game of chess. I suppose that's why I am so amused watching you use a pawn to jump over the bishop, the knight, and the rook - yelling "king me!" when you land on the other side of the board.

[marym625]

92. Sorry, but you come off both

On this thread. Especially since he never said anything like the President can pass a law all by himself.

I find your aggressive reaction perplexing. Why would the President not try as he has with other bills? It seems your reasoning is, he can't win that fight so he shouldn't have it. If that's correct, that is a sad way to look at. This is a fight worth having.

[NanceGreggs]

95. He has repeatedly brought up ...

... the failure of the minimum wage being raised as being Obama's fault. He posted an OP about it recently - and was told repeatedly that dealing with the minimum wage is within the purview of Congress, not the executive branch.

And he has repeatedly refused to accept that fact.

As I said, there is no point in discussing anything with someone who refuses to acknowledge FACTS, and instead insists on promoting his own opinion in ignorance thereof.

[marym625]

98. ok.

But you just ignored half of my reply. I'm sorry, Nance but he has said what you say he is ignoring.

No point in continuing with this obviously.

Happy New Year (no sarcasm just wishing you a happy new year)

[WillTwain]

106. Thank you. I have gone round and round with Nance, she refuses to be wrong. Too smart I guess.

It is so hard to reason with some people. I cannot stand when a reasonable debate turns to insults. I really wonder about our party. So many "progressives" do not see the big picture.

Ignore facts, put words in others mouths, then claim mental superiority.

[marym625]

109. Yeah

I was just jumped on here and I have been nothing but respectful.

Sometimes you just want to say fuck it. But we can't.

Happy New Year

[kentuck]

115. Happy New Year marym625 !!

[marym625]

116. Thank you!

Happy New Year to you too! :

[WillTwain]

156. They have such strong bias and closed minds.

No fuck it for me either.

Happy New Year.

Love your posts.

[marym625]

162. Thank you!

Hope it's a fabulous year for you and yours

[NanceGreggs]

123. The second half of your reply ...

... was: "Why would the President not try as he has with other bills? It seems your reasoning is, he can't win that fight so he shouldn't have it."

Have you tried Googling "Obama - minimum wage"? Give it a go. It's not like this President has ignored the topic, nor been silent on it.



As for your comment, "Happy New Year (no sarcasm just wishing you a happy new year)", I would never have construed that as "sarcasm". And I wish you and yours a Happy New Year as well - a year full of laughter and love, joy of the heart, and peace of the spirit.

There was a time when DUers didn't feel a need to point out that their good wishes towards each other were sincere. I miss those days.

[marym625]

128. I have done more than Google the subject

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

And I didn't suggest he's done nothing. But I don't believe he has done all he could or should. The wage gap in this country has increased every year. Though more needs to be done from the top down to correct this, the easier part is fixing the bottom. It is also desperately needed.

The disclaimer was just to avoid any confusion. As we all know, the written word is easy to misinterpret. I agree, would be nice to not have to worry about such things.

Thank you for the very nice well wishes.

On edit: Although I have seen you around a great deal, I don't believe we have ever connected on a post. Because of that, I wanted to be explicit just in case the well wishes came off as sarcastic.

[sheshe2]

178. Please expalin to me.

The wage gap in this country has increased every year. Though more needs to be done from the top down to correct this, the easier part is fixing the bottom. It is also desperately needed.

Yes it has, and corporations are paying less and less. They are giving a person not one job but three or four for the price of one. They are cutting their workforce to part time so they need not benefits. I will give you an example of what they are doing to add to the wage gap. I work in retail. Reputable company that I have been at for 7 1/2 years. I am salary plus commission. I worked for a company for 11 years, they went out of business After being unemployed for 5 months I took the job. There was nothing out there that was paying. One place offered me a job that would have paid me what I made 20 years ago. I finally took a job with a 50% pay cut to do twice the work. For all those years I have been there, it has taken me 7 1/2 years to get $2.16 raises. Think about that? They frozen increases for a year then cut what they would give us.

The are not giving us cost of living raises they are giving us a death sentence and they do not care. How the hell is this the Presidents fault?

[marym625]

193. Please explain to me

where I said it's the President's fault. Let's quote the entire paragraph since you left the first two sentences out.

And I didn't suggest he's done nothing. But I don't believe he has done all he could or should. The wage gap in this country has increased every year. Though more needs to be done from the top down to correct this, the easier part is fixing the bottom. It is also desperately needed. 

Never said it was his fault. I am saying that I believe he should have done more, could have done more and should still do more. I will say, had he raised the federal minimum wage by 2011, as he promised back in 2009, we would be almost 4 years ahead in this fight. That carries a lot of weight. I am very glad he finally did and kudos to him for doing so.

As kentuck said somewhere in this thread, President Obama said we should hold his feet to the fire. And that is what we should do. Not just here but in any activism we can. It sure is great to be able to use the fact that the federal minimum wage was raised and your State should follow when calling out the GOP.

[sheshe2]

195. We already passed legisltion to raise the minimum wage, one of the highest.

Still won't help unless corporations are willing to hand out cost of living raises to their employees. I can't see that changing any time soon, if at all.

[marym625]

205. I agree with that

Corporations/banks need to be reined in big time

[sheshe2]

215. To an extent, I guess it does not really matter.

Brick and Mortar stores are soon to be a thing of the past. The job losses will be staggering.

[marym625]

217. THAT!

And with manufacturing jobs gone, there will be precious few jobs around. It is a frightening thought

[Union Scribe]

126. "there is no point in discussing..."

