It's time to get over Obama.

[grasswire]

It's time to get over Obama.

It's time for Democrats and progressives to look past him. Time to focus on policy, not personality.

We Democrats and progressives have no leverage over him now. Nothing compels him to act on Democratic principles and traditions and issues. Time and again he has shown us our de facto impotence now that we elected him twice and he enters the lame duck limbo.

So it is past time to stop expecting change.

We hoped after Bush. Lordy, we hoped. The reality of our impotence is a bitter pill.

But he just doesn't matter that much any more. Now that we know what we know.

Now we must focus our efforts directly on policy and on those who ARE listening to Democrats and progressives, those who do not betray our principles, those who will crawl across the broken glass to resist Republican creep, those who strategize and maneuver with all their strength and cunning. Those who act in defense of the middle class, the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the marginalized, the homeless, the desperate and those who have lost hope.

We must, still, push back against TPP and NSA excess and chained SS and food stamp cuts and all those matters that threaten every family domestic and global. We must push back against deregulation. We must push back against corruption in politics.

And we must, still, acknowledge progress as it comes.

But we waste our time keening about our POTUS.

The order of the day must be strategy for 2014 and 2016. It must be commitment to the cause of timeless traditional and true Democratic values. It must be POLICY.

Look beyond this day. Look beyond Obama. Let history write his legacy, whatever it may be.

Yes, criticize failure or omissions. Not to "bash", but to instruct, and to lay down the markers for history. To say: This is not worthy of the Democratic heritage. This is not in sync with our values.

Then rise above. Use the Civil Rights movement as a model. Prevail. Overcome. Provide an alternative for America that is populist, fresh, compelling. Eschew the third way, the mushy middle. Stand FOR something.

We can. Yes, we can.

[cui bono]

1. Agree. And theoretically we can all agree that NSA excess is bad, TPP is bad,

SS is good, medicare for all is good, drones are bad, corporate regulation is good, corporate welfare is bad..

mmmkay?




Sorry, just can't muster up the strength to write more than that atm...

[grasswire]

2. It's Sunday night. I understand.

[cui bono]

6. Yep. Plus I just finished eating a huge fritatta!

Yum...

[ProSense]

3. LOL!

"So it is past time to stop expecting change.

We hoped after Bush. Lordy, we hoped. The reality of our impotence is a bitter pill.

But he just doesn't matter that much any more. Now that we know what we know. "

It's time to pretend Obama doesn't exist and have nearly three years left in his Presidency. Time to ignore everything he has done.

So, Ted Cruz has a poll about "Obamacare" on his Facebook page:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024753680

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799

[grasswire]

8. It's clear that most Democrats and progressives are aware of what he has done.

Very clear.

The good and the bad.

But there's no point in expecting any change in course.

[ProSense]

18. Hate to break it to you

"But there's no point in expecting any change in course."

...but change is still happening and underway

ACLU: President Announces Reforms to Rein in NSA Spying on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024737421

The Death of an Employer Scam
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024727672

Statement by the President on Connecticut's minimum wage increase
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024744791

"All but seven states have single payer activist groups."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024747402

[grasswire]

40. as I wrote....

.....it's important to acknowledge progress when it happens. It is not now possible for Obama to make the kind of progress that the moment demands. Obstructionism from Republicans just because they hate him. Pressures from the MIC and Wall Street block him, too.

So, we must work around. Strategize for the future.

[ProSense]

48. "Obstructionism from Republicans just because they hate him."

So you want to ignore Obama and people should "get over" him because of Republican obstruction?

[kelliekat44]

88. Well going over what he HAS actually accomplished in the face of historic obstruction and disrespect

from the GOP and even some Dems will get you no where. And the truth of the matter is the money-makers (job makers) will hoard their investments until Obama is out of office. They have nothing left except to look forward to proving that things were bad because he was President...no matter the historical facts. The hoarders ill loosen up with their ill-gained wealth, building will expand and there will be many jobs created for the group of people they want to help and the rest of the country will be damned. They will raise wages a little, just enough to be able to say.."See what we can do without Obama." They will spend the rest of their breathing days trying to undo the accomplishments of this administration, including equal pay for women, equal rights for gays, and throwing immigrants under the bus. They will attempt to re-write history or ignore the history they don't like. We will be at war again and the MIC will have plenty of jobs for the weapons makers. They will do whatever they can to punish those who favored Obama over their sorry asses...and that punishment will have no boundaries. And many here will gleefully accept what they say and do until it hurts their own sorry asses.

[Stellar]

137. Hear, hear!!!

You're on the money!!!

[DonCoquixote]

200. a great quote

" And many here will gleefully accept what they say and do until it hurts their own sorry asses."

And sadly, while you might have meant that for the Fox News low information voter, that will also apply to the "I never liked Obama, I wanted Hillary/I wanted Kucinich: people who proclaim themselves "far left."

[cui bono]

213. How so?

How does that apply to the far left?

The far left doesn't accept what the Republicans say and do. The far left are the ones who tried to make things more left, who didn't want to accept the compromises Obama so willingly made, who wanted him to fight for us rather than give in before negotiations ever started, who didn't want to be pragmatic like we keep being told to be on here. The far left is fighting for our democracy while the third wayers are telling us NSA spying is a-ok now that Obama is president.

The far left didn't blame everything on Republican obstructionists, that was the third wayers who are fine with a centrist Dem Party leader.

So you are so completely wrong if you think it's the far left that is "gleefully" accepting what the R's say and do. We were the ones complaining that the Dem Party has drifted too close to the R Party. And then getting smarmy ridicule in response to that.

[DonCoquixote]

238. first off

I said "self proclaimed far left." There are many, be they Jane Hamsher or Ted Rall, who will rail against Obama for compromise, yet have zero problems taking GOP Money. Hell, even Dennis Kucinich takes a paycheck from Fox News now. Do I count these people in the same sentence as the geuine far left, no.

Second, the OP was about those who hate Obama and will crank up the "he was evil" stuff after 2016. Sorry to yes, YES, that is already happening. When the GOP says "we should have never elected Obama president" they will say AMEN, when the GOP takes down Obamacare, they will rub their hands and say "YES, now we can get single payer" and then wonder why in letting Obamacare die, they helped the GOP seal off the hopes of single payer forever.

And let's not even get into the people on all sides that raked Obama (deservedly) over the coals for cold feet as far as LGBT rights, but who are fawning over Putin as if he was a hero. When it comes to the way Putin is ginning up hatred of gays to secure his power, the silence of the Hamshers, Ralls, Thom Hartmanns and others is louder than a thousand trumpets. I may enjoy RT, but I have no illusions about whose dog collar they wear.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

225. I've known for some time the agenda has been to PUNISH the public for the way they voted.

[sabrina 1]

166. We have been told over and over again that the President cannot do the things we expected him to do

because of Republicans and Blue Dogs in Congress.

That is the message in a nutshell everytime we lose a fight for Democratic principles.

I think you should be happy that we get it now.

And we are moving forward.

We get that what we need most of all is a Congress with as many non-Corporate Dems as possible in order to:

1) Make sure there will be no excuses for a Democrat in the WH that the Republicans/Blue dogs 'won't let him/her' do whatever it is we expect them to do. There must be a non-Corporate Congress to block those who apparently rule regardless of how many Dems we elect IF many of those Dems are, as we have been told are Blue Dogs/Third Way. And ...

2) To make sure that if a Republican should occupy the WH ever again, they will be unable to get past our Democratic Congress.

Iow, we've come a long way from thinking that all we had to do was 'win'. YOU eg, have been very helpful in teaching us what is needed.

We thank you for that. Seriously, at least I do ....

[rhett o rick]

170. Not so much about ignoring but give up on trying to influence his decisions.

We cant stop him from doing what he wants (the TPP, XL Pipeline, etc) nor get him to do what we want (prosecute war criminals).
We must concentrate on the future. As the OP stated, "Provide an alternative for America that is populist, fresh, compelling. Eschew the third way, the mushy middle. Stand FOR something." Wallowing in personal adulation is counter-productive.

[cui bono]

210. So is there Republican obstructionism or not?

That's the excuse every time he falls short but now you don't think we should take that into account and should expect great things from him all of a sudden?

Which is it?

[rury]

101. Amen, ProSense!!

[rury]

99. Thanks as always ProSense!!

[brooklynite]

4. ...and who do the progressives have as an alternative?

[grasswire]

13. I have no idea.

I'm a liberal Democrat.

But I'm open to anyone who is on the right side of history.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. *Your* version on what is the "right side of history"?

Because as a Liberal Democrat myself, my view of what the right side of history should be might differ from yours.

[cui bono]

216. From the OP:

Now we must focus our efforts directly on policy and on those who ARE listening to Democrats and progressives, those who do not betray our principles, those who will crawl across the broken glass to resist Republican creep, those who strategize and maneuver with all their strength and cunning. Those who act in defense of the middle class, the poor, the hungry, the disabled, the marginalized, the homeless, the desperate and those who have lost hope.

We must, still, push back against TPP and NSA excess and chained SS and food stamp cuts and all those matters that threaten every family domestic and global. We must push back against deregulation. We must push back against corruption in politics.

I think all Dems can get behind that.

[Phlem]

286. So basically

be forever vigil. Have been, but it shouldn't include the person the majority of US citizens voted for for Potus, or maybe it always does?



The fast tracking the TTP, what a fucking joke, from the leader of the Democratic Party non the less.



jeeeeezus.

-p

[cui bono]

287. When POTUS is fighting for what we believe in I will support him in that endeavor.

When he strays and favors corporations I will call him on it.

Democracy doesn't work if you don't have a voice and don't criticize those in power. It is supposed to be by the consent of the governed.

Totally agree about TPP. That's what I mean.

[cheapdate]

86. The DREAM Act failed in the senate by a few measly votes,

once in 2009 and twice in 2010. Obama fought for that legislation. But now it's dead because voters failed to send Democrats to congress to support the president.

Obama has forcefully raised important issues over and over again, from LGBT equality and climate change, to income inequality and the broken health care system. In each and every case, where congress has failed to act he's taken action. From ordering federal agencies to extend benefits to same sex partners of federal employees, to ordering a de facto increase in the minimum wage for businesses that contract with the federal government.

