Why the unhappiness with Obama?

[Thats my opinion]

WHY THE UNHAPPINESS? (10/5)

Large numbers of Democrats are having indigestion. They wolfed down Obama’s four- course meal fully served with the yummy “yes we can” image of the change he was going to bring to Washington. The wars would be drawn to a halt and our troops brought home. There would be health care for all. The millions of left out would be welcomed. In our history that sort of aggressive optimism has usually proved to harbor a political advantage. Reagan’s “Morning in America ” and King’s, “I have a dream” are cases in point. But:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up 
like a raisin in the sun? 
Or fester like a sore-- 
And then run? 
Does it stink like rotten meat? 
Or crust and sugar over-- 
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags 
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Langston Hughes
Among many of the most progressive Democrats there are calls for an alternate candidate, or even the support of Ralph Nader or some other third party leader. In an article a few weeks ago where I indicated that the failure of Obama’s program was not really his fault, a couple of solid correspondents took me on. They had a point. We expected a vibrant ideological and programmatically aggressive stance, but that is not what we got. Somehow Obama believed in his first two years that he could massage Congress into following his campaign rhetoric with legislative action. He was wrong. Weak congressional leadership wilted under strong Republican solidarity. Even while Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, congressional leadership settled for a problematic health insurance bill instead of barreling through with a clear single payer option. And the President never pushed the issue.
Thus the tone was set for a right wing Republican onslaught in 2010. By then it was almost too late to recover the momentum—almost, but not quite. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity still left in a closing door, the President continued to think he would win enough Republican support to nudge Congress in the direction he had earlier projected.
At the same time he looked at the hand he was dealt and discovered that there were no face cards. He had inherited two wars and an ever potent military/industrial complex committed to keep fighting no matter how futile the prospects, with no exit strategy. Add to that, a recession dug by previous administrations with no clear way out, Federal spending and a budget deficit out of sight, mainly generated by the wars, the rise of a regressive movement funded by far right causes, a housing catastrophe, a banking crisis generated by a host of regulative pullbacks, and to top it all off, a jobless pit.
Many of us, though discouraged, are not ready to spend our political energy bashing the President or looking for some other electable alternative. We were with Obama through the thick of his campaign, and now we are prepared to stay with him through the thin of this near debacle. He must be admired for his thoughtful attempt to reach out to the opposition. But it didn’t work. Unless he decides to take a stand for the ordinary working people, the poor, the left out, the peace arm of his party, and to confront the corporate juggernauts funding the opposition, he may go down to a crashing defeat—and take many of the hopes we originally had with him. Millions of us will try to keep the pressure on him, hoping he is savvy enough to sense the political winds.

[DrDan]

1. "And the President never pushed the issue."

I think that pretty well sums it up.

[MissDeeds]

3. +1 n/t

[Angry Dragon]

2. Your last sentence sums it up the best

If one can be swayed by political winds then they have no principles

[PurityOfEssence]

22. Ideologues suck, but at least you know where they stand

and that the do, actually, stand.

Those who eye some vague distant something and are willing to compromise endlessly to keep in the game are of little use in the final analysis.

[dennis4868]

4. He had not choice but to reach out to the opposition....

They were fillubustering everything the first 2 years and won the House in year 3....every fucking president in the history of the country has had to do this when they don't have TOTAL control over the entire govt...I am starting to think that people here have this warped sense that Obama is a king and could have simply ignored congress these past 3 years and passed pure 100% progressive laws without congress...crazy!

And no presidential historian would ever call this a debacle ---> www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com Obama got done with presidents for the past 60 years have been trying to do and he did this with WEAK dems in congress and an opposition party blocking everything that could help the country. Even now dems are sitting on their hands on the jobs bill...where is the outrage about that? No, only Obama gets blamed for every fucking thing that happens even when it's out of his control.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Amazing how you can say he is absolutely helpless and the most

effective president in 60 years in a single breath.

[dennis4868]

7. he's helpless now...

House is controlled by crazy people who will do anything to dedeat Obama and people here don't want to see that....

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And that is entirely OBAMA'S fault, and some people here don't want to see that. nt

[Andy823]

11. No it's not.

Those at fault are those who were gullible enough to buy into the right wing BS and who stayed home and DIDN'T bother to vote! If everyone who voted in 2008 had voted in 2010, we would not have a republican controlled house. We wouldn't have republicans trying to privatize everything in all the states they won in 2010, Like Wisconsin, Maine, and Florida to name a few.

Believe it or not the president doesn't do a lot without the help of congress voting on bills. If congress would work for the good of the people, we would have seen a lot more done since Obama took office. Even though he didn't have that kind of support he still accomplished one hell of a lot even though so many here seem to not be able to understand that! Maybe you, and so many others here, would have been happier with a McCain Palin ticket in the WH these last 3 years? Just think of how great it would be to be in the worst "DEPRESSION" in history, with no hope at all for the future with those two running things!

