Because I Am a Life-Long Democrat, I Will Support a Primary Challenge to Obama from the Left in 2012

[David Zephyr]

For the very reason that the Democratic Party is important to me, I am now hoping that a credible candidate from the Left will enter the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries in 2012. I like President Obama and he's certainly better than George W. Bush, but that's not good enough for me. I expect Democrats to keep their word. He has lost my admiration, and worse, my trust.

President Obama misled the public during his campaign and his first months in office with regards to his intentions for a public option in health-care. He foolishly now denies that he ever campaigned on this or promised this, inspite of the evidence to the contrary. He also went back on his promise to permit the re-importation of meds from Canada. He has gone 180° from mocking insurance mandates to now championing that Americans must purchase corporate health-care.

President Obama is taking this nation deeper and deeper into foreign wars and military excursions overseas. His authorized missile strike in Yemen that has reportedly killed children and civilians has set off a new round of retaliation by Al-Qua-eda from Yemen. America is not the police of the world. We are now escalating the war in Afghanistan, propping up a corrupt government there, cutting deals with the Taliban and getting deeper and deeper into war in Pakistan. How much more blood and treasure will the next three years bring?

President Obama, like President Bush before him, bailed out the banks and Wall Street, but let his first year pass without any serious addressing the need to create new jobs here domestically or to force the banks to lend to homeowners who are losing their homes every single minute around the country. These are not the priorities that one would have expected from a Democratic President.

As a gay man, I resent being lied to about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and ENDA. I particularly find his use of the Justice Department to fight to overturn lower court rulings against a lesbian couple who'd won domestic partnership rights for Federal employees. President Obama could have stopped the wholesale discharges against GLBT soldiers and Marines while the policy was being changed, but nothing has happened.

And now, President Obama is creating a "commission" to look at reigning in the federal budget which means social security and medicare since his wars are not even in the budgets (which, by the way was another campaign promise he has broken: including the costs of the wars into the budget).

Democracy is a good thing. The primary process is a healthy thing for our Party.

Here's hoping that someone from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will begin to look at Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012. It's not that far away.

Because I am a good Democrat, I want my Party to do better. Debate is a good thing. Competition is a good thing.

And last time I checked, the primary process is a public option.

[H2O Man]

1. I think that it

is very unlikely that Barack Obama will face any primary challenges in 2012.

[KoKo]

194. I think it's likely that there will be...but then we can agree to disagree..

It makes it all very interesting, doesn't it? :shrug: If Obama doesn't revise his Cabinet and Advisers then he might actually find some challenger. Will that Challenger be successful. Probably Not...but is it worth it to try? YES! if the "Change We Can Believe In" doesn't seem to be moving forward.

[H2O Man]

307. Certainly, other people's opinion

is just as valid as my own. We are all speculating, though we are probably looking at the history of the past 50 years and applying some of its lessons.

It is definitely possible that, if things continue along an ugly path in Afghanistan/Pakistan/etc, that an anti-war candidate will challenge President Obama. It would probably be a "fringe" candidate, accepting the role of a symbolic run. The average democratic politician in DC, no matter what he or she says publicly, knows that the machine will not allow for the US to end its military occupation of the Middle East. It would take a major shift in the public consciousness -- including our lifestyles -- to accomplish that goal. We are not even close to being ready for that.

Second, the economy could continue to crash. In fact, it will: the only question is to what extent the middle class will be crushed. That could lead to a moderate candidate challenging a weakened president. History suggests that would lead to a conservative republican victory in November.

The left-wing of our party has good reason to feel angry and betrayed by Obama. That would mean that many would be likely to invest in making a symbolic statement by supporting a challenge from the left in the primary season. My comments are not intended to attempt to sway anyone's position, in regards to if they would or would not support such a candidate. I can fully understand and appreciate people taking either position.

[butterfly77]

360. If the challenger won...

no one still would be satisfied. Some would probably be begging to have Obama back...

[bkozumplik]

372. how do you know another person would be worse

My support was his to lose. I am a life long democrat as well, and Obama does not act like a real democrat, in many many instances. Don't go by what he *says*, as he's a very good speaker. Go by what he does.

I think claiming any other person besides Obama would be even worse is breathtakingly cynical. If Obama is the best we can possibly hopeful, we are screwed, and might as well stop caring about our own rule, and stop posting here at all.

[butterfly77]

380. Here we go again..

someone else changing my words and their meaning. If I wanted to say no one else could be better than Obama then I would have. As for being satisfied we would still hear complaints no matter who it would be you don't know what a real democrat is...

[bkozumplik]

394. so your point is that the net roots will never be happy

Thats not a very valuable point. Why bother to do anything because the net roots will always have a gripe.

I think the criticisms of our current leadership go well beyond ambient gripe. This is often an oblique Obama bot tactic to avoid discussing the real issues around Obama. "Why discuss, the net roots will never be happy, they are screaming children who want ponies", I think the meme goes. Smells like cowardice to me, or maybe a subtle acknowledgment that there's little to no defense for a lot of the stuff thats happened in the last year in our leadership's choices?
Or maybe I'm wrong about what you are getting at. You had a runon sentence there. Do you have more to add? You leave me guessing here.

[chimpymustgo]

456. "Smells like cowardice to me, or maybe a subtle acknowledgment that there's little to no defense for

"...a lot of the stuff that's happened in the last year in our leadership's choices."

Sad, but true. There is no defense, but to kick up sand.

[onpatrol98]

395. Agreed

I agree...I do not believe there will be a primary challenger. It would only weaken the democratic party and cause even more animosity within the party than the last election. Not to mention, I believe the reason he pulled Hillary Clinton into his administration was to diminish the possibility of a strong primary challenge. A primary challenge would only guarantee that a weak republican party would find a way to sneak back into the White House. I'm not very impressed with President Obama at the moment, but I still remember Bush. Although some of his policies look similar on some issues...he's still different...When we get closer to the midterm elections, democratic politicians will pretend to care about our issues again. At least, long enough to get re-elected. I think that's our only chance to get some things done. There will be narrow window of desperation on their part. If we become cheap dates though, we can hang it up.

[JDPriestly]

411. Actually, I think most of us who are so unhappy with Obama would

are very pleased on the few occasions when he does something positive.

We had so much hope. Now we are hopeless.

It's just so deeply disappointing to see him making so many mistakes. I actually support Obama's actions in Afghanistan. I question taking on more than a role of support of the current government in Yemen. We cannot fight in every single undeveloped country in the world. We are frankly too broke to pay for the wars we are already in.

Look, one of my best friends, an Obama supporter, and her husband built a business that was really doing well. They worked on it together for close to thirty years starting from nothing, remaining flexible and creative. They were really loyal and good to their employees. In the end, they were making a lot of money. Around 2007 or so, their business began to decline. They worked very hard to keep it going and did everything to keep their employees with whom they had personal relationships. Eventually, of course, they borrowed against their very valuable house to keep their business going. Now, they are facing not just the loss of their home of many years but also bankruptcy. My friend's husband is despondent. The whole family is just so sad. I fear for my friend's health.

I know that Obama inherited this bad economy. But I also see that he and the Congress are doing nothing to turn the economy around fast enough for my friend. My friend is in her late 50s. Starting over will be very, very difficult. I feel just sick for her because I know how hard she and her husband worked. As long as Obama sticks with helping-the-banks-and-the-stock-market-and- forgetting-Main-Street approach to the economy, I have to question his policies.

My friend is just one of many, many Americans who supported Obama but who are not being supported by Obama now when they need support. I think that Democrats will take a beating in the mid-terms and that Obama will have to defend his sorry record against a strong challenger in 2012. Let the best Democrat win.

[David Zephyr]

440. The personal story you related to us, JDPriestly, is one I see here, too.

I know people who have worked their entire lives, played by all the rules, who were patriotic Americans, raised their kids well and have been slapped in their faces with being screwed out of their homes, their retirement, their income all because of unfettered greed.

Obama should have focused on the people before the banks, on creating new jobs before bailing out Wall Street, on bringing our troops home instead of inserting us into Pakistan and now Yemen, too.

Obama should have surround himself with liberal women and men in his Cabinet.

One only need to look at those that have his ear to understand how he pissed away a year that could have accomplished so much.

I have no anger at Obama. I like him. But either he is too green for his job or worse, he isn't green at all, but is exactly the man we are beginning to see.

We don't elect kings in America. We overthrew them. Obama will have his four years and then he will have to face the people again. Sadly, a lot of Democrats in Congress will suffer in November because of his great failure to work for the people in 2009.

[JDPriestly]

449. David Zephyr, I pretty much agree with you.

I like Obama as a person, and I still hope very much that he will wise up and change course so that he can succeed. But he has made mistake after mistake. It's just pitiful. Very sad.

[ChiciB1]

370. For So Many Months Now I Keep Thinking Of Rome... I Can't Stop Because

I recall what happened to them! But there are also other countries who went to ruin in a like minded fashion.

So I keep wondering, is this what America is doing? Too pessimistic? I really don't know. But there is something I do know, I know what I'm feeling and the feeling isn't good and most certainly NOT HOPEFUL, and I don't see CHANGE!!

[JDPriestly]

412. ChiciB1, I too have been thinking of Rome.

We are making the same mistakes the Romans did. It's amazing how history repeats itself.

[ChiciB1]

433. Has The Ball Been Kicked Too Far Down The Road To STOP Repeating

the same history? We are getting close to the edge, I fear! Time is slip-sliding away, but some simply say I'm "chicken little" saying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" when perhaps we might want to look up and see if it really is!!

We are spreading ourselves very, very thin, and neglecting our very own country! Got get back HERE and take care of business or we won't have anything left to take care of! I don't know what many of you hear from your friends and families, but I know quite a few who are feeling very unsettled about what they are seeing!

Is it just a trembling now, or real rumbling? I'm just saying it's time to really PAY ATTENTION and not just let it happen! Then I have to say I DON'T know how or what to do to get the ball rolling! Movements start somewhere, but we need a leader to begin!

[Bette Noir]

333. Splinter parties, even if they have no chance of winning,

pull the major parties in their direction. Both Dems and Repubs were a lot more leftist when there was a visible Peace and Freedom party. Now, the Teabaggers are towing both major parties to the right, which we don't need.

Best case scenario-- a popular movement on the Left, the candidate of which pulls out and endorses the Democrat after the Democrat adopts all the stances of the leftist challenger.

[ChiciB1]

382. WE MUST FIND THAT CANDIDATE! Where Do We Start? We Really Must

start now! But then I I have to stop and think... our voices aren't heard, and THEY probably won't let another one on the scene!

There have been many comments made about how Obama was "groomed" to be the nominee, but I was never sure. Even if he was groomed, it didn't mean he could get elected, that was what I THOUGHT!

I'm now much more cynical than I have ever ever been, and now I think I CAN believe he was "groomed" and it's such a sinking feeling. They are trying to STOP our voices, THEY are trying to ROB us of our country and our so called Democracy!

Where shall we go, what shall we do? He IS NOT the person I thought I was voting for, and I won't be fooled again!

[The Hope Mobile]

396. How about Dean? Dean/Wes Clark.

These two seem to be some of the only ones left with integrity. Cabinet should include Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer, maybe Grayson. These people have all long held progressive positions and are known for it. (of course, I'd want Gore to get involved in it environmentally but that may just be wishful thinking).

Dean's got to be fed up with the shenanigans in DC. I still can't get over how Rahm treated him. This would give him the opportunity to turn things around. He knows how to run an awesome campaign in 50 states (I know- I worked for the DNC), he has integrity, he's right on health care and would do something immediately not wait until the next term to get started) and he's been vocal about it so people KNOW that he knows and would actually DO it, Clark would be great for the military experience/foreign relations.

I'd like to see these guys run together as Dems or even Green party. I don't care about the gender or race of our next president at all because obviously that doesn't necessarily mean they are going look out for the best interests of the people as most of us hoped Obama would. I'm thoroughly disgusted by this presidency and I agree that we need to find good, credible, progressive candidates.

[jonathan_seer]

403. The uniformity of Support Obama posts is a great example of team Axelrod in action to

try and smother and shut down the building anger on the Progressive side of things.

Individual posters with their own individual POVs don't harmonize in tone, word usage, choice of sound bites, size of post Etc.

Posters working as a "team" do.

Watching it work here is interesting.

If anything it shows that Axelrod Etc. his feelings toward the left side is filled with chutzpa.

The political minders on team Obama" see themselves as parents for that reason.

Their job is to listen and debate just enough to keep the unruly bratty progressive types in control, just as some parents dealing with hyper kids will have discussions/arguments with the child that don't require actually listening and minimal emotional investment. They do this to avoid being manipulated by said child.

By sticking to a "figurative" parent talk script they can engage the child sufficiently to forestall real problems, and do so without doing much thinking.

That is a great modus operandi for parents and unruly children.

It risks failure in politics in the long run. The failure can be seen in the chaos among Republicans. The teabaggers as irrational and insane as they may be, got tired of being shushed by the Republican establisment, and are now threatening to tear it apart.

Progressives are the flip side of that and want far more good than they are getting. Progressives have received almost nothing except vacuous platitudes in regards to their healthcare demands. That and the blatant nature of the "corporate big win" has made Progressives poor targets for this type of social management. Progressives are quickly getting tired of being told to "shush, be quiet, sit down Daddy has work to do" routine by team Axelrod and Rahm.

The complaints are not over superficial disagreements. They are deep and profound. Pretending the progressives will get over it is a fantasy. They won't. Even if this issue does fade, the scar will remain.

Thus this strategy of dispatching discussion parents from Team Axelrod to manage lists here is not very smart.

It's alienating like any attempt to treat a rational, upset adult like a child, because he does not, she does not accept the party line verbatim.

It makes the mistaken notion that Obama is just a liberal Bush seem all too true.

In terms of health care he is, but for when it comes to food safety, import standards, drug safety Obama has gone far in reversing the unregulated dangerous non-regulatory state Government has collapsed to under Bush.

He's enforcing environmental laws, after 8 years of neglect. Civil rights are once again the focus of the Civil Rights agency.

He's dramatically increased funding for education, by removing the lenders who made billions lending government money to students.

All in all these things would be "getting my money's worth" from him.

Personally I wish he had just dropped the health care issue once he saw the corporations had the winning hand.

Some issues need to fester and grow to a certain size in order to make the whole of society join together to fix it. Until then nothing can be done, and anything done prior to that only will make the problem worse.

Some issues do actually require mass action, but it's been decades and a generation since we as a nation had the will, the awareness or the leaders that could make that happen. Because it has to spring up new, it's taking a lot longer for certain issues. It will though.

His big failures to date I think are his belief that he can do "it" on a certain issue, when the truth is he cannot.

Some enemies are just so entrenched, taking them on is best left for later in an administration when your power is established and the government isn't riddled with Bush holdovers.

That's how Bush did it. The stink from rot he instilled in the Government and society only became noticeable by the general public near the end of his term. If thing had gone to plan, the breakdown would have happened after 1/21/09 not before.

Obama needs to slow down, and take the time to do things right. The urgency is false. People die every day from this sad issue. To suddenly declare it intolerable after the nation has barely acknowledged it existed, to use it as a motivation is foolhardy and as we are now seeing a means that defeats the original goal completely.
I haven't lost faith in his management of the financial system, but until people are marching in the streets demanding justice for the financial market's deep corruption

[The Hope Mobile]

405. Totally disagree but welcome to DU.

I agree with the part about Team Obama posts being infuriating and destined to leave scars but other than that, your post actually seems like a Team Obama post. Its clear Obama knows what he is doing and that it is critical that he changes course immediately. Its not that he's going to fast, its that his goals are wrong headed and counter to the needs of the people of this country. The urgency is real and well founded.

[JDPriestly]

415. Dean, Clark, Kucinich, all of the above

Dean is a good choice because he was successful as a governor. One of Obama's problems is that he never really lead much of anything before becoming president.

I think we should ask Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Boxer, Grayson and other progressive Democrats to get together and decide amongst them which one should be the candidate. Which one has 1) the charisma and political appeal to win, 2) the health and strength to stay with the fight, 3) the "clean" background (no affairs, no backroom deals) -- the integrity to withstand the press scrutiny, 4) the emotional strength to take the beating that will come, 4) the organizational ability to get a movement together, 5) a good relationship with the press and 6) the will to win.