His judicial appointees, including Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, have already proven to be reliable voices for the people and will continue to be so for many years.

Obama's negotiations with almost unprecedented and hostile opposition in the house succeeded in passing the first major tax increase on the wealthy in almost a generation -- finally breaking the back of the Grover Norquist "tax pledge" Republicans.

His Justice Department has aggressively challenged attacks on voting rights in states all across the country where they've been under assault by GOP state houses. They've had some losses but many successes.

Secretary of the Interior Sarah Jewell was a winner of the National Audubon Society's Rachel Carson Award, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, and the commission on the BP Horizon oil spill included Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Bieneke.

Barack Obama re-negotiated the lapsed START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia and initiated a major multinational Nuclear Security Summit. The State Department under Secretary Clinton rebuilt relationships around the world and focused on universal human issues with compassion and goodwill, while at the same time providing steady and skillful leadership of US foreign policy through extremely challenging times of change.

The list of reasons why Barack Obama is on the right side of history goes on and on.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

96. :thumbsup:

All of this is what falls down the memory hole.

I agree with the OP in that we need to keep liberal values foremost, keep making our values loud and clear.... Keep pushing. Keep our eyes on policy, and get the teapukes replaced with dems. Especially dems we know will join PBO in providing active leadership that will carry others along its path.

Ok....more to say but I'm past my bedtime. I'm toast.

Yes, yes, i know....my opinions are just so overflowing with wisdom that it's a shame to withold them....I hope I may be forgiven.... *snarf*

[Number23]

106. Acckkk! "THe Dreaded LIsT!11"

Oh the horror! You know how much some folks around here hate seeing a list of the man's accomplishments! You will offend their delicate sensibilities!one

(imagine that as a fainting couch)

Actually, this is a great post. So glad that you posted that.

[cheapdate]

110. It's wierd. Conservatives fully recognize and understand

the impact of Obama's presidency and see how he has pushed the tide against their favor on issue after issue. Their fierce and destructive hostility, resistance, and opposition to Obama is in part a measure of how well they recognize that he is sweeping their ideas away into the dustbin of history.

Some liberals and Democrats on the other hand are like, "meh?"

[Glitterati]

150. Complete BS

Conservatives see a black man with a D after his name in office.

That is all.

Before the Obama Presidency produced the first piece of legislation, conservatives vowed to ensure he was a one term President.

These people needed nothing more than seeing a Democrat in office to start their opposition.

Hell, they were meeting to plan his defeat and the defeat of everything he stood for WHILE HE WAS BEING INAUGURATED!

[brush]

201. Ahhh . . . how is it complete BS when . . .

they've voted to repeal the ACA 50 times? They know the implications of the ACA and what it holds for their big insurance paymasters— and them — regarding it's success.

You're absolutely right about their meeting to make him a one-termer on his Inauguration but a rewording might be in order about you post title.

[Glitterati]

203. The whole damned argument is BS

Poor little Obama, picked on little Obama needs you cheerleaders to take up for him on the playground of politics because the bullies might pick on him.

I'm so sick of this bullshit.

Ever heard the statement "politics ain't beanbags?" I guarantee you Obama heard it before he ever ran for office, and he manages to stick up for himself without all you cheerleaders beating up on fellow Democrats on a DEMOCRATIC message board.

THAT is complete bullshit.

I repeat - Complete BULLSHIT.

[brush]

219. You seem to be missing something in what the op was saying

The repugs know that the ACA is a game-changer as far as unlimited profits for Big Insurance, which is why they've voted to repeal it 50 times.

That is not complete BS, nor is the influence it has already had on 7 million now insured people.

That's real influence, not BS.

And how is wanting people to have affordable healthcare being an Obama cheer leader?

You need to quit the name calling and maybe root for people who couldn't afford it before to now be able to get health insurance.

[Glitterati]

220. Really? So the 39 million LEFT UNINSURED

isn't going to be part of the response from the teapublicans?

Are you really that naive? You must have missed Chuckie Todd and Andrea Mitchell this morning on MSNBC then.

Oh, and BTW, it's up to 9.5 million today....keep up if you're going to try and use the FACTS against fellow Democrats.

[brush]

243. I've never seen anyone so negative

Work towards getting the rest insured as well. And of course I heard of the 9.5 figure, but you seem to be sneering at the 9.5 figure like it's nothing? That's a good thing.

And if you let whatever right-leaning talking heads like Chuck Toad and Andrea Mitchell discourage you . . . that doesn't say much for you. Of course they and the teaparty types are going to run it down. But they did that before and it still got passed.

You can't let the naysayers stop you or make you come off so negatively.

Nothing will ever get done if everyone had your doom and gloom attitude.

[Glitterati]

249. Too sad that you prefer to fight

with members of your own party, belittling those on YOUR side, while letting the teapublicans off the hook entirely.

Just because you perceive some "slight" to Obama.

I was just cluing you into the next big right wing attack on Obamacare. (And, YES I hope they call it that forever. Obama should get credit for it.)

But, needless to say, you're picking the wrong fight. You guys always do.

BTW, the enemy is thataway <---- to your RIGHT.

[brush]

255. Yeah, well . . . take your own advice

no one's trying to fight with you . . . just trying to get you to stop with the constant negativity and put forth something positive sometimes.

[Glitterati]

260. The irony is thick

Putting on my waders.

[cheapdate]

270. The election of Barack Obama has dragged the racists

out into the sunlight and exposed them for the vile human beings that they are.

But if you're insisting that racism alone tells the "complete" story of conservative and right-wing opposition to this president, then I believe you're discounting and badly misjudging the opposition. You're completely missing deep ideological disputes over the proper role of government and public institutions and serious differences over the essential nature of government by the people. And you're completely missing the mighty struggle between conservative and liberal perspectives on morality.

The opposition to Barack Obama is certainly intensified by racism and themes of racism underlie many of the disputes over specific areas of public policy.

But I think its a big mistake and an ineffective strategy to simplify the arguments of the opposition as you suggest.

[Glitterati]

273. I wasn't trying to make that point

Actually the entire point of my post was that there was a man with a D next to his name in the White House.

Did the fact that he is black bring out the racism? Absolutely!

But the bottom line was that on the day Obama was inaugurated, the right wing began to conspire to stop any and all of his possible accomplishments.

Ideological disputes were the beginning, racism was the catalyst, but defeating a Democratic agenda was the single most important task to the right wing.

[cheapdate]

291. Unquestionably true.

The Democratic Party agenda is fiercely opposed by the libertarian/neoclassical/Austrian School/"free market"/Ayn Randian bloc who influence elections, politics, public opinion and public policy through their large network of organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Americans For Prosperity, the Heartland Institute, Americans For Tax Reform, American Legislative Exchange Council, etc., etc. etc.

These groups are well funded, well organized, well connected, and single-minded in their goals. They are not restrained by any precepts of ethics in pursuit of their political goals. They're in it for the long-haul. The influence and political power they have achieved over the past thirty years is astonishing. The extent to which they have successfully retrained how the brains of millions of Americans conceptualize ideas such as freedom, civic obligation, and the public good is also astonishing.

The Democratic Party agenda is also fiercely opposed by religious conservatives, which has its biggest impact in the southern states.

The whole enchilada would include racists and white nationalists, neo-confederates, second amendment ideologues, anti-immigrant nativists, anti-Muslim crusaders, the far left (by which I mean radical revolutionary leftists) anarchists, etc., etc.

The challenge is huge. Democrats must hold together and strengthen coalitions and alliances. Our differences must be worked out but we must ultimately act with solidarity.

[Mr Dixon]

164. WOW

AGREED

[Auntie Bush]

228. +100 x100 Right on cheapdate!

I'm going to bookmark your post. Thank you for reminding many DUers of all the many forgotten Obama accomplishments.

[L0oniX]

186. I'm sure the 1% will have it's corporate 3rd way centrist puppet ready.

[brooklynite]

196. Would that be the "puppet' that 17 million Democrats voted for in 2008?

Gee, I didn't know Third Way had that many members...

[harun]

247. They'll have a list of them, Reich, Clinton, Biden, Shweitzer...

Only Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean could be considered non-corporatist.

[brooklynite]

252. ...and yet, Howard Dean is endorsing Clinton

[Walk away]

265. Now there's a ticket that will put the Bush family back in the White House...

for another 8 years. I get that these men are terrific liberals and pass the purity test but they would last a week up against the billions of dollars that it took to put the President in office twice.
Neither one could raise a fraction of the amount that they would need to run against any republican. Do you honestly believe they can? If they did they would end up failing the purity test in order to do it.
So you hate "the 3rd way" you still have to come up with a candidate that won't just appeal to the base.

[harun]

289. See post 246

Thanks

[harun]

246. Until we fix Citizens United, Karl Marx with Che as VP still would not bring change

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. Again with the dismiss President Obama?

Underestimate him at your own peril....(not to mention overlooking what supporting his policies in the upcoming midterms will mean for 2016)

He will be influential for years to come....

[WorseBeforeBetter]

9. I live in North Carolina.

The GOP took over in 2010 in 2012 primarily because of Obamacare. Seriously, what more "peril" are you suggesting?

Put your money where your mouth is.

"He will be influential for years to come...." -- a troll-like chill just swept over me. Huh.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. Primarily because?

You are blaming President Obama for THAT even?

Geebus....

If you think he won't continue to have a strongly supportive following long after his term is over....let me introduce you to one Bill Clinton....nuff said.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

22. LOL! I have no doubt he'll have a "strongly supportive following."

No doubt whatsoever.



And if you don't understand North Carolina politics and the effects of the ACA, try listening for a change. Obama and the Democratic Party blew it by allowing Teabaggers to define his signature legislation back in 2009. We'll see what the mood is in November 2014.

Again, pony up. North Carolina thanks you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. I LIVED in SC for 15 years....I think I understand VERY well...

my parents have been there since 77....my father was born there....

It has much more to do with the President's skin color than his Affordable Care Act does...

[sheshe2]

69. He/she was on a thread the other night, about obamabots.

He/she was crying out for help for NC, at the same time bashing people left and right. I suggested an attitude change might help their call for help. All that happened was more bashing.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

141. Isn't "Obamabot" a term being cheered by some on DU now?

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

I mean, you brought it to DU:

Why I became an "Obamabot"

Seriously, which is it? Bad or good? I think they're cute!

