It's clear to me that the first African-American POTUS is a catalytic president.

[Zen Democrat]

He's not pre-racial
He's not post-racial
He's racial in the here and now.

It's OUR battle, not his. He festers up the problem and WE have to do something about it. It's a progressive catalyst.

It blows my mind that the left "disavows" him. They are thus reactionaries, and we know reactionaries are not progressive by definition. Reactionaries are the ultimate conservatives, what they have always been. It's their calling card to fight dirty with lies, slander and character assassination.

Who's reacting 100% negatively to President Obama? All the country's reactionaries, whether on the right or left.

There are no links here. This is my opinion. I've been involved with conservatives through family and neighbors since childhood in the 1950's in Texas. I was a youth Goldwater supporter in 1964. Mainly because I was pushed away by LBJ when I saw guilt on his face and heard him read cold words on the tarmac of AAB the evening of 22 Nov 1963. I wasn't old enough to vote in '68, but my first vote in 1972 was a straight Democratic ticket and that's never changed. 1980 was a tragedy for the nation, delivered with a bow by a gushing pro-Reagan media assuring he was teflon. If the media were so liberal in 1980, it's obvious that corporatism had already taken hold behind the scenes. Refer to the movie Network from 1976.

Progressives actually got the reins of government 2009 with a clear majority across the board, and the reactionaries from Day 1 committed to destroying Obama by any means necessary. So have have some on the left, from the beginning of 2009. They never liked him and still don't, except now they hate. They are not only reactionary, but with a vengeance and urgency that belies their protestations of "wanting to believe."

I do. He's accomplished more for people than any president I've lived through and I was born in 1948. Johnson has an asterisk after his name, as I personally suspect he stiff-armed passage of Kennedy's social legislation in 1964 and 1965 to cover his betrayal of the country on foreign policy, i.e., handing perpetual war to the JSOC and intelligence networks, on a gun metal gray platter.

No one man can end that devil's bargain after 50 years. It's deeply entrenched, but the Pentagon, CIA, and defense contractors are becoming less and less untouchable. Everyone just keep digging, but please don't cut our brave President in the process.

[cthulu2016]

1. Very silly post

Blah, blah, blah. Left bad and same as Republicans.

Maliciously daft redefinition of common words, like "reactionary."

Sprinkled with preposterous, ignorant claims, like this gem:

"He's accomplished more for people than any president I've lived through and I was born in 1948"

I rather like President Obama, but not enough to drink kool-ade of this intensity. Accomplished more for people?

Whatever. You are deluded and find some meaning in the delusion, which would be harmless if it wasn't a vehicle for bashing that evil ole' left.

[Zen Democrat]

3. So it's silly to post my opinion?

I've been posting here since 2004 friend. And if you think I'm deluded and anti-left, it depends on what your opinion of left is. My conservative friends and coworkers think I'm a Socialist Commie Pinko Appeaser, but be that a it may, I'm telling you that the left is not always left, and the left can be off on wrong tangents. It's happened a lot in the past 50 years, and I self-identify.

Brother Cornell, Tavis, Hamsher, Chomsky -- they are purists whose job it is NEVER to be satisfied. They are needed. But I'm no centrist, DLCcentrist, but a sometime who has watched this process for a long time and see that the Birchers main goal is to see this African-American fail. I, a 64 year old white woman, will not sit by and aid and abet the people, no matter how otherwise principled, do the devil's bidding.

If you think that's silly, I must be talking over your head.

[cthulu2016]

6. When your opinion is silly... your opinion is silly.

As to whether the act of posting silly opinions is itself a silly act... suppose I coudl argue either side of that. Is that really a distinction worth fretting over?

You have a right to make foolish, tendentious, disingenuous and fantastic posts.

You do not have a right to have other people think crap is gold because you are the one shoveling it.

As to whether you are speaking over my head... if thinking so brings you peace then go for it.

[demwing]

7. Of course not

Posting your opinion is not silly, whereas your actual opinion, in and of itself, might be very silly.

Every President has his strengths and weaknesses. Obama will be an historic President, that's a done deal. He'll likely be considered a good president based on the strength of his stance on women's rights and LGBT rights. Whether he'll be remembered as a great president rests on the future of Obamacare (fuck it all, I say we embrace the name).

If Obamacare soars, your comment is not silly. If it sinks...?

[JDPriestly]

101. Much will depend on whether he leads us into another illegal, unfounded and very cruel war.

I am on the fence about going into Syria.

There does not seem to be any clear evidence about who is using the chemical weapons.

Both sides seem to make persuasive points. That suggests to me that we need to find a lot more facts before we take any action that puts us on one side or the other.

In the long run, our national interest is in acting justly and leading the world honestly.

We may have military and political strength now, but we will not have either if we lose the trust of the world.

And after the Snowden leaks which revealed a great deal of spying on innocent people around the world, the Iraq War, the intolerance toward the peaceful demonstrators in Occupy and so much other conduct more typical of a totalitarian dictatorship than of an open democracy (including the focus on the drug wars that imprison so many people of color while the crimes of the bankers remain barely examined), we are losing the respect we once had.

Everybody likes President Obama. That is true around the world. And people are very happy that his election and re-election reflected the embrace of racial equality by a majority of Americans.

But if he gets us involved in an unjust war for strategic reasons, and not to serve justice and free people, he will lose support around the world and especially outside the US. If you think Obama is unfairly criticized now, an unjust war will submit him to far more criticism and it will be fair.

I do not understand the situation in Syria. I have the feeling that the US may know more facts about who is using the chemical weapons than we admit.

I have a theory about it, but it is too lacking in substance to even post on DU. It is just a hunch.

MaDem can persuasively argue that assad used chemical weapons, but then others can persuasively argue that it was Assad. We don't have enough facts. We need to be very careful.

Justice is more important than any one person. And also more important than Obama. We cannot once again use air strikes against a country without good reason for doing it.

And every war hastens the damage to the earth from all the carbon dioxide and poisons we spew into the air. Anyone who cares about the environment has to oppose wars that are not most definitely just.