I guess that's why you decided to go with the lecturing, scolding approach right?

[NanceGreggs]

127. What I said was ...

... "There is no point in discussing anything with someone who refuses to acknowledge FACTS."

And there isn't.

[WillTwain]

157. Nice

[treestar]

172. He certainly does hint at it

Every time he blames the President when something Congress might have passed and he might have signed is not passed by Congress.

He and others use weasel words about "leadership" or "the President sets the agenda" (no, he doesn't, that's nonsense. He's not a CEO. He can exhort Congress to do things, but Congress, doesn't have to, and that's the point of having separate branches).

Not using those exact words doesn't mean it is not what a person is implying or is not the import of their words. There is no other conclusion to make when a person insists Obama is disappointing because some particular legislation has not passed. They may try to dodge, but they are saying they don't think Congress should be anything other than a rubber stamp body or putty in the hands of some amazing leader who can get people to do anything for him no matter what they thought before.

[Sheepshank]

202. Exactly why are you so suddenly makeing 1000s of posts to slam someone who isn't running again..and

other DU'ers?

I can' help but sense a well document agenda going on.

[marym625]

208. Wow

What DUers have I "slammed."

Are you bored?

[Sheepshank]

213. nope not bored

but intrigued by the sudden massive number of your posts, slamming a guy who isn't running again for office and intent to being rude to other DU'ers.

[marym625]

216. I am not rude

Unless I am replying in kind.

I replied to a post about the President. I didn't know we weren't allowed to speak our minds.

I find it interesting that almost everyone on DU that has any issues with President Obama is attacked by certain people. And they are personal attacks, like your 3 replies to me, and contain zero substance.

[kentuck]

219. There is a small clique of people here...

that cannot tell the difference between criticism and vilification. You shall know them when you see them.

[marym625]

222. Thanks so much

Yep. Getting used to it. Sadly.

[Sheepshank]

227. no one is shutting down any conversation

to pretend otherwise is just plain silly.

The sudden swing to martyrdom is a typical reaction when others disagree? Which disagreement of course, is also allowed.

[kentuck]

228. No and that seems to be the problem.

It seems some would like to shut down the argument

[Sheepshank]

229. I haven't seen that on this thread...I have seen anyone being told to stop talking n/t

It all just a giant pretense and silliness to change the course of a discussion.

Of course, there are some people that simply like to pull the "persecution card" to somehow bolster their argument...pfffft.

[Number23]

237. Yeah, the passive aggressiveness in this thread is this thread is thick

Folks jumping in to chastise Nance about her behavior while seemingly unable to see the beam in their own eyes. Hmmm...

[marym625]

230. Martyrdom?

Okey dokey. Whatever you say. It's all good

Have a great day

[kentuck]

232. And "persecution"...

pulled out of his ass...

[marym625]

233. Yeah, saw that

Obviously, that person is bored. Bored and more than a little confused

[brush]

137. I side with Nancy on this

The president has raised the minimum wage for federal workers and urged Congress to pass a bill into law raising it for the country.

IT IS UP TO CONGRESS TO PASS THE BILL INTO LAW FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

Maybe all caps will drive that home to you. I repeat, the president raised it for federal workers and has urged Congress to act on it for everyone.

Many said as much on your recent OP about this but yet you insist with this that the president has basically ignored this issue.

[brush]

159. Okay, you don't mention . . .

in your many posts that he raised it for federal workers, which is within his powers.

The over all law for the rest of the country is up to Congress, and he has urged them to pass a bill for him to sign.

What don't you get about that?

[MrMickeysMom]

187. My goodness...

I can't figure out why the post in response to yours was hidden. Can you?

I'm rather amused by the nasty comments (not yours) above it that have better criteria.

I won't even get into my view of the debate.

[brush]

194. Here's a snip of the hidden post, in all caps no less

"HE HAS BEEN VERY WEAK ON THE MINIMUM WAGE. OF COURSE HE HAS MENTIONED THE MINIMUM WAGE - HE IS THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. GET IT. HE HAS TO AT LEAST MENTION IT. MINIMUM WAGE IS A BEDROCK ISSUE FOR DEMOCRATS. IT IS LIKE REPUBLICANS MENTIONING TAX CUTS AND CHRISTIAN NATION. HE HAS TO AT LEAST APPEASE THE FOOLS.

HE FIGHTS FOE CAPITALISTS AND LETS THE MINIMUM WAGE SLIDE FOR EIGHT YEARS."


No matter how many times I and others point out that the president has advocated for a minimum wage increase and has actually raised it for federal employees, the hidden posters persists with his misinformed, one-issue shrillness.

He posted a whole OP on this a week or so ago.

[uponit7771]

150. Not suffering people who are insistent and wrong is not angry imho...

[uponit7771]

149. Reality has a liberal bias

[Boomerproud]

59. The wealth gap is the only thing Republicans and the media are not vilifying him about.

They simply don't believe (just like climate change) that it exists. That being said, I really do understand your disappointment, but he isn't going to change.

[WillTwain]

67. I am amazed at the blind faith people have for him

It is damaging. He is relinquished from accountability.

[sheshe2]

179. Really?

You

I am amazed at the blind faith people have for him. It is damaging. He is relinquished from accountability.

Me? I am amazed at the blind hatred of the man. It is damaging to this country. He is blamed for everything every damn day and never a cheer when he has done something good. Never any credit, never. Nothing is ever god enough. Ever. Any kudos always come with the disclaimer that he did not go far enough.

