President Obama: “Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election”

[bigtree]

(REUTERS/Larry Downing)

President Barack Obama told 500 cheering fans Wednesday, “Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election.”

While he never mentioned any of his Republican opponents by names at his rally, he slammed them in general terms, to cheers by his fans:

“What Americans are sick and tired of is watching people who are supposed to represent them put their party ahead of the country, put the next election ahead of the next generation. That’s what they don’t understand,” Obama said.

“When you’ve got the top Republican saying his number-one priority isn’t creating more jobs, solving the health care problems; it isn’t making sure were competitive in the 21st century, but it’s to beat me — then you know things aren’t on the level. They’ll fight with their last breath to protect tax cuts for the most fortunate in America, but they’ll play political games with tax cuts for the middle class.”

read: http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/9954638-417/obama-everything-that-we-fought-for-is-now-at-stake-in-this-election.html


(AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

President Obama also defended the change he enacted in his first three years in office, including health care reform, his decision to allow gays to serve openly in the military and his fulfillment of a vow to end the war in Iraq.

"Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election, the very core of what this country stands for is on the line."

"That's what change is," Obama said, also noting that "Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again," referring to the US special forces mission he ordered last year to kill the Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan.

"These changes weren't easy -- some of them were risky, almost all of them came in the face of powerful opposition," Obama said.

read: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq83W1ZAVEVvfNF67H1V-Q9S6pMg?docId=CNG.5c0bdc586be0de7b8c73b83f276bbf05.e71



"If you're willing to work even harder in this election than you did in the last election, I promise you, change will come," President Obama said at the first of three evening fundraisers, a large event at the University of Illinois at Chicago

"You can't back down _ not now. We won't give up _ not now," Obama said. "We've got to send a message we are going to keep pushing and fighting for the change that we believe in."

"I'm not a perfect man. I'm not a perfect president, but I promise you this _ and I've kept this promise _ I will always tell you what I believe and I will always tell you where I stand."

"If you stick with me, we're going to finish what we started in 2008," Obama said.

read: http://www.newser.com/article/d9s7474g2/back-in-chicago-obama-tells-supporters-i-promise-you-change-will-come.html


((AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

“America is not going to win if we give in to those who think we can only respond to our challenges with the same tired tune, just hand out more tax cuts to folks who don’t need them or weren’t even asking for them, let companies do whatever they want, hope that prosperity somehow trickles down on everybody else's head,” President Obama said. “It doesn’t work.”

"We cannot go back to this brand of 'you are on your own economics.'"

“Our political parties may be divided but most Americans, they understand now that we’re in this together,” he said. “We rise and fall together as one nation, as one people. That’s what’s at stake right now. That’s what this election is about.”

read: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-obama-heads-home-for-3-campaign-fundraisers-20120111,0,4566226.story


(AFP Photo/Scott Olson)

[villager]

1. Fought for? "We?"

[bigtree]

2. that's right

WE

[villager]

6. Just trying to remember the things Obama fought real hard for, is all....

4th Amendment? Confronting global warming? reining in executive power? Wrapping up the absurd "war on drugs?"

head-scratching over here.

That said, in the pics, the inevitable gray hairs sure are catching up with him....

[FarLeftFist]

10. Here's a good place to start:

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

These aren't all of them but their are 8 pages worth there.

[villager]

13. Yes, and I could give you the link leading to the broken promises, too (as you know)

Rather than linky circle jerks, what, in your own words, what has Obama taken political risks for?

Reining in banksters? New Wall Street regulation?

As someone with a FarLeftFist, I assume you must recognize Obama as being... far to the right of that fist of yours?

[FarLeftFist]

26. Just assume I'm a realist. And of course there are broken promises, but you didn't ask for those.

[bigtree]

18. continue here

Obama’s 2008 Campaign Promises Kept:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Long partial LIST (with citation links) of what Obama has done: http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Short List of Progressive Achievements by The Obama Administration
http://shoqvalue.com/short-list-of-progressive-achievements-by-the-obama-administration

Obama Administration’s Achievements (Thus Far)
http://obamaachievements.org/list

Obama’s LGBT Chart LIST
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x777350

Accomplishments by the Obama Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

100 Accomplishments of President Barack Obama
http://simplifythepositive.blogspot.com/2010/03/100-accomplishments-of-president-barack.html

Lists and graphs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=751914

List: 2.8 Years in Pictures....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x772937