"Crying out for help for NC" -- niiiiiice. This isn't a joke. Or a game. It's real.

[delrem]

274. It is you who are using the word as a pejorative, not sheshe2.

To my mind, sheshe2 made sense.

I might not agree with sheshe2 on much (I'm banned from The BOG (and other festering places) simply for being me), but nonetheless, you aren't bringing a point to bear. So even if I wanted to be prejudiced against sheshe2 on everything (and oh, how I want to!) you aren't giving me ground to get a grip on.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

138. Do you live in NC? Do you vote in NC? Do you pay taxes in NC?

I don't think many on this board truly understand what has happened to this state since 2010. But it's easier to cheer Obama than focus on real problems.

Obama carried the state in 2008 -- you sure you want to attribute dissatisfaction with his admin's policies to skin color?

[randome]

142. This thread is not focussing on the problems. It's focussed on Obama.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Are those "Obamabots"? You *do* know that's the label CONservatives

and Teabaggers give people who don't share in their visceral hatred for America's first black and Democratic president, don't you? I've never had a single Democrat call me an "Obamabot". But plenty of Teabaggers and other assorted CONservatives.

Maybe you need to rethink your position on how you see Democrats who support Democratic President Obama on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING site.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. Have you met Democratic Underground?

You haven't lived on DU until you have been called an "Obamabot"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

144. A BOG-approved blogger uses it.

What's the problem?

Besides, critics of Obama's policies are called emotional, racist, homophobic, etc. -- funny how some can dish it out but not take it, eh?

[tarheelsunc]

81. It's kind of like the term "sheeple"

Conservatives like to use that term for Obama supporters, yet they seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that all they know how to do is repeatedly spout the lines they're fed by their "shepherds," whether they be Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Alex Jones, or whoever. So when I see a term used like "sheeple" or "Obamabot," I think of it more as a reflection on the person who used it. It's rather disappointing that people on a site supposedly full of Democratic Party supporters would be using these terms to refer to fellow members.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

146. A BOG-approved blogger uses it.

Why I became an "Obamabot"

What's the problem?

Are you as quick to condemn the members who trot out emotional, racist, homophobic, etc. to taunt critics of the Obama admin's policies? If so, good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. It is called "owning the term" perhaps you have heard of other words used as perjoratives

being owned by those it is used against....

I know of one off hand...don't you?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

163. Proud emoprog here.

But I'm sure that's not the word you were referring to. And I'm not going down that path with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. Never used that word have I?

But if I did use that term on DU...what do YOU think would happen?

[Jamaal510]

90. I second this:

"Maybe you need to rethink your position on how you see Democrats who support Democratic President Obama on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING site."

Again, I am truly baffled over how crap like that is even allowed on here. How are you going to be on a site for Democrats, and portray a (Democratic) president's supporters as basically being unable to think for ourselves? That's not exactly what I'd expect to see on this type of site.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

148. Right now, Obama is the least of my worries.

Voter suppression, high unemployment (Governor McCrookie's numbers are BS), lack of Medicaid expansion, discontinued long-term unemployment benefits, fracking, and attacks on reproductive rights are my priorities. And getting Kay Hagan elected in a state in which a majority disapprove of Obamacare.

Why I became an "Obamabot"

Either it's OK or it's not.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

143. Smarty-what's-her-name thinks it's OK...

and sheshe introduced it here:

Why I became an "Obamabot"

Which is it? Bad or good?

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. BS! She decided to own the term....you are being disingenuous....to say the least

If black people are using the N word....does that make it okay for White people to use it?

[brush]

205. MOST BLACK PEOPLE DON'T USE THE N WORD

I beg your pardon but some black people from the easily-influenced-by -profane-rappers use the N word ending with an "as" but most disapprove of the term because we know how much blood was spilled over the word.

[VanillaRhapsody]

283. I KNOW that...most Obama supporters do not use Obamabots either...

that is the point!

But if one DOES....it doesn't mean White people can use that term does it? That is the point I was trying to make about the pejorative "Obamabots"...if one supporter uses it...doesn't mean it is open season to use the term.

[brush]

284. Sorry. I stand corrected. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

285. No Problem....I understand....they were certainly TRYING to play it that way...no doubt about that..

trying to paint me a racist for it!

[sheshe2]

78. Didn't we have this conversation the other night?

Oh yes we did.

Ditch the attitude and stop biting off the hand of those that can help you. You really do want help, do you not? Then stop bashing people that support this President.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

149. We did indeed, and we'll keep having it.

You introduced the term, is it acceptable or not?

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. Do black people use the N word? Does that mean White people can call them that?

feigned innocence doesn't look good on you...

[A Simple Game]

206. You are looking at the little picture. Why not ask the right questions?

Is it all right for black people to use the N word?

If it is all right for black people to use the N word, why isn't it all right for white people?

If you think it isn't all right for white people to use the N word but is OK for black people, do you feel black people are superior to white people?

Is Obamabot as derogatory as the N word?

Is it OK for black people to use Obamabot?

Do you really feel that the people on DU that criticize President Obama are racist and not just critical of the President's conservative policies irregardless of his skin color?

Do you feel Conservative policies should be part of the Democratic party platform?

Did you ever bring up racism with any of our other Presidents? Why or why not?

Does being the first to bring up racism mean the same as being the first to bring up Nazis, that you automatically lose?

So many questions come to my mind when someone just out of the blue brings up racism. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

211. and THAT is not what this is about....

wow...just wow...

[A Simple Game]

230. If this isn't about race, don't bring up the subject.

And don't try to shift the blame for bringing up race to me, I'm just pointing out the fact that you did.

Racism or Nazism, be the first and lose.

Why would a person with Vanilla in their name be the first to bring up racism? Is it alright for a black to use the word vanilla?

[VanillaRhapsody]

232. It is about what the phrase "owning the term" means....Jeebus on crutches...

obfuscation is not your strong suit....


Wow now Vanilla is a racist term and I am racist for using it? Believe it or not it is the ONLY fragrance I use on my person or in my home....I happen to love it....

thanks for playing you lose.

[A Simple Game]

295. Yes. vanilla can be and is used as a racist term, please try to catch up. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

212. FYI I never called it racist....I asked a simple question

do you understand "owning the term" used against you or not?

Someone "owning" a derisive term...doesn't make it OKAY for everyone else to use it pejoratively...

Your deliberate facetiousness is not working...

[A Simple Game]

227. And you are having a conversation with someone that doesn't

think it is all right for anyone to use the N word. No one, never.

If you want to own a derogatory term go ahead, I would rather shun it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

229. Yes because that makes it convenient doesn't it?

I as a White person have no business in that fight OR using that term regardless if an African American decides to own it...

Get it yet?

[A Simple Game]

231. Glad you agree with me.

Now is it alright for a black to use the term?

[VanillaRhapsody]

233. I don't have a right to decide that for them do I?

it is not my place to decide one way or the other...

so no I don't agree with you....But you must be the arbiter of all things racist since the fact that I use the name VanillaRhapsody....MUST be racial right?

OMG this product must be racist:

[A Simple Game]

296. So it is up to black people to decide if they want to use the N word with each other,

and it is also up to the black people to decide that white people can't use the word to describe black people?

Now if the black people decide to use the N word with each other and tell white people they can't use the N word, do you consider that hypocritical? I do. If an unknown person uses the N word around a blind person how does the blind person decide if the usage is OK or not?

[Thespian2]

161. You got it right

I retired from the State of North Carolina. Everything we built for the good of Wake County Public School students was destroyed by the Repugs once they took over. Obamacare is a sell-out to the insurance companies by a corporate-owned president. Sure, Carolinians dislike him because he is black. That is not even a question. But, Obama's actions demonstrated that his administration was not much more than an extension of the Bushies. Remember, the GOP plan was and is to take over state and local politics. That's what they did to NC, using money from people like Art Pope. Twenty-two states have already been taken over by them. What is the progressive strategy to fight that plan? Time to ignore Obama's small successes and huge failures, and try to find a plan to take back the states. Remember Howard Dean?

Yes, I live in Canada now...very happily. We will soon be rid of Harper.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

167. The NC GOP destroyed decades of progress in a matter of months

That's what those cheerleading Obamacare don't seem to understand. Or seem to care, to be perfectly honest. It's all about the Big O.

NCers did vote him into office in 2008, so it's not all about skin color. I just mentioned Howard Dean in another post, along with Jim Moran. They were absolutely pummeled at a NOVA townhall -- where was Obama? He and his admin should have been selling his signature legislation HARD. As far as the ACA, there are some components I like; others I don't. But it blows in NC -- only one company (BCBSNC) sells policies in all 100 counties. The other company (Coventry) sells to fewer than half. So much for competition! Not as many young people are signing up as needed, and BCBSNC is already hinting at substantial rate increases next year.

I'll be interesting to see how much Obama and the DNC help Kay Hagan. Seriously, it's go-time.

Best to you up in Canada. Due to work, I'll probably be here another ten years. It is a beautiful state, and I just read about an eastern portion of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail opening this year. Trying to stay positive.

[2banon]

276. Good luck in ousting Harper..

I wondered how Harper stayed in this long.. I remember watching that election on C-Span during bush years.. that looked like another rigged election. I think I read later that Karl Rove had a hand in that one too somehow.

[delrem]

268. I think you're being trolled. n/t

[brush]

202. Ahhh . . . nearlly 7 millions sign ups for Obamacare disagree with you

and as the benefits of the ACA become more and more apparent over years Obama's influence will indeed continue to be felt.

Haven't you seen the reports of hardcore repugs coming out late saying that "Obamacare works"?

[otohara]

217. 978,316 NCDems Did Not Vote in 2010

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

08 - 2,123,390
10 - 1,145,074

12 - 2,178,388

Looks to me like the GOP took over in 2010 is because Democrats sit on their asses in midterms and special elections.

Even more pitiful in North Carolina was Democratic turnout for the special election on Amendment 1 leaving LGBT citizens in the dust.
840,802

[WorseBeforeBetter]

248. Not this Democrat. And Dems outvoted Rs in straight-ticket voting...

in 2010 and 2012, but it wasn't enough. Republican coworkers and neighbors were whipped into an ACA-hating frenzy in 2010, and they voted. Why weren't Dems as passionate about it?