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Wrong. In the first two years, when Obama HAD the House and

the Senate, he turned his back on the people that elected him. Had he had the Justice Dept prosecute the ADMITTED crimes of the Bushies, had he not appointed Bushies to run his economic team, had he not doubled down on the wars, he'd have hung onto those who elected him and would have retained the House.

He ran saying one thing, then governed doing another. THAT is why we have a Republican House today. Maybe it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?", but his crapping on the progressives, his not addressing the economy in a meaningful way, and his focusing on the health insurance bill - and doing it BADLY - is what cost him.

The people who stayed home did not do so because they were listening to the Republicans - they did so because they were listening to Obama, and realized that he was not talking to THEM.

[Kurmudgeon]

15. RaleighNCDUer, people like you and the ones who stayed home are at fault.

Give the President a liberal congress and you'll get liberal things done.
Give him Boehner and the gang and you get the nonsense they've been shoveling at him since been sworn in.
And to hear your crap after living in the right wing paradise that is the land of Jesse Helms kind of rankles.
Stick a stock in it, and vote these GOPers out of Congress instead of blaming The President for all the obstruction thrown his way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Did I say I stayed home?

I've made every election since 1972, and been a lifelong Democratic voter.

But what put Obama in office was not lifelong Democratic voters, or Independents, but NEW voters who finally saw a reason to engage.

Then Obama removed that reason by ignoring them in favor of his Wall Street buddies.

They showed up in 2008, and could not motivate in 2010 because what they saw was they had wasted their time and money in support of the status quo.

Those kids - mostly first time voters - saw no big whoop about being able to stay of their parents' insurance - they never get sick. They are the healthiest demographic in the country. The only part of HCR reform that actually affected the vast majority of them didn't actually affect the vast majority of them. It certainly was not enough to get them to the polls.

There was NO movement on DADT or DOMA.

Gitmo was still open.

Government transparency got more opaque.

Reducing troops in Iraq to 50k was NOT ending the war.

NAFTA reform was forgotten.

The Banksters were still in charge.

Unemployment for their demographic was not going down.

These were ALL things Obama promised to address, and he didn't. So, his 2008 voters stayed home. HE is entirely to blame.

Even if the Republicans were obstructing him, if he had FOUGHT them instead of compromising with them, those voters would have had a reason to back him up. But when he is pre-emptively surrendering to the repugs, starting his negotiations from the most moderate point where any compromise would HAVE to take him farther to the right, refusing to 'look back' at the Bush crimes, the Wall Street crimes, putting someone in charge of Education whose ultimate goal seems to be the privatization of public schools, WHY WOULD THEY SUPPORT HIM? The results they are getting from him seem about the same as those they'd get from a Republican.

If this was not the case, why is it the media is suddenly talking about his change in tone, change in demeanor, his new confrontational style? If he was doing it right, before, why would he change now?

Know what he's sounding like now? He's sounding like the guy who got those kids and first time voters out in 2008. Not like the guy who spent the next 2 years playing golf with Boehner.

[Doctor_J]

24. He had the House and a HUGE mandate for change in 2009

he didn't press it. He appeased, and THAT's what cost him in 2010

[Myrina]

16. cough cough bullshit cough cough ...

n/t

[musiclawyer]

6. This is a good op and mea culpa

Yes, if the premise was that it was not Obama's fault, you got it wrong.
Never turn your sails. when you have the wind at your back.
The modern GOP will NEVER EVER work with democrats. Peon, peasant little people democrats knew that in 2009. How could the President of the United States and his appointed supposedly wise-men not understand that. In a parallel universe where the tables are turned, is there any doubt President McCain would have just tried to slam single payer down the opponents throats? Recalcitrant senators would have been threatened in ways that can't be put in print. Hence, the HC bill would have ended up a lot better and less prone to false-derision.

The Stimulus would have been ginormous--because fear of his base would have made POTUS listen. The Wall Street bailout would have come with so many string attached that foreclosures effectively would have ended by the Spring of 2010. Wall street would feel betrayed. But guess what, POTUS would have retained the house and all the subsequent House BS would not exist, and economy not sabotaged. Pickle meet jar. POTUS would not have the vinegar all over him, like right now. POTUS would be cruising to a 2012 landslide.
..............In the parallel universe.

Obama has NO ONE to blame but himself. If he loses the the 2012 election and we get a Republican House, Senate, and President, then the USA's tenure as a first world country is effectively over. And it's all on Obama. History will look at him as a tragic figure--someone who could have been transformational, but had no balls to lead when it counted and squandered it all.