[bluestate10]

36. NO. Very sound, logical OP. You don't like it. I do. The OP hit the mark. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. I appreciated his post. Most of yours are churlish and useless

see? We can ALL play that game. now grow up.

[grantcart]

81. Here are the real world benefits that he has brought to our family

1) Stopped the collapse that was destroying everything we built up over 20 years
2) Brought family members home who were on their third year of deployment in 4 years. They haven't gone back since.
3) Passed the ACA which is allowing me to get access to medical care that may save my sight. After paying for the most expensive PPO in the country for 20 years I lose coverage when I become diabetic. One out of every 4 blind people in America is a result of diabetes. I can tell my vision is declining but cannot afford to see a doctor without health coverage. That will happen in 2 months
4) For my son in law who entered the US on a temporary visa that was frozen on 9/11 he, like millions of others that are awaiting immigration reform, has a protection order and identity card that allows him to work legally. This is based on an executive order by the President.
5) I have significantly lower bank fees due to the Consumer Protection Act
6) Kids have lower student loan fees.
7) Little things like getting a Passport are 100% better than before. Used to be long waiting lines and now you can get it in a couple of weeks.
8) The recovery has allowed us to rebuild and we are likely to be able to buy a home next year.
9) We have lower dental bills because when we turn on the TV we don't have to cringe and grind our teeth because the President of the US doesn't sound like an idiot.

I am sure that there are more, like improvements in key highways due to the stimulus but I will stick to simply the most direct items listed above.

Not only has this President brought home more real life benefit to my family than any other President, he has brought more than all of the others combined.

I went to Carter's inauguration and had hopes for Clinton but neither had nearly the impact that Obama has. We would have settled for ending the deployment or access to health care or providing relief from an unfair deportation but we got all three and more.

I understand that others may not get the same level of benefit mine has, but appreciating the President for what we have gotten is cold hard realism, not Kool-Aid, a rather condescending put down that is meant to belittle and demean and not encourage substantive discussion among differing view points.

[cali]

2. let's deconstruct:

I refute your suggestion that it's solely our problem. He's the leader of the Democratic Party and President.

Interesting that you characterize those who are more progressive than the President and criticize some of his policies, as "reactionary". You then go on to define reactionaries. You are exactly what you accuse others of being and you do it right in your op. great job!

You've been involved with repubs and reactionaries your whole life. I've been involved with dems and liberals all of mine.

and no Progressives surely did NOT get the reigns of government in 2009. Democrats did.

Your op is perfect baloney.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Yes, it is. We should be up in arms about the NSA. We should be calling our Senators and Reps.

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

But blame our President for an apparatus growing since 1952 and strangling the Democratic process for more than a half-century? We're talking about it seriously without tin-foil hats now and you want to blame the black guy and put the burden on him?

Obama is a Democrat.
The Senate is not filibuster proof
The Congress in in the hands of hateful imbeciles
The Supreme Court is still dominated by Scalia.

Oh, yeah, blame Obama for everything.

Get out of the vote for Democrats next year if you REALLY care about human rights and privacy. Your only option now seems to be Rand Paul, whose daddy was my congress-critter for several terms, and if you want to talk Crackpotism based on bigotry, that's the dictionary family for it.

edited to change with tinfoil hats to "without"

[cali]

9. OK, fine. I agree

that we should be up in arms about it- but we should be directing our grievances about the NSA to our Congress critters AND the President. They have the power to make changes. No, President Obama is not solely to blame by a long shot but he IS responsible to a large degree for what's going on under his watch.

And the color of his skin has jackshit to do with that.

It's not about apportioning blame; it's about holding his feet to the fire.

You act as if he's poor wittle President Obama instead of a man with a lot of power and a lot of discretion to implement laws and run federal agencies.

I don't need to get out the dem vote next fall. I live in Vermont.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. My Congressional delgation has been up in arms about it, Wyden for one and the administration

has been resistant and evasive and Clapper lied directly to my Senator. But you say I should take the complain to Wyden alone, not to the source of obstruction evasion and deception?
And you live in Ron Paul's district and dare to lecture about elections and who is in Congress? Your district elects the certifiable so, you know, your advice is noted.

[MelungeonWoman]

11. "Your only option now seems to be Rand Paul"

Lol.

[davidn3600]

14. Such bullcrap....

The Democrats had plenty of opportunity in 2009 to change the military industrial complex. They could have held Wall Street bankers accountable. They could have raised the minimum wage. They could have done many, many things with that majority and we all expected them to do many things. Instead they spent two years on a healthcare bill that although expands coverage, does absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of healthcare....which is the core of the problem!

Why didnt they do any real reform and change?...because they are paid off by the same people that pay off the Republicans. Look at our liberals congresspersons in Congress. Most of them are rich. Most of them are elitists that went to Ivy League schools. Most of them are lawyers who write complicated laws that are thousands of pages long or businessmen who care about nothing else other than profit-motive. Where are the workers? Where are everyday people who know what it's like to work a REAL job? Congress, Democrat or Republican, no longer represents the people. They represent the 1%. That's clear as day. You can give Obama massive majorities of Democrats and nothing will change.

The more things change the more they stay the same in this country. Congress simply doesn't care about the people. There is no way they possibly can when more than half of them are millionaires and get paid many times the salary of what the average American makes and has healthcare coverage an average American can only dream about. Those idiots in Congress are living in their own little protected and privileged bubble.

[Zen Democrat]

16. The Dems couldnt get a decent stimulus bill to address unemployment because of the filibuster.

Obama only had a filibuster-proof Senate for four months, and a lot of what was accomplished happened then.

Nancy Pelosi was the only one supporting him unconditionally, but the bills passed in Congress died in the Senate because of (all together now) the filibuster.

There's some sort of disinformation campaign that refuses to acknowledge that Obama was shunned by the entire GOP for being a Democrat, and by the extreme left for not being enough of a Democrat. That's what happened to President Carter, when, as I said before, he was cheated by Reagan's deal with the Ayatollah, which Bani Sadr has long acknowledged (and he was there). Somehow Obama overcame with Republican machinations in 2012 by a little video that was maneuvered into the mainstream by Jimmy Carter's grandson. Some dare call it karma.

