Obama To Young Voters: 'You Can't Sit Out' In 2010

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

In a conference call with college journalists on Monday, President Obama made a direct pitch to the young voters who flocked to his campaign two years ago but seem largely disaffected and disenchanted this time around.

"Democracy is never a one and done proposition," the president said, "it is something that requires sustained engagement and sustained involvement."

Speaking before he headed out for a rally at the University of Wisconsin (with Vice President Joseph Biden set to go to Penn State University), Obama's remarks were his most impassioned plea yet for students to head to the polls come November. Explicit in them was the admission that the enthusiasm that marked his run for office has not carried over during the two years of governance.

"Back in 2008, a lot of young people got involved in my campaign because they... generally felt that we needed to bring about fundamental changes in how we operate," said Obama. "And this is all before the financial crisis. And I think lot of people felt our campaign gave them a vehicle to get engaged and involved in shaping this country over the long term.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/obama-to-young-voters-you_n_740442.html

---

Good luck with that. No shiny object will drag them away from American Idol.

[flvegan]

1. Sadly, I'm sure a number of them are saying: "Yes, we can!"

Sad little joke is sad.

[avaistheone1]

3. Correct

[Scuba]

2. Note they both picked Big 10 schools.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. hard to get them motivated

[kirby]

5. Obama should not have sat out his first two years...

He failed to show strong leadership and deliver on his message of change. This has disillusioned a whole generation. Good luck getting them back...he had his opportunity and he blew it.

If young people have a choice between Dems and Repubs, I believe they will chose Dems. However, there is a third option, which is to not vote at all. My guess is that is what will happen in 2010.

[still_one]

7. That third option will get them republicans, and if that happens, I wonder how they will feel? /nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. A Dem

that doesn't serve their interests us not a whole hell of a lot different than a Puke who does likewise. I'm guessing these young people will feel justified in their cynicism and apathy. One of the many lost opportunities of the Obama administration has been the chance to secure future party loyalties of our young people.

[still_one]

20. Yup, it is all Obama's fault, why we have Democrats in Congress who align with republicans.

Maybe, just maybe if people understand how the Republic works, they might realize that without the support of Congress there is very little the Executive branch can do

Of course, that would mean that progressives have to win in national elections, which might be difficult in some southern states

[davidwparker]

43. As president, he is also head of the party. His lack of

executive skills, failure to act immediately on his mandate by continuing to hold out the olive branch to the (R)'s and getting beat with it does not foster feels on strength. He was walked all over by members of his own party. 'cons do have party discipline.

[still_one]

47. The right in his own party wasn't going to give him sqwat. LIEberman was a useless alliance made,

and did more damage then good, but then again, I blame LIEberman, and dodd for that matter on the people of Connecticut, which only exemplifies the problem the Democrats have. It is an inclusive party, who will not work for a common good. Look at Florida, the Democrat is losing their because "democratic" voters are not voting for him, and that is a problem.

Yes he was walked all over by members of his own party, so was Jimmy Carter.

The President can lead all he wants, but if enough people in Congress tell him to piss off, nothing happens, and the way the media misrepresents most things, the populous won't care, they will be more interested in lindsey getting released from jail, or the latest episode of survivor

[Xithras]

19. I can tell you, from talking to my students, that most don't care.

The problem, when dealing with the young, is that they haven't been around long and have very short political memories. What I'm perceiving, from my students, is that old "we don't see a difference" line. They voted for Obama two years ago, and have seen little to no benefit from it.

Obama ran on the position that he was going to shake up the establishment. From the perspective of the young voters, he's become part of the establishment. It's hard to get people fired up to support the status quo.

[still_one]

26. I agree with your assessment, and they will soon learn /nt

[davidwparker]

41. but, look on the bright side. it will flush out some

Dems who have had their jobs way too long. Since things are stacked towards incumbents, when the party in charge drops the ball as bad as this one has, we get to start over with a new cast of characters.

Obama needing to get his bi-partisan freak on cost the party, the Dems who will be kicked out, and his second term.

[still_one]

44. You think so? I think if that happens repukes will dominate for decades. The country is NOT

becoming more progressive, just the opposite. If the young even care, they don't want to be forced to pay for social security and medicare. They cannot conceive of the time when they will get old.

The old, on the other hand want their social security and medicare, but all the repukes need to say is those over 55 will get it, and the rest will need to provide for themselves. So as long as they get theirs, they won't care if social security and medicare is privatized, that is someone elses problem.