We All Have a Choice in the 2012 Election
http://www.democratsforprogress.com/2011/09/03/we-all-have-a-choice-in-the-2012-election/

So That Ignorance Won't Be The Reason Why "Progressives" Are Throwing The President Under The Bus
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html

80 Reasons Why It’s Time To Take These Republican/Tea Party ‘Sons Of Bitches’ Down
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/06/80-reasons-why-its-time-to-take-these-republicantea-party-sons-of-bitches-down/

Bikini Jobs Graph (November 2011)
http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4640

Legislation signed by President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

Executive Orders signed by President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

The REAL Reason Barack Obama Won That Nobel Peace Prize
http://wrightandleftreport.com/news/the-real-reason-barack-obama-won-that-nobel-peace-prize/

Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes
http://thinkprogress.org/report/obama-foreign-policy-successes/

from Tx4obama

[villager]

19. well, since you're in to blue linky circle jerk, after all, here's Politifacts promises broken chart

... for a start. Since you cite them as a source:

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

[bigtree]

25. that's a biased piffle

. . . compared to the facts of his accomplishments.

Don't just read the links, read the facts behind them.

[villager]

30. wait -- the same source you use is "biased piffle" when that *same source* has facts you don't like?

So it's "biased piffle" when you link to it to, right?

[bigtree]

36. ooh

go campaign against the President somewhere else

[Wind Dancer]

53. +1

Now that was a smack down. Good for you!

[piratefish08]

58. biased piffle? the same source for both charts?

good one!

[FarLeftFist]

28. But only 3 pages as opposed to 8 pages of promises kept. And...

And most of those can still be met with a 2nd term.

[JDPriestly]

43. FarLeftFist, the short list of items interesting to progressives is, indeed, very short.

What interests me most at this point is what Obama plans to accomplish in his second term.

I would not have said this as many as six months ago, but at this point I think that Obama will be elected and will take some seats of Congress that might appear now to go Republican. Romney is toast and the other Republican candidates are very unattractive for one reason or another. I don't think that a dark horse could enter the race at the convention, unite that fractured party and get an organization going fast enough to make it to the finish line in November.

The only way a dark horse could manage it would be to form a campaign team right now and make a few appearances. No way anyone could do that in this internet age.

So, Obama is going to be re-elected provided that he keeps Democrats reasonably happy. In spite of the good things he has done, he has a miserable record on a couple of really important things -- the handling of the foreclosures, the slow job market, the bankers walking away with too much Fed money in addition to being bailed out, students unable to pay their loans and most important, his horrible record on human rights.

He is going to have to speak to these issues. A lot of people are/were unhappy with his healthcare reform, but what he did is better than what we had -- not by much, be honest, but it is better.

The movie When Mitt Romney Came to Town devastates Romney's chances in my opinion. Problem is that with the exception of the consumer protection agency -- which has some problems in its structure that could prevent it from being effective in that it will be administered from an agency that is virtually owned by the very banks it is supposed to control -- Obama has not done nearly enough for middle class people.

The speech by Obama quoted in the OP is troubling to me. It is much too short on specifics. It's another one of Obama's vague statements that sound good in so far as the tone is concerned until you realize that he says almost nothing specific.

What does he want to do if he gets another four years?

[FarLeftFist]

48. I completely agree. I am more than willing to give him a 2nd term to find out

But I agree the middle class needs more help and he does need more specifics, even if it's reinforcing past specifics. I want to hear strategy. We definitely need a good State of the Union address.

[DonCoquixote]

29. so

do your blue links outwigh his blue links, or are you just mad because he could produce facts?

[villager]

31. So.. I started with a link to the "factual" website he used. Are you deciding what "facts" are now?

[DonCoquixote]

35. NO, his facts are good

as are yours, my point is that you cannot make fun of facts (as you used a nasty term for them) and then expect anyone to respect your facts, you seemed to make a starta,. i.e. facts that say Obama bad good, facts that say Obama ok, bad.

I want to pull OPbama leftward, buit I also jhave seen, in 2000, and in 2004, when we rejected people because they did not promise to bring about revoultion overnight.

[sabrina 1]

52. Here's a fact. The President in this speech talked a lot about Republicans giving tax cuts to the

wealthy. Am I dreaming or was it not this President who broke his promise to end those tax cuts which cost this country over two trillion dollars, kept it OFF the table during the election season, kept the extension of unemployment OFF the table during the election, and then made a bargain that did not have to be made, AFTER the election when it was too late to use those two issues IN the election against Republicans?