Obama has more than once invoked FDR's make me do it challenge. Without the force of the people's pressure, there would have been no New Deal.

[Aerows]

30. Read the person you are replying to's post again

They HAD a filibuster-proof Senate and Majority in the House.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

73. nope. he's actually got great points you are too blind with hate to see

you didn't get your "perfect world" prez and you rage.

[MFrohike]

4. What's clear

Your reading of history is terrible. None of Kennedy's contemporaries, except his worshippers, would ever claim the legislation passed under LBJ would have been passed under Kennedy. None. The reality, if you care look for it, is that his legislative agenda was stalled because he did not understand Congress. He couldn't get a tax cut passed. As for the "betrayal" on foreign policy, it's interesting you mention you were a Goldwater supporter while berating LBJ. Didn't Barry want to "lob one through the window of the Kremlin?" Wasn't he the guy who sued Carter over the handover of the Panama Canal? I don't think you understood the candidates, nor the Cold War.

As for Obama's accomplishments, time will tell. I have a suspicion, an informed suspicion, that Dodd-Frank will prove to be nothing but a jobs program for top-tier corporate law firms. It's an enormously complex law which requires tons of interpretation. That's usually a sign that it's not meant to stop anything, just to provide cover. The ACA? We'll see. Will it lead to better health outcomes? Will it contain the endless growth of the healthcare industry? Only time will tell.

[cali]

13. good post. n/t

[Zen Democrat]

15. Did you read what I wrote?

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2013, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I said LBJ passed the Kennedy social agenda for his own personal cover after the assassination, and to give him the leverage to go into Vietnam. When did I ever say Kennedy could have passed it? Although in a second term for him, we can't rule that out.

Anyway, If you think I'm a Kennedy worshiper, guilty as charged. I confess that I do thank Providence that Kennedy was president to stand up to the War Pigs Lemay, Lemnitzer, et al. who despised him after he failed to push the nuclear button against Russia in 1962. Yes, I thank God for that man, even with his flaws.

I was 14 during Goldwater v. Johnson. I didn't know anything more than that I had read Conscience of a Conservative as a 13 year old and liked it, and LBJ gave me physical reactions that he was a bad man to the core. My parents were union people who let me explore the conservative movement, which I did until I realized that the words and actions didn't relate. But my feelings about LBJ never changed. I'm from Texas and knew he was a crook because everyone who ever had dealings with him said so! I had immediate family members in Dallas who knew some of the official story was a crock. But just accept that LBJ was not my guy ever. Nor was Goldwater after 1965 when I first became aware of his "nuke 'em into the stone age" philosophy (and you're right I young and had no informed understanding of the Cold War although I was a debate champion by 1965 against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.). Nor was Nixon EVER anyone I could stomach. I was, and still am, a student of the Watergate Era, and found LBJ and Nixon eerily similar, no more so than when LBJ's right hand man for 40 years, John Connolly, switched parties and joined the Nixon Administration. My first vote was for George McGovern. I rallied my workplace and neighborhood in 1976 for Jimmy Carter. I adore him, and was privileged to see him three times (the last time was a Carter-deMenil award to Bishop Tutu at the Rothko Chapel in Houston with Tutu absent due to apartheid).

If you only been around liberals and progressives all your life, you really don't understand the nature of the fringe right and their end justifies the means dogma. I had uncles and cousins in the '50's who wouldn't watch I Love Lucy because she had been a member of the Communist Party during the Depression. It was pernicious and I've been doing one on one philosophical combat with this mindset since the mid-60's.

Yes, we do have the first health care bill since 1965, and regardless of the costs to those with cadillac plans and higher costs for Delta (puhleese), millions will be insured for the first time, and millions more will have the security that if they've had a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other too numerous to mention health issues, that they won't ever be denied because of preexisting conditions. That's huge. I expect the ACA to adapt and change over the years, as did the SS and Medicare programs become more inclusive over time. I think single payer is inevitable now, but would not be without the ACA bridge. I can see a natural evolution as more and more companies decide not to participate in employer based healthcare, pay a fine, and employees are eventually forced into a national medicare because the insurance insurance won't make enough profit to fool with health insurance anymore.

I don't want to argue personally. I have a point of view. I was one of those hippies against the war and against J. Edgar Hoover's Cointelpro, and against all manner of neo-fascism. But again, making Obama the enemy is absurd. Whether from the left or right, trying to chop him in the knees hurts the Progressive movement. Hate the NSA, not Obama. He's limited in what he can do and say without massive support from the people. Wonder if Obama got that meeting Bill Hicks cracked about shortly before his death in 1993:

[MFrohike]

28. I read it

It was a confused mishmash that lumped all Obama critics together, regardless of the reasons for their criticism, and presented a boring, wishful thinking picture of JFK that is not true. You don't have to like LBJ, but it's ridiculous to undermine what he did in an effort to lionize Kennedy. You can talk second terms all you want, but I have a question on that very topic. Who was the last president to push forth a major initiative in his second term? I won't hold my breath for the answer (Hint: you won't find one in the 20th century).

I personally enjoy arguing over the relative merits of JFK vs. LBJ because so few have actually done their homework on the subject. I would prefer if people would learn a bit more about LBJ, rather than get hung up on the prejudices of a generation of historians who were intellectually lazy. He was corrupt as hell, he used the fortunes of reactionary Texas oilmen as his personal political piggybank, he spent his time in Congress defending segregation, he was personally vicious and manipulative, and he had no problems with humiliating those who defied him (Paul Douglas is a great example of this). He also pushed through the most liberal agenda in American history. He personally directed the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the creation of Medicare, the Great Society, and a host of other things. He's the guy who put Reynaldo Garza on the federal bench and Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. I'm not really sure how the man who pushed far more than anyone in the mainstream could have imagined can be described as just covering for his "crimes."