The May 2012 Amendment One vote still sickens me. Not only were we up against Tami Fitzgerald of the NC "Values" Coalition, we were battling many black pastors, Patrick Wooden being one of the more vile:

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/05/01/anti-gay-pastor-patrick-wooden-claims-amendment-one-doesnt-ban-civil-unions/

Again, R coworkers and neighbors were whipped into a frenzy, and they voted. One so warped that she claimed to "love gay dudes" (like they're some sort of accessory), only to proudly display an anti-marriage equality sign in her yard for months. Why weren't Dems as passionate as Rs? I don't know.

I'm guessing 2014 is going to come down to who loves or hates Obamacare more. Republicans are highly organized, while the state Democratic party is a mess. Art Pope and the Koch brothers will funnel millions toward the November elections. The NC GOP cut off long-term unemployment last July, so God knows what the true unemployment figures are. But it sure as hell isn't the 6.7% (?) McCrookie claims it is. What will make Dems passionate about November? Weed? Minimum wage? Tuition debt forgiveness? No Medicaid expansion?

[bvar22]

257. Blaming the voters for "not turning out" is lazy and unproductive.

When the troops are NOT motivated,
it is ALWAYS a Failure of Leadership.

The BEST way to motivate voters is to given them something to be motivated about.
Voters are not going to motivate themselves. That is a fact.
Get used to it.
It is the Primary Job of Leadership to motivate the voters.

While Blaming the Lazy Voters may make you feel good,
it won't solve the problem.
If Leadership is willing to address its shortcomings,
THEN the problem can be solved.

The troops were MOTIVATED in 2008,
[font color=white]......[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

....but instead of marching at the head of his movement... his Army for Change,
the President abandoned the Field of Battle to the Republicans for their entire Teabager Summer of Shame and their ridiculous Townhall Meetings.

Instead we got THIS:

OK. You guys just go home.
We don't need you now,
especially those loudmouthed Professional Leftists!

THAT is NOT the way to motivate the voters.
Getting all chummy with the Republicans "seeking bi-partisan approval" didn't help to motivate the voters expecting "CHANGE".


We will ALWAYS have "lazy" or "stupid" voters.
That isn't going to just go away.
The people we elect to head our Party NEEDS to address this fact,
NOT the lazy voters.

Harry Truman knew how to motivate the voters:

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]

[otohara]

288. It's The Dems "Voting Against Our Own Interest"

or in our case it's Not Voting

We mock those who vote against their own interest.. but not those in our own party who don't vote.

They punish us all - stop making excuses.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

279. VR sees secret Republicans everywhere at DU

If you disagree with her (and really, it's very tough to agree with incoherence), you're suspect. I'm am now living under the assumption that some here are neither students of history nor of Orwell (or Heller, for that matter).

[grasswire]

10. whatever you say...

History will write the legacy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. Yes it certainly will.....

and the Rightwingers are going to regret calling it Obamacare....

[RobertEarl]

7. I agree. Obama will do whatever

It is the congress which passes budgets, votes up or down on the TPP, increases or kills SS.

We need more democracy and we always get more democracy when we have more Democrats in congress.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. and NO ONE will run for or against the policies of Obama in the midterms...

yeah he has zero influence at all...

[delrem]

85. Are you in effect saying that Obama could be replaced by a robo-pen,

and that he has no actual power but will do what congress wills? That's it?

I think to myself, that *can't* be what RobertEarl is saying - because it doesn't fit into the pattern I've come to expect.

[RobertEarl]

92. No

What I am saying is that Obama is pretty well set in what he can do. I have faith that given a better congress, Obama can do even more. I think that is what the OP is saying, too. But is getting a bit of knee-jerk reaction from the crowd.

Who here would claim that with less opposition members in congress, Obama would not have been able to make more progress? We don't get to vote for Obama again, but we do vote this year for congress members. That is where our focus need be. Forget about trashing Obama, doing so will get us nowhere. It is a waste of time and is divisive.

And trashing people who post any criticism about Obama are wasting time and energy. Just look at all the wasted efforts on this thread!!

[delrem]

107. ^^^^^

OK - you're very convincing!

[Doctor_J]

254. I would

Who here would claim that with less opposition members in congress, Obama would not have been able to make more progress?

We had huge majorities in 2009-2010 - bigger than we'll have for years to come. They were squandered. The Repukes were run out of town on a rail in November 2008, and the first thing the president did was "meet them half way". this was either a mistake that we'll never recover from, or part of the plan to get otherwise sane dems on board with a lot of Republican policies.

BTW Obama can veto KXL, TPP, and any other legislation he doesn't like.

If you claim that we need bigger majorities than we had in 2009-2010 to get anything done, you've in effect given up.

[delrem]

264. A bit of nuance is required!

I was one of many who watched, with total disgust and hate as "D's" like Joseph Isadore "Joe" Lieberman strung up the Democratic Party and helped the R's craft what I'll call the "filibuster noose"; even while other Dems, DNCers and 3rd Wayers all, *played along* and didn't offer any opposition.

It was, IMO, the most disgusting political episode since the turn of the century.

If Dems can't learn from these examples, can they learn at all?

It seems to me that a lesson to be learned is to elect progressive Democrat's, and *not* to elect fuckers who, for money, are willing to throw away all the values that they campaigned on in the interest of a phony and non-existent "bipartisanship" that eliminates all Democratic Party aspirations at the get go, then defines "the political middle" or "politically moderate" according as the Republican Party demands.

[RobertEarl]

266. Fact is, Doc

In 2009, he most fruitful, correct progressing congress I have seen since the 60's was in place and working. Then we lost the house.

I contend, and historical facts show, that we were making real progress with congress until the opposition party took over the house in 2011.

[Whisp]

11. we we we

all the way home.

did someone vote you in for spokesperson of something?

[Cha]

24. they'll never get over him.. he's their favorite whining trigger.

[sheshe2]

75. OMG!

I love


I copied and pasted them! however I had a hard time catching hair on fire, damn they move fast!


Thanks Cha!

[sheshe2]

72. Noooooooooooooo.

I think it is Me Me Me!

Though I do love yours little piggies quote!

[JoePhilly]

15. DU's perpetually disgruntled are going to "get over" Obama?

Good luck with that.

[grasswire]

19. no one should "get over" failures and omissions

Failures and omissions must be part of the legacy, and so noted.

But there's no point in expecting a change in course and mourning what might have been. That's wasted effort.

A groundswell is en route. It's a populist groundswell. Democrats can ride that, can harness it.

We're looking ahead now.

[JoePhilly]

21. So does that mean fewer OPs attacking Obama?

And more promoting new candidates?

[grasswire]

27. :::shrug:::

That's not up to me.

But it should be noted that criticism is not always an attack, except in the minds of the defensive.

[JoePhilly]

37. when OPs about progressive candidates out number the attack OPs,

You'll have a point.

[treestar]

38. But your post is not criticism. It's an attack.

.

Time and again he has shown us our de facto impotence now that we elected him twice and he enters the lame duck limbo.

How is that "criticism" in any constructive way?

[grasswire]

44. it is a pure statement of fact.

We can do nothing to compel him to act at this point.

[treestar]

58. Republican Congress

What do you want to compel the POTUS to do?

[BlueCaliDem]

62. We shouldn't be focused on "compelling" President Obama to do anything.

He's doing his job and then some.

Instead, we should be compelling - not discouraging! - people to VOTE and to keep the Senate in Democratic hands while fighting to register people to win back the House. Doing a "woe-is-me" on what "coulda, shoulda, woulda" - especially when you actually take a look at what this president has already accomplished compared to his predecessors - is defeatism. Discouraging people from voting this November because of negative posts against this president that will ripple down and affect Democratic candidates in close races is counterproductive.

You don't like how slowly things are going? Stop kvetching and give President Obama a Congress he can work with. The only way to do that is to GOTV. Everything else is worthless chatter.

[Doctor_J]

68. funny, I thought when he took office he said we should

Was that another lie?

[jeff47]

245. I apologize that Obama isn't a dictator

and that you have to actually understand how our system of government works.

Short version: Congress is fucking up massively. Stop blaming the guy in the White House for Congress's failures.

[sheshe2]

80. Indeed it is.

A pure statement of your very own twisted facts.

[ProSense]

20. The Obamacare enrollment surge

needs a counter. It "sucks" doesn't mesh with the smack down on Ted Cruz's Facebook page or the photos of people lined up waiting to enroll.

[JoePhilly]

25. +100

[BlueCaliDem]

46. + 200

Looks like they've sent their minions out to up the ante on Democratic Party supporting sites and communities.

[sheshe2]

82. Let me make that +300! nt

[jeff47]

17. Yes, it's terrible that Obama didn't reverse 50 years of Conservative work.

If you believed that Obama could undo everything the Republicans have been working on since Goldwater lost, the problem isn't Obama. It's your expectations.

The Republicans have been working at this for 50 years. It's going to take more than 5 years to reverse all of that.

[grasswire]

23. yes, I agree

There is no time to mourn what might have been before we understood the level of obstruction that would halt progress.

Time's a-wasting. It's all pushing policy now.

If we spend less time defending Obama, we'll have more time to GOTV.

[jeff47]

41. No, you don't agree.

As evidenced by your first sentence:

There is no time to mourn what might have been

There was no "might have been". Your expectations were absurd, but you blame Obama for them. And you throwing out a passive-aggressive attack while pretending to be noble.

This was always going to be a long war. If you didn't realize that, the failing is not Obama's. Also, you will be disappointed by the next Democratic president. And the next. By the one after that, we may have started making headway.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Excellent catch, jeff47!

I heard that one's loud BEEP-BEEP-BEEP backtracking siren the moment you posted your first post.

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. Dead on: "a passive-aggressive attack while pretending to be noble"

A pathetic and transparent display.

[ProSense]

91. Same group.

You know, desperate to denigrate the President under the guise of being more progressive. The same people who don't give a shit about the people helped by the health care law.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. Always. nt

[Hekate]

117. Spot on, Jeff nt

[grasswire]

129. ah, a mind reader.