So yeah, despite the vinegar stench, democrats need to break their balls to GOTV, because we have touch screeen voting and voter suppression much stronmger than 2010

Our only hope is to point out that this mess was created by the GOP and the
recovery is being sabiotaged by the GOP, and GOP control means the end of us as a first world country. No euphamisms, no use of delicate language.
We must be that blunt. It's that simple.

[dtexdem]

8. Hmm, now why we unhappy? Let's see, there must be some little set of things:

1) insisting on putting Social Security and Medicare "on the table" in negotiation with the GOP;
2) failure to enforce U.S. and international laws against war crimes and other crimes against humanity;
3) promising to go softer on anti-immigration actions and then ramping them up;
4) promising a transparent government and then pushing ever-greater secrecy;

and on, and on, and on.

Indigestion? No, it's more like food poisoning. The listeria of Democratic Party politics.

Obama has lost me. Oh, he'll get my vote for prez in 2012, but only because the alternative is so horrible -- a true lesser-of-the-evils vote. He won't get my active support, nor any donations from me. I'll instead give my political donations to true Democrats.

[Historic NY]

9. He couldn't nudge the Democrats either when they held both houses...

so there is plenty of blame to go around amongst the leadership.

[polmaven]

13. The House, under Speaker Pelosi,

passed a TON of progressive legislation which never reached his desk because of a little thing called a filibuster. There was, effectively, no time whatsoever that there were 60 Democrats available and voting to overcome the Republicans who were intent on blocking anything and everything for which the president had expressed a favorable opinion.

On paper, there were 49 days, out of the first two years, that Democrats held 60 seats. But Senator Kennedy was too ill to be present, so the count for cloture stood at 59 - 40.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. YOU DON'T NEED A 60 VOTE MAJORITY TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

What you need is the political will and the strength to bend recalcitrant senators to your will. Reid has been a weakling who COUNTS votes instead of FINDING votes. There were always reluctant Blue Dogs, but they are still Democrats and are vulnerable to pressure from the national party. There were, at the time, still a few moderate Republicans who could be drawn to vote with the Democrats, had the will been there to engage with them. And a LOT of that would come from the President taking his case to the people, and having the people take it straight to their senators with promises of support or promises of non-support as the case may be.

HE was the one who was elected on a particular platform, and the public voted for him because of that platform. He should have been out there PUSHING that agenda which got him elected, not compromising with those who opposed him.

The reason it didn't happen is because Obama did not WANT it to happen.

[polmaven]

20. You do when it is the stated number one goal

of the opposing party to ensure that the president is a one term president. You know as well as I do that the Republicans obstructed EVERYTHING. You don't really think that he was going to get them to change their minds simply by political "will" do you? Leader Reid cannot find votes that do not exist. Moderate Republicans will respond more quickly to their own Leader's threats...and especially to "Leader" Limbaugh than to anything that any Democrat says or does.

[libinnyandia]

14. Democrats' control of Congress

If the Senate were like the House: majority rules, then you could say the Democrats control the Senate. Because of the nature of the Senate: 2 Senators per state(CA has 2 Senators- the 20 smsllest states have the same population and have 40 senators) and rules that allow a minority to override the majority, and the fear of Democratic Senators in red states, it is almost impossible for Obama to get legislation passed ( he got health care passed in a very weakened form) It is hard to imagine Democratic control of the Senate without the Blue Dogs. And when they get defeated because voters decide to vote Republican or decide to sit out the election out of disgust, then the GOP will never pass progressive legislation, no matter now watered down it is

[WingDinger]

19. Had we slammed a left agenda, we would have been crucified for over reach.

And, all the concern trolls came out of hiding and many here and elsewhere were suckered in.

[Axrendale]

23. The trouble is that we got crucified for over-reaching anyway,

with little regard being shown by much of the electorate to what was actually happening in the capital.

It is very rare to find a political leader who is capable of both pushing hard for a genuinely transformative agenda, and being able to avoid the worst parts of backlash against it. Obama, sadly, was unable to show that he could walk that tightrope - but then, very few others have. Democrats haven't really had a successful leader in this regard since FDR - even Lyndon Johnson was walloped by backlash against the Great Society as early as 1966.

It is a cruel dilemma, to say the least. :(

[blkmusclmachine]

21. The perception is that Obama never really tries:

He's too happy giving the Teabaggers 98% of everything they want. Then he (Obama) comes out to angrily scold Democrats for not praising his fine "bi-partisanshit." And then he turns around and does it all over again, with typical results.

"Bi-partisanship" means never having to say "I agree with the other guys."

[musiclawyer]

25. THIS

Spot on. THe alternative is unspeakable. So we have to push hard to convince other not to sit out.

Frankly the best thing Obama can do right now is unleash the DOJ against the voting suppressors accross the country. Literally get injunctions against the most reporessive laws.

Then, call out the GOP as sabatuers of the economy. Wash rinse repeat.

He does this, there is a good chance he wins again and takes back the house