As for the Cold War aspect of your post, it's laughable. I do love how Johnson has been portrayed as the bloodthirsty assassin for decades when his contemporaries, like Goldwater, viewed him as too weak to do what was "necessary" in Vietnam. The conspiracy aspect of the assassination regarding LBJ is wishful thinking at best. Honestly, unless you confine the knowledge to an extremely small group of people, somebody talks. Mark Felt, a Republican, had no compunction about telling Nixon's misdeeds. Nixon asked the CIA to get the FBI to lay off an investigation. If that is all it took for Nixon to get sold out, why is it believable that killing a president would somehow be different?

Honestly, too many people blame Vietnam on LBJ while absolving Kennedy of all sin in the matter. It didn't start with Oliver Stone, but he was one of the worst for popularizing this lie. Vietnam was not LBJ's war, it was not Kennedy's war, it was our war. It was our war from the moment it was clear that Stalin was using the German collapse to remake Eastern Europe. You can blame Johnson for escalating all you want, but, rest assured, Kennedy would have done the same. The assassination of Diem was the key event in the destabilization of South Vietnam. After that, the US had a choice: escalate or give up the area to Lenin's heirs. Kennedy would have escalated because no Democrat wanted to relive the "who lost China" debate. It was a no-win situation.

As for the ACA, we'll see. There's a lot of talking making rich people pay and helping poor people, but no talk of what happens to those in the middle. The middle are the people who make too much to qualify for the subsidies, but not enough to regard the cost as an annoyance rather than a serious burden (think of singles in the 50k range). If a person making 50k has student loans to repay, the added tax of the ACA will wipe out any chance that person has to save money and get ahead. I have to wonder if this is good public policy. The ability to save is one of the methods people use to get ahead. If that ability is taken away or if the only way to do it is to live like a pauper for years on end, I have to wonder how much support this program will ultimately get. You may not like these concerns and you might seek to disparage them, but the reality of politics is that if you don't get the support of the middle, your programs won't last 10 years.

[Zen Democrat]

34. The Kennedy Library released recordings of critical meeting in the past decade,

and with the LBJ tapes we know for a FACT that:

Kennedy was not responsible for the death of Diem. The ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge was the culprit who didn't deliver Kennedy's message to the CIA in country that under no circumstances should Diem and his brother be killed.

We know from Kennedy tapes, NSA 263, McNamara etc. that Kennedy was pulling out 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by 1965. This has been debated ad nauseum. But the proof of that pudding was in Lyndon Johnson's WH tapes, when he told McNamara over the phone that "I never agreed with you and Kennedy about getting out of Vietnam." Those tapes are easy to find and this particular comment can be heard in the documentary, Virtual JFK.

Regading ACA, I get my insurance through my employer. Most of the middle class does. It's when you lose your job and your insurance coverage that you are screwed. Then you are too poor to afford insurance and that's when you'll be happy about the ACA where you can purchase insurance at competitive rates and receive assistance if you can't afford it. This is first and foremost a plan to include those previously uninsurable due to preexisting conditions and those who can't afford to be insured because they are out of a job. How many comfortable middle-class people who are insured by employer based insurance, lose their jobs and have to buy on the private market. But, wait, there are existing medical conditions and guess what, you're denied or offered limited coverage at outrageous rates at the private market. This is the fix, and it's not over.

[MFrohike]

41. Whew

I didn't get into responsibility over Diem's death. I said it was the destabilizing event. The idea Kennedy would have withdrawn completely in the face of the complete destabilization of 1964 is just ludicrous. Kennedy wanted to pull out soldiers because we were winning. That was not the case after Diem's death. Plans change in response to the change in events. This argument is akin to arguing that Truman's failure to enact the Morgenthau Plan was a secret move to help out the military-industrial complex by inventing the Cold War. You might as well argue that Lincoln had a secret plan to start a civil war by his failure not to react after the attack on Fort Sumter. Get real.

You misstate the operation of the ACA and you ignore what I said. You don't "get the chance" to buy insurance, you're required to do it. If you make over 46K a year as a single, you pay full price. Now, sure, most people do get their health insurance through their employers. Of course, that's been steadily decreasing over time. Also, given the sheer volume of job losses over the last few years and the fact that most new jobs are low paid and without benefits, expect my questions to apply to an ever increasing share of the population. How precisely should one manage both the burden of student loans along with this new tax which mandates barely tolerable insurance coverage? At what point will someone in this position be able to save money for the purpose of retirement, a house, vacations, etc? The ACA seems ok if you're poor or wealthy, but not so much if you're between the two. What incentive does this give a person in this position to support this program?

Going back to the OP, your blanket condemnation of Obama critics was way off-base. There are legitimate and illegitmate reasons to criticize him. When you lump the two types of reasons together, you kill your own credibility. You've essentially said that people who want to see people like Jamie Dimon prosecuted for violations of Sarbanes-Oxley are the same as birthers. That's neither smart nor true.

[dflprincess]

67. Actually those who qualify for subsidies under the ACA won't be any better off

as the only insurance they will be able to afford is something with huge deductibles (the "bronze" plan allows a deductible of just over $6K for a single - double that for family coverage). And you have to meet that deductible before the insurance company coughs up a dime. While they may be "covered" they still won't be able to afford healthcare.

There are no subsidies for out of pocket expenses, just for the premiums. The whole thing is nothing buy a massive transfer of wealth from private and public sources to a crooked industry that has been ripping us off for years.

[MFrohike]

69. That's a problem

I knew the bronze plans were nothing I'd buy without someone forcing me to do it, but I didn't know the deductibles were that high. Yeesh, they're worse than I thought.

[Zen Democrat]

88. Hate is hate and I lump haters into one cagegory. It's called: Haters

I'm up with criticism. I'm usually criticizing people who aren't critical thinkers - like Fox viewers. But seriously, a line has been crossed between criticism and blanket condemnation. That's what I'm talking about.

[MFrohike]

97. Has it?

After 4.5 years, he's a known quantity. If someone is attacking or defending him for what he has done or (reasonably) did not do, I don't see the problem. It seems as though you want to label anyone who doesn't agree with Obama as a "hater."* That's the tone of your OP. After 4.5 years, he is a known quantity. If people want to defend or attack it, either way there is a record to support their arguments. By calling people haters, you're doing the thing you profess to dislike: using blanket condemnation.