Johnny Carson comes to mind. Carnack, I believe they called him.

[jeff47]

175. No, I'm reading what he wrote. That's why I quoted him. (nt)

[blue neen]

26. Divide and conquer.

Uh-huh.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. "It's Time to get over Obama, Now Let Me Shit All Over Obama..."

Pffffffft.

Garbage.

[grasswire]

31. only in your mind

Only in your mind.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Yeah, whatever

Your post is a piece of shit. Objectively.

[Number23]

108. !!

Danielle Steele couldn't have made that tripe more overheated and melodramatic.

[Control-Z]

43. Nah. (nt)

[JoePhilly]

47. Thread win.

[grasswire]

29. I'm leaving for a while to watch lovely PBS.

But I'll be back.

[ucrdem]

33. I think I see the problem here. . .

Let me guess, big fan of BBC World on the local NPR station?

[grasswire]

49. I said PBS, not NPR.

Big fan of Call the Midwife.

I have no idea what goes on at BBC World. Is that under the bus?

[ucrdem]

59. Where there's smoke there's fire. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

282. What the living fuck?

Is BBC and/or "The World" on the latest list of banned media? You guys would scare me if you were more capable.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

152. Big fan of BBC World on the local PBS station.

You gotta problem with that?

Tough.

[bvar22]

30. I started looking beyond Obama the day he did this:

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Liberals Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[ProSense]

61. Hey, it was obvious. LOL! n/t

[ucrdem]

63. Translation: hasn't read a paper in six years. nt

[2banon]

89. Wow! I never saw that before. Holy Shite! Was that turd dropped from Rahm (no doubt)? n/t

[Marr]

104. Same here.

I suspected he was a thoroughly corporate politician back in 2004 when he debuted at the Democratic convention and the entire corporate media pronounced him 'the future of the Democratic Party'. It was all just way too slick as a piece of marketing.

But his early staff announcements really clinched it. They seemed designed primarily to send a clear message to the business community and, secondarily, the left. It said, 'we're with you, Wall Street-- liberals, go fuck yourselves'.

[lumpy]

112. You are full of it and it's your problem.

[lumpy]

118. I just want to say one more thing to you. You had no faith in Obama since the beginning,

obviously, since 2004 you suspected he was "a thoroughly corporate politician" Your words.
That's why I say it is your problem. You made up your mind about that and ever since you have tried to prove yourself that you were right. Sad.

[Marr]

178. Yes, that's what I said.

You quote it like you've cleverly exposed me something. I just said that. Also, look up the word "suspect". It's not the same thing as "made up your mind".

If you want more detail, I'd be happy to give it to you. Obama's big 2004 debut left me suspicious that he was a corporate Democrat. When he showed up on the DLC's list of DLC-affiliated politicians, I felt that it supported my suspicion. When Lieberman was made his 'mentor' in the Senate, it further solidified that impression.

During his first presidential campaign, he repeatedly positions that were counter to those publicly espoused by the DLC/Third Way (I'm talking economic issues here), and I began to think that I'd been wrong about him. I remained suspicious, I must admit, but I volunteered for his campaign and certainly voted for the man.

After he got into office, he took the DLC/Third Way position on just about every one of those issues, though he often spent considerable time building political cover before doing so. For instance, his campaign-season position on the repeal of NAFTA was one of the main points that distinguished him from a DLC Democrat. Once in office however, he hasn't just ignored the idea, he's worked to advance the TPP-- NAFTA on steroids. That's only one example of many.

Anyway, that is why I feel my initial suspicions were eventually, regretfully, proved correct. You can shout that I just 'never loved him' all you like, but that's just an embarrassingly juvenile position.

[U4ikLefty]

292. well stated

[bvar22]

207. Shutting Out the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party for cabinet appointments...

...and other high level Executive appointments did INDEED "Send a Message".
Banishing Howard Dean from the DNC sent another one.

Not a single Democrat who voted AGAINST the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
was given a high level position in the Obama White House or on the advisory staff.
There were more Republicans than Liberal Democrats in Obama's Executive Branch.

...so much for the "Team of Rivals."
Republicans and 3rd Way "Democrats" get along like good Drinking Buddies when it comes to "Market Based Solutions" and tearing down the programs of The New Deal and The Great Society that made the Democratic Party GREAT.


I remember when he made that Team of Rivals speech.
I really thought,
"Thank Gawd. The Liberals are going to get a voice in this White House for the first time in 30 years."

I will admit...this was MY mistake.
Seeing his cabinet appointments fixed THAT.



....but, of course. The Republicans MADE him do that. <sigh>

[bvar22]

209. I caught that too.

He was certainly an elegant and charismatic speaker,
but he came from NOWHERE.
He had NO record of achievements,
a short & bland career at the Illinois state house,
yet he was given The Keynote Position at the Democratic Party National Convention.

I couldn't help but wonder why THIS unknown was given this premier Speaking Spot at the convention.
One has to have "stroke" to get a spot like THAT.
Most National Democrats would KILL for THAT spot in front of the Nation's TV cameras in front of thousands of adoring fans.

[questionseverything]

250. about obamas time in illinois

we got EVERY child in Illinois medical coverage

we paid for it with a tobacco tax (my problem is more with him going back to tax same thing repeatedly, "there is more than one "sin&quot

[2banon]

267. bvar and marr, I have to admit that I was totally starry eyed with O in 2004

I saw him strutting up to that podium and I was in love the moment I laid eyes on him and he began to speak. I was actually hand-wringing over why he wasn't the anointed one for THAT election. Obama made Kerry sound like a mealy mouthed wimp compared to his full throated anti-war, anti-toture, anti-everything Bush/Cheney, populist rallying speech. I was totally sucked in and in love. Gonzo for Obama.. until 2007.

Then I was forced to take off my rose colored glasses on a number of occasions and began to wonder what he really was about. I became an Edwards supporter because I wanted to believe we had someone who actually had the back of the working class.

We all know what happened there. So the race became between a known pro-war hawk, thoroughly entrenched with the DLC/Third way or maybe Obama who had at some point during the campaign resigned his DLC membership (name removed from DLC membership list on their website) and at least spoke clearly against the Iraq War, even if he prevaricated on Afghanistan. Not perfect, but hey, far better than the other "choices"..

Well, that was then... this is now. what's gonna come next?

[bvar22]

275. Kerry was SUCH a disappointment.

Obama was well "groomed",
wasn't he.
He was a Marketing Sensation at the Dem Convention 2004.

[2banon]

278. Indeed..

The disappointment in Kerry came early on in his campaign, don't even talk to me about those horrible debates. I really wanted to see the guy I was acquainted with in 1971. Fuck I met him in the mid eighties here in California. I thought then, This guy should be POTUS. Raygun/Poppy was in office then.

I guess what I do is project what I want to see in a figure head, always forgetting that the puppet masters never run for elections /re-elections in a fake democracy.

It's the system that needs a radical paradigm shift.

[Le Taz Hot]

140. I threw up my hands at the announcement

of Rahm Emmanuel. Then, as he announced the rest of his cabinet, I knew there was no hope.

[2banon]

269. I was gobsmacked. thought maybe, Obama was gonna make the fuckers fix what they broke

they fixed it alright. but not in a good way.

[L0oniX]

188. Where's crappy Clapper?

[2banon]

272. dunno, what have you heard?

[polichick]

193. Yes, that was a pretty big clue.

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. Trash thread.

[ucrdem]

34. Seriously. Careful what you wish for.

That day will come all too soon.

[treestar]

35. It is time to support the ACA and GOTV

So as not to have another 2010. A President can't act on anything with a stubbornly opposition Congress.

[grasswire]

51. I know that.

I no longer care about the opposition Congress or what might have been.

I only care about the future for Democrats and progressives. The stalemate in Washington is an albatross that was hung about our necks. It's handy for Wall Street and MIIC and other profiteers. Time for a workaround.

[Jamaal510]

94. Amazing that

"A President can't act on anything with a stubbornly opposition Congress."

...so many posters on a political website apparently don't understand this (or perhaps don't want to).

[Whisp]

39. Yes, please do.

[stevenleser]

77. I was just going to say, those perpetually in ODS mode are the first who need to get over it. nt

[JoePhilly]

151. I'm sure we'll see a significant decrease in OPs attacking Obama now.

[randome]

157. And a corresponding increase about issues instead of personality.

It seems like their sense of self-worth is dependent on how many people they can convince to dislike Obama.

But I guess a lame duck President makes an easier target than having to talk about issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Skip Intro]

42. Alert fail:

On Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's time to get over Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024756673

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

On a democratic sight, a poster has the balls to say it's time to get over Obama, our elected President. Jury, don't let this go. It is still Democratic Underground and the majority of us are not giving up on our President. Letting WP, and a few others get away with his tirade, gives you this. Please hide. Let's get this site back where it used to be, please, I beg you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:45 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not even remotely hideworthy.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree. Hide this TOS violation!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it. I think the people replying are doing a pretty good job of telling the OP where they went wrong.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dear alerter, this isn't an echo chamber and people, most anyway, actually think for themselves and see the reality through the fog of spin and propaganda. This site was NEVER a church to any one politician, and nobody's going to go for the purity oath, sing along with the blind-faith choir here. You cannot ban dissent and rational political discussion here and expect to have a board that stands for anything. Stifling criticism is not progressive. I vote Leave It.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[davidpdx]

119. Frankly speaking whether I agreed with the OP or not

(and I don't) I wouldn't have voted to hide it. There is nothing inflammatory in the OP that indicates he/she is breaking the rules. Personally I think this one shouldn't have been alerted on at all.

[BlueCheese]

122. What on earth?

This OP barely survived? There's nothing remotely worthy of being hidden in this OP. I understand people may not agree with it, but this is a discussion board. Geez.

[Skittles]

132. for some it is Tiger Beat

yes indeed

[L0oniX]

189. Yep it's a bad indicator of what this site is becoming or could be headed for.

Obviously there are enemies of expression, opinion and discussion on DU. Monkey not see.

[BlueCaliDem]

294. Well, I've read your posts...

and I assure you, should *you leave DU I'll pink away at least one tear.

