It's time for us progressives to accept some simple realities.

[kentuck]

Barack Obama is not the "progressive" we thought he might be. He is a pragmatist. He is a moderate Democrat. But, he is miles beyond any Republican that might sit in the White House.

We may not have gotten what we wanted with healthcare reform, but he did take a small step forward. It may seem meaningless to us at the moment but it might become more historic down the road?

We were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama is no pacifist. He does not hesitate to use military strikes when he thinks it is necessary. We may not agree with his war tactics but we do need to accept the reality that he inherited the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq and worldwide.

We may not see the progressive agenda that we thought was necessary. But if we have to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain or similar Republican, then the choice is clear. We need to operate and speak from some clear parameters.

[AllentownJake]

1. He'll also lie to get your vote and support

He's a democrat and will lean towards democratic issues, but his principles are re-election and getting elected and that is it and he will say things in a campaign he has no intention in falling through with.

Is he better than the alternative of John McCain/Sarah Palin, yes but after this Mandate issue, do not expect me to trust anything he says in a speech till I see the details of legislation or policies.

When you mail out something like this in a democratic primary and drop your opposition to a policy, rather quickly when you get elected. It isn't exactly changing the way politics is done. It is typical. I'm not calling Hillary Clinton better, however, as far as being a typical Washington Politician, he was no different. Not a primary re-hash. This is simply evidence that he did in fact say one thing, and do another.



The literature she is holding, is the literature from the Shame on you moment. Many of us laughed at her, 2 years ago, I understand why she went on tilt.

[Maru Kitteh]

12. Yup. At least she was honest. Hell. I was laughing at Old Man McCain last night

Railing against this HCB - it's practically exactly what HE campaigned on. No wonder he's pissed. He has to vote against a plan he could have written himself on the campaign trail and Obama gets all the credit for it. Poor old guy.

This HCB isn't everything I dreamed of for sure - but it's an important first step. I feel I can now at least try to have some faith in the future.

[AllentownJake]

16. Oh they are both pissed

and his doing this shit, in the future assures politicians will be bigger liars than they are now.

Why campaign on what you would do, campaign on a fantasy and than fuck people over with a smile after you are elected.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Well said.

I agree...

K&R

The sooner we come to grips with reality, the sooner we can have some sort of effect upon it.

[Horse with no Name]

3. He was NOT honest...from the start

He should have ran as an Independent. He was NEVER a Democrat. He wanted bipartisanship wayyyy too much. He should have made history by creating a legitimate third party.
That would have been a much wonderful legacy than he will actually end up with.

[notesdev]

4. He's a Democrat?

In name, maybe, but in his heart he is a true-blue corporatist.

The ONLY people getting everything they want are industry insiders. Everyone else gets scraps under the table (if not a kick instead).

[onenote]

18. I missed the memo -- who decided who gets to be called a Democrat?

If Obama isn't a Democrat because he's a "corporatist", then you have a bit of a problem, because every other member of the US Senate that voted for the bill must be corporatists and not Democrats and, in fact, a whole lot of people who call themselves Democrats and who you would probably label corporatists apparently aren't Democrats, which means that your Democratic party is very very very tiny.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Pragmatist? Is that what they're calling it now?

[QC]

9. Lord, how I have grown to hate that word lately.

It used to be a perfectly useful, honorable word, until it became synonymous with "unprincipled sellout."

[NashVegas]

6. Who Is This "We," Kimosabe?

This morning I went back and searched GD: P for some of the things I had to say in January 2008 and if I'm not starting threads about Obama right now, or engaging in hyperbole or other dramas, it's because I pretty much called it right from the get-go re: Obama and Reagan-as-dog-whistle.

The biggest thing I had wrong was how many Dems would be completely hoodwinked, and how many wanted to be "inside" so badly that they'd play along and dump on anyone who tried to point out what was really going on.

[kentuck]

8. Obviously not you.

So?

[NashVegas]

10. So

I think you were about one of maybe five DUers who were even remotely capable of having a reasoned disagreement at that time. I'm glad to see you still here, but frankly I don't think you owe the party or its POTUS any water-carrying at this point. Because really, it's not about Barack Obama or Democrats: it's about US.

