In this progressive Dem's view, Obama and his speech fail to deliver ...

[T S Justly]

On the usual issues. The ones he doesn't talk about. Like the erosion of civil liberties witnessed by the brutal
mistreatment of Occupy and other opponents of fascism. Like the never-ending and debt-inducing war on cannabis, and his role in prosecuting it. Like the never-ending frame that corporate created problems must be solved with corporate
approved solutions. And, like just about everything Obama fails to address, he's a failure in explaining why. I'm sure
others will be along to explain why. But, just once, I'd like to hear why from Obama, himself. Maybe he'll incorporate
an answer in his next SOTU, if he's still the President. It's doubtful since the electorate always seems to prefer
a Republican to Republican lite, once all cards are laid on the table, and the choices are clear. Three years to prove his opposition to the Bush Doctrine, and he's failed. Miserably. Obama's been a success in one instance. He's made it
clear there is no choice.

Occupy Obama.

[Better Believe It]

1. You need to understand this is just election campaign "populist" sounding rhetoric written by

some very talented White House speech writers.

Obama's new and improved campaign speech, surely tested in focus groups, has as much meaning as the populist sounding "change we can believe in" speeches Obama made during the 2008 campaign.

I never depend on Democratic presidential election campaign speeches written by professional writers to determine what the candidate will do once they are elected.. These predictable speeches are designed to excite and assure the progressive/liberal/labor union base that real progressive changes are in the air. Without the "base" of on the ground workers, the presidential campaigns would stall out and crash no matter how much corporate money is thrown their way.

What counts are deeds and actions.

Should Obama be re-elected progressives will ask in 2013-2015 "why didn't Obama deliver" on his speeches and Obama supporters will respond "did you want a pony?".

Well, let's get ready to do this all over again for another four years.

Meanwhile the bi-partisan assault on our democratic rights and living standards will continue.

[T S Justly]

2. Thank you. And we'd all better believe it before it gets any later. (nt)

[Phlem]

3. + infinity

spot on.



-p

[joshcryer]

4. Obama's 2008 policy proposals were most certainly not populist in any way.

Interpreting those proposals as such just shows a complete disconnect.

[T S Justly]

5. Some were, some weren't. He betrayed the ones that were. (nt)

[joshcryer]

7. Name one.

Just one.

[T S Justly]

8. Bringing an end to the Occupation of Iraq by U.S. troops. Instead, he prolonged it by three years...

And counting, with U.S. Military advisors and corporate supplied death squads still in place. That's just the biggie,
and it's the worst.

[joshcryer]

10. Nah, in his nomination speech he sided with Bush/Iraq/SOFA.

Nomination Speech
And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

...

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts.

That was August 28th, 2008. At the time SOFA as designed didn't even have a withdrawal timetable! So, Obama, on August 28th, 2008, while "sounding dang populist" wasn't committing to anything there.

Note: I'm asking about policy positions that were populist. I admit it sounded pretty populist, talking about how Iraq has a surplus while we have a deficit? Nice dig! But, policy-proposal-wise? No way!

[T S Justly]

13. When did his campaign make the false "troops home in 16 months" promise?

I can tell you it was two months before the mid-terms. Guess the public wasn't buying by
that point, huh?

[joshcryer]

14. "I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/01/us-usa-obama-iraq-idUSTRE4B05IW20081201

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

People pushed the mute button as soon as they heard "remove troops from Iraq." He always conditioned it on "commander recommendations" and weaseled it with "troop draw down," as opposed to full withdrawal. He even kept SOFA renegotiation on the table, with key words like "responsible." (ie, in a debate he would argue it would've been irresponsible not to negotiate, and make sure that's what the Iraqi's wanted, etc, etc.)

I think that progressives were sold populism (by Obama's campaign), but they didn't really scrutinize what Obama was saying. I personally didn't buy into it, and my Obama detracting posts during the primary support my position. Populist rhetoric is not the same as populist policy, imo.

[T S Justly]

15. Lol! From February, 2008 ...

'Democratic presidential candidate Obama and rival Senator Hillary Clinton face off over Iraq. In one debate, Obama charges that Clinton's Senate vote to go to war "facilitated and enabled" Republican President George W. Bush.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8956959/Barack-Obama-and-what-he-said-on-the-Iraq-war.html

[joshcryer]

17. And he made her SoC.

The most delicious part about the entire primary thing ever.