[Skittles]

131. THANK YOU JUROR NUMBER 6

SAY IT LIKE IT IS

[DevineBovine]

235. Thanks for leaving

I'd like to extend a special thanks to juror 6 for so perfectly stating what sadly needed stating.

[Deep13]

52. I was never hung up on him in the first place.

Just saying.

[brooklynboy49]

64. Same Here

I never expected much, got even less than I expected.

Now, Warren. I would expect a lot from a Warren administration. I can only hope (no pun intended).

[Doctor_J]

66. I was

Swallowed the whole pitch. My mistake

[grasswire]

177. I actually teared up when I cast that first vote for Obama.

I was proud to do it. It was a great day for America, sincerely.

[Doctor_J]

208. When Olbermann flipped the west coast blue, I got disoriented. Spouse was sobbing

what a night. I also still have by framed WaPo front page from the day after.

[Maedhros]

182. I literally - LITERALLY - cheered when Obama was elected.

I walked outside and shouted to the sky!

Then he announced his cabinet, and the long slow disappointment began. I was still with him through the ACA debacle, though his preemptive abandonment of the Public Option rankled. The NDAA, drone murders and extrajudicial execution of enemies of the state were bridges too far, however.

[darkangel218]

54. Unrec. nt

[WillyT]

56. And... Ya Know... Maybe Focus On Stratgies That Help In 2014/2016...

Instead of ... well... you know.

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755031

[madamesilverspurs]

57. OFFS

This stuff is beyond tedious.

[JaneyVee]

60. Don't worry, we can multi-task.

[Doctor_J]

65. probably the only dem who can get elected president in 16 is hrc

Which means more corporatization. And it will be crucial to have a democrat, any democrat, in the white house when fat Tony and slappy go toes up.

The party is broken, and thus the nation is broken, because of the media debacle and the implications of CU. Until drastic action is taken on those two matters, the American people are doomed

Rec

[brooklynboy49]

67. I hate to quote Nancy, but...

Hillary? Just say no.

[lumpy]

115. There are some medications that are great for depression.

Weeeeee are dooommmmed

[Brigid]

70. I like Obama. Always did.

Voted for him twice, of course. He's been able to get more done than most would have, considering what he's been up against. And how he's been able to deal with the sheer stupidity in Congress without losing his mind, I don't know. It was said of FDR that he really didn't have a first class intellect, but he did have a first-class temperament. I think Obama has both.

That is not to say I agree with Obama on everything. Far from it. I am very disappointed that a better health reform law wasn't hammered out. It left out too many people, and I'm one of them. I am very concerned about TPP. And I will never understand why he wasted so much time trying to make nice with the Repugs.

But I agree that it is time to start planning for the future. November is right around the corner, and 2016 will be here before we know it.

[grasswire]

124. I like him too. And I love Michelle.

He's cool, he's charismatic. He's smart. I trust him in some ways. But for whatever reason -- whether it was a horse's head put in his bed, or a come to Jesus talk with the NSA, or whatever --- I cannot count on him to deliver or even prefer traditional Democratic values and principles.

We have no time for stalemates. We must look ahead now to strategy, to building, to recruiting, to providing a fresh and attractive alternative to Republicanism.

[frazzled]

71. I have only one thing to say

He is the freaking President of the United States of America for three more years. You can look past him all you want and dream about the mythological populist heroes who you think can solve the world's problems in a heartbeat ... but he will still be the President of the United States of America for three more years, the real one.

And nobody else is.

You only hurt progressive and Democratic ideals by dismissing the elected Democratic leader, the person that the preponderance of people in this country elected, twice. You may think that "real" Democratic ideals lie elsewhere. But you're wrong: in the December 2013 Pew Research Poll, only 8% of "liberal Democrats" disapproved of the president. 90% approve, and 54% of approve strongly.

So you're in the extreme minority of liberal Democrats. And it's fine if you ignore him. But history will not. I heard a panel discussion on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago, with several presidential historians on it, and their prediction is that he will stack up very favorably among the postwar presidents ... if only for turning the country around from the Great Recession and passing the first health care legislation ever. The rest, as they said, would be icing on the cake.

So while it's fine if you ignore him, it won't change the fact that he will be the President of the United States of America, for three full years. And you're not. And neither is anyone else. You'll just have to live with it.

That is all. It would be futile for me to try to disabuse you of any other of your notions. You're welcome to believe in whatever you want. But not everybody has to agree with you.

[flamingdem]

76. Thanks

Facts are very revealing:

December 2013 Pew Research Poll, only 8% of "liberal Democrats" disapproved of the president. 90% approve, and 54% of approve strongly.

[Maedhros]

184. That's the thing:

If so many "Liberal" Democrats approved of the President, then they really aren't so liberal. Obama has governed from the moderate right.

[Cha]

100. I'm glad you said it, frazzled.. only they'll never get over Obama.. there too much money to

to be made for the profiteering left.. too much ignorant hate to be spread by fucking pos snake oil purveyors.. in the name of Obama.

[Number23]

114. Polls that show how much in the minority these guys are get screamed at, peed on

but never actually LISTENED to.

[Cha]

130. They should just start an ODS Support Group on DU and try to help each other get over Obama..

[lumpy]

120. Thoroughly agree. Disgusting, however that is the New American way especially with kids

who expect instant gratification and then proceed to pout.

[L0oniX]

190. I like American Idol and The Voice.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

191. +1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

218. This.

[freshwest]

293. Yeah, to hell with all those people who stood for hours to vote, and would do it *again.* n/t

[Maedhros]

79. Focus on policy. The Democrats desperately need focus.

Viewing politics through the Obama lens distorts the picture.

[BlueStreak]

97. Several of us are trying to organize around a set of policies every Dem should be able to support

See http://workingforamericans.org/

[Maedhros]

109. Every politician with a D next to their name should be on board with this.

If they're not, they need to be primaried by someone who is.

[BlueStreak]

136. But in reality most using the "D" are NOT on board with this

People talk all around the issues with double-talk and rhetoric. We need to press them directly on these core issues and get real commitments.

Look at Obama, for example. Here's where I would rate him based on his actions, not his words:

1. American jobs. 50%
2. Living wage. 75% ($10.50 isn't a living wage)
3. NSA. 0%
4. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. 25%
5. Social Security. 50%
6. Health care. 50% (didn't even try to actually get a universal plan, but I could see an argument for 75%)
7. Tax fairness. 25% (Got the cap gains increased from 15 to 20% but hasn't eliminated ANY loopholes)
8. Carbon. 25% (Got some money for wind, but has pumped more oil than Bush and won't take a stand on the pipeline)
9. 0%. His administration is full of revolving door people

He gives lip service to all of these things, but his heart is clearly not into most of them. But Obama is better than many Democrats in the House and Senate. We have a battle. Kos is right. It is not just about getting the quantity of Dems. We need a combination of quantity and quality. And mostly, we need to get OUR issues onto the table. At this point, our issues never get discussed. The right-wing, Third Way, Grover Norquist types control the discussion.

[Maedhros]

187. Agreed. The Democratic Party has abandoned its ideals in an effort to avoid confrontation

with the Republicans. They believe that in a war of ideas, the Republicans will win. That is a big problem.

The Democratic Party needs to push its agenda with conviction. If liberal, progressive, Democratic ideals are the best choice for the country going forward, then the Party needs to proudly espouse them. If the Party really doesn't believe in these ideals, then they have ceased to be in opposition to the Republicans and have lost their legitimacy.

[grasswire]

125. THAT's what I'm talking about.

Ideas! Strategy! Fresh alternatives!

Thanks for p osting this. I hope to see a lot more of this kind of conversation on DU.

[grasswire]

126. you said what I was trying to say..

....but you said it more succinctly.

Viewing politics through the Obama lens distorts the p icture.

[tarheelsunc]

83. Instead of "getting over" the President, how about USE him?

He obviously has a large base of supporters. Make this election about Obama, make it about what Republicans are trying to do to his legislative accomplishments, make it about how Republicans obstruct him more than any other President, make it about the sheer ignorance coming from the Republicans. Maybe Obama supporters will be more likely to go to the polls if they feel Obama's legacy and his portrait of the country's future are at stake, instead of being told "get over Obama." The Democratic Party experienced a surge in turnout in large part due to Obama in 2008, it seems like (IMO) a losing strategy to tell those new voters that Obama isn't important anymore.

[flamingdem]

95. Good point! We can't let a bunch of Republican Trollz win

They would desperately like it if we ignored Obama because he is still quite popular and their side has.. Rand Paul and Jeb! he he he

[grasswire]

127. why would you think that Obama should be part of the campaign strategy?

Best to provide a populist alternative to Republicanism and generate some excitement. Running on "They were mean to Obama" is a dead end losing proposition.

Are you saying that Obama supporters will be sitting out 2016? Wow. That's a whole other problem.

[mwrguy]

84. I should get over the best president in 60 years?

OK

[2banon]

87. Excellent Post, grasswire

Eloquent, succinct, empowering.

Yes, criticize failure or omissions. Not to "bash", but to instruct, and to lay down the markers for history. To say: This is not worthy of the Democratic heritage. This is not in sync with our values.

Then rise above. Use the Civil Rights movement as a model. Prevail. Overcome. Provide an alternative for America that is populist, fresh, compelling. Eschew the third way, the mushy middle. Stand FOR something.

[Whisp]

113. eloquent, succinct, empowering!

???


Is this what passes for that these days from that there ODS camp? .w.o.a.h.

[grasswire]

128. thank you, 2banon

Yes, we can. Indeed, we can.

[crim son]

93. Agreed.

For better or for worse he has done what he is willing and capable of doing and it's time to look beyond the hopes we have attached to only him and think about the future. This doesn't mean abandoning anybody or anything right now; quite the opposite. But not is the time to think about future triumphs whether or not we have found ourselves triumphant, or disappointed, these last few years.

[rury]

98. He has almost three years left in his transformational

presidency.
He has done good things and as an Organizing For Action volunteer I am committed to helping him do more.
I am working on 2014 so that he has a Congress (at least a Senate) he can work with.
I am NOT looking past him and neither are many others.
President Obama matters a HELL OF A LOT!!!!!!!!