[kentuck]

13. The reality is:

We got Barack Obama or we get another neo-con Republican. You can argue there is no difference. But we have fought and we continue to fight for the progressive agenda. We lost this battle. We do not give up.

[mzmolly]

7. I always knew he was moderate.

:hi:

[Bluebear]

11. "Pragmatist" - that word certainly has taken on a different implication for me.

[AllentownJake]

15. 1984 speak for liar nt.

[mix]

34. The "pragmatist" label hides more than it reveals. nt

[EFerrari]

14. I can't for the life of me see what is "moderate" about handing over the American people

to the insurance industry and Big Pharma and allowing abortion to be stigmatized.

I don't see anything "pragmatic" in pretending to achieve anything in Copenhagen. Pragmatists work for observable results. The real result of that summit was to show the majority of the world that the United States makes unilateral demands of others up to and including their lives.

I don't see any "realism" in claiming that we're going to support the Karzai government despite the wishes of Afghani voters and to train an army who has no legitimate central government to be loyal to.

[Vinca]

17. I supported Obama primarily because of health care.

In my wildest dreams I never imagined this would be the outcome. I should have written in Kucinich, my first choice.

[asdjrocky]

22. You said it for me.

When Edwards dropped out, like the weasel he turned out to be, it was between Hillary and Obama, and I supported Obama because of health care. When I say I supported, that meant phone banking, door to door and tabling every single weekend.

This is not even close to what he promised. Not. Even. Close.

[laughingliberal]

19. I'm not convinced he is pragmatic or moderate

We not only didn't get the healthcare reform we wanted. We got healthcare reform we didn't want. I accept a Republican in the White House would likely have done more damage by now but that does not mean it is acceptable to support the policies we are seeing. Of course, he is better than a Republican but the degree of difference is rapidly shrinking. He not only started out governing far to the right of where he campaigned, he seems to be moving further right.

I am willing to be proven wrong, and hope with all my heart I am proven wrong, but it will only be by his future actions I will be proven wrong. I have little benefit of the doubt left to give.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Which is why I vote issues instead of party or politician.

That Obama is "not as bad" as McCain or Bush is obvious.

I'm against the HCR bill because it's a sham.

I've been against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen since their inception.

I refuse to be cowed into voting for policies I'm against.

[ddeclue]

21. Excuses excuses - it's time to look for a Dennis Kucinich to run against him in 2012.

[zipplewrath]

24. Some one better

We need a technocrat as much as anything. Someone who knows, and understands, how to use the system to accomplish the goals he can articulate. Not sure who that is, but I'm a lookin'

[zipplewrath]

23. He's not progressive at all

He is not "miles beyond" ANY republican, and in fact shares quite alot with them. Gitmo, Afghanistan, NAFTA, big Pharma amongst them. Really, one struggles to find any evidence at all of progressiveness in his actions. DOMA, DADT, and Rick Warren aren't exactly shining examples. Gitmo, torture, and prosecutions? Bailouts? Where's the progressiveness AT ALL? It's not that he is not as progressive as we would have liked, or that we didn't get everything we wanted. He isn't progressive AT ALL. He TALKS a good game and gives great SOUNDING speeches, but his ACTIONS are virtually completely devoid of ANY progressiveness.

And I would dispute he took a "step forward" with HCR at all. It is health insurance reform and health insurance reform that only the health insurance industry could dream up (and that's because they did dream it up).

[DerekG]

25. I'm sure Ted Bundy was a better conversationalist than Manson

But frankly, I wouldn't have cared to invite either over for dinner.

[freddie mertz]

26. Problem is, we can't trust Obama anymore, and he's made his contempt for us clear.

I don't see how I can ever "rally" behind him again, after he lied to me about HCR this summer.

[Mari333]

27. hahaha You just said "EAT SHIT AND LIKE IT"

[MilesColtrane]

28. Until we separate Congress from the corporate teat we'll continue to get shit.

Publicly funded campaigns, a ban on lobbyists, instant run off voting, and hand counted ballots would all help.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Yup. The screaming whines from some quarters don't allow for...

the simple fact that this is a huge country and cannot be turned on a dime.