[RiverLover]

186. The only thing I've seen are eyes wide open at what he's actually done & said.

No baseless bashing needed. And the posts are all by people who supported him in 2008 and see what he really is now & are incredibly disappointed, based on what he's said & done. He's done some good, but the bad greatly outweighs the good. We were duped.

[sheshe2]

188. If that is what you want to believe then nothing I can say will change your mind.

No civics classes for those that do not understand how the government works. Go with your thoughts.

Though I am interested, care to inform us what is the good and bad that so greatly outweighs the good?

He's done some good, but the bad greatly outweighs the good. We were duped.

Since the 2008 supporters are so disappointed and sadly do not understand that there are 3 branches of government, then why did so many here that were duped and disappointed with him say they voted for him again in 2012. Or at least they say they voted both times.

In you explanation please no broad brush, just the facts. TIA

[YoungDemCA]

220. I am amazed at ostensibly liberal people who don't understand what being the first black POTUS...

...entails, or who don't understand how our system of government works.

We can be amazed together.

[giftedgirl77]

121. You should take a basic civics class as it has become

painfully obvious that you don't have a clue about how the US government functions. You also need to get some new talking points because the ones you keep sprouting off are not only complete bullshit but have a use by date of about the time Mittens lost the election.

[brush]

132. You do know that he raised the minimun wage . . .

for federal workers and has urged Congress to do the same for all workers.

Or maybe you don't know as you've bashed him pretty hard on this "failure" before.

The minumum wage question issue is legitimate but it's up to Congress to pass a bill into law.

Is this your only issue, as single-issue politics is a narrow route to navigate.

[tabasco]

168. LOL

Obama should have issued a decree to increase the minimum wage!

[sheshe2]

99. I am use to seeing swipes at the BOG.

Since this is not in the BOG

We have a right to our group where we talk about our AA President. Just like we have HOF and AA. They are safe havens for each of us. It's not like we don't come into GD to slog through a whole bunch of crap everyday and yes we post here too, loudly I might add.

IMHO the President is treated like a POS, and has been called such. So much disrespect for our first AA President. Joe Wilson called out "You Lie" at the Sotu. The GOP met behind closed doors the night of the inauguration to come up with ideas to make him a one term President. They hate the Black Man in the White House, because in their opinion he does not belong there and never did.

[marym625]

100. Whoa!

That wasn't a "swipe" It was an acknowledgement of it being a safe group. I have NEVER posted or replied in that group. I have been nothing but respectful of it.

You want to attack someone, find someone that deserves it.

Complete bullshit she.

[sheshe2]

110. Sorry marym, yet this might give you an idea where I am coming from.

We get trashed here in GD as does Hof and as one person states in the thread below, our groups seem to be a code word for AA. Not sure why they hate us all so. If you read the mega thread you will see all the chest bumps stating that it would be a badge of courage to be banned from the group. I find that very sad on DU.

The Op ~

How do you get banned from a group without ever subscribing to

. Lol see who they jumped on and see where they were banned from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025151629#top

[marym625]

111. Thank you

I appreciate that.

I understand. I've seen it. Not that thread but what you are talking about. I don't understand it myself.

Please know that some of us that are not happy with the President have valid reasons that are very important to us. I have met President Obama. I have my picture with him. I worked my ass off for him. My disappointment has zero to do with race.

We need to somehow move past all this. We, the royal we, the liberal, progressive we, have to come to some conclusion that doesn't allow for giving in any more than we already have. Come to some agreement on how to move forward in solidarity. So both sides are going to have to bend some on how we address current events and past events without losing our goal.

I don't have an answer, yet But I am sure trying to come up with one.

[marym625]

112. I forgot

Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Happy New Year!

And just so you know, I am proud of the pictures I have with the President

[zipplewrath]

166. Funny, I was a defender, and I got banned

The group got a reputation because they went on a banning spree. I was a regular defender, if not supporter, of the group and got banned. I think the banning fest is long over. But that group earned its reputation.

[Bobbie Jo]

163. Of course it was.

Geeze, why can't people just say what they mean without all the p/a bullshit.

Yes, it was a swipe. Own it.

[marym625]

164. If it was a swipe, I would

I don't mince words.

[Bobbie Jo]

165. lol

Well aren't you all that.

[marym625]

167. Evidently, to you, I am.

Have a great day!

[Bobbie Jo]

169. No, that was a swipe. nt

[marym625]

170. no! really?

Doesn't change the fact, for you, I obviously am.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. Don't flatter yourself.

Really.

[MrMickeysMom]

235. Hi marym...

On the re-visit to this thread, I want to say, yeah… you didn't get past being berated… for what, I do not know.

Some people wear their heart on their sleeves better than others. I very seldom visit the BOG, or many other groups, for that matter. But, I know the difference between what some tender hearted people here refer to as a "swipe" and honest criticism. True, some just CAN NOT get past it. I thought you explained it well.

Mostly, you hovered miles above nasty comments that I could have alerted on, but just heaved a sigh and left alone. Anyway…. Hats off to you…

MMM

[marym625]

240. Thank you

I appreciate that very much!

[Jamastiene]

242. It is kind of hard to go up to bat to defend someone who

washed his hands of us and made it quite clear he had no respect for us and did not need us. I mean, really, that is exactly what he did from day one after being elected. Most of us took the hint.

Some of us are just against the same things now that were were against when Shrubya was president. A Democratic president doing the same things doesn't make them all of a sudden A-ok.

I'll take a drubbing alongside you. It is not like we haven't been dragged through the ringer here on DU for the last six years if we dare speak our minds.

