I was so wrong about Obama. :(

[Withywindle]

I knew about him from '95 when the paper I worked for at the time (which has since laid me off) wrote a feature on him.

I read his first book, and I really loved it. He writes SO FRAKKIN' WELL. It's really compelling, and as a first-gen American myself, when I read the chapters where he went to meet his Kenyan family as a young adult, I cried because I related to it so hard (as someone who only recently met the half of my family that lives in South America, and speak a language I don't, but I was so glad just to be there and meet my aunts and uncles and cousins for the first time...yeah.)

From having read that book, I really believed he had the empathy to understand the struggles of others, even if they weren't his. I held up that hope for YEARS.

I was so happy when he got elected. It was the biggest non-violent party in Chicago's history.

Two years later, I finally realize just how hard he has failed us. (I'm the 'B' in the GLBT.) Those who have been skeptical have been right all along. He's not lifting a finger, even when he could do so easily in his capacity as CIC (and be respected by right-wingers, who only respect a man who's willing to enforce his will, preferably with a stuffed crotch in a fake photo-op.)

[Webster Green]

1. Those that reach the office are so compromised as to be useless.

It's built into the design. :smoke:

[RandomThoughts]

4. It is not built into the design.

It is a design that is trying to be built. Hence why authoritative systems fail society.


You are correct that everyone that does good has many challenges to try and derail them.



Here is the thing, agreeing it is built into the system, is not saying that is how the system should be or needs to be. Those are not the same things.


Although I think the DADT issue is just being moved to after the election, and it is really the Republicans that voted against it.

[Onlooker]

2. Do you really believe that?

Do you really believe the President is so all powerful? How did Bush do with the conservative agenda? Didn't we see gay rights advance despite him (Lawrence v. Texas, gay marriage in many states, a DOMA bill that carries very little weight)? Better yet, how did Reagan, the great hero of the right, do with the conservative agenda? Did he get prayer in school? Did he succeed in outlawing abortion? The fact is our system of checks and balances is quite strong and forces compromise both from the left and the right. I'm gay, and want gay equality as much as anyone, but recognize that the right-wing retains enormous power in this nation, power they can wield to stop progress. Obama is doing quite well in advancing a progressive agenda, but the war is not easily won against the entrenched powers of bigotry and hate.

[nofurylike]

3. i am a lesbian, and i feel you expressed that very well, Onlooker.

thank you.


peace and solidarity

[Sapphocrat]

5. Consider health insurance "reform."

That was a tough sell, but Obama really, really wanted it, and he got it. He spent a year -- and most of his political capital -- firing up town halls and ultimately twisting congressional arms to the breaking point, until he got exactly what he wanted.

Nobody expects Obama to wave a magic wand and suddenly turn the living nightmare of being gay in the U.S. into a neverending paradise of poppy fields. But we can only wonder what might have been accomplished if he'd put just a fraction of his weight behind our struggle for equal rights as he did behind his pet health insurance plan.

If he were one-tenth as passionate about his LGBT constituents as he is about insurance companies, we'd be a hell of a lot further along than we are -- and you wouldn't be hearing such expressions of deep disappointment, abject grief and helpless defeat.

Bottom line: He's a "fierce advocate," all right, but only for those issues he thinks are in his best interest -- not ours.

He pays attention to us only when we threaten to cost him money and votes. We don't want to do it that way. We want him to fight for us because it's the right thing to do, and not out of fear that we're some sort of threat.

[TheWraith]

12. + Infinity.

Obama's facing more organized opposition than any president in history--so says Jimmy Carter--and he's doing pretty well despite that. So in 20 months, we haven't gotten everything we want? Okay, that's a reason to go out and keep fighting. In 20 months, we've gotten financial reform, healthcare reform, a return to diplomacy, the beginning of rebuilding our oversight system, ending the Iraq War, Lily Ledbetter, SCHIP, stem cell research, the end of stop-loss, and a lot more.

The next 20 months can bring even more, but not if we take our toys and go home.

[madmax]

23. +10

[no limit]

21. It takes a stroke of a pen for him to repeal DADT

[Loudmxr]

6. I said from the beginning "Don't trust him." But I say that about all politicians.

I am sad for you. (as opposed to sorry... I hate that term because it means fault) However that is politics. I have friends who are electeds and they let me down all the time.

