President of the UNITED STATES

[justiceischeap]

I'm a liberal, I took that test someone posted here a while back and I'm about as far left as you can get. Would I like a President who was ONLY concerned about my needs, doing things that would only make MY life better? Of course, I mean this is a me, me, me culture. I guess I just don't get the mindset of some liberals/progressives that don't take into account that there are other people in this country that don't share our world view, hold our moral compass, care about things other than me, me, me.

When I read posts that Obama's SOTU address was the best REPUBLICAN address, ever, I have to wonder, if there anything this President can do that will make you happy? Are you so naive that you think he can be a successful politician and get reelected? I'm of the opinion that I'd rather have a President that is a Democrat than have a Republican because it was, after all, the Republican's that got us into this mess, that with their same old ideas want to keep us mired in this mess for political gain and don't care about people who really need help (social security, welfare, health care, etc.).

So the health care reform isn't what we all wanted but it's a start, DADT was repealed, he saved the entire auto industry (oh but wait, that's bad because it's corporate, right?), finance industry regulations, credit card company regulations; I get that these aren't "sexy" wins but they are wins for the American people nonetheless. And, frankly, this is the horse the Democratic party put all of its money on and we need to support him, not add to the Republican meme that he sucks for everyone. There's always hope, that he will become more progressive if he wins reelection but he won't win reelection if our party, his once base, isn't realistic about what needs to be done to win in this country as a politician. You need to be a little something for everyone in the nation, not just your own party. We saw that with Bush and it sucked.

I guess I just wish that some in our party wouldn't expend as much energy to denigrate a President who has to serve ALL his constituents to win and last nights SOTU address was the kick off to his reelection campaign, so of course he's going to play to the audience he needs to embrace him to win. Obama wasn't my candidate but as a good Democrat, I got behind him and I intend to stick with him because he's much better than the alternative.

[DCBob]

1. That about sums it up..

I wish more on DU could understand this. Well said.

[bushisanidiot]

2. Bingo! Any president that plays only to her/his base, will be a one term

president. The opposite political party will be swept in and all of the previous administration's accomplishments will be reversed.

Re-election IS important! REAL change cannot be made in a mere 4 years. The President has done an amazing job on getting DADT repealed, and signing the Health Care Reform bill, as well as many other accomplishments. He also needs to make a play for the centrrists and independants in order to get re-hired next year. The left aren't the only people in the country, we need to understand that and we need to support OUR PRESIDENT!! That's not to say we should LIKE everything that he does when it comes to compromising with the right, but being purists and demonizing him will only help to ensure that teapublicans win in 2012. The left railed on the President in 2010 and that is why so many democrats stayed home. Pundits like Keith, Ed, and Rachel did NOT help our cause in the midterms. They only started singing the President's praises DAYS before the election. By then it was too late, because too many dems bought all of the negativity that they threw at the President and they stayed home on election day.

I sure as hell hope that won't happen in 2012. I love Keith and Rachel (Ed is a bit of a blowhard), but they don't help the cause when they join with the republicans in bashing the President. Criticize him, sure. But don't do it day after day, week after week, month after month, then days before the elction, try to convince your viewers that he's actually a kick ass President.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Of course, that is why Bush was a one termer, all swept out and

all! Or are you claiming that Bush did not play only to his base? He reached out to the Democrats? When?

[polmaven]

22. Are you claiming

That Bush was actually *elected* either time? :shrug:

[bushisanidiot]

24. +1

both were stolen

[Autumn]

29. That's why I was grateful Bush played to Democrats so often.

Now I feel bad I didn't support the fucker. How could some of us have been so blind? Oh wait, what's that? He didn't play to Democrats and had two terms? Never mind



:puke:

[rko_24550]

33. +100

[niceypoo]

37. Republicans will never vote for Obama

Independents dont like a weak president.

[butterfly77]

51. I agree with this part completely..

"I sure as hell hope that won't happen in 2012. I love Keith and Rachel (Ed is a bit of a blowhard), but they don't help the cause when they join with the republicans in bashing the President. Criticize him, sure. But don't do it day after day, week after week, month after month, then days before the election, try to convince your viewers that he's actually a kick ass President".

[Uben]

3. And we wonder why he has trouble getting credit.....

....for his accomplishments. He cannot even get accolades for what he has done from the left, much less the right. I'm not sure what people expect. I have been utterly amazed at this president's accomplishments, thus far. Some act as if though he has a far left majority in both houses and should be passing progressive policy right and left. That is not the reality of it. In order to get anything done these next two years, it will require bi-partisan effort. I think he tweaked his message last night to accommodate that. And that's a bad thing? No, it's a SMART thing. Too many here try to "out-think" Obama, and quite frankly, they aren't smart enough to out-think him, IMO.
Of course, all of this is subjective. We don't always hear the same message or agree on what that message is/was. I heard a president who extending an olive branch to the right and was paving the way to pass something meaningful these next two years. Others supposedly heard a "republican" speech. Yeah, right.