[marym625]

243. evidently

There are all kinds of rules that are not written. One of which is you're not allowed to talk about someone who isn't running. Another is you can't post much if you haven't been doing so since day one.

Thanks. I appreciate the support.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Who in the Democratic Party has the power to stop Republicans from vilifying

the President or anyone else.
(It isn't just the President. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Warren, Franken, and many others have been vilified. The President is just at the top of the Party.)

And as for diseminating the good new, Republicans have created several hundred media outletes and organizations that constantly "vilify" the President and Democrats. That doesn't exist on the left. The Left Wing Media is one of the most successful Big LIes in history.

Republicans can lie on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX, and not one of the peole talking to them will require backing up a comment with fact.

[marym625]

141. Remember when Air America Radio started?

It was so fabulous! Absolutely loved it and couldn't get enough of it. Too bad it didn't stay like it was.

Maybe us liberals just aren't radio people.

Happy New Year!

[merrily]

203. when have you seen almost an entire field of Dem candidates run away from the POTUS,

as almost the entire 2014 field tried to do?

Shortly before the election, Morning Joe made a point of trying over and over to get the damned head of the DNC to mention his name and she refused so to do, for which he mocked her as soon as her air time with that show ended.

[world wide wally]

10. Well, there's always Allison Grimes, Mark Udall and a bunch more that would defend him, but...

They all lost their elections for some reason

[Bandit]

14. Allison Grimes would not even admit she voted for him

Mark Udall did not run from Democratic policies and lost but I believe he was the only one. all the others ran from Obama and everything Democrats had accomplished and they all lost.

[world wide wally]

160. Mark Udall said a total of two things during his campaign.

1) Cory Gardner will take away a woman's reproductive rights (which is true). Meanwhile, Gardner constantly pounded away at Obama and Udall.
And 2), He opposed Obama on the NSA.
Never even one word about anything that had been accomplished.

[onecaliberal]

104. Grimes wouldn't even admit she voted for him

AND she was a delegate. With supposed friends like that who needs enemies. They lost because they ran away from progressive policy that much of the country is begging for.

[jeff47]

12. You can't defend that which you are running way from.

Democrats keep having the insane belief that they can peel off Republican voters. So they keep running away from their own - the Democratic platform for 2014 was "We're not Obama either!!!"

You can't defend that which you are running way from.

[Bobbie Jo]

18. So true

Insane, yeah..... but R voters do show up
to the polls pretty consistently.

[jeff47]

52. They have a reason to show up. Their party actually works for them.

Democratic voters would show up more if they got something from it.

[Iggo]

15. How did the Democratic Party let the leader of the Democratic Party get so vilified?

I don't know.

[mopinko]

16. strange question for you to ask, kentuck.

how does du let him get so vilified, day in and day out?

[kentuck]

20. I see it from a purely political disadvantage...

to not be able to exhort any accomplishments that the President of your Party may be credited with? It doesn't seem too smart? Even though I disagree with the President in numerous ways, I am unwilling to chop off my nose.

[Andy823]

32. Exactly. nt

[Number23]

40. Thank you. I am reading this thread with my mouth hanging open

This web site has been home for some of the vilest name calling, lies and distortions against this man and from DAY ONE. I have seen everything lobbed at President Obama from DU. Who needs Yahoo! Comments when you got the good folks in GD? And of course, all of it is from the "left" even though the one way to incur the permanent ire of these guys is to note the over proven and often repeated stats that they represent a statistically insignificant number of Democrats or liberals.

The president's supporters have been saying for a very long time that the continued attacks would affect his position and standing. And now, the forum and the posters that have shit on everything he's done are now saying "Wait a minute... why have the DEMOCRATS let him become so vilified?" I have said it before and will say it again, some of these people simply CANNOT be for real.

[greatauntoftriplets]

82. And so much of the shit slinging here gets 100s of recommendations.

[steve2470]

88. +1 nt

[SidDithers]

89. Nailed it...

Obama gets vilified because many of the people that are supposed to have his back, don't.

The fringe left media is just as active in vilifying Obama as the right-wing asshats, often using the same language and memes.

We see it on DU every fucking day, from posters who are new to DU, from
long-timers, and from the dozens of fucking zombies who get banned for their dumbassery, and hardly miss a breath in posting the same shit with their new accounts.

Sid

[giftedgirl77]

107. No, Number 23 they definitely can't be for real...

They jumped right on in this thread to do exactly what the OP was referring to. Some of them are so disconnected from reality they are blaming him for things that aren't even within his control. Things that a person with a basic elementary civics education should understand continue to spew even though they've been told they're wrong repeatedly.

[hopemountain]

113. ^^^++ nt

[sheshe2]

189. Yup, giftedgirl.

I think Skinner should have a civics 101 course here. So many have forgotten 8th grade. I love my teacher Mr Moriatty.

[Number23]

190. Well, the poster you're referring to has been on this site for about five minutes and already has

a blaring transparency page, is on time out and won't be back until the end of March, if at all. (Fingers crossed!!)

Wonder if that will make any difference to the folks here rooting him on???

[giftedgirl77]

192. No most likely not...

There was a similar one on here that you could tell had joined only for one reason & I called them on it repeatedly. They soon had their band of merry followers & then the next thing you know poof, they've been zapped by MIRT. Weird how that keeps happening....

[BklnDem75]

117. That's exactly what I've seen...

Trolls that actually hate Democrats will hit the ground running here by simply swiping at Obama and the BOG with as little as double digit post counts. Then folks actually wonder how all these racists and shit stirrers reached 500+ posts before getting their pizzas.