There are some other factors that DUers may think of that the candidate should have. We have no shortage of good potential candidates. We need to get one to get out in front now and keep repeating and repeating a solid message about how our country needs to work together to solve our problems. It's a simple message really. It's about giving each other a hand up. Americans only hear about divisions. We are constantly being reminded that Wall Street cares only about Wall Street. We see from our monthly statements that banks care only about bankers. We are left with the strong feeling that we don't matter, that nobody cares about us. Progressives do care about other people. That's what makes us progressive.

We thought that Obama cared. But his decisions suggest that while he cares on a personal level, he does not care enough to help ordinary people. Obama is immensely likable, personal, but the caring seems to stop when Wall Street calls. I think it is lack of leadership experience and not bad will. Obama turns to others for help in making decisions. That's great except that he mostly only listens to the advice coming from Wall Street. Unfortunately, Wall Street does not give good advice.

[ChiciB1]

424. All Are Good Choices, But Time Is Slipping By! Real Organization Must

start now! If we DO begin, or can get SOMEONE to start organizing, then perhaps it could make the administration stop ignoring us. I don't see ANY of the above mentioned people "wanting" to take this on, and I sincerely believe we can't wait very long!

I'm ready to HELP, but I haven't a clue as to how one could go about this. To me, Dean has actually taken a step forward after trying very hard to go along with HCR, UNTIL he could no longer do it! I DO believe he wanted to support Obama, but not only have they ignored "the base" they attacked Dean too!

I feel they will pull out all the stops to prevent us from proffering an alternative to Obama! But right now I WANT to get started and support SOME ONE ELSE!

And for me to say I'm sorry for this is ludicrous! I NEVER wanted to feel this way, I wanted Obama to succeed, but instead I'm feeling like they want me to GO AWAY! Treating us this way is simply NOT CORRECT and could be a dangerous move by them! I don't understand why they can't see that so many of us feel VERY VERY strongly about what we are saying, and their dismissal is a slap in our faces!!

[JDPriestly]

430. I agree with you.

I tried to contact the Democracy for America site, but it seems that there isn't much going on there, at least in my area. Any ideas on how to contact Howard Dean or his brother?

[ChiciB1]

435. Well, My Area Isn't A Place That One Could Even Begin Anything!!

If I'm frustrated on a National level, I've been frustrated on a state & local level a LOT LONGER! There's NOTHING here! It's so Red and has been that way... since forever!! REALLY!

Perhaps Dean is wrapped up with HCR now, but I know there have been petitions from him, that's about all! I don't think Dean wants it again, but his input would be a start!

There must be people here who have contacts, I see it all the time about other issues. People actually have one on one contacts with public officials in D.C., I know I don't! My local Democratic Party thinks I'm some sort of "leftie" so it's difficult to get anything going.

[JDPriestly]

451. I'm sorry to hear that it is so difficult to get sane responses to your

ideas where you live. People are so misinformed, so inadequately informed.

[H2O Man]

455. Of those three,

I suspect that only DK would even consider making a symbolic run. Because a sitting president can avoid primary debates, such a run would be further marginalized.

I'm not advocating that anyone be satisfied with Obama. I'm not. Not even close. But I believe that two important factors come into play: that of his leadership style, and also the lack of power that he has. He is not good at "systems." He is a charismatic leader. All charismatic leaders depend upon top aides to work the system. His top aides are part of the problem.

Further, even if his aides were good, he is dealing with a Congress that is not looking to make progressive changes. They benefit from the corrupt system. Their family and friends benefit from the corruption. They are puppets for the machine's actual leadership, found in the Pentagon and on Wall Street.

For Obama to make progressive change, it would require the grass roots to apply maximum pressure. That involves finding the weakest links, and applying the pressure nedded to break them. I think that is the area we should be concentrating on.

However, I do not intend anything I say to restrict anyone else's ideas. I prefer to lay as many options on the table as possible. I trust people to think for themselves, and to make the best choice for their needs.

[polpilot]

432. Obama will have the backing of the health ins. cos. & the war makers.

He's unbeatable.

[liquid diamond]

278. And if he did it would be an utter waste of time

and self-inflicted wound.

[H2O Man]

308. I could understand why

an anti-war candidate would consider making a symbolic run. I don't consider that a waste of time. But it could definitely inflict a wound, both on that person, and on the party.

[JDPriestly]

419. Look, our party already has a deep wound.

Running a truly progressive and attractive candidate, someone like Dean who has served as governor of a state and has proved his ability to lead, might be like lancing that wound. There are a lot of Democrats who support Democrats because they aren't Republicans who are, deep in their hearts, truly progressive. They vote Democratic regularly and wish that things could be better. We all thought we were getting a progressive when we voted for Obama. It has become painfully obvious that we did not. It's time to lance our wound, take the pain and get a candidate out there who can test the willingness of Democrats to vote for a true Progressive.

Considering that Obama has done nothing about the torture other than claim to have ended it, caved in to Wall Street's every demand, deformed health care reform and done very little to help ordinary Americans, a challenger would probably do very, very well.

Of course, Obama could still surprise us. I think that if he could just summon a little true progressive energy and surprise us with some radical environmental reform, we could be persuaded to put up with a lot of his pathetic results. But, that is about the only chance he has left to avoid a very strong challenge in 2012 and the loss of the majority in the Senate in 2010 plus many seats in the House.

[katkat]

315. delete n/t

[bkozumplik]

381. fine, but its Our own party inflicting said wound

Let's not be trying to randomly assign responsibility for our leaders' actions which have caused splits in the party. These were their decisions; they are the new 'deciders'.
It wouldn't have been so hard to do the right thing, time and time again--but they chose not to. They chose corruption and cowardice. They chose realpolitik over vision, caring, over any semblence of idealism. They also chose bipartisanship with both feet, the simpleton fools. They chose something like beer summits with the people they needed to defeat. And now their re-election chances are in doubt?
boo frickin hoo.

We need to put real dems in charge of our party. Our party in its current form is not what it used to be, and I dont like what its become. And I wont be a part of continuing to let it change in the direction its going. If we lose our selves and what our party stands for, its worse than losing an election.

[pundaint]

391. Our own party. What is it that makes you a Democrat? For me it's a general principle

that government exists for the sole purpose of enhancing the lives of the people governed. Is there anything else that you would like to include?

OK, now, how well are our current batch of incumbents forwarding those principles? What evidence have you that they are even trying as hard on our behalf as those committed to opposing views?

If I'm wrong about the goal of the Democratic Party, the blame is on me for joining. If I'm right, our incumbents, for the most part, are not worthy of our support.

[salguine]

280. I don't know...Obama's fucking up a shockingly high percentage of everything

he touches. When he can be bothered to touch anything. It seems like about 80% of the time with him, it's either complete inaction or whatever Bush was doing. And this is only after a year. I sure as hell hope there's a primary challenge. At this point, if they put up a barrel of vanilla pudding against Obama in the primaries, I'd vote for the pudding.

Has there ever been a case of an incumbent president losing the re-nomination to a challenger from within his own party? Does anyone know?

[H2O Man]

309. The two examples

that are of most value -- at least in my opinion -- would be 1968 and 1980.

LBJ went from winning a landslide in '64, and looking like he could win in '68, to being a weak and vulnerable politician in the final months of 1967. McCarthy challenged him in the primaries, and was considered a symbolic anti-war candidate. In New Hampshire, McCarthy came very close in the popular vote, and actually won more delegates. (History is too often recorded inaccurately, with either McCarthy "winning" or "losing," when in fact he did both.)

LBJ knew he would face a stronger challenge when RFK entered the race. So, he withdrew,

In 1980, Carter had become a divisive figure in the party. He had split the liberal wing from his base of support -- something that had begun when he was the party's candidate in '76. He had refused to reach out to the "Kennedy democrats," and more, ignored their attempts to reach out to him. And, of course, Teddy ran against him in the primaries.

In both cases, a republican ticket benefitted from the divide in the democratic party. We ended up with Nixon and Reagan. I do not say this as an attempt to encourage people here to "get in line" with a president they do not believe in.

[BlueMTexpat]

335. I remember both of those election years well.

And the disastrous political results. This is why I personally will not vote for a primary challenger to President Obama in 2012.
Whether I am happy with him all the time or not (and I am NOT happy with him all the time, believe me), I know from very long and sad experience that I will be much happier with him for four more years than with ANY candidate that the Republicans nominate. They will pull no punches in 2012, believe me, and we will need to be wholly unified to withstand them.
I will, however, be most happy to vote for and send financial support and encouragement to progressive candidates generally and especially to support progressive primary candidates who are challenging incumbent DINOs and DLC-types in both 2010 and 2012 so as to send more progressives to Congress. This is why the DSCC and DCCC will receive absolutely NOTHING from me. All they want is to maintain the status quo, without regard to whether an incumbent actually supports Democratic, i.e., progressive, principles. I will send to progressive candidates personally or to progressive organizations that support progressive candidates.
With more progressives actually IN the Senate and the House, Obama will be able to become more progressive politically himself and we could see a whole new political age dawn even under a second Obama Administration.

*********
Remember the old adage about the baby and the bath water: Obama is the "baby" ... the DINOS and DLC-types are the "bath water." Let's change the bath water!

[quakerboy]

342. I would differ

At this point Obama is the bathwater. The baby is democratic control of the country. Or perhaps more accurately, just blocking republican control of the country.

And the problem is that I think we are likely to lose progressives in the next few elections, rather than gaining. Though hopefully we will mainly lose Blue Dogs that have screwed themselves.

[ChiciB1]

384. Sorry, I Didn't See That You Made The Same Comment I Just Made About

Obama being the "bath water!" I didn't read it until after I posted and yours was right next to mine!

You beat me to the punch! I obviously agree with you!

[BlueMTexpat]

427. We'll have to agree respectfully to disagree on this point.

I do not want to relive anything like the years from 2001 to 2008 ever again. Ever. If you really can't see the positive differences between then and now in so many ways, both at home and abroad, even with the disappointments (many of which I share), then you are unlikely ever to be impressed with whoever ever becomes President of the US, no matter how progressive his/her credentials may be before taking office.
The position requires compromise to work effectively. The group that Obama must compromise with is composed of a significant Republican minority, each one determined to defeat practically everything on his agenda (unless it is more war or will benefit Wall Street), and a fractious group of Democrats. Some of those Democrats are staunch progressives, but even the most progressive among them understands how the system works.
Bottom line, IMO: it is the system itself that is at fault. I much prefer the parliamentary system for actually getting things done, rather than what we have. But it is the system that the framers saddled us with and it will not change within my lifetime.

[quakerboy]

439. 01-08 was raw feces

And I will repeat that Obama, and any other politician you care to name, is the bathwater. The Baby is avoiding the destruction of the country, the planet, and the suffering of the people.

You are right when you say that I am unlikely to be overly impressed. I've never been huge on inherent respect for authority, and Ive never met anyone who was more than human. Which is to say flawed. I guess, I am less worried about how progressive their credentials are before taking office, and moreso with how progressive they are after.

It would be nice to relax on the laurel of "better than Bush". The problem that I see is impending doom. Better than they were is like putting a new coat of paint on a 92 Grand Am with a split brake line. Looks good, but its not enough to keep us from crashing through the next brick wall.

You say compromise is required. I say that compromise gave us 2 rounds of Bush, and seems likely to turn the great hope of a generation into the resurgence of a third bush, or at least an ideological heir. Your way is in power now, so I guess we will see whether you are right. I really hope you are, but I don't believe it for a second.

[ChiciB1]

383. You Know, I Think Obama Is The "Bath Water" Too! Splinter Or Not...

Democrats acting/being just like Repukes makes no sense to me! I had a thought the other day while washing dishes. What it comes down to in the end is that ONE PARTY gets to say they have more votes! That's about it!

They have more votes than the other side, but both sides act the same. They are beholden to the same GOD! The GOD OF MONEY!! Nothing has really changed, and I'm sorry to say that we seem to be putting a "smiley face" on the reality of lies!

When even the COS says that Democrats should IGNORE those of us who have been the "base" or rather liberal/socialist then something is TERRIBLY WRONG!

[BlueMTexpat]

434. Please see my response above.

I certainly understand how you feel. So do I.
But I have also been around long enough (as my sister-in-law remarked the other day, we will have participated in eight decades when 2010 begins ... whew!) to be a realist, even though my idealism will never change.
Even Howard Dean, one of my personal heroes, understands this.

[JDPriestly]

423. The baby and the bath water analogy does not work well for me.

The fact is that we on DU are not the only disappointed Obama voters. I talk to many, many voters who don't blog about politics. They express their discontent with Obama in different ways. Some avidly endorse a strict audit of the Fed. Many do not understand or support Obama's war efforts. Others are disgusted with his record on human rights thus far. Then there are his economic policies. He is not popular among people trying to sell their homes or losing their homes. And then there are the people who have lost their jobs or their businesses. The list of complaints is very long. Meanwhile the executives at Goldman Sachs are enjoying their bonuses.

Much of this is not Obama's fault. So, that brings us to

OBAMA'S BIGGEST MISTAKE

Trying to be nice to the Republicans.

By refusing to bring indictments against the people who engineered our economic disaster, who got us into the war in Iraq without doing their homework, who tortured prisoners in our name and who sold fraudulent mortgages -- he has brought the blame for all those bad things on himself.

If Obama wants to improve his poll numbers and regain the support of his base, he needs to review his policy of trying to appease Republicans. By letting them off the hook for the horrible things they did, he is taking the responsibility for their bad acts. In so doing, he alienates his own voters -- not just his base -- but all those quiet people out there who voted for him and want him to succeed but who are angry about the problems the Republicans caused.

Obama's unwillingness to place the blame on Republicans is his biggest political blunder. He needs to support the repeal of laws that lessened regulation on the securities and banking industries. He needs to propose revisions to the laws about the Fed. (The boards of directors of the Feds should be overseen by Congress and answer to the president.) Then he should advocate far more strongly for energy independence. But more on that in another blog post.

Obama is not receiving good advice. He needs to listen to some new people.

Obama has opened the plug on his own bath water. A few simple measures could save him before he drowns. We are not pulling the plug. Obama has no one to blame but himself for his sad record and falling polls numbers.

Lie down with dogs and you wake up with fleas. Lie down with bankers and Republicans and you wake up with low poll numbers.

[BlueMTexpat]

437. While I agree with much of what you say here,

I'm sorry that you still don't see the analogy.
The alternative (McCain/Palin or ANY Republican) would have been/will be much worse.
Of that, there is NO doubt whatsoever.

And yes, while many people who are unhappy with Obama are not DU posters and have different issues where they are unhappy with him, the polls still show that more people are happy with him and his policies than are not. It's a bit premature to talk about his "sad record" and "falling" poll numbers.

[JDPriestly]

452. Obama had tremendous support.

He is extremely likable -- just a really great guy. Unfortunately he has chosen advisors who do not serve him well. But that is his choice.

Those of us who are DU watch politics very carefully and are especially concerned about issues. The growing discontent here is a bad sign for what will happen in the country as a whole unless Obama gets some better advisers and adopts better strategies to help ordinary people.

We are like the canaries that miners (at least according to legend) carry with them to warn them when oxygen goes low. We on DU are ahead of most of the country. Remember how we became disgusted with Bush long before the rest of the country.

Well, while I never voted for Bush, I certainly did not expect him to do half of the horrible things he did. When he was first elected I was disgusted with the legal trickery that got him into office. But once he was in, I was very patient about giving him a chance to prove himself. Bush proved himself all right -- to be a scoundrel, a liar and a somewhat cruel, sadistic personality.

Obama is not cruel or sadistic. I don't think he is a scoundrel. In fact I think he is really, genuinely a wonderful person. But he follows bad advice and isn't using his common sense. It's such a shame. We here are the canaries. It is, unfortunately, just a matter of time until the rest of the country catches up with us. They aren't as attentive as we are. That is all.

Of course, McCain, Palin, Romney, etc. would be far worse. That is not the question. The question is how the Democratic Party gets Obama on the right course or alternatively fields a different candidate in 2012.

[JDPriestly]

420. Since Obama is acting more like a Republican than a Democrat,

what have we got to lose?