Nader sure demonstrated in 2000 that their was no difference between Democrats and repukes, and that got us 8 years of bush, along with an entrenched judicial system filled with Federalist Society judges

It will be a fun ride for those who will show those Democrats by not voting for them in November, not only will it flush them out, but give them something even worse then bush, a tea party agenda, which is an anti-intellecutual, anti-academic course, which will be very hard to recover from

[davidwparker]

54. The young did care. And turned out. Then, got an admin

of insiders. Then, tuned out. This is the theme of this thread.

For your last paragraph ... then maybe we, in this country, will have it so rough that we DO fight for these things. Like the people of France do. We take things for granted.

Here's to the left's need for a tea party of its own :toast:

[still_one]

55. good luck /nt

[davidwparker]

61. U2

[Iowa]

6. Totally clueless. He just doesn't get it.

[still_one]

8. Doesn't get what? That we never had a majority in Congress. Blue Dogs do not count as

Democrats. I would like someone to tell me how they could have gotten both Nelson's, Bayh, Lieberman, Baccus, and a host of others to vote for Medicare for all? Same goes with the financial reform, and you would have to add dodd to that list also as those who would obstruct the progressive will

In other words, unless progressives are elected on a national level there is not much that can be done

If Democrats decide not to come out, and vote, and the repukes take over Congress, or worse, tea party elements start to consolidate power, you will see an anti-intellectual agenda start to take over.

We will see who is clueless then

[Duer 157099]

11. I for one would have been happy if filibusters actually filibustered

that simple act alone would have gone a very long way towards convincing me that the Dems were on my side.

(what I mean is that if the Dems had actually required the Pukes to sit and read the phone book rather than just threatening to do so before they rolled over)

[Luciferous]

15. Oh please. He's done a crappy job as well. You can't blame

everything on the Blue Dogs. Brokering deals with pharmaceutical companies before the health care debate even started, we are STILL in two wars, privatizing our public education system, not shutting down Guantanamo...

[still_one]

35. Tell me how to get things progressive things done when Congress won't vote for it?

Take the simple issue of Elizabeth Warren. dodd, lieberman and all the blue dogs would not vote for her in the Consumer protection post

Unless you have Congress behind you, the executive branch can not do very much

Another example, the Obama administration cannot get most of the judge appointments through because Congress won't allow it? He can appoint them during Congressional recess, but I doubt very much if the make up of Congress would allow that to stand when they get back

As for HCR, baccus, and other Congressional Democrats would NOT have allowed anything but what they got to happen. Perhaps you don't remember, they did try for a public option from the house, and the Senate immedate trashed it. Some in the Senate tried for Medicare if you are 55 or older, and it got sqwashed by the blue dogs. You can blame Obama all you want, but nothing will happen without Congress behind you

Either elect more progressives nationally or nothing will change in the direction you want. The problem is a lot of those states do not always vote for what is in their own best interest

You blame Obama for continuing the two wars, all Congress has to do is stop the funding, and it is over

I am not arguing for or against Obama, only that with the makeup of Congress, what did you really expect?

[davidwparker]

46. Start with removing people from their chairmanships.

[still_one]

50. and if reid won't do it, then what? Have angle win by not voting, that would not get the

desired result for sure.

The only solution is to somehow get progressives like Feingold or Kucinich elected, but that is no easy task either

[davidwparker]

58. Personally, I do want to see Reid gone as long as it

doesn't flip the senate.

Maybe in this, Durbin or someone with stones could assume the role.

[t0dd]

72. Reid is worthless and won't be missed.

I hope he loses so we get some change in "leadership"

[davidwparker]

45. +1

... and my favorite: overlooking Bush administration crimes.

Had charges been filed and people brought before the court, had hearings been called, then ALL would have seen the difference between (R)'s and (D).

Outside of moral problems and just considering political implications, hearings, trials, and convictions would have been a good reminder right now. Vote for them and get the lawbreakers back.

I will ROTFLMAO when subpoenas get served for O's birth certificate. Serves him right.

No justice, no peace.

[still_one]

53. bush already stacked the courts, so I wonder how much could have been done? /nt

[davidwparker]

56. Did Bush appoint the US Attorney General's office? That

was an Obama appointee, if I recall. Eric Holder?

[still_one]

63. Of course, but eventually it would have to be brought before a court or grand jury /nt

[Alcibiades]

65. +1 +1

The treaties protecting human rights to which the US is a signatory and the principle of rule of law are not bargaining chips to be used to secure the Senate confirmation of anyone, Attorney General Holder included.