They are still my friends. OK there is that one time when I could have used a returned phone call PAUL I'M TALKING TO YOU.

They are a class of people that you have to treat differently like I used to treat actors, comedians, and broadcast talent differently when I was in advertising. They were three different personalities and each class you could treat in a specific way to get what you wanted. It's all part of the package.

[Democat]

7. The right wing filibustered. Try blaiming them, not Obama.

I'm not totally happy with Obama, but you're talking about one issue right before an election - and an issue where it was stopped by a filibuster.

[Uben]

8. Why blame repubs......

....when we've got a good pres to tear down? I've read many posts here about people who are disappointed with Obama. Well, I'm not on that boat, and in fact, I feel just the opposite. I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries. He was an unknown to me and I wanted Clinton for prez because healthcare was my issue. I was wrong! Obama was the right choice. Despite the republicans trying their "say no to everything", I am amazed at what Obama has accomplished. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he hasn't moved mountains or parted the sea, but given the circumstances, what he has done has been alomost miraculous. I don't like it when I see people bitch because they aren't getting their "issue" dealt with immediately. They seem to think an all out onslaught on the one "we" elected will help accomplish their goal, but it only serves to lessen their chances of ever seeing it happen. So, go ahead and bitch and gripe and talk Obama down. But, don't jump on the bandwagon when he kicks repubs asses on another issue. You didn't help, you were on the other side.
I didn't get what I wanted on healthcare, either. In fact, it really did not help me at all...but it did help many. I pay over $20K/yr on healthcare premiums because of my wife's bout with cancer and was looking for some relief. But, this thing is bigger than me. I try to look at the overall picture and think realistically about what can be done in the current congressional situation.
When you realize where we would be if McCain and Palin had won, you might be a bit more appreciative of what he has done.
So, go ahead and rag on him. Whatever it is you want can wait until the next totally progressive president is elected. Say maybe 2020 or later.You've got time, right? Think.

[Not Me]

11. The right wind did not filibuster...they threatened to filibuster and the Dems caved.

They should have called their bluff, and told McCain to call out for cots and pizza, and then make them spend the next month reading the Washington DC phone book 24/7. How long do you think they would actually want to stay in DC and not be out campaigning for November?

That's right, the filibuster wouldn't have lasted very long. And the Dems would have come out of it displaying a spine.

[TheWraith]

13. Filibusters don't really work like that.

The image of the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type filibuster is inaccurate. It's as simple as this: if you don't have 60 votes, the process doesn't advance. In this case, debate never was allowed to BEGIN.

[plantwomyn]

15. It's only that simple if you don't want to get the job done.

If the Dems want to repeal DADT then they should roll out the cots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH6Xo1G0tfE

[xchrom]

9. It's been an interesting trip, I'll say that. Nt

[stray cat]

10. Many seemed to think he would be their hero and change would be quick and easy

Change requires drive and sacrifice from we the people and convincing others. Think of those who sacrificed so much during the civil rights movement

[mitchtv]

14. nothing about this issue has been "quick"

anything gained in the last 40 years has been in spite of the politicians with few notable exceptions. Many thought we would see leadership, many were ready for a fight, Neither happened; LGBT were a football that was tossed around and punted at the ultimate last minute when no more political advantage could be wrung out. Now they say "look foward to the lame duck session"? Oh I'm holding my breath'

[dsc]

17. It has been 41 years since Stonewall

during which time, thanks to gays working their fucking asses off, sometimes at great threat to personal and economic safety, gays have made amazing strides in nearly every single area of life save federal rights. Despite the fact that during 14 years of those 41 years the party that gays have supported by a 7 to 3 margin has controled the White House and during all but 12 of those years that party had control of the House of Representatives, a gay person today has seen no law passed, except hate crimes, which materially expaneded our rights. Gays vote for Democrats by a 7 to 3 margin, we work on Democratic campaigns, we give money out the wazoo. For all of that, we have gotten bupkis.

[The Philosopher]

16. I think the reaction about all this is how "fierce" is defined.

To me, "fierce" is defined as a national address the night after the vote to condemn everyone who voted no against the repeal. If I were the President, I would accuse them of being hypocritical and uncompassionate, because not only is desperately needed funds being used to drum men and women out of the military for such a STUPID reason, this money is being used to ruin American lives that were volunteered to protect the rest of us.