[Ineeda]

4. K&R

the other team won't compromise and only want to backward to the 'good old days' that got us into this mess. You're right about accomplishments not always being perfect, but it is, indeed a start. I'm sticking with him, too.

[impik]

5. It was the most progressive speech anyone has given on this podium in decades. So called "progressiv...

are blind and clueless.

[grahamhgreen]

6. He was elected to represent those who elected him, not the tea baggers.

[shraby]

8. He was elected to represent the United States of America

which includes everyone from the oldest to the youngest bar none.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. It even includes those he says are not 'Sanctified by God'

who he says should not have the rights others have. Bar none but the gay. One man, one woman, defend that Sacrament. It is all about words like sanctified and sacred and holy and sacrament, words that have no place in our civil discourse. This man claims that gay people do not have a spiritual bond, and he is what he is. The President of the United Straights of America.

[justiceischeap]

15. Now you're going to blame him for something that every other President has done?

Obviously, it doesn't excuse his attitude towards gay marriage but I do believe he is the first President that's ever declared that his views on that subject were transforming.

As a lesbian, I'd like to see DOMA struck down, an amendment to the US Constitution including gays in the 14th amendment, I'd like to see ENDA passed, oh and DADT repealed... wait, that's been done already. How about a hate crimes bill, I'd like to see that signed into law... oh wait, that's been done already too.

This President has done more for the gay community than any other President and it's my belief that if he's reelected, he'll do more.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Show me where any other President has used language such as

'Sanctified by God' to describe how straight people are better than gay people. You claim they all have done what Obama has done. So show me one President who has campaigned with hate preachers who openly call for war on gay people or call us vampires. Indeed, show me one who, has changed his mind, as Obama has, you said he's transforming and that is correct, he used to loudly support equal rights, now he is opposed to equality due to his religious experience, or so he says.
I will await your list of other President's hate preachers and sermons about gay people not being sanctified in the eyes of God. You claim every other President has done the same thing. Prove it, or take back your backhanded accusation. Your claim is false. False. I expect an apology unless you can show me every President using that sort of ritual language in the public square.
You say 'obviously it does not exuse his attitude' but your entire post exists to do just that, rationalize, excuse, defend, mitigate, you pick the word.
Sorry, but you are defending a man who stands between me and my basic human rights. And you are doing so with unsupported claims. Declarations.
Show me where Bill Clinton claimed to be very Christian and devoted to the Sanctity of Marriage in a way that some can not share. John Edwards did that, he lost. I do not recall Bill proclaiming his own divine standing, declaring some are 'sanctified' and some are not, none of that. Never heard Carter describe one group as superior to another either, not once. Even the Republicans avoid the hate preachers as surrogates, Obama used the worst of them.
Yet you say all of them do the exact same thing, as if that is a mitigation of right and wrong. Would you raise a child that way, tell them that which others do is good for them to do, by virtue of others doing it? Would you teach that the corruption of others permits one to behave in corrupt ways? Becaue everybody does it? Does a wrong become right due to popular demand?

[Dawgs]

17. He was elected to represent the whole USA as a Democrat; not a right-leaning Centrist.

Big difference.

[grahamhgreen]

19. So why do we have have different parties, and policy positions? Why not just have one, like China?

[justiceischeap]

25. To read some of the posts on DU, I'm sure some here would like that very much

As long as it leaned left.

[TheKentuckian]

43. That's the point of this nonsense to do exactly that.

The real "meeting in the middle" is to be between their authoritarianism and our corporatism.

That appears to be the push.

AKA...A world of shit.

They have to allow a few more airs of independence to increase the "you're on your own but we own you" factor we like while picking up on the "Big Brother" through servitude to your employer or regulation to discourage small operators.

[BobbyBoring]

48. That's pretty much

what we have. I'm sorry, but the "Change" that I was expecting was getting out of 2 wars. Not running up the body count in Afghanistan and building huge embassies in Iraq. The Change I was expecting was a repeal of most parts of the Patriot Act, return of Habeas Corpus, A rolling back of surveillance of the American people, etc. The opposite has occurred. We have continued to move toward a police state.

I think all the bickering between the 2 branches of the 1 party is just a dog and pony show. A means to divide an already divided electorate.

I'm a bottom line person and the bottom line is, shit gets worse on a daily basis for the average American. We don't need a pep talk. We need real leadership and I don't see it~

[grahamhgreen]

20. That's not why I voted for him. Bush never represented my interests. Ever. At all.

[Robb]

21. Interesting point, though. Do you wish he had?

I sure do.

[grahamhgreen]

23. Personally, I want to distance myself as far from Bush and his policies as I can.

There is nothing wrong with debate, or having different ideas about how to solve things.

Solutions don't always lie in the middle.

We had private health care for years - it failed. We should have public health-care, now we are propping up a failed system

Same with Iraqistan - we should have been out years ago, the middle ground is a horror show.

And the Bush tax cuts, and the Reagan tax cuts.

All are failures. The republicans are more than capable of representing their own interests, Obama does not need to do it for them.