*The word "hater" is really stupid. The person generally using it has no other response to an argument or criticism, so the word hater is used. It's overused and is akin to any other personal attack.

[Zen Democrat]

98. So what do you call the Tea Party. Dislikers? Informed critics?

The same as all the people who are 100% hair on-fire ragers ... hateful, it's pure D hate. And hate is born of ignorance. And if you want to call ignorance a personal attack, then I personally attack all the nincompoops who don't think but listen to the rabble and agree to stupid premises "ignorant." No apologies.

[MFrohike]

100. Self-defeating morons, generally

The word hater makes me think of some vapid celebrity who puts out bland, pointless shit and then calls anyone with legitimate criticism a "hater." It's become, if it was ever anything else, a concession that the speaker can't argue the merits and is trying to belittle people as a result. For me, it's a question of style. I don't want to sound like Justin Bieber, so I'm not using that word.

I really have no problem with calling stupid people stupid. It's not a personal attack when it's true. I just think hater summons up too much teenage angst to be serious. I'm not trying to offend and sorry if I did. It's just a question of style on this one.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. so one vote for cynical poster on DU. check.

how precious of you. just judge everything harshly and wait until the final score comes in to get behind something. No, progressives don't need that kind of attitude.

[MFrohike]

83. Cynicism, haha

Man, I don't even know how to respond to you. I'm not sure how I'm being cynical. Was it the comment about Dodd-Frank? I stand by it. It doesn't deal with the reasons for the crash, most definitely not a lack of Glass-Steagall, and is overly complex without clear standards. Those are not the conditions for effective regulation. Those are the conditions for being seen to act without actually acting. Was it my comments about the ACA? It's a huge experiment. We do have to wait and see what happens with it. You can call waiting for the evidence to make a judgment cynical if you like. I call it the only thing that makes sense. Anything else is not the use of reason, but blind faith.

[malokvale77]

102. Once again, a top notch post

[jaysunb]

8. K & R....especially for the undeserved flames. n/t

[cali]

12. so you believe the President is responsible for....nothing?

Because the OP clearly states that she believes he bears no responsibility for what agencies operating under his administration do.

You believe that those to the left of the President are hateful liars? racists? Because that's what else the op says.


good to know.

[Zen Democrat]

21. My God people are making some real assumptions here.

I don't think Obama is perfect and I think he's made mistakes. But anyone who thinks that Obama or any president is free to select independent members of the intelligence and military community hasn't been paying attention. Sorry, trying not to be combative, but find me a department head in the M-I complex who isn't active duty and retired general or admiral. Find me a giant defense contractor corporation that isn't overloaded with retired generals and admirals.

I remember back in 1977 when Jimmy Carter named Ted Sorensen as DCI. Washington cried foul because Sorensen had no prior intelligence experience. The media harangued on this for a week un Sorensen's name was withdrawn and ADMIRAL Stansfield Turner was named. Funny thing is that a year earlier when Jerry Ford appointed George Bush as DCI, nobody said anything about him not having prior intelligence experience. I've never forgotten that, and have as a result assumed that George Bush was always CIA and was put there by Ford to obfuscate to the Church Committee, being that he knew where the bones were buried, and who those bones belonged to.

[cali]

24. glad to hear it. too bad you don't grasp how your op could lead to

one reasonably making the assumptions I made.

Yes, he does have a lot of discretion on appointments. President Obama has been pretty clear that he supports the massive surveillance being conducted.

What mistakes do you think the President has made?

[Zen Democrat]

32. The last president who stood up openly against the War Machine was killed in Dallas.

The internecine intelligence and military appointments are expected because they are in that bubble of people "who know." Do you think Obama knew all those people before taking office? I think the NSA offers a slate of acceptable names and you select someone from the approved group, or the nullification begins.

I don't see a conspiracy everywhere I look, but I thought it more than interesting that Gen. Petraeus's problem came to head 3 days after Obama's reelection. I think Obama got rid of him and found the way to do it. I think this game is going to have to be played slowly until the suddenly the walls come tumbling down.

I want President Obama to live a long happy life.

Now, I think Obama made some serious rookie mistakes. The first, and one of the biggest, was inviting Rahm Emanuel into the administration. Hillary pushed that one. The worst, IMO, was going against Joe Biden's advice and hanging on in Afghanistan. We can't get out of there fast enough for me. There are others, but you get my drift.

[tblue]

33. He doesn't stand up because he could get shot?

Is that what you're saying? Hanh????

[Zen Democrat]

37. Nullification has been in process for the last five years.

If you really think ANY president has that kind of power, I should remind you of this fact ...

Only Republican presidents who are part of the internal power process are immune from nullification.

[tblue]

46. What is "nullification"? Getting killed?

So Obama holds back because he's afraid of getting nullified? And we have to accept that.

Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

We can have a Democratic president who can't or won't stand up to the MIC, etc. for fear of being killed, or we can have a Republican. I need a few minutes to wrap my brain around this.

[Union Scribe]

48. Remarkable isn't it?

[Zen Democrat]

91. Sorry, not enough space here to discuss nullification.

It can be death, impeachment, lack of confidence, ridicule, in the case of Clinton that he didn't get a majority of the vote, or just anything that strips credibility and ergo power, from elected officials. And the nullification of Barack Obama began when he was just running for office. Democrats have to fight for power. Republicans have it bestowed upon them. The media didn't find it unusual to glorify GWB when he took office with fewer votes than the other guy. Nobody in the media cared that Ronnie Reagan began his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, where Cheney, Goodwin and Schwerner were murdered, and gave a states rights speech. The Racist South got the message, but the rest of the country the story was not a story. The anecdotes become overwhelming after a while. All the drumbeat about Obama being a Muslim born in Kenya is nullification for all those dumb asses who watch FoxNews. This is just observable fact with no other explanation except to destroy Obama by any means necessary.