[kentuck]

120. All I can say is...

If you can't stand up and fight for what you believe in, it is going to be very difficult to get someone else to stand up and fight for you.

I think this may the impression that some may have?

Personally, I do not know who didn't show up at the polls the last time around? Maybe the "liberals" set it out? Or maybe some other group, or another, set it out?

My opinion is that the leadership of our Party is getting older....some much older. We need new blood in the Party. I can see no reason why some of the brilliant people, that are younger and more energetic, cannot call up their local Democratic Party HQs, and ask some questions about who is running in the next election? And if no one is running, or it is someone you do not want to support, throw your hat in the ring and let's re-build this Party.

[Number23]

177. Okay, but since when has "standing up and fighting" meaned screaming and crapping all over the

people that come the closest to representing and getting you to your end game?

The Repubs have done a very good job of portraying the president as an out of control, America hating socialist that wants to raise everyone's taxes and let the UN invade our borders. The vast majority of Democrats/liberals have refuted that but there has been an (statistically extremely tiny) portion of the extreme left that has for reasons that no one fully understands, have tried to portray the president as a conservative fascist out to kill the poor.

It is my personal opinion that the opinion of both of these groups are two sides of the same coin of crazy. And what's actually wound up happening is that the media, desperate to play up any and all disruption within the ranks -- on both the left AND right -- sees these attacks and has been amplifying them. All of this does nothing but weaken President Obama and the Democratic party. And who winds up suffering as a result? The American people for generations to come.

I have seen really intelligent, principled objection to the president's policies from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken and lots of other Democrats. Hell, even Pelosi and Reid have been able to disagree with him without calling him "Reagan lite". The CBC has been exemplary in the way that they've handled disagreements (and there have been quite a few) with the president. There has to be a smarter, less destructive way to disagree with the party rather than screaming profanities, calling the Democrats sell outs and members of the Catfood Commission before they've even done anything. Howling at every thing that moves doesn't do a thing but make the people doing so look unhinged. And what smart person in their right mind would want to represent the unhinged in Congress?

[Sheepshank]

204. oh yeah

[Union Scribe]

124. Do you do anything besides talk shit about DU? nt

[Bobbie Jo]

152. Do you do anything besides talk shit about DU'ers?

[Union Scribe]

154. I collect baseball caps. nt

[Number23]

175. Now, Bobbie Jo, you know that somebody was going to jump up when I noted how this group represents

a statistically insignificant portion of Democrats and liberals. The truth bites harder than a croc with lockjaw with these folks.

Would have been nice if it was somebody a bit smarter/nicer/more coherent but you and I both know that someone was going to object.

[Number23]

174. Apparently instilling major crushes in DUers I can't stand is another skill

[Union Scribe]

181. Well duh

Who doesn't find unrelenting negativity and insults irresistible?

[Number23]

182. Guess when that's all somebody is ever able to contribute

big shock that's all they're ever able to see.

Which sure as hell explains why I have never once been drawn to you and your unique brand of unhinged rage and relentless negativity at every thing and everybody.

[Union Scribe]

183. Lol, there's the soft touch we all know and love. nt

[Number23]

184. You sure as hell seem to.

[uponit7771]

151. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

153. Well said!

[steve2470]

87. yep

When he does something undisputably good (i.e., using his power to not deport people), the silence in GD is fairly deafening. If the POTUS got as much attention for the undisputably good as for the debatable "bad", I'd give DU and GD in particular more credence. DU does NOT, except for the BOG and certain meticulous posters, represent the Democratic Party.

[mopinko]

97. right? cuba?

yeah, remember how we partied about that big surprise breakthrough?
yeah, me neither.

[JI7]

19. ask Alison Grimes

[kentuck]

22. Actually, Alison Grimes is the perfect example.

How was it that Obama was vilified so badly in Kentucky that no one running for federal office could come out and publicly support him? I don't blame Alison Grimes - she was trying to win a race against the #1 Republican, Mitch McConnell. But neither the national Party or the President gave her a reason to support the President. They were content to let candidates in different states run without supporting Obama because the Party agreed with Alison Grimes - she had a better chance not connected to Barack Obama.

[JI7]

23. is grimes a fucking idiot ?

She was running for senate . She was part of the national party.

Do you still want to keep denying why certain democrats from certain places want nothing to do with him ?

[kentuck]

118. You're making shit up !

Everyone against Obama does not necessarily have to be a racist, if that is your implication?

[JI7]

119. Grimes herself may not be racist but she was certainly campaiging for the racist vote

and that's why she couldn't even bring herself to say she voted for Obama.

[Wellstone ruled]

24. Here you go,

Obama's transition team led by a tone deaf twit named Rahm Emanuel,need we say more. This POS whacked the Presidents knees out with in two months by failing to move legislation just to save face with certain Blue Dogs and other candidates with ties to a certain Pac.

[JI7]

26. So how did Rahm Emanuel get elected mayor

[Wellstone ruled]

69. This turkey is the choice of the 1%ers

to protect and preserve their interests. When the Chi town machine wants a change,you will get change.

[Enthusiast]

30. I think we can all agree that Rahm Emanuel SUCKS!

And he continues to suck in Chicago. He must go.

[JI7]

31. why is he leading in the mayors race ?

[former9thward]

58. The people of Chicago have never supported progressives for Mayor.

The one small exception was Harold Washington and he only got in with 36% of the vote because the machine candidates split the remaining 64%. They want the city to function and they don't care about ideology.

[JI7]

68. So progressives don't want the city to function ?

[former9thward]

77. Not what I said.

The people of Chicago would rather have someone as Mayor who they perceive will keep the city functioning rather than someone who they perceive is an advocate of 'causes'.