[Arkana]

38. And the chemtrails

Don't forget the chemtrails.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. I agree.

So many issues are never discussed, and whenever they're brought up, they're promptly ignored.

Obama does have great oratorical skills, however. I'll give him that. And there apparently is some improvement in the economy. It's hard for me to tell since I'm retired and on fixed income.

[emulatorloo]

37. BBI, you have zero credibility on this issue.

You spend most of your day putting up thread after thread that are riddled with selective quotation, speculation presented as fact, and written by out of touch rigid ideologues.

I have caught you misrepresenting Democratic policies by omitting key facts many many times, and I am not the only one who has done so.

You have every right to post whatever you want. Most of us understand where you are coming from.

[Better Believe It]

40. I've grown tired of your constant personal attacks against DU'ers you disagree with.

If you don't wish to engage in civil debate and discussion and perfer to engage in trash talk and personal attacks you might want to find a trash talk board that encourages that sort of behavior.

In any case, you've given me no choice but to put you on the ignore list so I won't have to read your repeated personal attacks against progressives.

[emulatorloo]

41. Honestly, it is impossible to have a civil discussion or debate with you.

If any one tries, you either throw out a red herring, put words in their mouths, or launch into a rant about how you are being personally attacked.

You had me on ignore at DU2 because I caught you selectively quoting Obama. You distorted his position with this selective quotation to make it sound like he was advocating something he was not.

Basically I caught you at it, explained what you were doing and you didn't like it. So you put me on ignore.

[ProSense]

6. In

Summary: ...Obama fails to address, he's a failure in explaining why...Maybe he'll incorporate
an answer in his next SOTU, if he's still the President.... he's failed. Miserably. Obama's been a success in one instance. He's made it
clear there is no choice.

Lesser of two evils and doom!

[lonestarnot]

9. You know what, fine, I understand where you're coming from, but what don't you get about send me a

bill? What the fuck is he supposed to do about that? What? What is he supposed to do about the cops beating us down? Get out there and fista cuff with the cops? Talking is ok on one hand as evidenced by "address" in your op, but tell me what the fuck he should "do" that he hasn't tried with both hands tied behind his back. I'll respond to your answer tomorrow as I have to

[FarLeftFist]

11. According to you.

[slay]

12. Yeah in many ways, it's not so much what he said, as what he didn't say

i've thought this to be a problem with the Dems for a long time now. he should have said that we wouldn't be in this mess if Bush hadn't funded the wars on the country credit card! why does he refuse to lay the blame where it lies on that - with Bush and Congress? there are so many things that go unsaid that need to be said. i agree with most of what you've said and sadly think that our best chance for real change comes from #OccupyWallStreet rather than anywhere in our current horrible political system.

[quinnox]

16. Its nice to hear from the progressive side

It was getting a bit tiring to only hear the "rah rah" crowd talk about how great they thought this speech was, and I agree there were some troubling notes that were hit, some of which you detailed.

[ProSense]

18. Oh

"Its nice to hear from the progressive side"

...please. This isn't the "progressive side." It's the "Obama sucks" side.

Everyone from Michael Moore to Richard Trumka lauded the speech. Activists lauded the speech.

Lumping every complaint into a criticism of the speech is utterly absurd: The speech suck because drones and Bush hasn't been prosecuted.

Ludicrous.

[quinnox]

20. It doesn't matter who cheered the speech

This is what you don't get about progressives and liberals, we think for ourselves and don't need someone to think for us. Believe it or not, you don't get to define who is "progressive", thank you very much. Maybe instead of trying to inject your negativity into every thread that isn't glowing praise of Obama, you might then get better reactions in your own threads. Its something to think about at any rate.

[ProSense]

22. Oh

This is what you don't get about progressives and liberals, we think for ourselves and don't need someone to think for us. Believe it or not, you don't get to define who is "progressive", thank you very much. Maybe instead of trying to inject your negativity into every thread that isn't glowing praise of Obama, you might then get better reactions in your own threads. Its something to think about at any rate.

...brother. LOL! What you don't get is that you're not remotely progressive. You're reactionary, and the only reaction is negative.

I'm a progressive and I think for myself. I don't need to be a card-carrying critic, declaring my every disappointment, even with a word, to be part of the solution.