When so-called liberals want to make Obama a scourge because he's not Superman of the Left is something that smokes out the enemy for me. And the enemy are people who hurt the cause by wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater. To me, they are naive, terribly naive or, in the alternative, sinister. I'm not religious, but I "know them by their fruits." Destroying Obama is how I know the enemy. No matter how they may self-identify, they are doing the work of fascists, wittingly or unwittingly. All you liberals who spout hate, suspicion and bad faith toward Obama have huge supporters on the other side, The Tea Party know-nothings.

I'll go to the streets to demand the secret agencies be made much more transparent, short of unilateral disarmament (so to speak), but blame it on our President? Hell, no. I'm for strengthening his credibility and power to change that which we can't see. He's our only hope right now. He's not the bad guy. It's still the MIC. It took another general (Eisenhower) to inform us, but even he couldn't do anything about it.

[jaysunb]

96. +1 n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

75. UNDOUBTEDLY! People get kind of uncomfortable when you point out what hacks they are being

and yes, they are being hacks.

[DevonRex]

17. Thank you Zen. You're brave to say any of that here.

You'll be attacked and labeled and vilified. I'm so sorry.

[markpkessinger]

18. Puhleez . . .

. . . Vilification runs two ways on this site. Many of us -- lifelong Democrats -- endure being called "right wing shills" or "Paulbots" every time we raise any criticism whatsoever of President Obama, no matter how well-founded that criticism might be. Give me a fucking break.

[Cha]

19. But, all he has to do is consider the damn source

and wear it as a badge of the highest honor, Devon.

[Hekate]

40. also +1

[JustAnotherGen]

61. +1

[cali]

20. you don't seem to get that the op

made nasty attacks and vilified others. the response to her isn't nearly as nasty as she was.

I'm sorry to see anyone with a brain or any decency reccing this. I will not rec ops that are like this even if I agree with some of what they contain.

[Zen Democrat]

26. You are correct. I believe that the far left is as guilty as the far right in being reactionary.

If you hate everything somebody does, kneejerk opposition. It is what it is.

Vilify at will. I don't freaking care if anyone agrees with me or not. It's a personal opinion that I derive because I don't listen to pundits and commentators.

I watch speeches and conversations on C-Span and don't need a mouthpiece to tell me what I just saw and heard. I'll tell you want I think from time to time when moved to do so.

Somebody fill me in if this has become an anti-Obama reactionary board and I'll gladly move on. I have opinions, but if open discussions are not welcome here without others feeling vilified and attacked by an opinion contrary to theirs, I'll not "cast my peals" here further. And those "vilified and attacked by opinion" should see a professional about that level of defensiveness.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. I've seen lots of people express their opinions without labeling other Democrats in unsavory ways.

It's interesting to me that some folks appoint themselves some special status as protectors of Obama against the rest of the people who voted for him. I don't get it. I don't think it is your right to order others about and why anyone would come to crap on Democrats and claim it's for the good of the Party is beyond me.

[DevonRex]

27. Cali, after being called everything under the sun that is bad

just for supporting the president, I can't muster any amount of sympathy for anyone who takes offense at this OP. Frankly, it's hysterically funny you'd think I would.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Of course on DU name calling is simply allowed 'everything under the sun' and also this self serving

concept that no matter how nasty you are toward others, their reaction is because you 'support the President' in some cosmically appointed way that should be obvious to other lifelong Democrats who might think they have minds of their own. Get real. Cite This OP is rude, venomous and idiotic. Like much of that that is foisted off as 'support for Obama' it is everything that Obama's style is not, petty, personalized, divisive and utterly absent any search for common ground. It is just an excuse to rant and rave and blame the President for the drama that he'd never support or second.

[DevonRex]

53. Hi Blue. I love you.

[Hekate]

39. +1

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. His only color is green. He's a Plutonomist shill. n/t

[cali]

25. that's as simplistic and silly as the op.

[Bobbie Jo]

47. Talk about a silly post.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Perhaps you are unaware of the following facts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023528409

And when you're done (not reading) that, you can (not read) this, about Obama's position:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3526698

Such silly facts. If you're paying attention.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Your slant is well established.

I don't watch faux news for the same reason, peddle it elsewhere.

[Fire Walk With Me]

57. Absolutely none of the dozens of stories to which I've linked are RW or RWNJ.

They are from people such as myself who are concerned at the authoritarian, anti-Constitutional turn this country has taken under Bush and now Obama. Some, such as the Citigroup Plutonomy memos, are directly from the ultra-rich.

They are FACTS. Sorry if you have a problem with facts because they are contrary to your weltanschauung. Good luck with that; the world is changing around you due to these issues whether you like it or ignore it.

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Uh uh

I stopped reading at "authoritarian."

Faux has their version of "FACTS," and your crew uses the same template. Repeatedly.

Frankly, the shtick bores me to tears. Like I said....peddle it elsewhere.

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. I am one person who once voted for Obama and now I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK.

Thank you for your eminently open mind in even beginning to consider what has been posted. Oh wait, you've leapt to accusations and paranoia.

Not good signs. Very good luck with that. Seriously.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. That sounds familiar....

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]



The paranoia reference was especially priceless.

Good luck to you as well. Seriously.

[Fire Walk With Me]

64. Ad hominem? Calling me a Koch shill? What is wrong with you? FFS. How about this?

Dude, Where's My Country? is a 2003 book by Michael Moore dealing with corporate and political events in the United States. The title is a satirical reworking of the 2000 film Dude, Where's My Car?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude,_Where%27s_My_Country%3F

People are bending over backwards to not have to smell the litter box politics has become, to shield themselves from unpleasant truths and facts. THIS is going to attract voters with an IQ over 80 in the next elections?

< definitely the most useful emoticon at DU.

Edit 2: Nevermind, repeated belligerent closed-mindedness to verifiable fact from reputable sources speaks volumes. Ignore...

[Bobbie Jo]

65. You're playing to the audience at this point.

I'm not one of them.

Here's another useful emoticon >


ETA: Saw the edit you slipped in after I posted. I'm not buying your tactics, so I'm "closed minded." You can't browbeat me into agreement, so you put me on on "ignore."


Priceless What a hot mess.