[marym625]

146. I just want a mayor

Who puts the palm trees back at Oak Street beach in the summer.

I'm kidding. I just miss seeing them. Got such a kick out of it.

Happy New Year!

[KT2000]

28. Happened with Carter too

united we stand, divided we fall

[Enthusiast]

29. The unfair biased media always give the Righties a platform they use to vilify the President.

Come on.

[Doctor_J]

50. No kidding. I think this OP was incitement to liberal-bashing

Listen to AM radio anywhere in the US for 10 minutes and the answer to the OP's question is pretty easy.

[Enthusiast]

53. They tell their listeners the dumbest shit imaginable.

[brooklynite]

33. Good thing that would never happen here...

[True Blue Door]

34. We know exactly how this happened.

Because the left doesn't know how to be a base - even when it's not in the opposition, it acts like the opposition and turns on its own team. If it can find one - just one - thing to be angry about with a leader, then that leader is The Enemy.

[Doctor_J]

48. Actually they showed how to be a base in 2008

but then were abandoned by the huge majorities and president they put in office. Suppose a republican campaigned for president on a right-wing platform, then got into office and passed single payer healthcare, huge pentagon cuts, strict environmental regulations, and a big top-heavy tax increase. Do you think those who voted for him would not complain?

[Frustratedlady]

37. Very few Democratic leaders backed Obama.

They stood back in the shadows and watched him fight his way out all alone.

At the very beginning, they should have come out and shamed the Republicans for stating that they would do whatever they had to to make sure he was a one-term president.

Disgusting.

Once his numbers go back up, they'll come flocking to get some of the glory...that's if the Republicans don't jump in and claim they were the ones who improved the economy, job market and immigration reform. I don't know how they can manage it, but they sure do.

[ErikJ]

38. Half disapproval rating from Tea Party, half from Progressives.

Simple as that.

[treestar]

43. It doesn't control the media

The Republicans have a lot more water carriers in the M$M.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. you just need to read DU to see why......

Some here would turn on Ghandi himself if he became President. Its just easier to be perpetual malcontents....

[ElboRuum]

47. Because the Democratic Party, for some strange reason...

...thinks that they can't win without Republican assent. The Republican party seems to do just fine ignoring what Democrats want and caring little for their votes.

So when Republicans decided to make Obama the pariah in chief, Democrats in redder areas of the U.S. decided that he was electoral poison. As if ardent Republicans were even in any slight way responsible for their election.

No election has gone well for Democrats where they opine that embracing the current party leadership has negative electoral outcomes.

It has always been my impression that Democrats lose elections because they won't circle the wagons a little bit when the opposition places them under attack. I mean, you can talk of principles and policies all you want, but by having a party affiliation from an electoral standpoint, whether you agree point for point with the leadership or not, you are saying "I am a member of this party because I agree in principle with the majority of things for which that party stands." Pulling away from that, calling yourself a Democrat and distancing yourself from the Democratic President has never really worked as an electoral strategy, and has the added side-effect of making the Democratic Party look weak and unprincipled, further damaging its electoral and philosophical clout.

[tularetom]

81. Everything you say is true, and why do think that is?

The national Democratic party, including unfortunately the President, seems to believe that every American living outside the beltway is a republican or at least ready to be one, so they can't sound too god forbid, liberal, in their campaign rhetoric. They believe this because they hear the corporate media, and a sizable contingent of blue dogs, turd way, DLC types, shouting it their ears constantly.

They continue to believe it in spite of the fact that following what they believe to be true has cost them dearly in the past two mid term elections and in spite of the fact that poll after poll shows that most Americans support a truly progressive agenda over either republicanism or the watered down version of republicanism offered by corporate Democrats.

The Democratic party needs to ignore the media, purge itself of these closet republicans and begin to move in the direction that most voters want to go.

[ElboRuum]

83. Well...

I do not believe that the national Democratic party believes that people outside of the beltway are less liberal than they, they just don't trust their own base to align behind them during elections. They write off these easy votes as though they don't even exist and move toward the center thinking the elections unwinnable without bipartisan support. Of course, their left-leaning base feels betrayed and they lose even more loyalty.

The Democratic Party would win every election if it would stand on its principles and act like a party having a solid platform and a practice of backing the party and each other during election cycles.

Their crime isn't seeing every American as a Republican or soon-to-be Republican, but seeing every voter, even those in their own base, as unprincipled vacillating twits who'll turn on them at the slightest provocation by whatever noise is coming out of the media.

[YOHABLO]

54. Corporate Media has lambasted Obama and we don't have much say in how they parse things.

Of course we have the FOX propaganda machine in which their only agenda is to destroy the Obama administration. MSNBC does a half way decent job in their later evening line up in espousing the Democratic cause. They try to balance it all out with the likes of the ''Morning Joe Crowd''. Yuk.

Why the hell do you think we're all participating on DU? and other progressive sites? We've got John Stewart, Bill Maher, John Oliver and perhaps Steven Colbert as the new host of the Late Night Show. There's still hope.

[yellowwoodII]

61. Fox

Fox News is still number 1, I read.

[Corey_Baker08]

64. IDK But I Am Confident His Approval Rating Will Soar After Leaving Office...

I predict President Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest President in our nations history...