You seem to equate progressive with critic, belittling those who don't share your penchant for constant complaining as "the 'rah rah' crowd."

[quinnox]

25. Think on this, if you say you are a progressive

I won't bother to respond to your other opinions because what you may think of my politics is utterly meaningless.

Would a progressive defend the NDAA which allows for indefinite and unlimited detention of Americans, just because a Democratic president signed it? I think not. And you know exactly what I'm referring to here. No so called progressive or liberal who says they think for themselves would defend something like that, instead that is something to be expected of the right wingers and extremists on that side. They are the ones who want a total police state, its called fascism and every little but significant step like the NDAA will get us there.

Now, I will leave you to it, as I have better things to do at the moment (like get something to eat) and don't want to hijack a good thread like this one.

[ProSense]

35. That's the

Would a progressive defend the NDAA which allows for indefinite and unlimited detention of Americans, just because a Democratic president signed it? I think not. And you know exactly what I'm referring to here. No so called progressive or liberal who says they think for themselves would defend something like that, instead that is something to be expected of the right wingers and extremists on that side. They are the ones who want a total police state, its called fascism and every little but significant step like the NDAA will get us there.

...the problem, simplistic rhetoric. No one is defending NDAA. There is a difference between defending a bill and recognizing the process that created it.

As the ACLU stated, the bill should never have come down to a Presidential veto, but it did. Why? There was nothing like the opposition to SOPA. Pressure can work, but waiting until the last minute to complain, not even to push, but to complain, isn't going to stop anything. I bet there are a bunch of people who were complaining who didn't even sign the ACLU petition. When a bill passes Congress with more than 80 votes, including from Senators who vocally opposed the provisions, in the Senate, it's too late.

In fact, look at what happened in the couple of weeks leading up passage of the bill, people were pushing distortions elevating the bill chief proponent, Senator Levin, to truthteller against the evil President.

Same shit, different day: Oh, I complain and oppose stuff the President does (he signed it), therefore I'm progressive.

Hogwash!

[gyroscope]

19. K and R

[Tx4obama]

23. You're joking right??? Just take time to listen to ALL of Obama's town halls and campaign rallies

between now and the election in November and you will hear President Obama address every issue under the sun,
just like he did during the 2008 campaign.
You don't have to wait for the next SOTU, President Obama will be talking everyone's ear off for the rest of this year.

[loyalsister]

26. Exactly

There is also a big difference in what he's going to say to a specific audience.
During the SOTU he is talking to everyone. Most people's live are consumed with economic issues. The administration knows people want to hear about something that will improve their own, their children's, parent's, etc. lives and futures personally.

Specific states and specific events are addressed with those target audiences in mind. When the intention is to address more than 300 million people the goals and ideas are going to be broad.

[T S Justly]

29. Obama's speeches offer nothing but rehashed rhetoric - over and over and over ...

Once the voter sees Obama's so-called populism is nothing if not cynical posturing, she'll be looking elsewhere to
cast her vote. Or, his vote. And Obama will be measured against other one-term Presidents in history. Did enough people
buy into H-Dub's kinder and gentler conservatism? Will enough voters buy into Obama's again? Lol!

[emulatorloo]

31. Sounds like the Bain Capital revelations about Romney have you agitated.

You appear to be in "Damage Control" mode.

"he's made it clear there is no choice."

Yeah, right.

[T S Justly]

34. Sounds like you ...

Don't know what you're talking about.

[emulatorloo]

36. Sounds like you are confusing your narrow minority viewpoint

with a majority one.

[Amonester]

24. OK we got it. So...

maybe after what you hope will be Obama's defeat will make you finally happy, how long after that will we have to wait for the next complaint, I mean, the first of the next four years?

[mfcorey1]

27. Hate bait

[Kahuna]

28. Occupy your mind. nt

[great white snark]

30. Sorry, but he will be re-elected.

He has addressed a multitude of issues and I think most folks don't consider him a failure for not including police brutality or pot in the SOTU.

[dionysus]

33. shya man.. he should have like... spent the whole speech on herb and OWS... man.

[dionysus]

32. i'm shocked that you would feel that way.

[Odin2005]

39. We need to get more progressives into Congress.

And we need to keep Obama's feet the the fire in order to force him to the Left, just like labor activists did with FDR in the mid '30s.