[Uzybone]

39. not one?? Ever?

Not even increased HIV funding for Africa. (yes its a no brainer)

[grahamhgreen]

41. That was tied to abstinence education?

[justiceischeap]

9. Which includes independents, moderates, some republicans, liberals, progressives, etc.

It wasn't just the liberals and progressives that got him elected. It was people who wanted a change in this country and they spread across all political spectrums.

And if you think he supports the tea baggers instead of the rest of us, there will be no chance of him getting reelected in 2012 and then we're left with a Michelle Bachman type President who will do this nation absolutely no good.

[Dawgs]

18. See response #17.

What's the point of having parties if the President is supposed to be as middle of the road as possible?

[girl gone mad]

34. People wanted a change from failed Republican policies..

unfortunately, Obama has continued most of those policies.

[Sheepshank]

26. you want Obama to only represent xxxxxxxx ?

I'm thinking you are mistaken in the "community idea", it's not a representation of one group or slighting one group, it's that everyone deserves to be included. Obama really doesn't not represent only 1/3 of the vocal nation. I hope he never does.

[grahamhgreen]

32. Yes, he is our representative, the representative of the other side lost.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. That's some funny shit right there.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. He wasn't elected to "represent".

What a ridiculous notion.

Read the Constitution and tell me if the word "represent" appears anywhere in Article II.

I'll save you some time... it doesn't.

[monmouth]

7. Excellent OP. Many thanks...n/t

[progressoid]

10. Unfortunately, it wasn't just the Republicans that got us into this mess.

A whole lot of Democrats had a hand in it too. There is nothing wrong with holding them accountable for their mistakes and encouraging them to do better.

[justiceischeap]

11. When I refer to Republicans getting us into this mess

I mean the wars, going from a surplus to debt, eliminating some of our constitutional rights in the name of security.

I understand the Dems in congress at the time didn't stand up to them and that is their failing, a huge one at that, but the Bush admin had a lot to do with the division in this country and that's totally a (R) fault and a big reason we are where we are today.

[progressoid]

16. Not only did Democrats not stand up to them, they supported them.

Like the Iraq war for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage
40% of Dem Representatives and nearly 60% of Dem Senators supported the IWR.

If we don't hold their feet to the fire, they will do the same thing again.


Absolutely, the Repubs have created a division in our country. Unfortunately, sometimes Democrats pick the wrong side of that divide.

[WI_DEM]

14. For many on DU nothing Obama does will make them happy

All they want is red meat and a president isn't supposed to be a divisive political person but the president of all people.

[Clio the Leo]

27. tell 'em. nt

[Phx_Dem]

28. There was nothing "Republican" about that SOTU address. Republicans

and conservative pundits are calling it a Republican speech because they liked it. And that's because there was nothing in it not to like whether you're a Dem or a Republican.

How else can Republicans justify liking a speech given by a Democratic president other than to call it Republican? They're so transparent.

Progressives' excuse is that they're whiners who feel the need to bitch about everyfuckingthing. And they're so pathetic.

[treestar]

30. Rec'd.

For being reasonable.

[cottonseed]

31. I lot of people forgot that Obama never won over "hard working Americans".

Those were Hillary voters, which he has an obligation to serve. I don't see how he could go off governing like the liberal he was considered before running for President.

[Politicub]

35. I'm so happy that Obama is our President

Although people on here will disagree with me, his forceful advocacy for gay rights puts him head and shoulders above all Presidents who came before him.

Loved Bill Clinton, but he wasn't devoted to the LGBT cause as much as President Obama. And you know what -- he's signaled that he may change his stance on civil unions being good enough.

I credit him with leading the American people through some very tough times, and also getting a remarkable HCR reform package through.

While he will always do some things that I disagree with, you hit the nail on the head that he's the President of all Americans.

[Uzybone]

36. this OP wins

[niceypoo]

38. Failed policies of the GOP

EOM

[justiceischeap]

45. Which doesn't necessarily mean they would fail with brighter minds

reworking them. I'm not saying that all Obama does or has proposed is perfect but he's playing the game of politics well. He may be disappointing his base but it seems to me he's slowly winning over Independents and moderate Republicans and that's what he needs to get reelected.

[JNelson6563]

40. You are a grown up

many on the internet are not.

Julie

[Pisces]

42. Great post, except you are trying to win over narrow minded people and in some

cases undercover trolls. They want to create rifts within the democratic base. Your post is dead on point. We need Obama to win a 2nd term with majorities so that we can accomplish the rest of
his agenda.

[damonm]

44. Spock Approves...

[TBF]

46. Define "about as far left as you can get" - this president's reactionary

policies are not welcome by those of us who actually support socialism/communism. It's fine that you support him but don't try to paint him as someone who is actually leftist when his policies are to the right of Dwight Eisenhower (who actually increased the number of folks eligible for social security rather than making noise about cutting it).

Sorry but I find this a very disingenuous OP and for that unrec.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. too late to rec, but K&R!

well said.