[Xithras]

24. I think the bigger complaint is that they never really tried.

The moment somebody says the word "filibuster", the Democratic leadership scurries for cover. It would be one thing if Obama and the Democratic leadership had actually fought for those things and lost, if they'd stood up for their principles, took Washington to the brink, and then conceded a loss...but that's not what happened.

The young thought they were voting for an impassioned leader who was going to fight to change America. I actually had a student say to me, back in 2008, that "He's our Che". The disappointment, as he changed from "Obama the Passionate" into "Obama the Negotiator" was palpable. There has been a disappointing lack of combat in Washington.

Instead of standing up and fighting for what the young wanted, his presidency has been about concession and negotiation. "Yes We Can" was a battle cry for an administration that has worked hard to avoid getting into any actual battles.

[still_one]

36. Unless Congress is on board we can forget it, no matter who is President /nt

[grahamhgreen]

25. I guess you don't get it either.....

When you guys do get it, the we can build a country where we all have health care, no one is hungry or homeless, and war profiteering is punished like the serious crime that it is

[still_one]

37. "You guys"? Am I personally responsible? What state do you live in? I guess if you live in a

state where non-progressives are elected, "you guys", in that state are responsible

Congress is made up of all 50 states, with different views, conflicts of interest, and priorities

How would you propose having forcing all the states in the Republic to do what you propose?

[grahamhgreen]

74. It's simply a matter of doing the will of the majority (Medicare for all, withdrawing

From Iraqistan), or following the rule of law (prosecutions).....

Sorry, but I am really put off by the new democratic talking point of "vote for us out of fear of the Repubs".....

We really need to get people motivated.

[Iowa]

29. Nonsense. If we had a progressive Congress Obama would fight us every step of the way...

Congress sucks big-time. But Obama is no better.

I'd post a list of all the pro-corporatist, anti-civil-liberty, Republican-enabling, pro-war crap that has defined his administration, but I don't think there's enough room in this space. So I can understand why a young person might decide to just say, "fuck it". And for Obama to try and sell his (and Congress's) dismal performance and expect young people to be conned (again) by another flowery "speech" is utterly clueless, IMO.

[still_one]

38. Then don't vote for him, or vote for any Democrat in Congress who doesn't subscribe to your view, I

don't care

I am not trying to convience anyone what to do, just saying that the President can't do much without Congress backing him

[davidwparker]

49. unless your are someone like Lyndon Johnson who had a

way of convincing the party.

The problem is Obama lacks leadership skills and is now viewed as a paper tiger.

Kudos for Elizabeth Warner. But, for such a change monger, a decision like that should not have been such a nail biter.

Other steps in the right direction would be to: get rid of Timmy; get rid of Gates; get rid of Rahm, regardless of whether he runs.

Too bad Axelrod is leaving.

[still_one]

52. rahm will be gone, but that will not solve the problem. It was a different environment when Johnson

was president, and we were NOT in the economic crisis we are in now.

Look at the republicans, their leadership pretty much controls their people in Congress on most issues, however, that is changing since tea party elements are now coming into their party, and they are losing control over them.

I didn't know Axelrod is leaving.

I don't think you and are going to disagree that much, since I believe that Obama has got the message, and things will start to change in a more progressive direction with the administration. However, even if it doesn't, I personally believe it is better than a repuke Congress

[davidwparker]

60. Link to Axelrod leaving, but will help with O's campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/david-axelrod-leaving-whi_n_737080.html

[still_one]

64. Thanks, that is a surprise to me /nt

[Iowa]

76. You're missing the point...

Obama is not sitting there anxiously awaiting a progressive Congress so he can spring into action. Obama is not progressive in any way, shape or form. He could easily assume the Republican brand-name without changing his views, his agenda, or his ideology even one iota.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Then why the %%$#^@ did members of the Admin fight

to get BDs elected over progressives in the primaries, insulting the supporters of the progressives as they did so?

Rahm saying it was "retarded" for the unions to support Halter over Blanche Lincoln, for example.

[still_one]

39. I am not defending the administration. Why didn't the people in Arkansas vote for Halter?

I doubt it was the administrations support for lincoln that turned it. It most likely was because Arkansas, like much of the South isn't particularly progressive

Why is Feingold having a problem in Wisconson? Russ voted on principles of conscience, and many times directly opposite of what the administration wanted, yet he is having a tough time. I don't like it any more than you that progressives are losing their foothold that peaked after the Johnson administration, but it is a sad fact that people don't always vote for what is in their best interest, and a sad fact that the country is not particularly tolerant or progressive as it used to be

[grahamhgreen]

75. It WAS the admins support for Lincoln - he needs to start supporting us - the ones that brung him.

He wrongly assumes that the corporate assholes got him elected, and is now learning too late just how wrong of an assumption that is.