[newtothegame]

353. I would be SHOCKED if he faces any kind of primary challenge in 2012...

People have been unhappy with Presidents in the past, and they will be unhappy with Presidents in the future. Besides, why would we pass up another historical headline like "First African-American President to be RE-ELECTED?"

[JDPriestly]

425. This is not about race. This is about our country.

I did not vote for Obama because of his race. I voted for him because I thought he would be a good, fairly progressive, Democratic president and bring in good policies that would help Americans.

I am deeply disappointed.

[newtothegame]

426. Fair enough JD, but I suspect that many Democrats thought those same thoughts.

and based on what? 700 days in the Senate, and 130+ "present votes" during that short time, did not give me the impression he would be good or fairly progressive AT ALL. I still voted for him, but my expectations were severely tapered. I think people let their enthusiasm for "making history" override their usually reasonable expectations about politicians.

[JDPriestly]

431. Actually, I supported a more progressive candidate in the primaries.

I supported Obama because he was the choice of the party. Even so, I watched the debates carefully and read his stands on this website. He is not keeping his campaign promises -- not even trying to.

[karynnj]

446. Didn't you support Edwards?

His one term in office was more conservative that Obama's and he was one of the more conservative in his 2004 run.

[JDPriestly]

450. Edwards was conservative in 2004 and prior to that.

I carefully read the platforms of each candidate. Kucinich was the only candidate more progressive than Edwards. I chose Edwards because he was able to speak to the American people and debate more effectively. Edwards' 2008 platform was very, very progressive especially on trade, health care and the environment. In many areas, he was the first (after Kucinich) to present progressive ideas. Edwards' platform was very, very detailed. It was like jury instructions.

It is such a shame that he made the personal mistakes that he did.

[karynnj]

454. I agree that his 2008 platform was progressive

and it was also detailed. There was even at least one instance where Edwards himself was unfamiliar with the details. As far as debating, Edwards did a mediocre job debating in 2004 against Cheney. In the 2008 primaries, he was often very good, most often adequate and a few times in "deer in the headlights" region. Obama had a few weak performances in the very earliest debates, but got consistently better. By the general election he was outstanding, though not as impressive as Kerry in 2004. (Though the affection many in the media then had for Obama, more than compensated for Kerry being the better debater.)

As to being able to speak to people better, that wasn't the case in either 2004 or 2008. In both elections, there was a period where Edwards had some very positive media support, but he just could not make the case with anywhere enough people. (For the 2008 election, that period was mainly in 2005 and 2006.)

My point though is that these were not deeply held long term beliefs. They were a function of the dynamics of 2008. Hillary Clinton was completely dominating the "Centrist" Democrat position. The only place someone else could emerge from was the left - therefore he put together a "left" platform - and pushed it with the same wide blue eyed "sincerity" he had pushed his far more conservative 2004 platform, where he hit both Dean and Kerry (the frontrunners at different times) for having too progressive healthcare plans (and for Kerry, environmental plans). Now, I know he has volunteered in Central America. Given his prior shallowness (and the fact that he "worked" for one of the worst hedge funds to "learn about poverty", I suspect that this is motivated by seeing it as the way to redemption - even if he is mature enough to know that he is unlikely to ever by in national politics again. (After all, he can't get elected to a sufficiently important position and he won't be appointed. Money is not what he needs.)

Why is all this important? To me, it means I really do not know what he would do in office or what his real core values, if he has any on political issues are. Had he won the nomination, I don't know that he would have kept all his primary positions and I don't feel I really know what he would do as President.

I feel sorry for his wife and children that he so publicly destroyed his and their lives, at least for a period of time. He should have been 100% honest in his 2008 confession and especially not used Elizabeth again to try to cover up some of the uglier truths. I hate the idea that his youngest daughter will learn, in this google world, that her father denied her for two years. It is the lying and pushing people like Elizabeth to lie and the betrayal of the trust of people like you, rather than the fact that he had an affair, that takes this beyond "personal mistakes". Not to mention, a one night fling would be a "mistake", but this went far beyond that. You can also see that ONLY one he protected with his lies and evasions was himself - and at a cost to his wife, Cate, Jack and Claire(?) and his mistress, who herself is worthless, and their baby. His actions since 2007 when it first came out show that he is without honor, integrity and character.

[JDPriestly]

460. I could identify strongly with Edwards because he was from

a small town background and became wealthy due to hard work and talent, not connections.

He did not go to private schools. He was not married to the governor of a hick state.

Obviously, Edwards had a lot of personal problems. He had lost a son. His wife had a serious illness. He had also lost an election. Opinions differ as to whether he wanted to fight further in Ohio or not. That's a lot to fight with pretty much on your own. I can understand that he bought the illusion when a woman offered solace. It was a horrible mistake, but we don't know how Hillary or Obama would react or even how we would react when faced with those problems.

I find some of Obama's choices of aides and decisions in office to demonstrate questionable judgment. There is no question in my mind after watching Obama this year that he does not really have adequate experience to be president. He has been inconsistent in his policies on many domestic issues including health care. He is virtually a pawn of Wall Street in my opinion.

I am happy with Obama's handling of foreign policy. And I think he still has the opportunity to correct his mistakes. I'm hoping he will do that.

Obama had many opportunities -- opportunities to see a larger chunk of the world, to attend more sophisticated schools and to have better educated parents than Edwards. Hillary grew up in Chicago -- a big city in the home of a businessman. Again, she and Obama were decidedly middle class. Edwards' family was lower middle class and not very well educated. I still think Edwards would be a lot more sensitive to the problems of ordinary working Americans than Obama is. I am very disappointed in Obama in this respect.

[The Hope Mobile]

397. If not then we are sure to lose power again because people are very upset with Obama

and we have three years to go. Unless he miraculously changes course dramatically he is guaranteed to be a one term president.

[laughingliberal]

2. K & R nt

[cali]

3. there won't be a credible challenger to Obama in 2012.

[rhett o rick]

344. I agree. The Democratic Party will see to it. nt

[davidwparker]

346. which is too bad. this will mean that Obama looses in 2012 since he is

dead set on antagonizing his base.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OregonBlue]

5. Ain't gonna happen so don't hold your breath, we would miss you when you passed out.

[onehandle]

6. Ralph Nader awaits your call.

So does President Palin.

[inna]

107. :sigh: another idiotic and worthless comment.

where are they all coming from? :shrug:

[bobbolink]

Yup, so predictable.

[Hatchling]

226. You know with everyone I have on ignore

I get through the threads a lot faster without endangering my bloodpressure.

[salguine]

281. No kidding! My ignore list has swollen into the hundreds by now. It does make

going through the threads faster, but with so many people on the list sometimes I have to log out in order to be able to read anything on DU at all...

[onehandle]

274. I have been here for almost nine years.

Since DU was founded.

[Tesha]

109. Ah! DU Standard Reply #7! (NT)

[onehandle]

277. An oldie but a goodie.

President Palin only has five standard replies.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

And what does your remark amount to except "Yay team"?

Personally, I would never vote for Ralph Nader, because he blew the opportunity to build a progressive movement between elections. Instead, he just pops up every four years like Harold Stassen used to in the 1950s and '60s.

However, I would work hard for a progressive challenger to Obama, who has failed to do even the easy things that could have made the left feel less like total chumps for supporting him. Some of these are:

1. Placing restrictions on the financial institutions as preconditions for the bailout
2. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell (It was an executive order and could be undone by an executive order.)
3. Telling Congress that he would not sign any health care bill that didn't contain a public option open to every American

You guys are not only cheerleaders; you're cocky cheerleaders.

Let me just point you to a warning example: The Labour Party in Britain.

Tony Blair was voted in overwhelmingly because the Conservatives had made such a mess of things. He could have done wonders with a majority in Parliament (the prime minister is the leader of the party that has the majority in the House of Commons), but instead, he chose to retain most of what Margaret Thatcher had instituted, add annoying details of his own, and get his country involved in a hugely unpopular war. Then Gordon Brown presided over the economy as the Ponzi-scheme financial schemes fell through.

You know what? As bad as the Conservatives were last time, British voters appear ready to return them to power because they're so disappointed in Labour, and because David Cameron, the leader of the Conservatives at least appears reasonable. In Scotland, Labour may come in THIRD, because the Scottish National Party has a real left-leaning agenda, the kind Labour used to have.

So don't get too self-confident. People who are angry at the Democrats but don't like the Republicans either still have two options that the cheerleaders can't do a damned thing about, no matter how much they hold their breath and scream "Nader":

1. Stay home

2. Vote third party

"But that would return the Republicans to power," you say.

You mean they aren't in power now? Could have fooled me.

[David Zephyr]

133. +1

"'But that would return the Republicans to power,' you say. You mean they aren't in power now? Could have fooled me."

[TheBigotBasher]

177. It was worse than that

The first thing Blair did which neither Thatcher or Major (the first of the "Third Way politicians ala G H Bush and Clinton) could was slash lone parent benefits and scrap student grants, replacing them with loans.

Blair attacked the Tory Government for underfunding the National Health Service then not only did he reduce the rate of growth of NHS expenditure, any growth applied was given to private sector through "public private finance" which kept borrowing off the Government books but instead of paying what would now be 0.5% interest rates, NHS hospitals are paying over 20% interest rates.

He attacked the Tories on housing, but effectively killed right to buy, a pull up for working class Council Tenants and then scrapped the building of any more Council homes.

He removed house prices from the inflation index which meant that booming property prices were not taken into account on wage negotiations. Fine for those in a job, not fine for those needing a home. The London effect and not American properties is one of the key problems surrounding the collapse of the International banking system.

Laws were passed that make the Patriot Act look liberal. Writing poetry that "supports terrorism" is illegal. Thinking about it is too.

You may not photograph a policeman, a train station or anywhere else the authorities decide you can not.

Britain has the biggest surveillance State of any Nation, that includes China.


You can add much more to this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

212. Thanks for the details!

I was in England when Blair left Downing Street for the last time(June 2007), and the TV coverage showed the crowd booing him.

Many times during the lead-up to our election, I said on DU, "This country needs another FDR, but Obama is going to be another Tony Blair."

[David Zephyr]

237. The Tony Blair analogy is haunting.

I read your post earlier and this evening, after thought, I think you have found the closest reference point to Obama in Blair.

[unc70]

252. Thanks to both of you for the Blair perspective.

The comparison with Blair is rather unsettling.

Used to have a company in England. Major was "my" MP.

[clear eye]

301. So that's where the corporatists got the idea for a front from the more "liberal party"

who would dismantle the social equalizers w/o implicating them. And it worked. They're sitting pretty for the next election.

One of the most dangerous things the WH has put into the HCR bill is a provision to move control over Medicare from the elected Congress to an unelected executive branch panel. And progressives can't seem to criticize it b/c someone gave the wingnuts a meme about "death panels" regarding it. My guess is that the rw talking point came covertly from Orzag & Emmanuel, to derail expected liberal criticism. My point is that this WH has done things to start the dismantling of public Medicare that no Republican would dare to no matter how they might wish they could. All while keeping Republican hands clean. Sounds similar in kind to what Blair did to the NHS. I'm so sorry to hear about that.

And I'm sorry and disheartened to hear about the mind control legislation and removing the ability to defend oneself against police brutality (during a demonstration, for instance) by getting it on camera. It's quite a blow to find this can happen to a democracy, especially under a PM from your more left party.

Britain has never been known for its social mobility, so it's particularly sad to see that the few opportunities--buying one's Council home and going to University--have been damaged by Blair.

No matter how distressing, it's important to know that these betrayals can take root even in a country that obstensibly favors democratic socialism. It helps clarify what we're seeing from our President. Thank you for informing us.

[KoKo]

187. Thanks for your viewpoint, Lydia...interesting about Blair, isn't it...

and I've been on DU long enough to read and respect your opinions on issues...even thought I don't always "lock step" agree with you.

What you say...is always worth the read...and this one about Blair.

[lastliberalintexas]

260. Wonderful analogy

[Lorien]

266. Well put Lydia!

:applause:

[onehandle]

276. You inject a lot of assumption and complexity into the meaning of my comment.

Barely a year and people are calling for primary challenges and third party saviors.

Hilarious.

[pundaint]

388. The need is great, and it takes a while to mount a primary bid. Encouraging potential

candidates to explore the possibilities is only a prudent response to the evidence we have available. If Obama reverses directions on almost everything he's done so far, we might yet have reason to support him in '12.

[Myrina]

317. +1

:applause:

[billh58]

341. Throwing around terms

like "hater/cheerleader" add nothing to the debate, and are at best ad hominem attacks on the messenger. The very vocal 3-5% of Democrats who are calling for President Obama's replacement do NOT represent Liberal Democrats as a whole. 87% of self-described Liberal Democrats support President Obama and his policies, while 51% of ALL Americans support him:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx

Support and criticism are two very different things, and can easily co-exist as evidenced by the polls. Spewing daily vitriol, exhibiting self-righteous anger, and calling for a permanent solution to a temporary problem will not sway one single person's point-of-view. Rational debate, and calm discussion, however, just may gain converts to your cause.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

357. "Support" how?

And on what issues?

Does "support" mean "At least he's not McCain," "I haven't been paying attention but he seems like a nice guy with a sweet family," or "I've been following the news closely and I really like what he's done"?

These are not the same thing.

Also, who are the self-identified "Liberal Democrats"? Are they lifestyle liberals or economic liberals? The two attitudes may coexist in the same person, but not necessarily. For example, a yuppie who believes in abortion rights, gay rights, and legalizing marijuana may think of himself as a "Liberal Democrat," but when you look closely, you find that he thinks that unions have outlived their usefulness, that health care costs are rising because too many people have good insurance, and that anyone who can't make it on low wages should "just find another job." (That's why I dislike the term "liberal." Aside from the demonization by the right wing, it's not specific enough.)

Even taking the most generous interpretation of "liberal," losing 13% of that demographic is a dangerous sign.

Note that approval is below 50% among white voters, who are still the majority in this country. Are the high approval ratings among non-white voters still a hangover from the elation they felt on election night? ("The old white guy monopoly has been broken!") Or are voters of color seeing tangible benefits from an Obama presidency?

He's also below 50% with all voters over 50 and has a strong majority only with voters under 29. That means people who remember no presidents before Reagan, so their idea of what is possible is going to be different from that of older voters. If these voters realize that they will be forced to buy useless insurance, that approval may go way down.

I suggest that over-confident mainstream Democrats read the responses to Bob Herbert's column today.

[billh58]

392. I interpret the term

"support" as meaning 87% of Liberal Democrats, and 51% of all Americans, simply approve of President Obama's overall performance. That does not necessarily equate to "cheerleading," or slavish devotion, but rather a certain level of comfort with his agenda.

You are correct about the predominant group who view President Obama unfavorably: the main demographic where his approval ratings drop below 50% are among Republican, White, Southern, Males, over the age of 50 in the higher income brackets. That is not exactly unexpected, nor is it indicative of anything other than similar disapproval numbers from this same group prior to the election. They haven't changed their views, nor are they likely to do so.

As for the motives of, and differences between, the various brands and degrees of "Liberalism," I don't believe that anyone has ever figured that out. I do know, however, that Internet activists such as we who are represented here on DU do not closely mirror the views (or concerns) of mainstream Middle Americans -- no matter how much we wish it were so. Democrats of all stripes have historically been very adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and I expect nothing less in coming elections.

Happy New Year, and here's hoping that our collective efforts can produce a better USA.

:dem:

[ChiciB1]

386. BINGO... Just Said The Very Same Thing... It's The Flavor Of The Day

or so it seems! Too many of us are thinking Obama and Repukes are one and the same!

THAT TRULY, TRULY SAD! And it's as serious as a heart attack because I hear it others places than here!

So keep banging the drums for Obama, he said "make him do it" and when we've tried... he let Rahm tell us to got get F--ked! Did he tell Rahm NOT to do that! I think NOT!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

436. Look at the online comments for Bob Herbert's column (12/29) in the NYT

There are a lot of disappointed and angry leftists, and a lot of Republicanites sneering, "We told you so."

The most "enthusiastic" responses run along the lines of, "Well, they can always change it later."

[mitchtv]

218. couldn't you change to

"One note"?

[bowens43]

325. wow, what a ridiclous comment!!

