Obama loses the left - Guardian UK

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Not just Olbermann. The left is beginning to see that, instead of a liberal, we have a status-quo, centrist, politician in the White House who "compromises" at the drop of a sign of resistance from the right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/01/barack-obama-healthcare-left-trust

Keith Olbermann had had enough.

Last Tuesday the liberal host of MSNBC's Countdown, perhaps the loudest Barack Obama cheerleader on cable news, singled out the Obama White House in his sarcastic Best Persons in the World segment for the "best impression of the Bush administration".

Obama's sin: hiring the Rendon Group, the beneficiary of Bush-administration largesse, to screen journalists seeking to be embedded with US military forces by picking over their past coverage.

"It gets worse," Olbermann continued, complaining that the Rendon Group had worked with Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader whose propaganda had helped pave the way for the American invasion. (The story was first reported by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. The contract was terminated earlier this week.)

But though Obama may be the first liberal president since Lyndon Johnson, his liberalism is very much of the mainstream variety. His supporters on the left seem to forget that he originally stood out as an alternative to Hillary Clinton because he could appeal to Republicans – "Obamicans" – as well as Democrats. He ran to the right of Clinton on healthcare, and to the right of just about everyone in his tough-guy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[closeupready]

1. I'm sorry, this guy is full of shit.

Obama was NOT 'an alternative' to Hillary - he was a candidate in his own right.

Second, he ran to the LEFT of Hillary's health reform plan.

What an ignoramus.

[YOY]

2. +1

And not even that far to the left of Hillary.

[redqueen]

5. Too many people seem unable to get out of the "moderate = far left" mindset.

Total bullshit... and it's always and only used to divide the left. When, if ever, will we wake up to this crap?

[imdjh]

8. I thought we were for Hillary because she was the ballsiest candidate running.

And I was right.

[truebrit71]

9. ..unfortunately it appears as though you were indeed correct..

...

[redqueen]

14. No, we *didn't* vote for Hillary cause she was the DLC-est candidate running.

Get it right.

[imdjh]

16. But now Obama is the DLC-est, right? I need a playbook.

[redqueen]

17. Only to those who are hopelessly confused. (nt)

[imdjh]

35. I'm coming up on hopeless. Confused will have to wait until the second term.

Ha, "second term".... I crack myself up sometimes.

[shireen]

18. unfortunately, we now have Rahm Emmanuel in an important WH position

that's concerned me from day 1.

[redqueen]

20. And what...

it would have been better to have anoter DLCer in the WH?

We got the best we could get... end of.

[shireen]

26. don't quite understand your comment.

Emmanuel is a DLC'er, and he was a major force in getting some blue dogs elected to congress.
i'm just expressing a concern. Fortunately, Emmanuel is not president.

I think Obama is fundamentally a good caring compassionate man who is trying to do the right thing. But electing him to office was not enough. We need to continue participating in our government by voicing our concerns, and we need to fight back against proposed policies that are not progressive enough. I think he expects us to do it; while he is a strong leader, I also think he needs citizens to participate more actively in government because that's what it ultimately takes to strengthen our democracy. If we don't, big money wins. In that context, dissent is a healthy thing.

[redqueen]

27. Sorry...

I thought you were one of the ones in here seemingly arguing that Hillary would have made a more liberal president. If not, then mea culpa.

Completely agree that we have to push to the left... but IMO whining like Eeyore on a forum is not 'pushing' anything but rational people's buttons.

[shireen]

30. LOL! Eeyore! That's funny.

:D

[imdjh]

37. She would have been a more powerful president.

Not to mention my mother would have been able to have a woman president in her lifetime. It's still possible, I suppose.

[redqueen]

39. Yeah, just like Rahm.

That'd be GREAT!

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. What's wrong with Eeyore?

He's obviously a Democrat. :kick: Unlike the DLC or the Blue Balled Cowards.

[redqueen]

43. Hahaahahaaha...

oh man, I so wish I could argue with you... but using this place as a barometer I guess that's pretty much accurate.

:rofl:

I love the character... it's the behavior that burns me up... has no place in politics IMO... totally counterproductive.

[imdjh]

36. See, there was and is the problem.

"I think Obama is fundamentally a good caring compassionate man who is trying to do the right thing. "

So was Jimmy Carter. Which is why I supported Hillary Clinton.

[shireen]

54. I don't understand what you're saying ...

Why are you dragging Carter into this mess?
I also believe that Hillary Clinton is fundamentally a good caring compassionate woman who is trying to do the right thing.
And the way things are shaping up, i don't think it would have made any difference who became president, Obama or Clinton.

[imdjh]

56. She's a snake.

That's why I love her and why others may not.

[flyarm]

62. except one had experience and the other very little. eom

[truebrit71]

10. Too bad he is 100% right that so far we have seen an extension of EVERY Bush policy..

..that mattered "to the left" during the campaign...

War in Iraq. Check
War in Afghanistan. Check (in fact let' step that up a nothc or two.)
Gitmo open. Check
Torture and rendition. Check

The dept of the interior is run by a fucking cattle-rancher, the attorney general won't enforce the law, the sec def is the same as he was when the last guy was in office..the ONLY bright spot is that the Sec of State has more balls than the chief executive...