He promised to end those tax cuts. He is promising this again? How do we know that he won't find another bargaining chip to extend them again AFTER the election? People are not blind, these things effect their lives so they care about them.

[bigtree]

62. yes, you must be dreaming

. . .or just fudging the facts to suit your own bias against the President.

Congress is in control of where our money is spent, not the President. When the Bush cuts were due to expire, he was at the mercy of a republican Congress (from which monetary policy originates under the law) which had taken the nation to the edge of financial default and had no intention of extending the middle class tax cuts many Americans were relying on to survive. Our credit rating was affected by their action, so, the president acted responsibly and compromised to preserve the middle class cuts and to keep our government in operation.

In that compromise to keep our government running, the President insisted on Congress funding the government beyond the date when the Bush tax cuts are due to expire. There will be no hostage-taking available to republicans who have just demonstrated in the fight over the payroll tax that their not inclined to tinker with middle-class tax relief (at least in this election season). There's every reason to believe the cuts to the wealthy will be allowed to expire without any intervention or rescue from this President.

*Of course, you can frame the President's struggle with the republican Congress any way you want. I prefer to recall the actual facts surrounding that debate.

[pnorman]

77. Thanks for that, bigtree!

n/t

[villager]

78. No, I was trying to avoid the whole blue link fandango for this reason

Everybody can link to a website that supports their contention.

I'm trying to keep it within the sphere of discussion:Has Obama really gone to the mat -- "fought for" -- things that are deeply critical to his constituency?

If so, which things? Which things has he risked really fighting for?

That's the only contention I was discussing. Then the "piffles" came out, when others couldn't discuss. Etc.

[One of the 99]

81. Thanks Big Tree! nt

[Romulox]

73. LOL. Your list doesn't mention NAFTA. Easy to list "kept" promises--just pretend the broken ones

weren't made!

[Avalux]

4. Yes, WE!

Are you in or not??

[villager]

11. I mean yes, "we" might fight for these things -- does the White House?

Are they in, or not?

[Avalux]

14. Either we're in this together, or they win.

Hopefully we're all in agreement in that respect.

[villager]

17. I would agree. I would also hope you get the White House to come 'round to that point of view.

[HuckleB]

15. The unfortunate reality, is the "we" (if we include Obama) have not fought for what we should.

Alas, even what has been fought for is at risk.

Ugh.

[emilyg]

49. That struck me first.

[kenny blankenship]

51. Y'know: Like a PUBLIC OPTION for health care

and a comeuppance for the bankster criminals who destroyed America.

emoticon for rolling on the floor comma guffawing. I'll be fine if you pour some 1% in my 99% eyes. It's just the tear gas has got me down.

[spanone]

3. k&r...

[BeyondGeography]

5. Who's that old guy in the last photo?

[bigtree]

27. heh

he is grey

[downwardly_mobile]

50. I feel bad for him about the suddenly-grey issue --

Because he keeps his hair so short, he can't dye it -- or he would have to dye it every other day at least. He can't go Reagan's route, at least with the hair coloration.

On second thought, look, he's the goddamn President! He has a lot of resources. There's no reason he can't have someone give him a daily dye job. Perhaps hair experts could weigh in on this one. Is it possible to do that?

[DJ13]

7. Sometimes it feels like 'we' are always fighting 'you' on keeping your past promises

Try harder next time, okay?

[pangaia]

8. Sure seems like

Obama's hair has turned a lot grayer.

I don't know... either he is really IS playing the biggest rope-a-dope game in history...or he blew it..
I have to vote for him. The options are... terrifying...

[FreakinDJ]

9. 'you are on your own economics.'"

OK - it sounds great

But I need the "Comfortable Shoes" Mr. Pres

[RC]

12. What are you really fighting for, Obama?

[villager]

16. That's really the question, isn't it?

What's the grand vision for America he's going to go to the mat for?

[bigtree]

21. don't pretend you're actually listening

. . .or paying attention to anything he's actually doing. You have to be completely removed from this Democratic presidency to ask such a question.

[villager]

22. Alas, it's because I've been paying attention, rather than digesting press releases, that I question

... his use of "fought for," when coming back around to the coalition that elected him in the first place.