[lumpy]

123. Yes. The complainers who have given up on Obama because he hasn't been able to full fill their

every political desire have no concept how politics works In the halls of Congress.
Too bad his detractors don't realize how much we have needed Obama all along and will need him for three more years. I have been observing politics and leadership for 65 years and have never known any other President who has had to do his job under such horrendous odds.
I have nothing less than contempt for those Democrats who continue to deride him.

[Maedhros]

192. The phrase "hasn't been able to fulfill their every political desire" is not accurate.

I'm opposed to many of Obama's policies out of principle - for example, his policy of expanded drone violence into countries with whom we are not at war. There is no person who could occupy the Oval Office and gain my approval for that. Many others believe as I do that drone violence is immoral.

The modern Democratic Party is constantly asking us to compromise our principles in order to elect their candidates. I'm not an "Obama detractor", I'm a critic of horrendous policies. A commitment by the Party to stop supporting those policies and promote liberal, progressive, traditional Democratic policies will go a long way to rejuvenating the rank-and-file and motivating the large number of heretofore apathetic young voters.

[mrchips]

102. Incessant Bellyaching Dinos

You keep letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is exactly how we lost in 2010. Progressives allowed the president to be denigrated because he did not fight for single payer. The vote was diminished, and screaming right wing zealots grabbed the ballot boxes and so to the ability to gerrymander new right wing districts. We are to blame for the capitulation to the bigots because we did not stand behind the president. Go ahead whine about the president who was denied even the pretense of respect by republicans. Those assholes cheered when the unemployment rates rose. They cheered when Chicago lost its bid to hold the Olympics. Those assholes cheered the Bush-caused economic depression. And what did you do? You whined that he was not progressively pure.

[lumpy]

116. Thanks mrchips...Some people are whining defeatists...continually, no matter what.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

153. Obama allowed Teabaggers to define his signature legislation.

HUGE mistake. He's the one with the bully pulpit. Good Dems tried at rowdy townhalls -- Jim Moran and Howard Dean came to mind. Where do moderates and the youth vote fit into your scenario? They're the ones who sat out 2010. Do progressives have to do EVERYTHING around here?

We knew Republicans are the enemy, I'm still not sure if Obama has figured that out. Perhaps he has though, since he threatened to finally use his magic pen (and phone).

[mrchips]

162. Obama is not the problem

We are. WE did not do enough to counter the bigotry of the Teabaggers. We sat on our self righteous thumbs and let the youth and the moderates be shouted down. This is our fault. Too many of us stayed home. Rethuglicans are the enemy, not just political foes but a real enemy with no conscience, and a willingness to destroy the whole damned country just to establish an all white fascist state.

[Maedhros]

195. As has been pointed out numerous times before,

the 2010 midterm debacle was not the result of liberals staying home.

Blame for the poor showing in 2010 lies solely with the candidates and the Party. They did not motivate independents to come to the polls and vote.

[mrchips]

221. NIMBY

There is no excuse. Turn out stunk. Blame it on the candidates all you want but the fact is not enough of us got active, stayed active and reacted as we should have. We blew it. Pretending it was all the other guy is delusional.

[Maedhros]

223. But liberals and progressives turned out in 2010.

The people who stayed home were the independent voters who showed up in 2008 because they saw Obama and the Democratic Party as instruments of change.

By 2010 they were disillusioned, and stayed home. That was the result of a President reneging on his campaign promises and a serious messaging problem by the Democrats.

[mrchips]

239. Give me a break!

What campaign promises? You had a senate that saw 300 filibusters. How exactly is the president supposed to accomplish major changes when you have traitors destroying the country and with zillion dollar financing flooding the airwaves with lies? He was trashed with AstroTurf organizations practicing racism, fanning the flames of fear and bigotry. We did not call a spade a spade. What we did was what you just did, claimed he wasn't being progressive enough. Nonsense.

[Maedhros]

241. You have absolutely nothing worthwhile for me to read.

/ignore list.

[mrchips]

242. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/10/954909/-Turnout-a-little-data#

Some people would just prefer to lie, like maedhros.

[mrchips]

240. Facts

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/10/954909/-Turnout-a-little-data#

[Bluenorthwest]

226. Those of you in States that lost in 2010 hold the blame for that. The entire West Coast

had a huge Democratic sweep and very good turnout, in Oregon it was the highest midterm turnout since the 80's. It was Democrats everywhere out here.
I put the blame on those States that failed to improve their election systems, ran crappy candidates that blended into their Republican opponents and who were resistant to any legislative issues that draw voters to the polls.
2010 was a regional set of losses, specifically lost by specific State Parties and candidates.
I mean, think about it. If liberals and progressives did not vote, the West Coast would not have had great turn out and lots of great Democratic victories.....but we did. As did other States that are not too busy trying to find the center to run a winning campaign.

[rury]

103. This OP is garbage in, garbage out!

[pragmatic_dem]

105. It is Democratic Leadership who is out of phase, not Democrats...

Democratic leadership sees an opportunity for a new type of Democrat -

socially liberal -
they are ok with gay marriage, at least as civil union, but mixed on abortion, birth control, women's rights

economically conservative and wealthy
they'll cut social security, support continued tax breaks for the rich and deregulate the banks

militarily conservative
what's so bad about spying and drones?

These are conservative voters who enjoy the social/civil benefits that Democrats fought for over the years, but are too embarrassed to be associated with the dumbass tea baggers. They are very much like Reagan Republicans.

I don't see the point of moving the Democratic Party so far to the right, throwing away reasonable principals of economic fairness and civil rights, just to pick up these conservative voters who really should be voting Republican.

Until then, expect more Grand Bargains under various names, all of which are code for "Screw the Middle Class".

[WillyT]

111. I Hear Ya GW... Just Wondering How Many Here Plan To Vote For Obama In 2014/2016...

[BrotherIvan]

121. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110223006

[Android3.14]

133. Good advice

It would be interesting, even strategic, nay, it would be fantastic, if Democrats did that...you know...stood for progressive values.
Climate?
Privacy?
Public university tuition?
New Apollo energy?
Jobs?
Infrastructure?

Anyone?

[grasswire]

179. ^^^^^

I get almost a sense of excitement at the possibility in your post.

[BumRushDaShow]

134. Ah jeez

[G_j]

135. time to sort out priorities

[randome]

139. So you dislike Obama. What do you plan to do about that other than whine?

Clearly nothing. We already know life is unfair and we have issues needing to be corrected. How about posting something about those issues instead of complaining?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

183. Where did I say that I dislike Obama?

I don't. Time to re-read the OP, randome.

[randome]

185. Well, no one is 'keening' about the President.

Other than during the occasional photo-op for him and/or Michelle and family. So maybe you could stop talking about Obama yourself and talk about the issues.

I think the TTP and Keystone should be stopped. Any ideas how we can stop them? We don't seem to be organized enough to do anything about them, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

199. keening

http://thesaurus.com/browse/keening

[BrainDrain]

145. Agreed...totally

And for you Obama lovers that use the wonderful arguments of:

1: Look we have universal health care....Hint: no we don't, we have the expanded ability of people to get health insurance, which is going to make the insurance companies billions, and the drug companies can STILL deny you the drugs you will need to live. Oh, and BTW, where is the single payer plan 80% of Americans that supported universal health care wanted?
2:He's a whole lot better than the Republican(s)...Hint:Let me see, a hot stick in the eye or a hot stick in the other eye.......
3:NSA
4:Snowden
5 rones

Shall I go on?

No?

Good. You got the point then.

[NCTraveler]

147. "So it is past time to stop expecting change. "

Listen, I thought the "hope and change" campaign rhetoric was complete bullshit that did nothing but pander to the uneducated. But people use that phrase as you have and it is complete bullshit. If you don't notice the change that Obama brought it is because you are blind or willfully ignorant. The change between the past administration and the current one is huge. Are they similar in some ways? yes. Are they completely different in some ways? yes. Has there been huge change? yes. Why can't some see that? I know the answer why.

[Whisp]

156. the ACA and LGBT rights and gains are massive Hopes and Changes.

What the Fuck do you consider positive earth shifting change if not that?

Just those two things alone are historical and there are many more, I'd make the List, but apparently that hurts the anti-Obama crowd's feelings for some reason.

[NCTraveler]

168. I just don't get it.

The change is clear. It is a huge change from the previous administration. Many, including myself, were hoping for fundamental economic and healthcare changes. That didn't happen. Wasn't going to happen. That doesn't mean there haven't been huge changes. When people act like there have been no changes it becomes clear that they have some other agenda or are just stupid.

[Puzzledtraveller]

234. As someone pointed out in another thread

those changes, though welcome are and were easy, the tide was going to take them their and it cost them nothing politically. It is welcome, and needed, but it's the dog and the bone, if they don't throw it at us they dangle it. They know just what they need to do shut most of us up. Cultural, social change was and is needed, but it is not everything but way too many think that's all it is about.

[elzenmahn]

154. I agree that politics based on cults of personality will always lead to...

...disappointment and disillusionment.

I'll trumpet this until I'm blue in the face. If we want Democrats to act like Democrats (and not corporate shills like Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson), we need to do two things:

1. Think Long-Game - not election-to-election;
2. Build a stronger base by participating in and donating to local and state candidates - this is where the power base is built and supported;

We get sellouts like Lincoln and Nelson because we don't have the power base that the Republicans do, and neither do we have the $$$. They have the bottomless treasuries of the Kochs and the majority of the Billionaire class, and if you haven't heard, they are now adopting the state-and-local strategy, too. They know - so why aren't we doing the same thing on our side?

[bvar22]

215. Speakin of Blanche Lincoln,

we tried to replace her with an actual Democrat in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010,
and give Obama someone who would work WITH him.
You will never guess who stopped us.


The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

[elzenmahn]

298. I contributed to Halter's campaign when he was running against Blanche...

...and was tremendously disappointed when Obama and the administration threw their support behind her - I'm assuming because a: she's a known quantity, and b: because of the Clintons.

I lost a lot of respect for Obama as a result of this episode, and this confirmed for me once and for all how hollow a lot of his progressive-sounding-at-times rhetoric actually is. I still voted for him twice, considering how heinous the alternatives were - but I was disillusioned.

And the Dem Party gets melvins over people like me when we DON'T get excited about their candidates? Once bitten...