[davidwparker]

51. +1

... to provide cover, would be my answer.

It's not me, it is CONGRESS. We need 60 votes. Etc. Etc.

[Smashcut]

34. Considering he helped Lieberman and other DINOs get reelected, this is disingenuous at best

[still_one]

40. Its politics. Dennis Kucinich is a person of principle and integrity, but could he get elected as

President, or even as a Senator?

You won't find a more honest person than Kucinich, however, if people close their eyes to progressive ideas, you can talk till you turn blue, and most likely won't be able to change their minds

[Smashcut]

68. Sorry, "it's politics" doesn't cut it as an answer

When you're talking about a guy who supported Lieberman over Lamont and Lincoln over Halter and Specter over Sestak, to name a few. These were all cases where he supported the conservative over the more progressive candidate, each of whom had a good chance of winning (and in one case, actually did).

Face it, he supports Blue Dogs because he is one.

[still_one]

73. Then don't vote for him. Incidently, after Lamont won the primary he DID campaign for Lamont

I won't go into each point you made, but yes they were due to politics in all the cases. He supported spector for his vote on several issues, same thing with lincoln. These people were in the Senate at the time, and he thought he needed their vote to get the legislation passed. That is what politics is about. Kucinich doesn't play politics, however, even Kucinich voted for HCR because of politics, not because he was playing it, but because the game is so entrenched, the options are limited at this time

As long as corporations control our Congress, this is the way it is, and since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are individuals, until that changes that is the way things will be

[Alcibiades]

10. Hey, remember me?

I know we haven't spoken in a while, but it's me, your President. Remember how you helped me to become elected in 2008? God, that was awesome! I know I have not been returning your phone calls, that we still have 50,000 troops in Iraq, that the war in Afghanistan has become the longest in our nation's history, that I fought for a bill that would require you to buy health care coverage you probably will not need and certainly cannot afford, but we're in a real bind here: the Davids went over the numbers, and it's not looking good.

What, there's still combat in Iraq? Yeah, I hear you, but the combat mission is over! It's been accomplished, you see. Plus, we won't actually phase in penalties for not having health insurance until 2014. That's when you get the exchanges, and also get refundable and advanceable premium credits and cost sharing subsidies to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 133-400% FPL to purchase insurance. Hope you understood that. Is advanceable even a word? Boy, I hope it is. You're welcome! Now get out there to knock on doors and explain this stuff to elderly cranks who want you to get off their lawns.

[Luciferous]

12. Ha! +1

[speppin]

14. Plus plus.....

:toast:

[saigon68]

16. Awesome-----

The blood bath will be ugly and its coming

[Smashcut]

22. +1

[grahamhgreen]

27. +1

[girl gone mad]

28. The forced health insurance purchase..

is one reason why several young people I have spoken with are planning on voting against Obama.

I hate to say it, but can you really blame them? I did the calculations during the health reform debates and I figured saved over $80,000 by going uninsured and paying for my health care out of pocket in my 20s. That's a lot of scratch in this era, especially considering that young people now have the highest unemployment in 50 years and wages continue to sink. These kids are getting robbed blind by the greedy corporate establishment, and it's being sanctioned by a guy who roped them in with a glossy campaign of hope and change.

The backlash is going to be brutal, imo.

[Iowa]

30. Hilarious! And true.

[jtuck004]

31. Well, thank you very much for your work.

But my door knocking time is going to be used looking for a job, as is the case with
30 million of my neighbors. And that number is increasing. And while I know you must
be working hard, it seems like I have seen you more on TV asking people to turn out
for a vote than I have of you demanding a new jobs program. I probably just missed that.

Oddly enough, when people aren't getting a paycheck, they get anxious, and even though
you point out that job growth has gone on for several months, if it keeps up at this rate
we will have 35 million unemployed and underemployed people, real people, by next year.
And the unemployment rate will be over 12% by 2020. That's 10 years with not enough jobs
for people who were laid off at 52, or 48, or 44. Their first hope is going to be Social
Security (you aren't planning on changing that, are you?) which means that unless someone
creates a jobs program that kicks this country in the ass a little, their reward for paying
into the system with their work for for 20 or 30 years will be to try to survive on food stamps
or perhaps begging, and hopefully make it till Social Security kicks in when they are 65,
or 66, or 57. Do you really think they aren't going to look for alternatives, in their life
or their votes? They aren't all teabaggers, but they all need to eat, and they can't eat hope.