[DevonRex]

66. You list reasons to impeach Obama here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023519635#post23

Announce you regret voting for him ( ) here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023519635#post80

Called Obama a Disaster Capitalist Sadist here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023520179#post10

[Hekate]

71. That is one angry "Democrat"--there are many, many more examples to be had

A hot mess indeed.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

76. making up new words every day, I see.

You are a regressotradistastan.

[Cha]

23. Hey Zen, thank you for your

OP. President Obama has accomplished a lot and he will accomplish a lot more when there are less teabagger assholes in Congress.

2014 GOTV

[dkf]

29. "He's accomplished more for people than any president I've lived through" ?!?!? How so?

I'm not seeing it.

He may be trying, but even his solutions are a mess. I think he may have the best **intentions** of any President, but his execution is horrible.

[GoneFishin]

31. When did teabaggers becomes progressive?

[tblue]

35. Please define "racial in the here and now"

Just want to understand what you're saying.

[Hekate]

42. That phrase reminded me of Melissa Harris-Perry's comment on POTUS' Trayvon speech

"He (Obama) stood there in his black man's body" and testified to the experience of being a black man, and that has never happened before from a President.

quote marks indicate exact quote as I remember it, the rest is a paraphrase as I remember it

Her observation went straight to my heart -- and to the heart of things now, imo. I think that's being "racial in the here and now."

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. More of that lovely the left are racists crap

[JaneyVee]

43. Amen!

[rug]

44. I'm glad you didn't like LBJ's handing perpetual war to the JSOC and intelligence networks.

Now, why, again, do you think the current President is progressive?

[Zen Democrat]

89. Because BHO didn't start the fire. And by your logic there can never be a progressive president.

[rug]

90. He escalated the one in Afghanistan. He can be progressive simply by reversing course.

[Zen Democrat]

93. And I disagreed about that from the beginning. I think Barack Obama should have listened to Biden.

I don't think he walks on water. But I think he's a great and gifted man that I'm proud of having supported. He's done quite a few things I thought were mistakes, as did Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But was the world better off because they were president? Absolutely. So you go after Obama's jugular? If you don't know we have had this National Security State since WWII and that it exploded during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, and again during Bush II, you need to read more factual histories.

Remember the Total Information Awareness program that Admiral Poindexter developed? After a hue and cry it was "quietly discarded" in 2003 saith the media. Except now we know it wasn't. How much do they control that no president can touch? I don't know. But nobody has successful brought it under civilian control, to the best of my knowledge.

[FSogol]

45. K&R. n/t

[LittleBlue]

52. OP reads like a bizarre manifesto

Not sure which is worse, lumping progressives in with the far right or citing irrelevant credentials to justify it, as if credentials substitute for logic.

[mick063]

55. No shit LittleBlue

First, the OP has to bring up the topic of race and then link socialistic idealism with racism to be interpreted as "reactionary".


The President's top priority is to create job opportunity for minorities.........on foreign soil. The TPP tells me as much.

The President has cracked down on marijuana more than Bush, yet minorities are disproportionately incarcerated for drug offense.

The President would negotiate the diminishing of "entitlements" on the fifty year anniversary of MLK's march.

So the race connection is about symbolism and not substance.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

77. pretty clear. reactionaries are the same no matter what "team" they play for. seems pretty clear to

me. Interesting how so many "progressives" are giggling with delight that their displeasure with the president is in exact alignmen with conservatives' displeasure. Uh_DUHH!!! way to not be self aware.

[Zen Democrat]

94. Wrong. Not Progressives. Anti-Obama Progressives, which is an oxymoron.

[HardTimes99]

54. You have a very peculiar, singular even, definition of 'reactionary.' As a Democratic

Socialist, I am hardly reactionary, at least as political scientists use the term.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

78. thanks for the counter definition. not.

[HardTimes99]

87. I'm pretty sure I don't deserve your bile. I was hoping to challenge the OP to

learn a little more about what 'reactionary' means, at least insofar as the term is used in politics.

If one thinks of politics as a linear spectrum, with fascism on the far right and communism on the far left, historically -- at least since the French Revolution when the concepts of 'left' and 'right' were born out of the French National Assembly's physical seating of various factions -- conservatives and reactionaries have occupied the right portion of the spectrum. Whereas conservatives have historically wanted any change that comes to go more slowly, reactionaries actually wish to reverse changes, to take society back in time to a place x number of years earlier. (On the left side of the spectrum, liberals wish for change 'with all deliberate speed' (to quote SCOTUS), while progressives and revolutionaries want that change to come with even greater speed.)

So, when Republicans say they wish to reverse Roe v. Wade or sharply curtail voting rights, one can rightly term those policy positions 'reactionary,' since they indicate a desire to reverse changes that are established fact in American society. I on the other hand wish to push those changes further and faster. In my case, this means government-funded reproductive services on demand and same-day in-person voting registration on election-day at the polls. There is no way a professional political scientist will term my stances on these and other issues 'reactionary,' this OP notwithstanding.

I hope this satisfies the burden of providing a fleshed-out definition in your mind. Let me know what you think.

[winter is coming]

58. Word salad for supper again?

Looks nice on the plate but it's not very nourishing.

[Fire Walk With Me]

59. A heaping pile of fallacy. The ONLY people contesting Obama are "reactionaries"?

Wow...this is a real reach for the Probama reality-rejectionists to feel good about themselves and their blatantly unConstitutional President. Look! The only people who don't like Obama are all nuts! That means WE'RE RIGHT!

Yes, this is a right-wing technique. They do it about every republican president, seemingly to the death. So yes, in denying fact blindly clinging to a leader, this is right-wing.

I voted for him, then he began murdering hundreds of innocents in multiple foreign countries at whom we are not even at war, including over 100 children. He engages in the extra-judicial execution of US citizens suspected of terrorist ties, a Constitution-slaughtering act. So I suppose I'm partly responsible for it, but at least I'm being real about it and demanding it END!

[Union Scribe]

68. Just a few things

It seems like it'd take nothing short of a dissertation to tackle all the errors in your thinking in this thread, but there are some things I feel need said:

1. It is not the president's job to create problems that we have to solve. He's not a fucking math teacher. How on earth that's a praise-worthy trait in a political leader is unimaginable.