[onehandle]

361. And calling for a primary challenge 11 months into Obama's first term isn't? nt

[disndat]

367. Was it true that deep-pocketed Repugs

supported Nader, and he knew it? Any challenger to Obama 2012 will make himself very wealthy.

[sabrina 1]

413. You're going to have to update your DLC talking points.

What you might try, is explain what difference it would make in terms of forever war, a real health care system that treats the lives of all Americans equally, not the discriminatroy corporate giveaway we are getting from Democrats, the elimination of the corporate stranglehold on the US government. Gay rights, women's rights etc.

Because that only worked BEFORE we saw what a Democratic majority would accomplish. You're behind the times with your talking points.

[ProSense]

7. "President Obama misled the public during his campaign " Bullshit

Call for his impeachment.

Your lack of understanding of how things work doesn't mean the President lied.

[freddie mertz]

17. He did in fact mislead on the public option.

Not an impeachable offense, but a political fact that he should expect to be held accountable for.

In a democracy, anyway.

[ProSense]

20. Nonsense. Utter BS. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

34. All the poutrage in the world can't change the fact that Obama lied.

So poutrage away.

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

44. We have the video, after all. nt.

[Nikki Stone1]

59. That's right. And MSNBC has it too.

:D

[freddie mertz]

63. Not to mention the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

http://yeswestillcan.org/?source=bp

Go there and sign their petition for real change.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. Thank you

Excellent idea.

[freddie mertz]

71. You are most welcome. 2012 is far away right now. Go to PCCC...

And join the CURRENT fight for real HCR.

[mmonk]

100. Thanks for reposting that.

[winyanstaz]

379. I signed...thank you for the link

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

42. Oh come on now.

You know what he promised, you posted those promises yourself, many times.

Rahm began the undermining back in the summer, and we all know that after that, the only thing that kept the PO alive, albeit temporarily, was constituent pressure in the House and Senate.

I don't think Obama ever really cared about it one way or another.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

64. ProSense needs to check this link again:

http://yeswestillcan.org/?source=bp

[ProSense]

106. I checked it. PCCC petitioned Feingold. Not only did he vote for the bill, he called it:

the most sweeping health care reform in generations.

So there's that.

[freddie mertz]

160. Did you stop to watch the video? The one where the president promises stuff?

You know, like the public option?

[Lorien]

268. Did you stomp your foot, stick out your bottom lip and fold your arms after typing that?

You always manage to avoid the facts.

[Goldstein1984]

296. Do you think that maybe all Senate Democrats are in

political damage control mode right now?

[freddie mertz]

336. I do. They are in pure defensive mode.

It is a disgrace, and at this point, i don't trust any one of them, Feingold included, to speak the unvarnished truth.

What a sad state this has come to.

[Nikki Stone1]

444. yup.

.

[amborin]

62. and the mandate!

[unc70]

69. Lying to the Public during campaign is not impeachable offense.

Well, I suppose for technical correctness I should state that an impeachable offense is anything a majority of the House says it is. Misleading the voters is a long-honored tradition with little recourse until the next election, now less than one year way.

Few Democratic candidates avoid being challenged during the primaries by members of their own parties. In both 1968 and 1980, those challenges were likely contributors to the election of Repub presidents (Nixon and Reagan).

Obama began his campaign attacking the 1960's and all those battles we kept refighting, not noting that those hard-earned gains remained under attack by Repubs since his political perspectives were being shaped by coming of age under Reagan. (At first I had thought this was a ploy by Obama, but I later was forced to conclude that his admiration for Reagan was real.) It made me angry 2-3 years ago, still see many of those gains to still be under attack.

An interesting question I have for a thread: Why was Obama the first Dem candidate for major office in forty years that the MSM did not characterize as a phoney, a wimp, a liar, willing to do anything to get elected, etc.? Why did the kinds of attacks and jokes about Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, etc. remain confined almost entirely within the RW and not go mainstream for Obama? Even during the Dem primaries, Obama was rarely a target of such claims but all our other candidates remained fair game.

[freddie mertz]

75. We'd have to impeach all of them, then, except maybe Jimmy Carter.

I'm no Obama apologist.

I just think the best way to hold him accountable is electorally, and through activism and advocacy.

[Generator]

143. Whose talking impeaching?

He's just saying voting for a fraud again makes no sense. I'm sure Obama will get his precious eight years-though lord knows why he really wants them. Yes, power corrupts absolutely. He certainly doesn't want them to make life better for working people, women or gays. He just says he does. His actions say otherwise. And his first act against them started with a Rahm.

[unc70]

163. I was replying to Prosense at #7, that's where.

You and I seem to agree on quite a bit.

Change you can believe in, not change you can get.

[KoKo]

209. Might have been a clue...Why didn't they? I first thought it was because they were sick of Chimp

but that would be giving them too much credit. Agree...it was strange how they showed all Obama's Speeches and given the stuff we were used to seeing attacking any Dem who "peeped up"...it does seem, in retrospect that Obama did get some "favorable treatment" from a "MSM" who was not prone to doing that.

Interesting...

[unc70]

259. It is more interesting when you looked at which stories never went MSM

A story raising some point about Obama would appear in a prominent publication (e.g. LA Times), and it would then disappear. Almost completely. Not in Google News, not picked up by the AP or anyone else (except possibly Newsmax), discussed maybe at TPM or somewhere non-US, and soon not showing up on web searches unless you knew where the story was printed. It was like watching coverage of Sibel Edmunds.

[bvar22]

340. Its also "interesting" that a rookie senator from Chicago...

...showed up at the Iowa Caucus with $100 Million Dollars and an Up & Running National Political Machine.

Actually, it is "interesting" that a little known State Senator from Chicago with an unambitious and ambiguous Political History was given a PRIME Speaking Spot at the 2004 Convention.

The Grooming and Marketing of Brand Obama has been going on for a long time.

[karynnj]

447. He was given the prime 2004 spot after Kerry campaigned with him in the primaries

after a Kerry fundraiser, a Chicagoan with a house on Nantucket, suggested Kerry do that. He impressed Kerry as being able to convey the tone Kerry wanted from his convention. He then did an excellent job. (Many of Obama's staffers came from Daschle's staff - so he had tremendous support for a Freshman. For a spewechwriter, he got Favreau, who worked for Kerry.

As to the money, the reason is obvious to me. By early 2007, there were only 3 people given a chance to win - none of the others who ran ever polled even 10%. In addition, once Kerry opted not to run, most of his fund raisers and strategists went to Obama - none went to Edwards. The fact is that in addition to Obama impressing people at the 2004 convention, he was the Anybody but Hillary candidate. (That terminology was always a primary concept that really did not fit in general elections). For those of who rejected HRC and thought Edwards a phony, it was Obama by process of elimination. (For that, he did not even have to be as good as he was.)

[bertman]

261. Good question, unc70. I wondered about that at the time. Seemed odd that the only thing

they tried to pin on him was the Rev. Wright schtick and the muslin charge. Oh, and the Bill Ayers thang.

But it certainly was not as virulent as with Kerry.

[unc70]

279. There were lots of things they could have used, but all stayed bottled up on the far right

At first I thought that the Repubs were sitting on Obama stories until the GE when they would suddenly introduce them over the last weeks of campaign. Since I could find the stories, then why did the Repubs not push them in the MSM? Always have in the past, with significant effect.

And during the primaries, there were all the predictable claims, attacks, and jokes against each of our other candidates. Business as usual, except for Obama. There were plenty of things that could have formed the core of a claim against Obama, but of course the RW hasn't needed any basis for many of its previous attacks.

[ShamelessHussy]

70. i guess it was all in our heads that he campaigned on bringing real change

:eyes:

i will be looking for an alternative in the primary if he continues down this corporate cronyism, and war escalation path, too.

but i still hold out hope as he is only 1/4 through his presidency, let's see what happen between now and then.

[freddie mertz]

72. We were all hearing things... like Obama's speeches...nt.

[Goldstein1984]

297. That's my approach too

He has been a disappointment during his first year.

But I'm sending every signal I can, and I hope other progressives are too.

He has three years left to undo some mistakes and get off the corporate/militarism/empire/war crimes track.

Obama's chances in 2012 are a function of only one thing: Does he meet his supporters' expectations?

As far as "the way things work" inside the Beltway?--That is the problem, not the defense.

[TheWatcher]

116. Don't you have some Charts or Propaganda to Copy/Paste somewhere?

At least you are mildly entertaining, and manage to mesmerize a few foolish people into listening to you when you are in that mode.

When you try to talk straight up, it is, well, rather embarrassing.

Get back to doing what you are paid to do.

A fish doesn't last very long out of water.

And the SMELL.....

:rofl:

[Thickasabrick]

157. +1

[Lorien]

270. Lol! Has anyone ever really been mesmerized by her DLC propaganda? nt

[Marr]

144. Were you doing that little "Jedi mind trick" hand wave when you typed that?

Because it's ridiculous.

[Lorien]

269. Ah, we understand perfectly how your friends in the DLC work

1). Lie and tell those dirty Libruls what they want to hear. Make yourself sound like a fair minded populist.

2). Ride to victory on the promise of "Change".


3). Immediately bank a hard right and scramble to maintain the unsustainable status quo. The will of the people doesn't matter, only the causes of the corporations and the wealthy elite are worth fighting for.

[JoeyT]

312. Don't forget

4) Yell at liberals to stop breaking ranks. Act outraged that they feel betrayed by your actions. Demand they vote for you no matter how much you refuse to represent them and/or insult them.

5) Lose the next election because people won't vote for someone that hates them.

6) Blame Liberals for the loss.

Repeat as necessary.

[sabrina 1]

354. And don't forget to mention

Nader and 'President Palin'.

[pundaint]

393. Isn't it time America stopped acting out of fear, and started to assert it's promise of greatness?

[sabrina 1]

410. Yes, way past time ~ I

was being sarcastic as this is the response we get to every legitimate criticism of this bill and of the Administration responsible for it.

I read an article recently about why the American people are so compliant about the abuses heaped on them by their government, and even cheering for their own abuse. It was called 'Is America Broken'. I think it probably is, like people who live in abusive environments for so long, they do not know they have a right to a better way of living and even will make excuses for their abusers.

I don't know what it will take before Americans are willing to take some action to get this country out of the hands of the Corporatists and their elected lobbyists in Congress.

But maybe it's too late already ~

[Goldstein1984]

295. A lot of people think "how things work"...

IS the problem.

Impeachment seems excessive.

I'm just writing him a letter every day letting him know that he's "losing the people."

Yes, I know there are polls that say otherwise, but every liberal I know is "disappointed." I would say I supported Obama in a poll, if only to do my part to prevent the poll from being used against him. But the 2012 primary is up in the air.

[katkat]

316. prosense

Try reasoning instead of just name calling.

Lied on:

public option
mandated purchase of insurance
tax break for low income seniors
gay rights
torture
Constitutional rights
reimportation of prescription meds

and that's without my even taking the time to look for a fuller list.

[bowens43]

326. you're right

no-one's lack of understanding means the president lied. However the fact that the president did lie does mean that he lied. If you have your head so far in the sand that you refuse to face the facts then there is no reasoning with you.

Face it , Obama is just another politician who will say what he needs to say to win elections. The man has done almost nothing that he said he would do and he has no intention of doing most of the things he promised.

We need to dump him in 2012...not likely I know, but we should.

[sabbat hunter]

8. a credible

primary challenge to a sitting president usually will doom that president in the general election. See Carter, Bush I as excellent examples.

So unless you want the democratic party splintered and to lose the general election in 2012, you would not want a primary challenge.

This is a case where competition is not necessarily a good thing.

[daa]

9. Uh the party is already splintered and will lose 2010 nt

[ProSense]

11. Ah, nonsense

[unc70]

264. The trend among Independents shows the problem first.

Party affiliation is decling in general, particularly among younger voters. We need a high percentage of those voters to elect Dems in most states.

Nice try.

[Goldstein1984]

298. Yes, the Democrats are unlikely to abandon Obama, if only due

to party loyalty.

It's the drop in support from Independents, from a start of about 40% to the most recent level of about 5%, that will cost Obama 2012.

The next three years is about getting the Independents back. Unfortunately, they are most likely principle-based voters who are going to be focusing on big issues like war, the Constitution, war crimes, and single-payer or public option.

[KoKo]

231. I hear Chuck Todd and Politico ranting about that all the time...and some on the Left, also...

But that's the MSM making their "Own Reality." It's up to us to make ours. And, to be independent of the MSM...as much as they love what they think are "Food Fights," they are not.

The Right has the "Tea Baggers," and Beck, Limbaugh and most of the Mainstream Media on their side. A little "action" from the LEFT is a good thing to try to bring folks back to honesty. (Yeah...I know...Dems have tried it before...but maybe after trying and trying we can get it to work in a positive way for once. We can't give up just because of Chuck Todd and the rest. Do THEY RULE US? Or, do we RULE OURSELVES?

[Way2go]

27. Is your preference for the most conservative D available?

Prediction: "no".

[zipplewrath]

55. Not so quick

Even Carter will tell you that he lost because of the hostage rescue failure. And Bush I generally blames his problems on 2 things, a recession and an active third party campaign. It isn't clear that a credible primary challenge is a negative for a party. The question really is whether it is a leading or lagging indication. If a credible candidacy can be generated, that fact alone may mean serious trouble for a sitting president. There is a very good chance that RFK would have won in '68. The key here of course is some variation of "credible". He can't just be the "mad voters" candidate, i.e. a Ralph Nader or something. He literally would have to be the "guy we wish we already had" candidate. And I'll be the first to say I'm not sure who that could/would be. Clark, Richardson, and maybe Dean would be the best cases and I'm not sure they're quite the right answer. Feingold might be.

[Don Caballero]

10. Sickening

How can you come on here and say something like that? Just because our President isn't fulfilling all your wishes we want him out of office? The fracturing of the party is happening way too fast. We must unite behind our President and our Democratic congresspeople.

[NJmaverick]

22. because he is not cleaning up the mess fast enough and he missed a spot

:sarcasm:

[Way2go]

23. He's talking about for 2012, not 2010. nt

[ixion]

29. It's called Freedom of Speech

get over it.

[HipChick]

36. It works both ways too..

[ixion]

40. fair enough

just thought it needed saying.

[Don Caballero]

43. We all believe in freedom of speech

but not supporting our Democratic President in 2012 is suicide for the party. Sure there are minor criticisms one can point out about our President, but we cannot survive another Republican in the White House. President Obama, though a little flawed, is the best representitive of our collective thinking.

[ixion]

54. I'm glad we both support Free Speech...

that's something we can agree on.

I disagree with your premise that Obama is a "little flawed," however. He seems to me to be very different from the person I voted for. I didn't vote for an escalation in Afghanistan and fresh invasions of Pakistan and Yemen. I, specifically, did not vote for a continuation of bogus Bush-era policies that are destroying this country. And I most certainly did not vote for a health insurance mandate.

These are not "little" issues with me. They are primary and fundamental issues, in my opinion. My vote is my "sign off" on these issues, and I simply will not give my permission by proxy to the items I mentioned above. I did not support these things when Bush was in office, and I don't support them now.

[katkat]

319. Don

Obama may represent your collective thinking but he certainly doesn't represent the collective thinking of me or the rest of my friends who worked like dogs to get him elected and now aren't sure if they'll even vote for him in 2012.

[Rockholm]

Because he can.

[Toasterlad]

51. Jawhol!

[Bluebear]

102. "fulfilling all your wishes" oh brother

[IndianaGreen]

127. We will unite the day the President and our Democratic representatives stand for the people

and not for the corporations!

[TheBigotBasher]

185. Tell me why are you directing your hate at the President

and not the Conservadem blackmailers in the Senate?

[JanMichael]

207. We must we must we must expand our...disgust! nt.

[salguine]

284. Are you fucking shitting me!? "We must unite behind our President?" How Bushian. After

this first year, I just want him gone. He's a goddamn disaster. He's blown enough opportunities and generally fucked up enough shit in the first year that I wish there were some way to recall him before 2012.

If anything's "sickening", as you say, I think it's the statement "We must unite behind our President and our Democratic congresspeople". I though blind, unquestioning support was for the Nazis and the Republicans. I'm much more inclined to say fuck him, and, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, Henry Waxman, and Robert Wexler, fuck "our Democratic congresspeople" too.