So no, this guy is NOT full of shit.

[Inuca]

12. EVERY Bush policy!?!?!?

What is happening with Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty close to what was said during the campaign. They are trying to close Gitmo. Torture has stopped. If you expected a magic wand you were in fairyland to begin with. Also: the interior secretary is a FORMER SENATOR, and the defense secretary by all accounts is doing a good job under very difficult circumstances (same as did under the previous administration). I have no comment about the State Secretary "balsiness" or lack thereof.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yes EVERY!

:rofl:

[Jennicut]

23. I thought Hillary was slammed for wanting to "obliterate" Iran?

Am I missing something here?

[closeupready]

44. Right, actually, I recall that -

>>On closer inspection, though, this time Mrs Clinton was aiming her Minutemen at Iran. She had been asked what she would do if that now infamous 3am call to the White House told of a nuclear attack on Israel. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she told ABC television. “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

First things first. She has yet to dispose of Mr Obama. Of course, Mrs Clinton’s reinvention of herself as the mad general in Dr Strangelove is not unconnected to this ambition. Her comments on Iran were all of a piece with the effort to undermine Mr Obama’s national security credentials.

Mrs Clinton’s latest television advertisement features, among others, Osama bin Laden. It ends with a rhetorical question: “Who do you think has what it takes?” Certainly not, voters are invited to conclude, an effete and elitist senator from Illinois with Hussein as a middle name.<<

http://en.afrik.com/article13373.html

[deurbano]

11. Krugman had a different take on Obama's health care plan (in comparison to Clinton's)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1

<<But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short… But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t…

…But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.>>

[closeupready]

24. Yes, I am well aware of Krugman's anaysis. Yet, what

is absent here is recognition that Obama stated very clearly upfront that his preferred system always was single payer (even though he realized that this would be unachievable in the short-term) - not so, Hillary.

[joeybee12]

13. No, he ran to the right of Hilary on healthcare...

...i don't know how you consider someone being against universal coverage running to the left.

[flyarm]

34. -1

[pokercat999]

3. During the election the right kept calling Obama the most far left

Senator. I have a blade of grass in my lawn that is the most far left of all the others but when examined closely it is very much like all the other blades of grass and responds to fertilizer (money and power) in the same manner. Mr. Obama would you please get out of my lawn, be different, become a weed and take over the whole damn yard?

[flyarm]

4. Not much new here..those of us who warned of this were called racists! eom

[Echo In Light]

15. Early on, before the obvious became harder to dispel for blind faithers.

[Greyhound]

42. Naive, pony-less, crazy, racists.

"We told you so"
:(

[earth mom]

46. Yep and that b.s. is still being flung around here if you aren't part of the fan club.

Funny how when I first joined DU everyone was for Peace in the Middle East and Single Payer Health Care among so many issues that now are dismissed around here.

DU resembles freeperville more and more every day.

[flyarm]

51. your not kidding! n/t

[Horse with no Name]

49. +1. Absolutely. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. +1 nt

[Winterblues]

6. Let us hope some of the squeeky wheels get some grease.

Or else there is going to be a hell of a lot of squeeking going on..

[imdjh]

7. Silly me.

But some guy from North Carolina will be along shortly to tell me to get over it.

[western mass]

19. When he filled his admin w/corporatists

The left already saw the writing on the wall.

When he takes a dive on health care, that'll be just closing the deal.

[Individualist]

25. +1

One needn't be a card carrying member to promote DLC's agenda.

[QC]

31. Some of us saw the writing on the wall back in October, 2007,

when he knifed GLBT Democrats in the back to appeal to the worst elements of fundamentalist Christianity.

We were accused of not having gotten our ponies, racism, whining, poutrage, and a number of other things.

Oh well, we were right, but it's too late to do anything about it now.

[flyarm]

33. correct you are! funny i recall the bushbots calling me names too! eom

[flyarm]

32. some did , some still don't...and maybe never will! eom

[SammyWinstonJack]

58. +1 nt

[Jennicut]

21. Oh geez. The hyperbole gets to be too much sometimes.

Obama is closer to Bill Clinton then Bush but was Bill Clinton Bush's real first term? I cannot keep track anymore. Clinton was bad on a whole lot of things but he never led us into something like the Iraq War. And he nominated liberal justices.
LBJ did great things and also led us into Vietnam.
Obama is a center left Dem (center left in the United States). I certainly don't see him as conservative as Baucus, Nelson, or Conrad.

[Doctor_J]

28. Like Hightower says, all you see in the middle of the road

is dead armadillos.

[redqueen]

29. Yet he's now joined up with Kinky...

go figure.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. "He ran to the right of Clinton on healthcare"

Uh, that's bullshit. Hillary was running on RomneyCare, a system invented by a corporatist vampire dog abusing mor(m)on.

Obama WAS running to the right of himself on health care, sadly.