[MisterP]

236. the disappointment is in fact turned right around and plugged into the cultishness to feed it

the very intensity of emotion makes the hallowed, better-'n-Jesus Leader totally replaceable

[warrior1]

155. You know

Last edited Mon Mar 31, 2014, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I can do more than one thing at one time. One of the those things doesn't involve me "getting over" President Obama and looking past him and his legacy.

thank you very much

[Martin Eden]

169. Obama is President for another 34 months.

"The order of the day must be strategy for 2014 and 2016"

Agreed. In order to make any progress, first we must win 2014. Obviously, the President is not a candidate. But just as obvious, he is a major part of any political equation for nearly three more years. Leaving him out of our thought process is turning a blind eye to the reality of the Democratic Party and what might be accomplished during that time.

"It must be commitment to the cause of timeless traditional and true Democratic values. It must be POLICY."

Agreed. For me, it's never been about the personality or the hopes we pin on any politician. But, like any politician, the President can be influenced by changes in the political reality and perceptions of the voting public. We DO need leaders -- and a BETTER leader than sits in the Oval Office now -- but the REAL change has to come from us and from those we can influence.

We need to make progress before the next president takes office in January 2017 and, like it or not, Barack Obama has to be part of that progress.

[ProSense]

172. Change:

Hospitals chart ways to boost care, funding under ACA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024757937

[Skidmore]

173. Myopic.

Just myopic.

[Octafish]

174. I voted for Democratic change.

When I twice voted for my party's nominee, Barack Obama, it was to end wars without end for profit, restore justice and the rule of law, and to get government working on the side of Main Street over Wall Street. We're into Year 6, and things haven't turned out as advertised.

It's been too long since Washington enacted policies that benefit the nation, rather than the warmongers. You and I both know it's not just up to President Obama, so we need to send him a lot of help in the form of Democratic representatives and senators.

We Democrats need to start now, before the GOP "defines" what the Democrats should do this November and in 2016. The process starts with thinking of solutions to the problems facing the country and planet.

Thanks for having the guts to stand up and call it as you see it, grasswire. Bravery is something that's always in too-short a supply.

[grasswire]

180. your support means a lot, Octafish.

Thank you.

[2banon]

281. Well Said Octafish!

[WillyT]

290. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[CFLDem]

176. Interesting...

[saidsimplesimon]

181. grasswire, thank you for the focus on 2014 and beyond.

Like so many other Democrats and those of many political persuasions, we voted with our minds and values for Barack Obama in his first run. We reaffirmed our vision of change in his second.

President Obama has his plate full now. International unintended consequences of promoting the lack of congressional oversight of the NSA, the CIA, and the EU coalition meddling in the affairs of Ukraine. Russia and China are doing the same, but with a strategic long term focus.

We, the US, are being punked by our own claim to exceptionalism.

[obxhead]

194. I was over Obama by 2010.

I voted for him in 12 simply because of his opponent.

Overall, Obama has proven himself to be just another corporate stooge.

Hopefully 2014 and 2016 can undo some of the damage he's continued from the previous admin and the new damage he's caused himself.

[ProSense]

198. Doesn't

"I voted for him in 12 simply because of his opponent. Overall, Obama has proven himself to be just another corporate stooge."

...voting for a "corporate stooge" make you part of the problem?

[Peacetrain]

197. "So it is past time to stop expecting change. "

"And we must, still, acknowledge progress as it comes. "

OOOOKKKKAAAYYYYY You got me.. what are you talking about?

[SunSeeker]

204. It's time to get over ODS.

If the order of the day is strategy for 2014 (which it should be), then what you are suggesting is counter-productive. Bashing Obama or running away from Obama will hurt us in 2014.

If you are confused by Obama's legacy, saying stuff like "whatever it may be," you are ignoring the important, positive things Obama did. To suggest that it is difficult to ascertain at this point what his legacy "may be," displays either ignorance or ODS.

The ACA is the most important legislation since Social Security to help the 99%. It will save thousands of poor people's lives and prevent untold misery. That, and many other major accomplishments, like ending DODT and saving over a million American auto industry jobs, and indeed saving us from a second Great Depression, are Obama's legacy. If you can't feel good about that, I don't know why you are calling yourself a Democrat.

[kardonb]

214. Obama bashers

this is a load of bull pucky ! The reason why so many goals were not achieved :look no further than our totally obstructive House of so-called representatives with a one- word vocabulary : NO .

[LiberalLovinLug]

222. It may be early to ruminate on it, but it will happen

Obama will eventually be forced out of office due to term limits.

IMO and a lot of others, it was never about Obama, but about how far he, as a Democratic, would stand up for and steer the nation towards good Democratic policies. And the same holds true for the next Democratic President whenever and whoever that may be.

I almost feel sorry for those that are held captive in a Cult of Personality where their Dear Leader can do no wrong, even when ignoring and sometimes speaking out against traditional Democratic Party principles. But I suspect if, lord willing, we get another Democrat to hold the White House, it will be Hillary, and in that case their COP disorder will simply be transferred over to her.

[me b zola]

224. I wish I could recommend this a thousand times

Its policy that I care about, not about personality. If Bernie Sanders were president and he were pushing awful policies, I would speak out against those policies.

Every one of my favorite presidents had a policy or action that was terrible. I would have spoken out about the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR. Still, he did so much other things that were wonderful.

Argue policy not personality.

[neffernin]

244. In your argument for change, Obama doesn't matter

Until the current system of government allows for lawmakers to actually pass laws; any democratic president whether it is Obama or Bernie Sanders is going to have to get past the gerrymandered congress to create any actual change.

While I don't agree with everything Obama has done, I'll at least try to understand it. Some bad things have happened under his watch, but you need to remember that we are a country of hundreds of million of people.

I'm not arguing that change isn't needed, but replacing figureheads isn't the way it needs to be done.

Change is going to come by GOTV. It really is as simple as that. Once there's enough democrats in office, the middle will shift to the left and this GOP obstructionism will become something of the past. Until then, the issues we are having now are ones you should really come to expect.

Obama became a lame duck the moment the repubs gained control of the house. And your next leader, regardless of his amazing ideas, will be a lame duck from the moment he takes office if the GOP still holds a majority.

What I'm happy with and I'm looking forward to is Obama using his executive powers more. Maybe he doesn't, but as a 2nd term lame duck president, what does he have to lose?

Let's plan for the future, but lets not give up the battle for today!

[grasswire]

253. It would be a victory, and I would eat crow..

.....if Obama would turn around and knock some heads and become more LBJ, less community organizer. What, indeed, does he have to lose? (Unless his family has been threatened or something similar.) His legacy could still equal that of MLK or JFK or RFK or Lincoln. But he would have to risk himself to make it happen. Republicans couldn't hate him more than they already do. They couldn't obstruct more than they already do.

That's why it seems more productive to -- as someone said upthread -- look at politics through a lens of policy, not Obama.

I want Republicans to be afraid of Democrats. A great deliberative mass of Democrats who will not be cowed. Push them! Shame them! Let them bluster and howl. The more they do so, the more they reveal to all.

[neffernin]

258. To that note I fear we will never match the GOP as a deliberative mass

As we are a coalition of separate minds who compromise while the GOP are lemmings with one person shouting the goals. One day, we will outnumber them to the point where the center will get pushed left.

I agree that policy is of the utmost importance, but there has to be a face behind it. That is the way it has always been. Look back at history and there's also been a name behind change; you even did it yourself mentioning JFK and MLK and LBJ. You didn't even mention the changes they made, only them as people! We need great leaders in order to enact great policy.

The question is, does our system even allow for great leaders anymore? Even if all liberals look through a lens of policy, the media will still put the faces front and center.

It is for this reason why we need who we place at the top to represent us to the fullest extent, and for our values to shine through them.

[grasswire]

262. well said

[Cali_Democrat]

251. The more posts I read like this.....

the more convinced I become that Obama is doing the right thing.

For someone who wants to look past him, you sure do like to mention him a lot.

The tears of the malcontents nourish my soul....yummy....

[blkmusclmachine]

256. WHEN did the "Change!" happen???

[idendoit]

259. Sanders/Ellison. I know Senator Sanders isn't a Democrat.

I was raised a 'yella' dog' Democrat. For the first time in my life, I believe that someone NOT a Democrat is liberal enough, both socially and economically, for my vote. Plus what progressive could forget The Speech? Rep. Ellison, my Representative, is Co Chair of the Progressive Congressional Caucus. Vice Chair of the LGBT Caucus. I think it would be a slam dunk ticket.

[gulliver]

261. Only the PINOs need liberal and progressive losses.

They want progressives and liberals to lose, so they can be preyed on. That's all. The weak and noisy have no chance among strong, committed people. The PINOs want weakness, anger, and confusion because that is the only way they can gain a foothold. People with sense just laugh at them.

[BrainMann1]

263. Let me say this

What we should be saying is how can we help the President help us NOW. He's still in office people. I've seen us make a mistake of looking to far ahead and not doing what we need to do now and get slapped in the face like we did in the 2010 elections and now we are still paying for that mistake. Lets use our President and Ex-President Clinton to take care of the 2014 elections and beyond. Look everyone we need to do this now and as it was written get over Obama in 2017.

[Zorra]

271. OK. nt

[ucrdem]

277. This is about 2008, isn't it? It wasn't his turn?

And how badly things turned out, and how we should have listened? Because the OP has an awfully familiar ring:

Back in 2008 . . . Barack Obama was going to “turn the page”. All those pesky old time problems Mess-Obama was about to celestial choir away – along with no more rising oceans and well everything old and bad and soon we would have anti-gravity cars and planes taking us to holidays on the moon and a disco ball in the White House. Well the page has turned alright. We’re now out of the frying pan and into the fire. Elect a boob and you get boobery. Re-elect a boob and you get more boobery.

Etc etc, from: http://www.hillaryis44.org , March 28, 2014.

This being the case may I politely suggest an apology and self-delete? It's time to get over 2008, in other words, and stop fighting that lost battle, directly or indirectly. Thanks and I apologize if I'm incorrect.

[grasswire]

297. I was never a Hillary supporter. nt

[liberal N proud]

280. Transparent?