[bigtree]

24. well then

. . . you're just flat wrong.

[villager]

32. ah, the reasoned discussion comes out at last.

Sadly, it figures.

[bigtree]

37. and you've offered nothing here

except a few cliches and politifact. Pathetic to expect a substantive response to that handful of nothing.

[villager]

79. Well, you offered Politifact too.

Your own handful of nothing?

[woo me with science]

33. He's eyeing an internet ID.

And we have that indefinite detention thing now, too.

[Enrique]

20. I'm looking forward to Obama's negative campaigning

I'm not going to be too interested in the positive stuff.

[bigtree]

23. well these are just excerpts, but he did offer a bit of both

“What Americans are sick and tired of is watching people who are supposed to represent them put their party ahead of the country, put the next election ahead of the next generation. That’s what they don’t understand,” Obama said.

“When you’ve got the top Republican saying his number-one priority isn’t creating more jobs, solving the health care problems; it isn’t making sure were competitive in the 21st century, but it’s to beat me — then you know things aren’t on the level. They’ll fight with their last breath to protect tax cuts for the most fortunate in America, but they’ll play political games with tax cuts for the middle class.”

He has to offer a positive vision for his presidency and the country, in addition to his criticisms. We do as well.

[T S Justly]

34. Sorry, but that was 2008. Occupy 2012 is where the fight is going. Nice load of pics, tho. (nt) (nr)

[Bonobo]

38. Mediocracy, half-handed measures and corporate cronyism are at stake?! nt

[bigtree]

44. Is that your platform?

It has nothing to do with this President.

[bigtree]

59. where have I heard that before?

Palin's Attack on 'Corporate Crony Capitalism'
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/05/palins-attack-on-corporate-crony-capitalism-spotlights-gap-in-gop-field/

[Bonobo]

60. Here is a list of the people in the Obama admin with ties to Goldman Sachs.

What would YOU call it?

COMBINED LIST OF GOLDIES TIED TO THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT.

ALTMAN, ROGER.

BERKOWITZ, HOWARD P.

BIDEN, JOE.

BRAINARD, LAEL.

BUFFETT, WARREN.

CLINTON, HILLARY.

CRAIG, GREGORY. (revolving door)

DONILON, THOMAS.

DUDLEY, WILLIAM C.

EFFRON, BLAIR W.

ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS.

EMANUEL, RAHM.

FARRELL, DIANA.

FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN.

FROMAN, Michael.

FUDGE, ANNE.

FURMAN, JASON.

GALLOGLY, MARK.

GEITHNER, TIMOTHY.

GENSLER, GARY.

GEPHARDT, RICHARD (aka "DICK&quot A.

GREENSTONE, MICHAEL (revolving door to Hamilton Project)

HAMILTON PROJECT, THE

HORMATS, ROBERT.

KAGAN, ELENA.

KASHKARI, NEEL.

KORNBLUH, KAREN.

LEW, JACOB (AKA "JACK&quot J.

LIDDY, EDWARD MICHAEL.

LIPTON, DAVID A.

MINDICH, ERIC

MURPHY, PHILLIP.

NIEDERAUER, DUNCAN.

OBAMA, BARACK H.

ORSZAG, PETER.

PATTERSON, MARK.

PERRY, RICHARD.

RATTNER, STEVE.

REISCHAUER, ROBERT D.

RIVLIN, ALICE.

RUBIN, JAMES.

RUBIN, ROBERT.

SHAFRAN, STEVEN.

SPERLING, GENE.

STORCH, ADAM.

SUMMERS, LARRY.

THAIN, JOHN.

TYSON, LAURA D’ANDREA.

[bigtree]

61. so you've just smeared them by association

. . . inspired, no doubt, by Palin's ridiculous saying. Is there somewhere else you can go to campaign against our presumptive Democratic nominee?

[Edweird]

64. "Smearing by association"? Project much?

The ironing is delicious.

[Bonobo]

65. Sorry if you read valid criticism as smearing but...

you opened the door when you took issue with my use of the phrase cronyism which, by the way, was not inspired by Palin.

If you do not see the problem with the relationship between Wall Street and its pernicious influence on our government, I would suggest that it is YOU and not I that should find a different political party because the Democratic Party is not the one that is meant to cater to the fat cats.