2. By your definition, every person on the planet is a "reactionary" and therefore a conservative. And if you're looking for countering arguments with lies and character assassination as symptoms of political extemism, I'd point you to most any thread about Greenwald, Kucinich, Snowden, Miranda, etc.

3. Whenever the left reminds people that Obama had a majority at one point, we are Demsplained to about how the numbers were misleading and how nothing progressive could have been done. So you're going to have to make up your mind. If we didn't have a majority which could do anything, you're wrong on that point. If we did, then Obama wasted the chance to do some important work.

4. You're really going to have to do better than the old 'they never loved him' and the somehow even lamer 'hater' notion. That shit is for 11 year-olds fighting on Twitter. For almost all of us now disappointed in Obama it has been a painful progression from hopefulness to incredulity to a final realization that this wasn't the man we thought he was. He apparently is the man a lot of you thought he was, which is sad, or you adapted yourselves to not mind him not being that man.

5. Taken as a percent of the things he could have accomplished, or at least fought for, the few things he has done properly are a bitterly small harvest.

6. You end your OP and continue to expound in later replies about how the president is essentially powerless if he wants to live. You're going to have to accept that a lot of us don't buy that conspiracy illuminati-sounding bullcrap. But even if we did, as you apparently do, the very last word that would enter one's mind about such a leader is "brave." Brave? To believe in ideals that he's not willing to fight for because he's scared? That's the opposite of brave. Thank God I don't buy that, because it would make the President's shortcomings even more profoundly disappointing. I don't buy that he's under the thumb of some nebulous ring of shadow government leaders. No I take him at his word when he admitted to Univision that he's more like a 1980s moderate Republican. I wish he'd told us that in 2008.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

79. you're not smart. read some Noam Chomsky. The PEOPLE have to be sufficiently exercised to force

the plutocrats to act on the people's behalf. A good catalyst is constantly creating those stark choices and encouraging people to register their opinion to their elected officials.

Sorry you cannot see any of this.

[Union Scribe]

82. Your poor interpersonal skills aside... Chomsky you say?

Let's read some Chomsky together and become un-not smartened, how about it?

Chomsky: Obama’s ‘attack’ on civil liberties ‘goes well beyond anything’ imagined
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/noam-chomsky-obamas-attack-civil-liberties-goes-we/

Noam Chomsky blasts Obama: He has no moral center
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/noam-chomsky-blasts-obama-he-has-no-moral-center/

Noam Chomsky: Obama is ‘dedicated to increasing terrorism’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/19/noam-chomsky-obama-dedicated-increasing-terrorism/

You know what I didn't find? Any claim by Chomsky that Obama is deliberately bumbling up his presidency in order to spur people to action against the 1%. And if that was the case, shouldn't you welcome our criticism and unrest, instead of dropping insults left and right in this thread and others like a raging child--if it was the intended outcome?

[mick063]

84. Union Scribe

You appear to be very smart to me.

The qualities I dislike about the modern Republican Party, the killing of the messenger to divert attention from the topic, the first to start the name calling, the inability to present persuasive counters, the blind belief without due diligence, the disregard of easily identifiable wrong, the Carl Rove methodology.

These are the qualities I typically see in those that swear fealty to Kings as opposed to an ideological foundation from which to benefit society as a whole.

We are getting scolded by self described pragmatists in a most impractical world, yet when inconsistencies become revealed, the sensible becomes juvenile.

[Union Scribe]

85. Thanks!

I love this:

"These are the qualities I typically see in those that swear fealty to Kings as opposed to an ideological foundation from which to benefit society as a whole."

I think you sum up the two possible approaches to policy extremely well. Which means, of course, that you're very smart as well.

[Zen Democrat]

95. Jesus. I read Chomsky, I watch Chomsky videos, I enjoy Chomsky.

But I also understand that Chomsky has hated every Democratic president since FDR. He hated Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. He likes Republicans better because they rile up the left. Chomsky has his place, but he's not pragmatic or compromising and you can't run a country like that.

He's always raled against any internal conspiracy in the death of JFK because he believes Kennedy was so much of a corporate tool that they wouldn't have killed him.

Chomsky is not always rational, btw. But he's a brilliant voice. I'm more of a Howard Zinn girl. Will love him forever. Howard didn't even believe in politics and wrote that all elections are meaningless. That's the purist voice, but we have to at least try to govern ourselves and be balanced.

[Enthusiast]

70. You have completely ignored his appointments.

This is the most glaring fault in your argument. Give us any kind of a sane response.

[bemildred]

86. He does have an interesting way of getting things into public debate,

things that have long been avoided. I have noticed that too.

How much of that is intentional on his part, or anybody's part, remains to be seen.

So I'd agree with the catalytic President idea, but am still watching as far as the outcome and the intentions of the players.

[Zorra]

92. Liberals just refuse to understand the reason why we can't all have nice things!

Progressives lost faith when we had a Democratic WH and huge majorities in the House and Senate and very little that was progressive got done, leading to the consequence of us losing the House in a landslide and losing several Senate seats.

I believe the problem that most progressives have with Obama is that he has not taken a sincere, firm stance against corporatism.

Progressives see corporatism as the main cause of most of our country's problems, and the reason why we can't all have nice things.

If Obama had made a transparent, sustained, sincere effort to fight corporatism, even if he wasn't successful, progressives everywhere would love him just as much as you do.

Instead, we are disappointed and upset that our main goal in supportin and electing a Democratic President has been largely ignored. It's nothing personal, Obama simply didn't even make a clear, sincere attempt at performing the main task that we hired him to do.

Really try to understand that most Democratic progressives see the greatest threat to all of us and the entire planet as corporatism, and feel like Obama did little or nothing to protect us from this ever growing menace to our well being.

Like FDR expressed in this quote below:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "
-Franklin D. Roosevelt,

If Obama had even said something similar to this, progressives would have more respect for him.

[PowerToThePeople]

99. I had a catalytic go bad once. It smelled like rotten eggs.

catalytic converter that is.