Obama is not LBJ and doesn't have the talent for arm-twisting to get things done. And he is hated passionately by half of Congress, which makes the job even tougher. (Ask Clinton about that...)

But, he is managing to slowly turn us away from the dark years of Bush. He is reversing the past mistakes on the environment, criminal justice, the economy and foreign relations. Not fast enough? No, it's never fast enough when people are in trouble, but last January we saw massive unemployment, a major recession, bank failures, two industrial giants in bankruptcy, two wars, health care in a mess, and a new President with all that and more on his plate being dared to solve it all in almost no time.

It's easy to have all the answers when you are sitting at home with no responsibility for the outcome.

[bvar22]

36. "doesn't have the talent for arm-twisting to get things done"

Go ask the members of the Progressive Caucus who voted against Obama's More Money for War supplemental appropriation.

The Obama Administration is skilled at arm twisting, and won't hesitate to use it to get what they want.
The operative phrase is to get what they want.

[get the red out]

30. Your mistake is speaking rationally

People are not into that. I agree with you though.

[hfojvt]

31. Somerby advises us to 'get over yourselves'

"On balance, we agree with Krugman’s views on the bill, although we do so as frustrated non-experts. But we’d offer a different “message to ‘progressives.’ ” Just get over your goddamned selves, our own helpful message would start.

We’d advise “progressives” to stop wasting time on caterwauling about Lieberman. After all, forty other senators stand behind him, supporting the very same filibuster, including relatively non-crazy people with names like Collins, Snowe, Voinovich, Lugar, Hutchison, Alexander. (Have you ever heard anyone criticize, challenge or question Lugar for his stance on these matters? Why not?) These people were elected with Republican votes, just the way Vile Lieberman was. And guess what, progressives? People elected with Republican votes may not be inclined to vote your way! They represent voters who don’t (yet) see the world the way you do.

The traditional remedy for such situations has always been this: Go work in the vineyards. Reformers go out and spread the word; within our system, reformers help voters develop frameworks of understanding which will produce loud demand for reform. This week, we pseudo-progressives have shrieked and wailed about the perfidious Lieberman’s conduct—embellishing a bit as we go. But when have we ever done the hard serious work required for better outcomes?"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121809.shtml

However, instead of persuasive messages and information, what I seem to see here, are declarations of hatred and disgust, not only towards Obama, Reid and Pelosi but also towards any kool-aid drinker who would support or defend them. It seems many are convinced we need to give up, either quit voting or start helping Republicans to win. And why not, since there is no meaningful difference anyway?

We are helping our readers here to develop SOME large frameworks, our key messages
1. Democrats are liars and corporate stooges
2. there's no point voting for them, so just let the Republicans win
3. we are all doomed anyway - broke, unemployed (did you know the real unemployment rate is 99.44%? Probably not, you ignorant rube.) about to be killed by global warming, peak oil and economic armageddon.

Isn't it fun to be a progressive?

[xiamiam]

32. sorry Kentuck..I'm not accepting any of this..i may have to live with it

but i am deeply opposed to the escalation of afghanistan while america is withering..no one is held accountable for wall street fiasco, war crimes, war profiteering, etc etc ..ad nauseum
interesting thing to note:..christmas party rounds here in northern cal this weekend has everyone on the same page...he lost us..he'll never get us back...

[mix]

33. A "pragmatist"?

What is your evidence of this?

[deutsey]

35. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at all...

Obama's pretty much pushing forward the "pragmatic" agenda that I suspected he would. During the campaign, I couldn't see how someone who surrounded himself with Wall Street types and militarists could do otherwise.

While I had hoped he would be a little more of an advocate for working people, this "moderate" "pragmatism" is what I saw him doing as president.

As a progressive who no longer belongs to the Democratic Party (I haven't since 2004), I do agree with you that having him in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress is preferrable to GOP control.

Still, I'd love to see a Party that truly works for the interests of poor and working people first over corporate interests. Maybe one day...