[SpankMe]

65. Two answers: 1. Repubs are unified and have mind-numbing tenacity, and

2. Dem leaders/candidates are pussies and Dem voters are apathetic and won't go to the fucking polls.

The question and frustration of the OP is right on. Everyone should have been running with the president's record and supporting the president's actions with virulence. They should be on talk shows every day hammering home the facts of job gains, Dow records, low gas prices, economic growth, ending a decade of wars, healthcare improvements, everything.

Instead, they're treading lightly in order to capture that fickle middle.

Support these winning policies even if it means we lose up front. If we stay on these points with the same tenacity the republicans do, we'd be back in total power within the next 2 election cycles.

Instead, Dem candidates are spending all their time not pissing off the tea party.

[WhiteTara]

79. ummm. One word

Racism.

[sendero]

90. It's not just the president...

... the entire party has been vilified for some time, starting with hate radio and seeping outward. The Democrats have never been good at defending themselves and Obama makes an art of it. Rhetorically, Democrats consistently bring a knife to a gunfight every time. When some dare to speak out, they often retreat into weak apologies in the face of Republican and faux media outrage.

When you don't have enough passion about your position to defend yourself vigorously, how can you expect anyone else (the voters) to believe in you?

[elleng]

101. Problem with communication, yes,

and Dem's refusal to recognize real world of this Potus.

One piece of this: No one/few like the smartest student in the class. True in high school, college, politics, military. They don't like him, and President Obama is not an ass-kisser, so they complain: 'He never calls me!'

[abakan]

102. Simple answer...

Cowardice. The only thing they care about is not saying or doing anything they might have to explain or answer for.

[Initech]

108. It's called "Fox News". They disrupt popular opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. I don't believe that he's actually that vilified.

I think that by the time Presidents come into the 2nd half of their 2nd term they are generally swimming upstream with public opinion, even the best of them. The RW gushes over Reagan, but the American public was pretty tired of his shtick come 1987 IIRC.

However, our Party leadership- such as it is- hasn't helped. We've got people like Debbie Wasserman Shultz tone-deaf to the millions of voters west of the Mississippi who think marijuana should be legal, as she actively agitates for tougher jail sentences for cancer grannies who smoke medical marijuana.

[DonCoquixote]

129. Various reasons

On the one hand, Obama did it to himself by veerign right after campigning left. Keepign people like Rahm did a LOT of damage, and then the cabinet he picked, that he took heat for, could not wait to write tell all books about hoe Obama was really too much of a liberal. Yes, even Hillary did it with her judas kiss book where she explained how she would have gone to war with Syria. Never mind that Syria could have, and may yet, start war with the Russians. Honestly, if Obama turned to the left, like she sold hiumself as, I cannot promise there would have been hordes to support him. Some have said the left would have united, sorry, I see little evidence that they would have, but even so, he could have had the eventuial respect of those who knew he stood true, much like many of the same people who hated Jimmy Carter now realize he was one of our better presidents.

On the other hand, let's be real honest, the left is divided, and there are some good reasons it is divided, namely because the centre-rioght has tried to take over the left, and by take over, I mean kill. The left is also emboldened because now thath the cold war is over and the USSR is long dead, they can develop some of the good ideas without having that communist/stalinist taint on them. Now, I do not want to become lockstep goosetep like out GOP friends, BUT, until we can attack the right with the same ferocity as we do each other, we will be running with one leg in a marathon. We do not have to agree woith eahc other, but we do need to get together, and define someco mmon ground, and yes, that common ground MUST be firmly to the LEFT if the line Bill Clinton drew.

And here is that last part, which will no doubt get me on shit lists. The Clintons did a lot to divided the left, and frankly, barring a lot of work by Hillary, they still are. Many of the PUMAS, from Maureen O' Dowd to Arriana Huffington, never thought Obama was worthy to challenge their anointed Queen, and they have been sniping at him since day one. Hell, when you read cute little quips here like "he really did not have the experience" (as if some professor from Arkansas did) or "Tell me how anyone other than Hillary Clinton can actually WIN" (done with a self assured sneer)we know that many who support Clinton are willing to demonize and attack others on the left. Why does this have to do with Obama, because frankly the Clintons are not defending Obama, but already cashing in on the whole "you know you shoulda voted for us" nostalgia. The 2014 elections were not won, and yet the 2016 campauigns were under way, takign away focus, time and money.

Now before some of you start yelling that Hillary could not have done anything, let me say, she could have spoken up. She could actually DEFEND THE RECORD of the man who HIRED HER to be SOS when many on this very board were begging him to KICK HER AND BILL TO THE CURB! Instead, what do the Clintons do, they supoorted people like Alison Lundergan Grimes to run, who screamed in their loud voice "I diagree with Barack Obama!" especially in Kentucky which benefitted from that hated Obamacare. The Clintons got behidn Blue Dog stinkers from landrieu to Grimes, all of whom might have well have made their campiagn slogan "I hate Obama as much as the GOP does." Never mind how these folks got slaughtered in the elections, they are part of Hillary's supporters, and lo and behold they will be put forth again, while the knives are sharpened for Warren and Sanders.

[AtomicKitten]

185. Good points all.

I am sick with the flu and have just been reading, but I was moved by your thoughtful reply. You nailed it imo. Thanks for your post. Cheers.

[marym625]

247. +1

[marym625]

136. Nice post!

I kicked earlier and rec'd now. I love any thread that causes discussion. Great job!

[KG]

145. man, if i was so vilified, i don't know if i could get out of bed in the morn...

[ucrdem]

155. Well, you could always ask Bill, Hill and Al.

They haven't exactly made a career of cheerleading the Obama admin, nor have their clients, even when they have been in it. Would have helped, but there it is.

[MineralMan]

180. Funny you should ask, kentuck.

Truly amusing.