I hope your Christmas was a merry one. Happy New Year too.

[JDPriestly]

428. Salguine, would you still feel that way if Obama came up with and

managed to pass a strong bill that took us a good way on the path toward energy independence? Something really good for jobs and the environment -- like a bill strongly subsidizing the purchase of solar panels and other energy producing/saving devices by businesses and individuals provided the devices are made in the U.S. (I realize that such a bill would violate current trade laws, but let's say that Obama was willing to insist on renegotiating the trade agreements in order to pass such a bill.) How would you feel about Obama then?

I'm not suggesting that Obama is smart enough to do this, but, forgetting that, what if he did? Would you support him?

[quakerboy]

347. The difference is "all of"

Vs "any of".

[frebrd]

12. K&R! n/t

[Karmadillo]

13. K&R

nt

[freddie mertz]

14. I would be willing to support a primary opponent at this point too.

For all the reasons you mention.

A primary, like that other "public option" we were promised, may be necessary to "keep em honest."

[Echo In Light]

15. K&R

[Thickasabrick]

16. K&R

[whatchamacallit]

18. I'll decide in 2012

If the trajectory of his administration changes between now and then he will retain my support. If not...

[HipChick]

19. Unrec'd..must be the daily-bash-the-president time...yawn..

[Odin2005]

21. DRAFT DEAN!!!

[KoKo]

176. If Obama doesn't make changes in his Cabinet/Advisors...then I'd go for that!

Why Not?

[Alcibiades]

24. Ted Kennedy thought the same thing in the 1980 campaign

Though revisionist historians have claimed that Reagan's victory in 1980 was the result of inexorable world-historical forces favoring the development of a new conservative movement in the United States, it could also be argued that Carter's having to stave off a primary challenge, and the ensuing acrimony within the party, contributed to his crushing defeat.

We have the first non-southern Democrat in the White House since JFK. That's practically a miracle. When you compare what he has done to date to any Democrat in the White House since LBJ, there's no comparison, and even LBJ had Vietnam, so it's not as if even his record of progressive social legislation is untarnished.

[Hekate]

98. Teddy lived to regret that decision, too, as did the rest of us...

I say "lived" advisedly, because he's the only Kennedy brother that did, and thank God for that because he turned into one of our greatest Senators.

After Bobby was assassinated I vowed to never vote for Ted Kennedy for president, because I figured that he simply had a gigantic bullseye on his back, a target for the next insane person to aim at.

But beyond that personal feeling, it was very ill-advised of Teddy to run against Carter.

Hekate

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue-Jay]

39. Who are you, Mister T?

[mdmc]

26. All good democrats will, Sir.

For starters, this would be good for Obama. Having Kucinich explain why the Afghanistan war is wrong, the drug war is wrong, civil rights (gay rights) are good, and that medical treatment is more important then health insurance profits.

It will make Obama and the GOP look like they are pretty close on all issues (stay the course in the drug war, Afghanistan, health insurance profits over affordable medical treatment, keep gays from having equal rights). It will make Obama look less like a socialist, more of a corporatist.

And America hates commies. Love profits and corporations.

A liberal primary challenge will make Obama look more middle of the road for the sheeple.

[cali]

30. really? so anyone who supports Obama in 2012 is not a good democrat?

what a stinking pile of dogshit that claim is.

[mdmc]

53. Not at all .. Most Kucinich folk will come back to Obama

But having ideas out there will benefit Obama.

Obama supports the Afghan surge (so will the GOP).
Obama supports the drug war (so will the GOP).
Obama supports the health insurance companies and does not want them out of business (so will the GOP).
Obama will not support gay marriage (either will the GOP).
these are all issues that the sheeple seem to support. Having a dem point out that Obama is no where near a socialist will help him get the middle vote.

Plus, if we do it in the primary, we can come together afterward. I would rather do that then have some gay third party person run on a gay agenda (or anti-war, pro-pot, single payer advocate). Having a progressive third party run in the general will not be helpful to us. Lets do it within our big tent.

I live in a black inner city, so I will be carrying again for Obama. But if someone wants to put issues out there, I will help them to do so. I will carry petitions for Obama and Kucinich. I will let the Democratic Party members decide if they want to re-elect Obama or support some failure progressive.

You can be a good democrat by supporting Obama. You can be a good citizen by advocating for the change that you want to see in the world (Obama's own words). If Obama aint' the change that you want to see in the world (bank bailout, wall street bailout, auto bailout, clunker bailout, health insurance profit bailout, gay rights, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, climate, drug war) then you should really be the change that YOU want to see in the world. Someone can stand for issues that they believe in, then join the winning team after the primary is over. After all, if we don't do that, what chance would we have to be the change that we want to be in the world?

Just because you support your ideals and beliefs in the primary does not mean that you will not support and benefit Obama's re-election. Perhaps this is the most effective way to support Obama?

[salguine]

285. That is the craziest thing I think I've ever read.

[mdmc]

306. that is crazier then "Joe Leiberman would make a great running mate?

You need to read more my friend - perhaps C.Bukowski - that is some crazy stuff to read..

[sabrina 1]

416. You haven't read the Health Care bill then ~

[ProSense]

33. "Having Kucinich explain"

Yeah, that worked the first time.

[HipChick]

52. I'm still waiting for Kucinich to explain what he was directed to do by a UFO

[mdmc]

58. I thought he saw a UFO

I didn't think it was a close encounter..

[HipChick]

138. He saw a UFO and it gave him directions in his head...

His Dean scream achillies heel..

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/kucinichs_ufo_and_that_questio.html

[Starry Messenger]

156. Shirley McClaine is the source of that quote about the mental directions.

Hell of an actress but I wouldn't exactly call her an unimpeachable witness, hun. Nice try though!

[Lorien]

275. Um, that's a fragmented quote from Shirley McClaine

hardly a credible source, but you know that already.

[Kahuna]

115. That makes two of us.

:wow:

[Lorien]

273. He said that he saw an unidentified flying object. He never said that it

communicated with him, so enough with the RW talking point.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

324. Are you waiting for Jimmy Carter to do the same thing?

Jimmy Carter's UFO experience suggests SPP has possible Extraterrestrial association

Jimmy Carter was the 39th President of the United States.

President Jimmy Carter has often been referred-to as the "UFO President" due to the fact that he publicly claimed to have had a UFO sighting prior to becoming president. Moreover, he was the only president on record to actually file a UFO sighting report related to his sighting.

Thirdly, on at least one occasion while campaigning for president, Mr. Carter declared that, if elected, he would "make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and scientists." Mr. Carter apparently sought to reveal such information to the American public, having been inspired by certain American ideals of democracy.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/08/23/01714.html

[mdmc]

56. Be the change you want to see in the world

I am sorry but Obama is not the change that I want to see in the world.
I think he is a great president. I think he is the second best president of my life.
But the change that I want to see in the world is FAR MORE PROGRESSIVE then the DLC.
I will be the change that I want to see in the world. Obama encourages me to do so.
So I will.

Kucinich can stand his ground, make his case, lose the primary, and endorse Obama.
I would prefer that then just allowing Rham to say "shut up and OBEY."
But that is just me..

[TheBigotBasher]

183. Work to get rid of DLC type Senators then.

It is they that have held the Party to ransom, without consequence.

[dflprincess]

256. We need to do that

and Obama needs to get rid of the DLCers on his staff and in his cabinet.

[mdmc]

422. The DLC is still a tight noose on our party - only a primary can cut it away

I still think we will end up hung, but I would love to see the rope somewhat frayed..

[mdmc]

329. better then not having the choice out there

you know half of the citizens in this country will never vote - for good or bad..

Perhaps having more ideas out there will help the process..

[pundaint]

398. Maybe the half that never vote are waiting for someone worth their vote.

Is there a progressive populist who is not currently a politician, but has a history of proven service and the ability to inspire the masses? Bono, unfortunately, does not qualify but looking to the Arts might produce the leadership we need.

[ixion]

28. Thanks for your bravery, David

you're one of those who gives the dems a good name. :applause:

[NJmaverick]

32. nothing brave about being fair weather

[ixion]

37. it's called integrity

something you blind loyalty folks wouldn't understand.

[NJmaverick]

77. it's called a lot of things, but "integrity" isn't one of them

as for blind loyalty how is that whole "Howard Dean speaks for me" thing coming along?

[Rockholm]

31. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[bigwillq]

97. And I disagree with you.

How can anyone be a Red Sox fan?!?!?!? :P :rofl:

:hi:

[Rockholm]

215. Spoken as a "yankees" fan, no doubt?

Looking forward to a great 2010 season!

[bigwillq]

438. World Champion Fan here!!!

:P
Should be a great 2010!! :hi:

[NJmaverick]

35. When did "Yes WE can" become "Yes HE can"?

[whatchamacallit]

45. When he stopped listening to the folks who elected him

and started listening to his corporate sponsors, that's when. "We" can't do shit if "we" aren't invited to the party.

[freddie mertz]

48. Which was almost immediately.

And yes, we CAN also support a primary candidate three years from now if that is what is the cards.

We do not OWE any of our elected representatives a THING.

They are OUR "public servants."

[NJmaverick]

76. I was never any illusion that I was electing a puppet

I was expecting him to act like a leader.

[whatchamacallit]

80. I missed the "we" part in that last post. (n/t)

[NJmaverick]

87. You expected a liberal version of Bush

you expected, like George, that when you said jump Obama would ask how high.

[whatchamacallit]

89. Hmm... how to respond to that which has no meaning...

LOL! :crazy:

[NJmaverick]

91. I think you meant to say how do I reply when I am backed into a corner

[Lautremont]

363. Well we know how YOU reply in that situation.

There's no shortage of examples.

[KoKo]

178. He did say: "WE ARE THE ONES WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR."

He did say that...he did..check it on Google.

[Tailormyst]

321. You are a funny one. You bitch that "we " aren't doing enough

And in the very next breath you bitch that we are yelling to loudly for progressive ideals. Which is it? Should we shut up and stop talking about the Presidents very BAD decisions or should we stand up and fight for the issues we care about?
You cannot have it both ways, no matter how hard and fast you try and spin it.

[spanone]

38. Because I Am a Life-Long Democrat, i will support the Democratic nominee...President Obama

[KoKo]

168. Spanone...are you saying you are "Lock Step" no matter WHAT the DEM CANDIDATE DOES?

:shrug: Please tell me this isn't so....:-(

[Arkana]

186. Outside of a dead girl/live boy scenario (in which case I probably just wouldn't vote),

yeah, I'll be supporting the President because he'll be miles better than anything the GOP could offer.

[KoKo]

190. Outside of a dead girl/live boy scenario

That's pretty ...LOCKED IN...Okay.. I hear you.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

46. I don't think there will be a Democratic challenger.

We need to still concentrate on Congress and do some more house and senate cleaning out. When we get a truly progressive Congress, Obama will have to play ball. If Obama is defeated by a Republican challenger, this is even more important to keep her in line.

[onehandle]

159. I know there won't be. nt

[KoKo]

170. Actually a new "Dean for President" has been bough by a Leftie Group...

SO...WATCH OUT! They bought two old "Dean for President" sites and they are READY TO ROLL! So, don't be too sure what will happen...can happen when folks are angry enough. I hope it doesn't come to this...that Obama Shuffles his Current Banking Administration...but if he doesn't...there are FOLKS...just READY TO ROLL.

[Cleita]

221. Democrats won't back a challenger, I don't believe.

Dean would have to run on a third ticket to do so.

[tridim]

47. Obama is supported by 80%+ of Democrats.

There will be no challenger.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tridim]

67. Then you don't know what you're talking about.

Worthless. Plonk.

[Toasterlad]

73. Well-Argued.

Your irrefutable facts and faultless logic have surely undone my faulty premise. I guess I really DON'T know what I'm talking about when I describe exactly how Obama won election in 2008. You clearly are privy to the "real" history, as evidenced by the myriad factoids in your clever rebuttal.

:eyes:

[KoKo]

179. FOR NOW......for now.........n/t

[KoKo]

191. Depending on the Poll...If 80% of Dem Support him Mid-Year, Next Year...

it would be a surprise...but there will still be defectors and since we know 20% are PALIN CRAZY RW'ers..then where do the rest of us fit in that 80% that I don't think will be there...:shrug:

[bigwillq]

49. K and R

I agree with the general gist of your thread. :thumbsup:

[rudy23]

50. Even if a candidate is not likely to win, they would strengthen our negotiating position.

Right now, not having another Progressive option in 2012 gives us ZERO hand in political negotiations like HCR.

We don't have to necessarily vote for them. We just have to be serious enough to have their presence give us a strong negotiating tool.

[KoKo]

182. Good Point...because AFTER ALL THESE YEARS...if Progressive don't have alternative Candidate...then

WHO ARE THEY? WHO ARE WE? I am a PROGRESSIVE/POPULIST...and if Obama wasn't the one...then I will keep searching...until I FIND THE ONE... There are many more just like me out there. Deep Convictions and strong of will...

[KoKo]

193. ...having a presence...it's very important ...after all these years of work..

I's say it's MOST IMPORTANT! ...if Obama doesn't understand the "CHANGE" that brought him in...

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amborin]

65. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. As a lifelong Democrat I vote principles, not politicians or party.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[shadesofgray]

83. +1

[avaistheone1]

103. +1

[Bluebear]

105. +1

[LWolf]

112. Me, too.

Except I'm not a lifelong Democrat. I'm a lifelong independent who became a Democrat to protest the 2000 selection.

[liberal_at_heart]

142. fantastic quotes, +1

[uponit7771]

151. ****************THIS POST MAKES THIS THREAD DEAD***************

[WillyT]

164. Exactly !!!

:toast:

[leftstreet]

265. +1

[MessiahRp]

339. Excellent quotes... and another +1 from me. :)

:hug:

[Individualist]

352. +1

[ChiciB1]

374. I Posted Something Like That Yesterday... I FINALLY Decided That

NO MATTER WHAT, if the "anointed one" didn't fit my beliefs, I would have to vote for an alternative person. It may have to be me if there's not another!

But NO LONGER will I just vote for "the nominee" because somehow that person became the nominee! I see now that NOMINEES are mostly "hand-picked" and merchandised just like Jackson Browne said in one of his songs! They sell us our Presidents like they sell us our cars. Maybe not the exact words, but the meaning is there.

Here's another song Jackson wrote that I have always loved! Funny that he wrote it in the 80's before Iraq, after Viet Nam! Probably my favorite singer!

FOR AMERICA...
Written by and sung by Jackson Browne

As if I really didn't understand
that I was just another part of their plan
I went off looking for the promise
Believing in the Motherland
And from the comfort of a dreamer's bed
And the safety of my own head
I went on speaking of the future
While other people fought and bled
The kid I was when I first left home
Was looking for his freedom and a life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
When the truth was known.
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
It's in my blood and in my bones
By the dawn's early light
By all I know is right
We're going to reap what we've sown

As if freedom was a question of might
As if loyalty was black and white
You hear people say it all the time-
"My country wrong or right"
I want to know what that's got to do
With what it takes to find out what's true
With everyone from the President on down
Trying to keep it from you
The thing I wonder about the Dads and Moms
Who send their sons to the Vietnams
Will they really think their way of life
Has been protected as the next war comes?
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
Her shining dream plays in my mind
By the rockets red glare
A generations blank stare
We'd better wake up to her this time

The kid I was when I left home
Was looking for his freedom and life of his own
But the freedom that he found wasn't quite as sweet
As the truth was known
I have prayed for America
I was made for America
I can't let go till she comes around
Until the land of the free
Is awake and can see
And until her conscience has been found.

It's how I feel!

[Peacetrain]

74. As a party worker.. the first group that comes out to try and dislodge a setting Dem. president

will get no help from me.. how is that ..

[unc70]

86. Should depend on the size of the eggs he lays.

[havocmom]

78. Am hunting up a good DEM candidate for Congress first

Only one from my state. Will appreciate any help from more populated states to get good people for primaries then onto the Hill in general elections.

The president is not the office giving us the most trouble. Congress just sucks and needs to have some real public servants instead of the hookers crowding the halls of the place.

[Hekate]

117. Yes, havocmom. nt

[Mari333]

79. knr

:)

[HughMoran]

81. Good for you

I celebrate your freedom to post this.