[redqueen]

40. It got him elected...

and we DESPERATELY needed that.

It seems like some people think he didn't need those moderate / independent votes. I think he did.

I mean hell... even many Dems don't seem to get how important a public option is. We're dealing with overcoming decades of propaganada.

[bridgit]

45. I'm sure too many voted for images they only thought they understood...

So someone scribbles "Jars of Kiwi marmalade on every breakfast table" onto a fresh slip of paper? And people get all faint? Outraged? Glassy eyed and walk away when their's isn't there in the morning? Cause it is harder work than it seemed at the time? And now it's back to that comfy old thread bear bathrobe on the couch: apathy? Eh...

I wouldn't stress it, it's just the way things are right? Follow Obama's lead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzXcNgCr0nk

[EFerrari]

47. I accidentally unrec'd this post this morning. The links are too close together

for my fingers. :(

[shireen]

55. yeah .... and we're not asked to confirm the vote.

Hope one of the admins see your comment.

[Horse with no Name]

48. Some of us saw it all along

I quit watching KO during the primaries and pre-election because he was over the top gaga in his support for everything BO.
I'm not surprised in what has transpired. Not in the least. I was paying attention to the things he actually said during the primaries and not what I wanted to hear.
However, I did vote for BO and I started watching KO again.
I guess maybe he feels now how I felt when he was leading everyone down the garden path of perpetual liberal bliss. BO was never that candidate. Never.

[FrenchieCat]

50. All of this past tense bullshit talk is ridiculous!

And so are those in this thread basically reliving the primary days and longing for the What-Ifs.

I've never seen such a group of panicked whiners ever; Somehow same crying folks have deluded themselves into a memory hole and ridiculously believe that the War in Iraq should be completely wrapped up by now; that both Obama and Clinton didn't campaign on intensifying efforts in Afghanistan; that health care was supposed to come easy, and that the status quo wasn't going to do all that they could to keep things exactly as they are. Same folks blame Obama for the Bailouts, said that the Stimulus wasn't big enough and therefore the Banks should be nationalized; that Gitmo should have closed on January 21st (although the Dem Congress ran away from the issue like a bunch of scared imbeciles), and that Single Payer is the only way to go cause every other solution stinks like shit.

That's why we can't get anywhere; it is clear that us Liberals are really not as smart as I
had originally thought. Guess both sides have their morans toying with their premature speculative ejaculations. That's what happens when folks ain't got shit else to do.

[flyarm]

52. really now? Isn't this special!! and here i had my pom poms ready!!

Published on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 by TomDispatch.com

Bush's Third Term? You're Living It

by David Swanson

It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking endlessly about a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it?

There's Dubya now, still rewriting laws via signing statements. Still creating and destroying laws with executive orders. And still violating laws at his whim. Imagine Bush continuing his policy of extraordinary rendition, sending prisoners off to other countries with grim interrogation reputations to be held and tortured. I can even picture him formalizing his policy of preventive detention, sprucing it up with some "due process" even as he permanently removes habeas corpus from our culture.

I picture this demonic president still swearing he doesn't torture, still insisting that he wants to close Guantanamo, but assuring his subordinates that the commander-in-chief has the power to torture "if needed," and maintaining a prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan that makes Guantanamo look like summer camp. I can imagine him continuing to keep secret his warrantless spying programs while protecting the corporations and government officials involved.

If Bush were in his third term, we would already have seen him propose, yet again, the largest military budget in the history of the world. We might well have seen him pretend he was including war funding in the standard budget, and then claim that one final supplemental war budget was still needed, immediately after which he would surely announce that yet another war supplemental bill would be needed down the road. And of course, he would have held onto his Secretary of Defense from his second term, Robert Gates, to run the Pentagon, keep our ongoing wars rolling along, and oversee the better part of our public budget.

Bush would undoubtedly be following through on the agreement he signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 (except where he chose not to follow through). His generals would, in the meantime, be leaking word that the United States never intended to actually leave. He'd surely be maintaining current levels of troops in Iraq, while sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan and talking about a new "surge" there. He'd probably also be escalating the campaign he launched late in his second term to use drone aircraft to illegally and repeatedly strike into Pakistan's tribal borderlands with Afghanistan.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/02

[FrenchieCat]

53. Obama = Hitler....

Just cut to the chase, wouldya? :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8621756&mesg_id=8621756

[flyarm]

60. I would never say that....ever...but it seems you don't have a problem doing so eh?

I find that repugnant.

[MisterP]

59. well, it's not like LW positions have been the correct ones since the 1830s,

or 60-80% of the country supports them: we're the "left of the left," a 74%-strong fringe minority on healthcare
"I am the author, you are the audience: I outrank you!"

"the people
"Had forfeited the confidence of the government
"And could win it back only
"By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
"In that case for the government
"To dissolve the people
"And elect another?"
--Brecht

[SemiCharmedQuark]

61. Keith gave him the "Best Reversal" award monday for reversing the Rendon Group decision.

[earth mom]

63. A lot of those "Obamicans" are posting here on DU-a supposed left of the aisle forum. nt