I would then question the reasoning behind saying no because a "process" must be followed. A process does not need to be followed here. We all know what the review will say. We see it in other militaries. It's goddamn common sense. So what difference is it between repealing now or waiting for the review? To wait is a political ploy. They hope to gain power enough to keep a policy of fiscal irresponsibility and harm to Americans.

Then, as a fierce advocate of LGBT rights, I would go on to accuse opponents of marriage equality of the same thing: fiscal irresponsibility and opponents of liberty. The people who call for a ban on gay marriage are the same ones who approve of sending jobs out of America, destroying American wages, and running up a deficit. They don't care how much money gay marriage would provide in a tough economic climate and a TIME OF WAR. This is their hypocrisy.

As President, I'm sure I could come up with other things to say. I would end it with a call towards TRUE fiscal responsibility and a TRUE adherence to American values: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But, everyone defines things differently. C'est la vie.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Can I ask you why you're blaming Obama when it was the Senate...

Who failed you? Remember! Barack Obama is NOT in the Senate!!

What is it about that people don't understand!?!?!?

The President cannot force another branch of government to do anything!

Read your Constitution, folks!!!

[TBF]

19. lol - you have a majority. try another excuse. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH OBAMA?!?!?

He doesn't and CANNOT control the legislature!!

What's more, you still haven't answered my question!

We have fucking jerks in the party like Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. These are the corporatists and conservatives in the party who obstructed progress!! They were the ones who joined the Republicans!! That has nothing to do with Obama!!

Please kindly answer my question!

How is what the Senate does Obama's fault?!?!

And what's more, why aren't you blaming Bill Clinton who put both DADT and DOMA in place!?!?

[mitchtv]

26. it never stopped LBJ

twist some arms, make some threats/promises, DO SOMETHING, don;t trade stop loss for imaginary votes, or you look like a fool/ forget about Clinton , that was then, this is now

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Instead of attacking me, let's stick to the facts, shall we? It is absolutely ludicrous to compare

LBJ with Obama. First, he had a larger Democratic majority. Second, the Democrats back then didn't run away from progressivism. They embraced liberalism. Lastly, that was during a time when Americans had faith in the government and believed that government did good things. Forty years of demonzing government by the Republicans have led the American public--and cowardly DemoCRAPS--to run away from the "liberal" label.

You have to embrace history. Let's be fair. The political environment back during that time was nothing like it is right now. It is simply unfair to compare the two.

By the way, look what happened to LBJ: passing Civil Rights legislation cost him and the Democrats the American South for decades. We've lost the South forever, and as a child of the South and an African American woman, that doesn't warm my heart. Since then, the Southern Strategy has been in full effect by the Republicans. And that is why it is not fair to compare then to now.

[The Philosopher]

22. Here's a question.

One of the powers of the President is "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." If the President believes a law goes against another law, could he not suspend the law and force the Supreme Court to decide if his actions are correct? Surely it's been done before.

If anything, the President is there to be a check and balance to the other branches. If Congress is doing something atrocious with the law, even if it's legal until the Supreme Court does its job, the President DOES NOT have to sit silent about the issue. He is the President, a force unto himself; he has the ability to command thunder and lightening down upon the wrongs of society. Even if it is only a metaphor.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. Your answer sounds more logical and definitely follows the Constitution. But...

let's be fair. The action in the Senate was just yesterday. Can you give the president at least 24 hours to decide on what he will do to suspend?

I mean, you haven't even given the guy a chance to do the action?

I'll make a deal with you: if the President, vis-a-vis, Eric Holder cannot find it in his power to suspend DADT within the next four months or sooner, then I'll join you in the outrage.

But I do find it amazing that all the blame has been directed at Obama. Not Bill Clinton. Not the Congress, but Obama.

[The Philosopher]

25. Well

It’s not like the vote was to implement DADT. I think he’s had long enough to determine what he can and can’t do as President. I’m sure it’s come up in regards to other things since his inauguration. Probably before then.

But, sure. Four months sounds good. He can take as long as he wants, I guess. I’ve already spent my eligibility unable to join. No rush from me.

However, ENDA--now THAT’S something I could use.

[mitchtv]

27. welcome, Philosopher

some good posts. You know what they say about casting pearls.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. You make a fairer, more logical argument when it comes to ENDA. Clearly, it's unconstitutional!

Clearly, that will be the Big Enchilada!