:hi:

[mopinko]

82. how's the weather on your planet?

look, the man is not the king. he is the head of a large government. many members of that government not only do not share his goals, they want to bulldoze him, turn him into an oily spot in the road.
direct your ire at the problem. defeat republicans in congress. defeat a few blue dogs, so as to encourage the others, even. but the man has limited power to do the things he thinks are right. perhaps he will grow that power in time. hopefully, the spotlight will dim after these first few battles, and he will be able to accomplish a little more.

but please divest yourself of the delusion that you do anything for your party by bashing it's sitting president. we do not need another jimmy carter =>raygun, and many from the other side are working toward that goal. don't help them. it is just stupid.

[TheWatcher]

120. The weather is how it's supposed to look, the sky is blue.

Not Rose Tinted.

[shadesofgray]

84. K&R

[noamnety]

85. You missed a memo

Good democrats don't challenge incumbents ... they recognize incumbents are entitled to their party's nomination not just for the year they win, but all future election cycles as well.

Good democrats don't hold their incumbents accountable ... they support them.

Good democrats don't support primaries as part of democracy.

I am sure there will be a callout thread in the Obama group to clarify these points for you, if there isn't one already.

[cliffordu]

104. ...And maybe you're full of poop.

Maybe not, but I'll hold my nose just the same.

Thanks for trying to turn GD into the sewer that you so richly deserve.

And, who the fuck made you in charge of deciding who is a 'good democrat'

The only thing that surpasses your hubris is your ignorance.


:hurts:

[noamnety]

158. I guess I would ask you

whether your own post lives up to the standards of discourse you wish to see in GD.

And maybe you're full of poop. Maybe not, but I'll hold my nose just the same. Thanks for trying to turn GD into the sewer that you so richly deserve. And, who the fuck made you in charge of deciding who is a 'good democrat' The only thing that surpasses your hubris is your ignorance.

[cliffordu]

195. Nope - but I am not afraid of climbing down to the level

of the 'conversation' - and it ain't the 'standards of discourse' that concerns me.


What concerns me is the group of people who have decided that since they are annoyed or disappointed in the Prez that they can use DU as a vomitorium - that since their fantasy hasn't been fulfilled they are free to call for investigations into Rahm or advertise the fact that they'll be looking to primary a sitting President from the Democratic party....

"I worked for him, he owes me" is the refrain before the threats start, and if I actually mention my support for the Prez, then I'm a tool and a centrist fool or a corporatist.......and then I'm alleged to be telling people to go somewhere else.


I'll tell you what I think - I believe some of our activist friends are being manipulated by a couple of very good professional astroturfers here at DU - I don't know who they are, and would never hazard a guess, but I will say that I have extensive experience with these people in the Linux/Windows FUD wars of the late 1990's through about 2005. These tactics and the level of hatred and contempt stink of the same tactics.

Different subject matter, but the tactics are the same.

It can be seductive to even the best intentioned, most well read and most progressive people you'd like to know - A few very slick, erudite operatives to nudge the anger and the disappointment in a given direction...and then that vocal dissention turns into something malignant that feeds on it's own negativity...

But Not Here, Right???? It couldn't be a couple of users that you'd never suspect...Long term members with huge posting counts......

We found out that one of the worst agitators in the anti-Linux hysteria was a sock puppet for a trusted member of a mailing list I belonged to years ago.

This stuff happens with an alarming regularity. It's the fucking internet.

But all that is academic, Innit'???

Folks are angry. They'll take their anger out on the Prez...

No - they won't - they'll take their anger out on the supporters of the Prez.

How 'activist' is that???

[noamnety]

197. One difference between us is that I don't see a problem with this:

"... they are free to call for investigations into Rahm or advertise the fact that they'll be looking to primary a sitting President from the Democratic party."

That's the way the system is supposed to work. The voters - including members of his own party - are SUPPOSED to hold the president - and his staff - accountable for their actions. We would have been a hell of a lot better off as a country if republicans had done that in 2004, but they wouldn't, because they put party loyalty above investigating people who were clearly corrupt, and they put party loyalty above the option to primary out a president who wasn't acting in a competent way.

We can debate about whether or not we think Obama's doing a competent job - which is the subject of the OP. But the option to primary out a president isn't really up for debate, it's the agreed upon process. That's why we have a democratic convention even when there is an incumbent.

[JTFrog]

310. +1000

:thumbsup:

[VMI Dem]

88. I won't support a primary challenger, but as of now, I won't vote for Obama in '12.

No vote, no money.

[Hekate]

90. Wait. Am I at DU?

Enjoy President Romney and VP Huckabee.

Hekate

[OregonBlue]

95. Amazing isn't it. Guess some people here won't be happy until Palin is in office.

[cliffordu]

113. wooop, there it is....

[KoKo]

174. OOGAH...BOOGAH...Unless DEMS GET IN LINE AND CHEER...we get PALIN!

LET's ALL SCREAM IN FEAR AND LIE DOWN AND LET THE CARIBOU KILLER FROM ALASKA ROLL OVER US! We are but FODDER BENEATH her HIGH HEELS and DESIGNER CLOTHES!

RUN DEMS ....RUN....RUN...from CARIBOU BARBIE...she's OUT TO GET US! THE REPUGS WILL WIN!

:rofl: We've heard this SCARE STUFF TOO MANY TIMES...BE GONE!

[liberal_at_heart]

139. Apparently you're at democrat dictatorship

anyone who dares question Obama is verbally attacked and told to go vote republican. The primaries are part of our democratic process. If we only have one choice then we don't have a democracy. I tell you right now the democrats are scaring me more than the republicans are.

[Th1onein]

92. I will, too.

I am very disappointed in Obama.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

94. Ironically attacks from the far far left actually help the President

In the meantime in the real world the President's numbers among people who identify themselves as either "liberal" or "liberal Democrat" goes up and remains high.

While such a primary move, even if it only reached single digits, would be helpful to the President no politician will invest any time or money in such an effort while people who identify themselves as "liberal Democrats" approve of the President at 87%

[liberal_at_heart]

135. oh, now it's the far, far left huh? rediculous

how about we add another five fars onto that one. Then you could call us the far, far, far, far, far, far, far left. lol.

[grantcart]

147. 87% of people who describe themselves as "liberal Democrats" support the President

so some description is needed for the 13% of liberal democrats who do not support the President.


far far left seems less pejorative than "lunatic left" or other terms that others used.


Calling for a primary opponent to a sitting President when he enjoys almost 90% party support after the first year of his presidency seems to be a pretty far far position, but if you have a more accurate and less pejorative term I would be happy to use it in the future.

[cliffordu]

146. Don't confuse the vegetables.

Makes 'em mean.

[KoKo]

184. Yes, Grantcart...for YOU and YOURS...attacks from the LEFT do HELP your PRESIDENT...

I actually can understand where you are coming from, now that I see what you say seems to spout what "they say."

[grantcart]

198. YOU and YOURS how quaint what YOURS am I keeping?

[KoKo]

202. YOURS...not MINE!

[grantcart]

217. Well MINE, that I am keeping aren't US citizens lol

[newspeak]

343. I just love the perceptions of being on the far far left

Being a FDR or Wellstone democrat now makes us a far far left--maybe because this country has gone so far far far right. I voted for Clinton--could hardly wait-couldn't stand one more year of Poppy. Also, because our California paper ran what was going on during the Iran-Contra, BCCI hearings, I knew Poppy was lying about being out of the loop. Hey, but it apparently didn't matter because it's the MSM who decides when a lie is to be reported and when it is to be covered up. If the public could understand how that hearing has hurt us now. Danny Casolero called it the Octopus because it had so many tentacles--from blatantly going against Congress by giving weapons, to putting drugs in our neighborhoods, to stealing the PROMIS software from a family owned business. Now some of you know that BCCI was being investigated for money laundering and that also included laundering for terrorism. Without investigating further and getting those involved, they wound up back into *'s administration. Because Clinton let bygones be bygones. Then there was NAFTA. Y'all see that was Poppy's baby--I was and am against NAFTA and I prayed for Clinton to be elected so that the treaty (as written) wouldn't see the light of day. But, as you can see, that was also a waste of time-prayer.

I don't care if I get flamed, but I see the modus operandi here. We get a blatant power grab, corrupt dealings, a basic "screw you" from one administration, and it is the job of the new administration to cover. And, from the last eight years, that's one big cover. And, basically to continue the program that was initiated by mostly big, fat greedy corporate interests.

My entire family are democrats-FDR, labor rights loving democrats. And, you can be betrayed one too many times--we do not consider those things that affect so many people, as a damn football game. Maybe, I "saw the writing on the wall" when Obama chose his cabinet. I tried to make excuses for the picks--even wrote him a letter about listening to other economists, instead of Summers. But, there are no excuses and maybe Obama will get elected again-who knows-but I'll vote for any progressive candidate who believes in regulation, who believes in labor rights, who believes in main street before wall street.

[Dragonfli]

404. I am another (once main stream FDR Democrat) now far far far left without changing a single bit.

We have not "moved to the extreme left" but rather all the definitions have moved far far right.
This is how I have kept still with the same positions and yet moved so far from my party.

I am blue-collar as was my father, as such I am beginning to see that those with political science degrees and those that move and shape the party no longer care for us dirty folk that do all the labor. I fooled myself far too long about the party of my father, it simply died and with it any voice workers ever had in our system. What remains is it's animated corpse controlled by the puppet strings of the DLC (the far right when my dad was born - now called progressive)

I have voiced the same things my father once did while posting on this board, and have found those ideas that once represented the middle of our party are now despised and locked as am I.

The working people like me still respond to the old party ideals and will vote for those principles, but be warned, we are perhaps dirty but not stupid - we will not vote again for anyone caught lying to us. we are funny that way.

[cecilfirefox]

96. Unrecing this crap. If you really want to just vote for a Republican, seriously. nt

[salguine]

286. I don't think it's crap. I rec'd it for you.

[Bluebear]

287. You certainly know for crap

[ProgressIn2008]

99. "Democracy is a good thing." "Debate is a good thing." True, that. Rec. nt

[Thickasabrick]

101. I am hopeful an anti-war candidate steps forward. They would have

my vote.

[AllentownJake]

108. I support Al Gore or Howard Dean threatning to challenge him right now

Joe Sestak has done wonders for Arlen Specter's demeanor.

[KoKo]

205. Do you think Gore could do it...? Seems his time for this has come and gone...

am not sure...

[AllentownJake]

216. All he has to do is raise some money for his own PAC

and suddenly Barack the community organizer will be here.

[dflprincess]

263. But could we trust him?

He'll just go into campaign mode and tell us what we want to hear so he'll get re-elected... "Hope and change - this time I really mean it." Then revert to his DLC ways as soon as the election is over.

I'm going to have see some action in the next three years before I fall for anymore pretty speeches.

[Laelth]

110. Well said, and I fully agree. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kahuna]

111. Who's gonna run against him? You? nt

[TheWatcher]

118. Why not? He's intelligent, objective, informed, shows sound judgement

And although I don't always agree with everything he says, I'd trust his judgment LONG before I'd EVER throw in the towel and support the judgment and wisdom of blind cheerleaders who treat this country and it's future like an NFL Rivalry, and know how to do nothing but blindly, unquestioningly follow their chosen savior off a cliff.

[ProSense]

123. "sound judgement"?

Thinking about a primary challenge to a wildly popular Democratic President when his first full year in office isn't over yet?

That's called a waste of energy.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

148. "Maybe they'll pay you time and a half because it's the holidays."

For someone who doesn't care what I think you sure are speculating about my posts.

:rofl:

[TheWatcher]

448. It isn't Speculation.

is it my fault you have an uncanny talent of transparency.

Maybe you just aren't very good at what you do.

[12string]

358. Wildly popular President

If Obama doesn't change the direction he has taken it is entirely possible that come 2012 he won't be wildly popular anymore.

[Kahuna]

141. Then, he should run. I didn't say that he shouldn't. If he thinks it's

worthwhile, let him throw his hat in the ring.

[IndianaGreen]

126. Russ Feingold

Anyone that supports the people rather than the banks and financiers.

[ProSense]

128. Senator Feingold on the Senate bill:

the most sweeping health care reform in generations.

[IndianaGreen]

130. more of your pre-programmed nonsensical links

[ProSense]

131. Hey, he said it.

:rofl:

[TheWatcher]

132. There you go! That's My Girl!

Back To Copy/Paste mode, your biggest strength.

Still laughable, but at least it's more entertaining, and AT LEAST you're doing your job.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

134. I'm offended. n/t

[TheWatcher]

136. Your crocodile tears are soaking me in guilt.

You don't care about anything but the sound of your own voice, and whatever agenda you get paid to promote.

More transparent than a squeaky clean bay window.

Run along now.

:hi:

[ProSense]

137. You thought I was serious?

:rofl:

[TheWatcher]

294. Of course not. You actually assumed I thought you were?

I'm telling you sweetie, you need to stick to the Copy/Paste method of communicating.

You're soft, weak, and lost without it. :)

[Kahuna]

140. Sure he will. He has even less charisma than, Evan Byah (Sp?).

:rofl:

[LWolf]

114. Agreed. nt

[gleaner]

119. I will join you ...

You summarized all of the reasons very well, but you did forget the Obama administration going to the Supreme Court to make it legal for them to use torture in interrogations and to continue to suspend Habeas Corpas and hold people they declare as enemy insurgents in secret and indefinitely. They can also take these "enemies" to foreign nations to house and torture them. This is the legal ruling Bush wanted and never got, and Obama should have avoided this. He should have prosecuted the war crimes and restored the constitutional protections that Bush took away, not set them in concrete.

Primaries anyone?

[liberal_at_heart]

121. It's a shame you're getting so many immature responses to a well thought out and reasonable post

[inna]

122. KR!

Good for you, David, and thank you for this thread! :hi:

[gulliver]

124. Remember you said that.

Contrary to your post, 2012 is a long, long way away. You may change your mind. And, of course, Palin would love to be your president.

[TheWatcher]

125. Very Good Post David.

Thank You for having the courage to not only say it, but say it objectively and eloquently.

And I'm with you 100%. :thumbsup:

Don't mind the exploding cheerleader heads.

They'll just grow another one. :)

[David Zephyr]

253. Thanks.

One year was enough.

[Jamastiene]

145. If someone to the left of President Obama steps up for the primaries,

I will vote for them, assuming they have a record of standing up for liberal values.

[Patriot 76]

149. Good luck to you sir.

The man who defeated the Clinton Machine and doubled the electoral votes of the repukes last November is no easy mark.

[emilyg]

150. k/r

[20score]

152. Me too. Thanks for posting. Some of the people defending this pile of crap healthcare bill have

gone off the deep end. Their ad hominem attacks against reasoned debate is disgusting. And it's been happening now for too long. When we lose ground in 2010, and we will, it will be because they put party over people.

The attacks remind me of 2003 - 2004. "This is not what they say it is, just look at the facts." "Oh yeah, you're an idiot - you don't get it - you're a child - you're a whiner - you're hurting the country (party)" - and on and on.

[KoKo]

166. I know...it's a concern...only David can speak to this so that many will listen so I give him

KUDO's for being able to have a group that listens. The rest of us out there on DU get little attention...although we try.

KUDO'S to DAVID...who has a FOLLOWING!

[FrenchieCat]

153. I posted some of this elsewhere,

but consider it my long response to your announcement/pledge/promise:

It feels just like its the Primaries again, and yet, we have 3 years to go!
And in some ways it is worse, because there is only this President to attack now, and DUers are attacking him for every single thing he does or doesn't do.

I have read many posts in various forums that tell me clearly that many DUers are now currently actively working against this President, not simply some of the policies that they don't agree with.

When you've got some (Previous) Clinton supporter tearing apart an accomplishment list put together by a professor dealing with this President's first 10 months in office, you know folks want to lose the next elections badly just to "SHOW US" that they were right all along (in that we should have picked someone else).

This is a dangerous environment for the future of this country and for the attempt to make as much progress as we can to reverse as much of the Bush years as possible. It is also a boon for the Republicans, as they now know where to get their talking points; just troll the internet, especially some Democratic Board.

Indeed, there are many Liebermans here, who seek to do damage to this Presidency, and they, like Lieberman, can easily justify it as a difference of "Opinion" on policy.....but it is more than that.