[bigtree]

69. you're just twisting

you first represent this administration as 'crony' capitalist or corporatist, or whatever. Yet, this administration's actions have been right in line with those of our Democratic party. I support this President and our Democratic party. It's your criticisms which suggest that YOU are out of line with Democrats, not myself or the President.

The Wall Street rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric; usually associated with opposition to this President and party.

[Bonobo]

70. Yeah, sure. The Wall Street connections are purely coincidental and totally unrelated

to the handouts to banks and other financial institutions.

Come back and talk to me if you ever take the magic pixie dust out of your eyes and want to look at the world as it exists.

[bigtree]

71. talk about a fairy tale!

You apparently believe that just throwing the cliches out there you've proven something sinister and dastardly about this President and administration. If there's something specific regarding those associations that this President is supposed to have perpetrated, then out with it!

Otherwise, you're just spouting off something you think sounds relevant and reactionary, without any factual relationship at all to the actions or conduct of this administration, or to this President's actions or conduct.

It just sounds cool for some to put Wall Street and the President's name together. To me, it just sounds like bull.

[whatchamacallit]

39. Is that from a speech given at a Goldman Shareholders Meeting? n/t

[bigtree]

41. ooh

another poster campaigning against our Democratic nominee. Inspiring.

[PowerToThePeople]

40. Anyone but an (R) for 2012

Has Obama done what I wanted done the past few years?

Here was my list:

Stop the wars, stop the killing based on lies.

Prosecute Bush/Cheney and accomplices for their lies and murder - firing squad for both of them (or at least send them to the Hague)

That's about it.

We finally got out of Iraq, way to late for the thousands of dead that Bush got killed.

I hate the insurance bill, I would rather have single payer/medicare buy-in option. This will likely turn me into a tax evader should they try to force me into some for profit insurer scam.

BUT, even though Obama did not do the things I wanted, he is infinitely better than anyone with an (R) next to their name.

Should an (R) get POTUS we will be going headlong into hell again, faster than ever before (they lost 4 years off their schedule)

We need to take House back as well. Fuck the Fucke(R)s. Thieves and Murderers.

[joshcryer]

45. That's all that mattered to you?

[PowerToThePeople]

46. Well, repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich too, but...

As long as young Americans are being killed for lies, nothing else as important as stopping that crime.

[joshcryer]

47. Fair enough. Fairly privileged but fully legitimate view to hold.

Some people need their WIC, some people need their unemployment, some people need their Pell Grants, some people need their heating assistance, etc, etc.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Maybe I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama. But we only got our UNIFORMED troops out of Iraq.

[joshcryer]

42. Meh, I was kind of hoping for a shift left, but that is so damn bi-partisan it makes me wanna puke.

C'mon Obama, stop being 2008 Obama and change, yourself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. “Americans are sick and tired of ... [putting] the next election ahead of the next generation."

In 2006, we (along with the independents) put a majority in Congress.

Result - Impeachment was taken off the table. Those who were elected told us that they could do little or nothing until we had another election and increased the majority.

The endless wars continued, Congress voted to give immunity to the telecoms that spied upon all of us for the Bush Administration, and Congress approved a $700 billion dollar bailout.

In 2008, we (along with the independents) went to the polls, overwhelmingly voted for change, and increased the majority.

Result - Goldman Sachs personnel were brought into the White House, a war criminal went on national TV and admitted his complicity in approving of waterboarding without any adverse affect upon him, and we were given a mandatory-purchase of health insurance program whose mandatory provision originated with Senator Grassley (R-Iowa). Once again, those who were elected told us that they could do little or nothing until we had another election and increased the majority.

We were told that a failure to garner a sufficient number of votes in advance to invoke a cloture under Senate Rule XXII was equivalent to having a series of filibusters when, in fact, no actual filibusters were held. We were told once again that we needed to reject Republicans and Republican policies. Some understood that to mean that Blue-Dog Democrats who favored Republican policies also needed to be rejected.

In 2010, many Blue-Dog Democrats lost their seats in Washington.

Result - No serious effort was made to reject Republican policies or even call out the Republicans until the time when the 2012 campaign season was underway. And again, we are told that those who were elected can do little or nothing until we have another election and increase the majority again.

In 2012, we are being lectured that we must enthusiasticaly support Obama because he is not Gingrich, not Rmoney, or not-whoever-the-Republican-front-runner-is-today. The very rich can have $25,000-a-plate dinners, $30,000-a-plate dinners, or whatever else that they can spend for their campaigning candidate without breaking a sweat. And we're supposed to believe that the beneficiaries of such campaign dinners are not putting the next election ahead of the next generation.