[kentuck]

197. At some point, we have to look at the facts.

We have to face reality.

We have the lowest representation in the House in a long time. And now, the Repubs have taken over the Senate. And all we have to offer for the White House is Hillary.

How far are you willing to dive under the water without coming up for air?

[MineralMan]

198. I stay out of the water, with my feet on the ground.

Where I am, progressives win elections. Where you are, they do not. I can't help elect anyone where you are, so I work where I am.

And there it is.

[kentuck]

199. And you are content with that situation?

I don't think most Democrats are looking for "progressives" to win elections. I think they are looking for Democrats.

[MineralMan]

200. The progressives I have helped get elected ARE Democrats.

Only some Democrats are vilifying President Obama. Some of them are here on DU. I have to wonder if they are really Democrats, to tell you the truth.

Most Democrats support President Obama. I do. I also support Al Franken and Betty McCollum. I worked hard to help get both elected.

That's what I do. I don't vilify people. I work to elect good candidates.

I can do nothing in Kentucky. I can do nothing anywhere except where I am. I post on DU. That makes no difference in any election. I post here because there are Democrats here. There are others here, as well. It's an open forum.

Your question answered itself, frankly. We can clearly see who is vilifying the President. The same people will vilify the next Democratic President, too. That's what they do. That's all they know to do. It's very sad, and helps Republicans gain control of legislatures. With that, I will continue my gradual withdrawal from discussions here.

[kentuck]

207. First of all...

I could be very critical of this President, if I chose to be?

I would suggest that anyone that has supported this President on every issue is not a "real" Democrat. And if they did not support the President, but chose to keep their mouths shut, then that raises another issue entirely.

I think that it is easy to confuse "criticism" with "vilification". Republicans vilify him. And we all know the numerous ways they have done that - from birth certificate, to being a Muslim, they have run the gamut. But that is different from saying that you disagree with the President on the TPP trade treaty, or with droning the people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. That is different from saying you disagreed with the President on keeping 96% of the Bush taxcuts in place, when the government desperately needed revenues, but stood on the ground that the economy was not strong enough to take such a "tax increase". And that is different from criticizing the President for putting in Wall Street-types like Tim Geithner, when this country was in dire need of reform and cleaning house with the big money banks and corporations that were calling the shots as our economy almost collapsed. Yes, but he kept us out of a depression, didn't he?

There are arguments to counter criticism and there are arguments to counter "vilification". They are not the same. Some DUers need to stop making that comparison and bad-mouthing other DUers in the process, in my opinion.

[MineralMan]

239. So, did you think I was talking about you, then?

Interesting. I was more referring to people who have called him vile names. Did you recommend any of those posts? Did you agree? I don't know, and won't go look, but you know, I'm sure. I just found your question in the OP rather odd. Rather odd indeed. But that's just me, I suppose.

[kentuck]

249. Secondly....

I don't live in Kentucky. Why did you think the question "rather odd", if I might ask?

The President has pissed me off several times, I will admit. But more than anything, it was his refusal to fight back or he simply offered some milquetoast explanation of support and that was good enough for a lot of folks here. I'm sure you would not be one of those but they are here.

[Sheepshank]

210. So I wasn't the only one scratching my head over what I thought was obvious lol n/t

[kentuck]

214. I guess some folks tried but they just weren't effective?

They were over-whelmed by the majority of progressive voices? Huh? They just didn't have enough to protect this President from some criticism?

Lordy, Lordy, what should we do??

[Sivafae]

191. I think it would happen if the POTUS was Michael Steele.

You know, them dumb ass racists burned a "T" in the lawn of a Portuguese Family's for "time to leave." If they are that dumb, I can't expect them to be able to differentiate political parties. That is asking too much from the cellular matter in their head.

[YoungDemCA]

218. Because of demographics

nt

[Enrique]

231. the GOP did not destroy Obama

he won reelection and his approval numbers are higher than ever.

[Stellar]

250. Exactly!

[Maedhros]

234. It's useful to the Party to have Obama constantly criticized from the Right.

The RW nutjobs carry on about how Obama is a secret Muslim fascist plotting to implement gay Sharia law, which gives the Democratic rank-and-file ample subject matter for the daily Two Minute Hate against Republicans.

Meanwhile, as the RW nutjobs complain about the imaginary Obama, the real one goes about engaging in some spectacularly egregious bullshit - pushing the TPP, executing citizens without due process, murdering with drones 50 civilians for every suspected militant, undermining teachers, condoning torture - and the Democratic rank-and-file feels compelled to defend the President when he does so because of the Republicans' nonsensical haranguing.

The Democrats, in the end, are able to push through Corporate policy (which is what the Republicans want), while playing victim for the masses so that they won't object. Brilliant, really.

[kentuck]

236. Interesting concept.

[Maedhros]

238. Don't you think it's funny that, with all of the LEGITIMATE things that Obama could be

conceivably censured or impeached over, the Republicans find other entirely fictitious avenues of attack?

Why make starkly, obviously nonsensical claims about Obama but not raise a peep about how he actually abuses the Constitution? Clearly, the Republicans don't care about the Constitution, but you'd think they'd at least be tempted to use Obama's actual transgressions to attack him. That they don't do so, and that Democratic shills attack anyone from the Left who brings them up, is telling.

[kentuck]

245. I don't think that it is that "the Republicans don't care about the Constitution"..

Insomuch as they think everyone must do it? Because they know that their side is guilty of the same transgressions that some here accuse Obama of doing. So they pick trivial bullshit to blame him for.