It doesn't seem out of the realm of possiblity that a democratic president could set all the
other issues aside and create a jobs program. We know you set aside $15 trillion to help the
bankers on Wall Street, who are keeping over $3 trillion of that money without having to return
it, as well as paying several million dollars in bonuses to people whose actions were directly
responsible for 30 million Americans not being able to work as they need to, and the loss of
millions of homes.

Maybe we aren't as important as the friends of Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke on Wall Street,
but just maybe you could set aside a trillion or so and create a jobs program, and we could
pay it back with the income we generate from working and creating new jobs? I hear it has
been done before, quite successfully.

Btw, have you seen my friend FDR?

[Alcibiades]

69. Actually, many folks will be ineligible by then

You need 40 credits to qualify for Social Security. If you're out of work for several years in your peak earning years, whether you're unemployed or raising kids, you'll get reduced benefits.

It is amazing how the wages of working Americans can be in decline for 40 years and no one does anything about it, but a couple of Wall Street firms look like they're going to go bankrupt, and free market types like Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, Obama and Geithner all get them trillions within a few days.

[area51]

83. +1 n/t

[still_one]

42. Oh, by the way, it is that growing population of "elderly cranks" who want blue dogs and repukes

at least that is what the polls indicate

[Alcibiades]

66. Too true

It's sometimes a tough sell to the get off my lawn crowd: unless they are dyed in the wool Democrats (which many are), they may want the administration to keep their government hands off their Medicare.

[t0dd]

71. +1

[izquierdista]

13. Gave them a vehicle.....

which poops out even approaching a Republican roadblock.

Where's the A-Team when you need them?

[grahamhgreen]

17. How bout fixing health care, out of Iraqistan and prosecuting war crimes??? NT

[L0oniX]

18. Sorry ...I can't vote for ya ...I've been disappeared by the FBI for being anti war.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. Do they accept absentee ballots

from Guantanamo?

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Everyone acts as if this is some new phenomenon. Young voters always..

sit out the mid-terms. Just ask Bill Clinton. If the president's not on the ballot, young folks will likely turn out in fewer numbers. Typically, young people get active if they think there's the slightest chance that somebody's gonna bring back the draft. For all the highminded ideals that have been thrown about in this thread, it's jobs. All the speculation about the wars, healthcare, etc. aside, young folks are scared they won't have jobs.

Now they can take their chances with the other guys, but that didn't work out so well before. The notion that this president should be expected to reverse 30+ years of conservative rule, in 20 months, is just beyond ludicrous.

I still don't believe that the pre-written obituary is going to be the blowout some on the right, and apparently the left, are hoping for. :hi:

[girl gone mad]

23. Young voters to Obama: "Watch us."

They have absolutely no reason to vote for candidates of either major political party, if we're being perfectly honest.

[Iowa]

32. Exactly right.

[Hosnon]

48. Here's what the difference will be Mr. President:

In 2008, I voted for you and campaigned hard for you. In 2012, I'll vote for you but I'm not busting my ass this time.

[sofa king]

57. Don't tell them what they can or can't do or they'll NEVER come out of the bathroom.

[bobburgster]

62. Well, they'll pay a price if they stay home. n/t

[Fumesucker]

67. He should tell them to quit whining..

That will get them out to the polls for Democrats..

[avaistheone1]

70. Young people to Obama: Quit whining.

[AnOhioan]

77. Watch them

[Nihil]

78. Back in 2008, a lot of young people (and old people FWIW) had hope.

> "Back in 2008, a lot of young people got involved in my campaign
> because they... generally felt that we needed to bring about
> fundamental changes in how we operate,"

"Two years later, they seem to have seen through the bullshit and
that is worrying me."

[and-justice-for-all]

79. I'm not, knocked on over 100 doors for Dems last week..nt

[Bragi]

80. Young Voters to Obama: Yes we can! /nt

[MindPilot]

81. It started way before 2010 and it's not just young people.

The Dems did little and nothing to opposes the excesses of the Bush administration. Given a sweeping majority in 2006, they still did little and nothing. Now with the Democrats as a majority their response to the right is generally "thank you, sir; may I have another?"

This cranky old guy is seriously asking "why bother?"

[bc3000]

82. Try screwing us on net neutrality - that will motivate young people to vote democratic :/