[Withywindle]

56. Everything that we fought for was at stake in the LAST election!

That's why we fought so hard. Yes, there have been some very small gains made, and we didn't lose as much ground as disastrously as would have happened under McCain....


But the people who were hurting 4 years ago are STILL hurting. Very little that "we fought for" 4 years ago has actually come to pass for the people who need it most. 4 years might not be a long time in the life of a Washingtonian with good health care and a guaranteed salary, but it's the difference between home and homelessness and life and death for regular people struggling. Many, MANY people who "fought" for Obama 4 years ago have fallen between the cracks in that time frame, and got none of the help they'd hoped for.

I'll still vote, and I'll still vote for him. But I won't canvass again; I don't want to face those disappointed people, and I don't want to learn who has died from preventable causes or been evicted since I was there last time. I know there will be several cases of both. I feel like I gave them false hope. I will always feel guilty about that.

[DCBob]

57. I like it. I think that will resonate with many voters.

Here's another way of saying it: The Republicans just want to tear down the things we worked so hard to build. America cant afford to go backwards again.

[MadHound]

63. We who?

All I saw you doing Mr. President was caving, time and again. The public option, tax cut extension, on and on. The only ones who are truly fighting are those of us out on the streets. You Mr. President cave before you even have the chance to put up a fight.

[bigtree]

67. most of his promises were kept

Mr. Obama never promised a public option, and, you've distorted the fight over the debt limit increase to make *the President the antagonist, when Congress is actually responsible for spending our money and setting tax policy. Nice to know you hold them blameless.

[Edweird]

66. Woohoo! Gimme more of that 'selling foreclosed homes to investors'!

Yeah baby! Hell, let's skip the whole foreclosure process and just take them outright from poor people and deed them over to the wealthy!1

[bigtree]

68. my home was rescued because of the initiative of this President

Pure and simple. This President saved my home from foreclosure.

[Edweird]

76. That's a compelling pitch! "Obama saved MY home".

I'd loved to see you sell that (in person) to someone whose government owned home is being sold to investors to be rented out.

[Hotler]

72. WE! You could have fought a lot harder Mr. President.

The crooks on Wall St. are still walking free. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the war criminals are still walking free. Yes you have done some things, but they were small pototoes compared to crimes that have fucked millions of Americans. You do give good speeches so I give you credit for that. Flame away people.

[Romulox]

74. Remember how hard the President "fought" for Single Payer?

[lonestarnot]

75. sure as hell is.

[ddeclue]

80. Obama fought for something? That's news to me...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. Thankfully, most people don't get into the minutiuae that political junkies like us

get into here. Otherwise, people would be perpetually disappointed with everybody and probably refuse to elect anybody POTUS period because nobody would be deemed "perfect" or "pure" enough. Most people want to know that he's on the side of the 99% and wants to help them and it's pretty clear that he is. It's equally clear that Romney is NOT.


BTW, The Republicans have repeatedly telegraphed/telegraphing what they plan to do if they win the WH and/or Congress in 2012. Do we want to completely lose SCOTUS? Do we want the CFPB gutted/removed? Do we want to go back to the way health insurance coverage was like before ACA? Do we want Planned Parenthood defunded?

[mike_c]

83. you mean like a public option to end the stranglehold insurance corporations have on sick people...

....an end to corporate personhood, meaningful campaign finance reform, economic policies that create equitable wealth distribution, a strong middle class, and diminish the number of Americans in poverty, strengthened labor unions and other organizations that represent workers, an IMMEDIATE end to the unnecessary wars against Iraq and Afghanistan (three years later-- and counting in Afghanistan-- just doesn't have any moral authority), an end to indefinite detention without trial and a return to the principles embodied by the Nuremburg Protocols and the United Nations Charter, investigation and prosecution of former elected officials who lied the nation into two disastrous wars, investigation and prosecution of Wall Street banksters whose greed brought the world's economy to it's knees-- and a purging of their representatives from White House economic policy creation, an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and an end to the erosion of civil rights in the name of "anti-terrorism?"

You mean all those things that we've fought for so hard are now at stake in this election?

Oh no!

[FSogol]

84. K&R. n/t