When people start to care less about the future of this nation, and more about making points to undermine this President, we know they weren't really ever supporters of anything more than a personality (just not Obama), or were so shaky in their support, that one misstep would do (after all, he was already Black, so he couldn't afford any other mistakes) although they are the ones who preach constantly that this is what those who support this President are all about.

Most probably voted for this President, simply because they did what they had to do, and now since they didn't get what they ordered (and they knew they weren't going to get a lot of it, which is why they originally supported someone else), they are working to try and get rid of him. Of course, they were never interested in being "Patient" or accepting that everything takes time and that there is a political landscape filled with land mines to consider, because they aren't and weren't ever willing to give him any benefit of the doubt, and every excuse that they have been able to find to go against him just a bit more, they have used.

I understood that the primaries were very passionate...hell, I was very intense as well, but Barack Obama won the primaries, won the general election and is now our President. Due to this, folks don't have to always agree with him, but they should respect him, allow him to show what he can do, not instantaneously, but assessing results closer to the next election, because he hasn't done anything that would make him earn the ire that he is being showered with, other than not doing what folks think should have been done in one year's time.

It is one thing to have elected the first Black President,
but it is obviously quite another to allow him to govern,
and giving him some benefit of the doubt, and voicing opinions on policies,
but not in this rancid bankrupt sort of fashion.
In fact, folks are downright disrespectful and denigrating and it is quite sickening,
that Clinton could get a Blow job and that was ok,
but Obama apparently has to be perfect in every way and at all times.

Alarmingly, more than anything, these folks want to be proven right so badly, because that is what is most important in their book; fuck everything else.

In other words, they weren't ever really ready for change, which is why they can't see the change
that has already occurred. Many have intellectually checked out and are currently operating in autopilot mode dating back to the Bush administration without the Bush, or worse even, to the primaries.

What is ironic is they don't want to understand that since they haven't bothered to change their own self, how can they think this President can affect change for them in a nation filled with deliberate cynics not willing to lift a finger since the election unless it is to go against this President?

As for Democrats who still understand what all politics is truly about in the end, I fear we need to concentrate on the Republicans....as it appears that DUers really just won't. They are too busy tearing apart this administration and each other instead, and only feign slight interest at fighting those who will screw them over in real time soon enough, if these folks I am speaking of get their wish.

[David Zephyr]

161. Thoughtful comments.

By the way, I didn't give Clinton a pass for his blowjob.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/David%20Zephyr/39

[FrenchieCat]

162. Oh...I wasn't speaking of you specifically, just us in general.

I know things aren't as they should be,
but I certainly wish that next year will be a better one
for all of us. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

175. You know I can never be upset with you.

How about that thread where I gave Clinton hell? As that link about Bill Clinton demonstrates, I am very hard on our elected Democrats because I expect them to do what they know they should. I have seen activists work their hearts out for decades to be betrayed by too many in our Party once they have power.

Those here who are scolding the Left for not cheering on compromise is the worst thing loyal Dems should do. It is the Left who will hold our elected Democratic officials feet to the fire because we are on their side and they will need us.

Having a primary challenger might make Obama be the Obama that he knows he should be. But until he cleans house and surrounds himself with a better group of people, I don't see it happening.

The people that surround Barack are not the people who he grew up with, who he worked for in Chicago, who he spoke to in his campaigns. They are, with few exceptions, people of great fortune and priviledge and who are entrenched in their power. They led Obama instead of him leading them. How does that change? :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

211. I disagree, David.

I think that Barack Obama is exactly who he presented himself to be, even if it is convenient not to give him credit for being his own man. Your statement of him being led by others is quite denigrating, and is exactly what I was talking about; folks who have turned against him in total, sooner than should have been expected, and express their contempt for him with derogatory imagery that show absolutely no respect.

Some folks really wanted to elect a Progressive George Bush. They wanted someone that pounds his fist on the table; kicks asses, knock heads, stabs backs, beats his chest, and rams whatever through without regard to any voices of opposition....because if nothing else, many respect force and power more than process and democracy. In otherwords, they want to experience that force of ultimate power that George Bush held, while he terrorized us for years. I understand the mentality....as it is what happens when folks are abused long enough. Pretty soon, the only satisfaction that they want to experience is to be able to do what has been done to them.

Sure, a progressive Bush would be different, as we would be forcing what is good onto this country, some rationalize. Problem is that this is not who we elected, and let's be frank, we actually knew this, so to blame Obama for one's own failure for not being able to elect exactly who one wished is actually quite disingenous.

OBama respects this country that brought him from nothing to the highest office in this land. Unlike some of us, he truly believes in America and what it is about; that's part of why he was elected, and not somebody that, like a Bush, who would hypocritically hate what it was that he was supposed to represent (which is why he could so easily destroy it). Obama is not a hypocrite, and he appreciates and understands why democracy is so hard, and yet so enduring, but that he needs perfecting. He believes in that in the end, wrongs will be righted in the democratic way. If he didn't believe it, then none of us should, and that would make this whole thing a farce, and we might just hang it up right there. I want a President to really truly believe in what we and this nation can be. So, he isn't putting on an act when he states that he loves this country...even if some of us, jaded as we are, may have a different opinion about the US.

So I'm glad that Obama is staying true to himself, and is not being led by anyone, including factions at DU....who know too well how to lose elections more than to win them...cause if it was up to them, Kucinich would have been our candidate, and sorry, but in the real world of politics, that would be a loss.

Barack Obama said some things on election night, that many just want to ignore and attribute to "rethoric" (cause the meme that he talks a good game, but doesn't do anything, kind of like pimp, is an easy reading between the lines).

but when he made the statement, he was deadly earnest. You saw it in his eyes. He was imploring us, not hoodwinking us.

He said...."The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. "

He said that he would listen. That didn't mean that he would do exactly as we expected. And that is what is wrong; he's not meeting to the expectation of some, and they don't want to understand that their expectations are unrealistic....and so instead, they get frustrated, mad and feel cheated. But the real truth, and what most folks know in their hearts of hearts, that they have been sitting on their hands, chanting the mantra "Yes YOU can, all by yourself, and I'll just give you orders and then critique you".

That's not what he was saying would make this country work.
And so, he can be blamed, but let's not pretend that it is fair; it isn't.
But in the end, you do what you have to do. And if you find a way back at some point,
I'll be glad for us.

[Myrina]

323. Did Obama not challenge us to "Make me do it" ...

... during the general election?
Did he mean we should all just sit back and nod at whatever POS legislation the Senate vomits up and let him sign it into law?

I doubt that.

Whether he really wants us to hold his feet to the fire or if it was just great political posturing, the gauntlet has been laid - by him - and it is our responsibility to MAKE HIM DO IT (the will of the people).

And if he can't or won't, then its time for (a) primary challenger(s) who will make him do it.

[unc70]

189. I NEED Obama and Congress to succeed, 9 months since cancer surgery

Obama was my least favorite Dem candidate this cycle. I never trusted him nor those around him, too many problems with his resume (life story). I posted a few things here and at salon.com early in the cycle, but held my fire when it appeared likely that he would be the nominee.

I discussed some of the things in private, but did not want to provide any help to the Repubs in the general election. I was surprised when none of those items were used by the Repubs against Obama.

I am critical of Obama and Congress, but the last thing I am doing is working against Obama at this point. I have little power at this point so I can do little more than mute some of the cheerleaders and hope for a miracle comeback.

So far, I don't see the proposed HCR bills solving things for someone like me. While my insurance company paid much of the cost of my treatment (good resulsts so far), they later canceled my small group retroactively, clawing back some payments, back-dating documents, and precluding state COBRA. Premiums for me withing the group were already quoted at over $2000/month for the coming year. So I really NEED something real to happen in all of this. Medicare buyin would have helped me.

[David Zephyr]

196. Medicare buy-in would help tens of millions.

I want Obama to succeed, too. But what do we want him to succeed at?

Having someone from the Left challenge him can not be worse than not. He and those around him have no qualms about walking away from all the promises he made to the Left and to folks like you who are counting on him to do the right thing for people, not corporations. I've seen one year now of his Presidency. He has surrounded himself with corporate toadies who speak to his ears what they want and when they want. They are his filter.

Having him face an active opponent(s) from the Left will be a loud voice that he will also have to listen to, to deal with. It might make him a better President, it can't make him worse.

[WeDidIt]

154. The chances of it happening are somewhere between slim and none

My money's on none.

[unc70]

167. You need to understand odds and probabilities before making bets

When you look around the poker table and fail to detect the sucker, then you are the sucker.

I would take your bet at even odds.

[WeDidIt]

172. I'll give you ten to one odds

If there's anything remotely approaching a leftwing challenge of Obama (Kucinich doesn';t coutn, he's a moron and stands no chance but might do it to grandstand like the moronic fuck he is), I'll donate a thousand bucks to DU.

If there is no legitimate challenge (i.e., can take at least 40% of the primary votes), you donate $100 to DU.

Take the bet?

Will you?

[unc70]

246. Serious primary challengers with under 25% of vote

Gene M. got 42% in NH to take down Johnson. That probably counts, though with LBJ out he only received 37% of the primary vote with RFK getting about 30%.

Ted K. got only 37% in 1980 against Carter even though he had much of the Establishment, money, and media behind him in his run. The damage to Carter was compounded by Kennedy refusing to conceded and carrying the fight into the convention where he attempted to change the rules binding delegates on the first ballot. The Draft Muskee effort just added to the problems for Carter.

Buchanan got about 22% against HWBush in 1992 and exposed weaknesses that Perot continued during the GE.

So I won't accept a criterion of 40% of the primary vote, nor the exclusion of DK. Anything above about 20% of the primary vote against an incumbent President is serious trouble, above about 30% in individual states would be, too.

[WhiteTara]

155. don't you think you should wait until maybe

oh, say, 2011?

[salguine]

288. Why? Is Obama suddenly going to pull his face off and reveal The Masked Progressive?

[WhiteTara]

313. no, but you could work to get more

progressives in the 2010 senate and congressional races. The pres is only one branch of the government and the real power is in the congress. Actually, the real power is in your city council, county supes (or whatever name you give them in your state) the school boards and the state assemblies, etc. All politics are local and personal. In order to get what we (you) want, it takes a full time commitment. Voting every four years is the problem.

[KoKo]

165. It's Early Yet, David. But, if Obama doesn't revise his Cabinet..then I'm WITH YOU!

I feel so bad having to do this...but we have no recourse if Obama doesn't do the "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN." And...that means REVISING his Closest Advisors.

It's hard to say this......as I know it was hard for you to call for this so early.

[David Zephyr]

181. It was very hard, KoKo.

Yes, it was hard. And you correctly point to Obama's advisers. They have led him rather than him leading them. He has surrounded himself, with few exceptions, with people of priviledge, power and who are vested in the status quo. But they are the ones who now have his ear.

[bevoette]

171. good luck with that (nm)

[Blasphemer]

173. I certainly support the primary process... all incumbents should be made to face serious challengers

I do not believe it is likely that anyone would beat Obama, but the process IS important. A Democrat voting for one Democrat over another, or electing not to vote at all, is not treason no matter how some try to paint it. An educated populace is supposed to go the polls and vote for the person who they believe is best for the elected office which they are seeking. The party will survive a challenge from the left (or even from the right, for that matter). Recent history indicates, however, that "falling in line" is not necessarily a good thing. In 2004, I would have heartily supported ANYONE on the ticket even someone like Evan Bayh. Five years later, I don't think the party has earned that type of unconditional support. It can't be a question of "Democrat or Republican", but rather which Democrat and which Republican. If I were hypothetically given the choice between Ben Nelson and Rudy Giuliani, you can bet that I would be staying home.

[EndElectoral]

180. Thanks for the intelligent post

[David Zephyr]

255. I'm not alone.

It's sad, but it's been a year now. One can make judgments based on performance.

[Lord Helmet]

188. Anybody that thinks they can unseat him in 2012 is welcome to give it a shot.

You have made your disdain for him clear for some time now so your OP is hardly groundbreaking news.

[jmondine]

192. I have the perfect candidate for it: Ralph Nader!

Hey, wait a sec... what's with all the flaming torches? Aaaagh!!

[salguine]

289. Nader would never have caved in to the health care lobby, the credit card lobby, the

pharmaceutical lobby, the banking lobby...

[pundaint]

402. Nader and Kucinich are good men, I admire them, but they are not the challengers we need.

Both have been too marginalized by the media and the majority who maintain their high-school social sensibilities. Dean could work, with some proper featuring of his success in governing Vermont and bringing the Democrats to such a large majority so quickly. We need to evolve a compelling challenger, with whom the common voter can identify. Of course, it's out of the question, but Oprah, is such an example.

[MilesColtrane]

199. Not gonna happen.

[flvegan]

200. I'm looking forward to casting my primary vote for Kucinich again.

And if he doesn't win, then I'll quite possibly be forced to vote for Obama. Again. But vote for him I will.

[cliffordu]

201. So, David:

IF, and I repeat IF no other principled Democrat is willing to run in the primaries will you agree to have yourself placed in nomination so that progressives can make a symbolic vote on their preference for President??

You run a pretty good argument - Let' see what other progressives think.

[David Zephyr]

206. So, Cliff

I can think of several prominent Democratic voices both in office and out of office who could toss their hat in the ring by Fall next year and easily win both the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire in '12.

And, who knows, it might even make Obama a better President as he'd at least need to pay attention to voices more progressive than the corporatists and war hawks he's surround himself with.

[cliffordu]

210. I'd like to see that, but I do not believe under any circumstances

a truly progressive, liberal of any stripe can become the Prez of the US. \

Can't happen. You are speaking of a country that (almost) elected Bush for TWO TERMS.

A country where hunger is a sign if weakness.

[roamer65]

203. I will seriously consider a viable, leftist third party candidate...

if one runs. Otherwise, I will vote anti-Rethuglican in 2012. I hate the Rethuglican party more than I like the Democratic party.

[dave29]

204. Who do you expect this to be?

I am curious.

[TK421]

208. Who will that be?

[KoKo]

213. Not answering for David...but He/She will emerge....if there is a need..

and that should be what politics is all about when those one votes for...don't seem to live by their Largest of Promises...i.e. "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN...I PROMISE YOU THIS." How many times I heard that...blasted on CNN/MSNBC. I work much from home...and so I was around for the speeches where I live...in my small corner of the world.

[FrenchieCat]

214. There was more to that speech than just that......

much more.

But folks should threaten.....since they want to consider their leverage as working against,
instead of working with this President.

[TK421]

236. Do you know who that would be? I'm curious-not trying to start a fight

I can't think of one progressive Democrat that would run against him there...a capable one, at that

NOT Kucinich, he seems to be out of favor amongst the ones more loyal to the Liberal/Progressive base, plus he is just not taken seriously

Warner? no..he doesn't seem to have any interest, who do we fall back on if this thing falls apart? I think folks are just trying to think ahead here.

Dean? Not interested...he won't run...who do we have?

[FrenchieCat]

272. I'll be supporting Barack Obama.

[JI7]

219. Who will Challenge him that actually have a chance of beating him ?

[KoKo]

220. Maybe no one could win over him...but could pull him more Leftward than he is right now which is

Corporatist Right. :shrug:

[spoony]

230. But wouldn't that just be for that election?

I know what you're saying, but what if he was pulled left to beat his primary opponent, then rebounded when it came to the GE and his next term, assuming he won? To me the pressure needs to be tangible for him when he's in office, when he's actually doing the work of President. Unfortunately, I don't know how that pressured is to be exacted since Rahm is filtering all progressive voices from his ears.

[KoKo]

235. Could influence Senate and Congress...put some fear of losing onto their plates...

and what else can we do? Wait it out? Hope and not do anything. Enough of us are already getting sick from all this stuff. Others will just go away and not vote out there they are so disappointed.

RW is always on Fire. Why not the Dems? Obama said "We are the Ones We've Been Waiting For." Okay...let's show him WE ARE?

[AVID]

222. surprise surprise surprise...you wrote this post June 7 2008. don't waste my time.

[TiberiusGracchus]

223. I can't bear to care about politics as much as I did in O8, but I care enough to oppose him

It's three years out but at this point I really don't care who the primary opponent is, I WILL support him or her, whoever it is.

I can never vote for a rethug, but I will gladly campaign for a progressive primary challenger to Obama.

[AVID]

224. some people are captain obvious in their own head

[otohara]

225. Considering There Won't Be A "D" Challenger

yawn!

[dem mba]

227. VOTE NADER!

what's the worst that could happen?

Jesus, what needs to happen before people understand that sometimes idealism needs to bow to pragmatism. It's not the ideal situation by its very definition, but damn man, can't we do a simple cost-benefit analysis and figure out that its better to back Obama then split our party in half against a weakened opposition party?

Obama kept us out of a depression. You say he didn't create any jobs? Well he KEPT millions on the payrolls. No fucking thanks coming from your mouth, I see.

You rightly criticize Obama on some of your points, but let's also give credit where credit is due.

[KoKo]

232. Oh STOP...there's more than Nader out there, these days...

It's like those who dangle Palin in front of our faces as the "Evil One" we will get if we speak up. It get's as tiresome as those terrorists with the same name that are always being killed but show up somewhere else over and over and the MSM announces they were killed again by a Drone or something in a new place like Pakistan or Yemen. Next it will be Iran or Saudi Arabia...or maybe the whole bloddy ME that we will drone to find some guy with the same name who seems to always Live after being killed over and over. Glenn Greenwald has a good piece over at Salon about these folks we keep killing but manage to be killed again and again.

ZZZZZZZZZZ's

[David Zephyr]

233. Like the movie: it's complicated.

The Los Angeles Times had several articles detailing the failure of Obama, either by intention or by accident, to do the very things that would have begun creating "new" jobs, most of which would have been green jobs. And the stimulus funds that went to "keep" the existing jobs that were in danger will run out by this September and then what? No new jobs and no more stimulus for the existing jobs endangered. He missed his opportunity. Voters will be angry and guess what: Obama won't face them in November, but every Democrat in the House will and they will be slaughtered at the polls as the economy dips again in the third quarter as most economists now say it will.

Bankers are not lending the money Obama and Bush gave them to the homeowners. They are not extending credit to small businesses with the money Obama and Bush gave them. Obama had a lunch where he talked to them. That's not leadership. That's being led.

And if you are going to credit Obama with keeping us out of a depression because he allowed Geithner to pillage the taxpayers just as Paulson did to prop up the bankers, then you would have to give the same credit to Bush. They both did the same thing which was doing what the Goldman-Sachs clan told them to do. That's not leadership, that's being led.

Obama needs to face opposition in the Primary to be the President he promised to be. He needs to keep his promises now otherwise he will lose Iowa this time, and he will lose New Hampshire again.

Are you happy that Obama will oversee the loss of the majorities in Congress that we all worked to give him in November? If you are a Democrat, you shouldn't be.

[dem mba]

457. First of all Bush helped to create the crisis

so I don't think he's in the same boat as Obama in any way. As far as what Obama COULD have done, sure, there are tons of ways to criticize him. But when moving mountains I'm not going to razz him for dropping a few pebbles here or there. That we missed opportunities for progressive policies here or there is regrettable but Obama had one major goal - to keep the economy afloat and functioning - and he did that. Everything else in comparison was gravy.

As to alleged congressional losses, that's too damn bad. If you can't figure out how to run a campaign where you pin our current financial woes on conservative policies from 2000-2008 than you don't deserve to keep your seat. Our economy toppled while conservatives were in power. I'm no Karl Rove but this isn't rocket science. Blame them.

[quiet.american]

228. Divide and conquer - it's what's for dinner at DU.

I don't want to spend my whole night refuting every point in this OP, but let's take just one:

"And now, President Obama is creating a "commission" to look at reigning in the federal budget which means social security and medicare since his wars are not even in the budgets (which, by the way was another campaign promise he has broken: including the costs of the wars into the budget)."

Office of Management and Budget, Budget Overview, excerpt
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/

Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations
The President is working with his military commanders to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan while responsibly removing combat forces from Iraq. To address the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration requests $75.5 billion for the remainder of 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010. The Administration will provide the details of the 2009 supplemental appropriations request to the Congress in the next few weeks, and will transmit the detailed 2010 request with the President’s 2010 Budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf

"Good Democrat"? An OP who seems to live each day for the opportunity to find/post every single negative thing he can about Pres. Obama, and if that's not good enough, just make stuff up? "Good Democrat," my eye.

[David Zephyr]

234. The supplemental appropriations are outside of the budget.

Thank you for making my point.

[quiet.american]

239. Lovely try. The numbers are there for all to see. nt

[David Zephyr]

243. The wars are in supplemental appropriations, NOT in the budget. DUH.

That's why the are called "supplemental appropriations". Jeez.

[quiet.american]

247. Really? Then why does the Dept. of Defense include it in their budget overview.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_department_defense/

Or did you miss the part where it said the administration will be sending a detailed request regarding these funds over with the 2010 budget?

More to the point -- Bush did not include ANY funding for these conflicts, but relied on blank check "emergency appropriations."

Obama has included his number in his 2010 budget. Big difference.

Edited to include exact language from the overview:
The President’s plan provides $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009, as well as $130 billion from the 2010 budget, to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.

[David Zephyr]

249. Your edit is more honest.

And makes the point.

He has yet to include the wars, as he promised, inside the budget itself.

And back to my point, it is the "budget" that his "commission" will be looking to cut.

He cuts entitlements which are in the "budget" and keeps his wars which are expensed through appropriations "outside the budget".

I credit you for your fast edit.

[quiet.american]

250. Give you the exact language, from an official document, and still, the insistence it is not so.

Have to wonder, did you hear Obama during the campaign say over and over that he would be going through the budget line-by-line to cut wasteful spending? Why the outrage over it now?

And what are you basing your assumption that he will cut Soc. Sec. and Medicare on?

[clear eye]

305. The DOD budget is not the national budget.

Nice try w/ conflating the two.

The OPer made the very precise point that by keeping the war appropriations out of the nat'l budget in contradiction to his campaign promise, those expenditures are not available to red-pencil during budget-cutting sprees, unlike social programs. Everyone reading this, even those disagreeing w/ the primary premise understands this but you, apparently.

[quiet.american]

355. And I never said it was. It *is* however, part of the national budget.

Words from those whose business, literally, it is to know:

Defense Industry Daily
The USA’s FY 2010 Defense Budget
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-USAs-FY-2010-Defense-Budget-05407/

One feature worth highlighting in the current budget is supplemental wartime funding. Since 2001, the US Congress has made a conscious decision since 9/11 to fund the Global War on Terror’s operational components via supplemental budget requests. In theory, this separates “normal” pay, maintenance, and new equipment buys from war maintenance, aid to allied governments, and replacements for destroyed or broken equipment.

The FY 2010 begins to reverse that trend. Many items that were previously funded through supplemental appropriations, such as increasing the size of the US Army and Marine Corps, are now part of the base budget. There is a line item for “Overseas Contingency Operations” funding, but its scope is narrower and its size more certain.

DoD press release:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652

The fiscal 2010 budget proposal will end the planned use of supplemental requests to fund overseas operations, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. (Can't get clearer than that.) The inclusion of these expenses as a separate category in the department’s annual budget request will ensure greater transparency and accountability to Congress and the American people. The budget will also request funds in the base that were previously in supplementals for programs such as those supporting our military families and providing long-term medical care to injured service members.

Regarding Medicare in this president's budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services1.pdf

Funding Highlights:

Accelerates the adoption of health information technology and utilization of electronic health records.

Expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments to give patients and physicians better information on what works best.

Invests over $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health as part of the Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.

Strengthens the Indian health system with sustained investments in health care services for American Indians and Alaska Natives to address persistent health disparities and foster healthy Indian communities.

Invests $330 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists practicing in areas of the country experiencing shortages of health professionals.

Supports families by providing additional funding for affordable, high-quality child care,
expanding Early Head Start and Head Start, and creating the Nurse Home Visitation program to support first-time mothers.

Strengthens the Medicare program by encouraging high quality and efficient care, and improving program integrity

Invests over $1 billion for Food and Drug Administration food safety efforts to increase and improve inspections, domestic surveillance, laboratory capacity and domestic response to prevent and control foodborne illness.

Social Security in the 2010 budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Social_Security_Administration1.pdf

Provides $11.6 billion for the Social Security Administration, a 10-percent increase targeted at completing crucial workloads and providing the American public with better service.

Enables processing of a rising number of retirement and disability claims.

Provides funding for increasing program integrity efforts to ensure payments are made to the right person and in the correct amount.

Modernizes rules for evaluating disability.

Looks forward to working in a bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations.

Facts on Key Issues (more info on funding for social programs -- really, really good stuff in here)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_factsheets_key/

Discussed at the link:

Giving Every Child A World-Class Education

New Hope, New Jobs, New Opportunities For Our Cities

Opening the Doors of College and Opportunity

Standing With Rural America

Transforming and Modernizing America's Health Care System

[quiet.american]

238. Dupe, wrong place. nt

[mitchtv]

229. K&R

I would like to see that. He deserves a challenge (from the left).I voted for him and sent money, but now I won't.

[FrenchieCat]

241. You supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries, even after the math

said it was impossible. If I recall correctly,
you were quite "dissapointed" for quite some time.

Which means that you sent him money when the choice was him or a Republican.

Only mentioning that, cause your post could be interpreted differently.

[David Zephyr]

244. I know mitchtv. We've hung out in Palm Springs. He did support Obama.

And he did it sincerely. He supported Hillary in the primaries. He's a great Democrat and has been an activist since the 1960's.

[FrenchieCat]

271. I didn't say otherwise......

just when folks start talking of how they aren't going to support someone next time,
I want clarity on the fact that as of June 2008, he wasn't quite on the Obama boat
just yet.

That's all.

A lot of great Democrats supported Hillary, so that ain't a flaw. :shrug:

[mitchtv]

387. actually I went down the line

first I supported Edwards; by the time the Calif primary came I was left with Hill or Barry. Strictly on the "devil you know basis", I chose to vote Hill, that's what primaries are all about. I have been voting Democrat for many years, and always chose the more left. After mcCLURKIN, I knew tha Obama was just another politician, no more , no less.

[davidpdx]

240. My attitude is if it happens, fine

By 2012 is still a long ways away. Sure, anyone one has the right to run, but they have to show they are a creditable candidate to stay in the race.

Even in a non-incumbent election we really only had three viable candidates (and Edwards held on by the skin of his teeth). Only two could prove they could raise the necessary funds to compete. The question is: Is there a challenger out there that can literally match Obama in fund-raising?

[FrenchieCat]

242. PUMAs got their fingers crossed that Hillary will throw her hat in....

it's their secret wish of all wishes.

They figure if they start early enough,
it's a done deal!

[davidpdx]

245. Yeah, maybe

But I'm not sure I want to go there.

[IndianaGreen]

248. Hillary would not have kissed Lieberman or Ben Nelson's ass

I opposed Hillary because she was a war hawk. Guess what? Obama is a bigger war hawk than Hillary ever was!

[ProSense]

251. Right, she would have dissed her fellow DLCer.

The guy Clinton defended and campaigned for in 2006.

[IndianaGreen]

254. Hillary would have never thrown women under the bus

You would not have seen a Stupak amendment in the House version of HCR, or a Nelson amendment in the Senate version of HCR.

[ProSense]

282. You have no clue what Hillary would have done,

She may not have even gotten this far with reform.

[IndianaGreen]

283. Hillary wouldn't have had Rick Warren to give the Invocation

and that's just on day one of the Administration.

[Major Hogwash]

385. Agreed.

I stayed clear away from all of those discussions, but it was the dumbest thing he could have done to start things back on track.

DADT is still in place and it still doesn't work, and the military is still actively discharging men and women who put in over 18 years of their lives defending this country honorably and courageously.

If Obama is going to act like Bush in some circumstances, then why doesn't he do the full monty and sign an executive order repealing DADT, DOMA, and a slew of other uncivil and immoral laws!!!

Ted Kennedy is spinning in his grave over the way the healthcare issue has been skewered to favor the corporations and not the people.

Did Obama think we were stupid?
Bush did.

But, I'm not going to just sit and take it lying down from Obama.
I'll be in the streets now.

[salguine]

290. Hillary's as big a corporatist as Obama and Big Bill ever were.

[JTFrog]

318. Hillary is a fucking Lieberman democrat and always has been.

She was writing letters on his behalf when he said he was going to abandon the Dem party running against Lamont.

They teamed up on several projects... like the one where they wanted to save our children from video game violence and then the one where they wanted to send our children off to real war violence. Good stuff, huh? :eyes:

Do you every think before you post, or are you just so blinded by hatred of Obama that you'll say anything regardless of how it affects your credibility?

[pecwae]

320. PUMA< PUMA< PUMA.

:rofl:

[lastliberalintexas]

257. Add Arne Duncan and his education policies to the mix

What a winner we have.

I'm no Hillary Clinton fan (anyone who cares enough can search my post history and see that), but I will at least give her credit for being honest about the insurance mandate during the primary, since she openly campaigned for it. Mr. Obama's conduct over the last several months has made it very hard to defend him, and I honestly think it will lead to a massacre of Dems in next year's elections. :(

[dcsmart]

258. because i am a democrat, i am going to give this Pres. 4 years

and not 11 months. I am not sure what people expected, but i am not at all upset with the Pres and i plan to give him more than 11 months.

[Bluebear]

267. He doesn't have 4 years, a primary challenger would emerge far before that

Just sayin'.

[dcsmart]

408. correct, but i think you understand what i mean

this is a big thread so i am surprised anyone read what i wrote...LOL

:hi:

[bertman]

262. I'll make my decision next year based on what he's done by then. But it ain't lookin' so good.

[geek tragedy]

291. You are stuck with Obama. There will be no relevant primary challenger. Nt

[earth mom]

292. It's going to boil down to money. Obama has just allowed a 10% mandated tax to be put on everyone's

income and that is NOT going to fly with people-democrat or rethug.

Obama has made a massive error in allowing this mandate ripoff.

Forget about the wars, forget about the con artist banksters, forget about jobs, forget about the economy, forget about the environment, forget about gay rights, forget about womens rights.

Because money trumps EVERYTHING.

People will embrace any alternate candidate who saves them from this outrageous ripoff!

Obama & Congress have played this right into the rethugs hands; don't forget that the thugs hate anything that smells of higher taxes.

Meanwhile fundie nutcase Palin is waiting in the wings-getting rid of that mandate is a tailor made campaign promise for her.


Better cross our fingers and toes and wish and hope and pray that a better, kinder, left wing knight in shining armour swoops in to save the day and this country.

[Spider Jerusalem]

293. You're apparently either very young, or very naive. And possibly both.

First: remember what happened the LAST time a sitting Democratic president faced a strong primary challenge from the left? I imagine you don't, so the answer is: Ronald Reagan was elected President. (That would've been the Jimmy Carter vs Ted Kennedy primary battle in 1980, by the way.)

Also, did you even bother to pay attention to Obama during the campaign and discover his actual positions on the issues? Here's Obama's proposed healthcare plan from the campaign:

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:TCArBxvHEBQJ:www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/+obama+campaign+healthcare&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

The reason that the public option for healthcare wasn't in the Senate version? Blame it on the need to get 60 votes, the number of conservative Democrats in the Senate, and the fact that the Senate gives small states too much power. Which brings us to another instance of your evident naivete: you ARE aware that the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was enacted by Congress? The President is not an elected king. Overturning acts of Congress by executive fiat is bad governance and bad precedent. That you apparently have no qualms regarding that sort of action in the name of ends you support says more about you than it does about Obama. It is, in a word, Nixonian.

As to the foreign wars, I ask again whether you actually paid attention to Obama during the campaign? He repeatedly said that Afghanistan (and Pakistan) would be military priorities, and that US military effort would be refocused from Iraq to Afghanistan.

[David Zephyr]

348. Young and naive? Usually I'm just called old and jaded here.

You sound so angry. Lighten up.

By the way, I supported Eugene McCarthy and later Bobby Kennedy in 1968 and Ted Kennedy during the primaries here in California in 1980.

Ted Kennedy did not cause Carter to lose. You conveniently overlook and disregard the entire dynamic of that election including the fact that John Anderson ran as an Independent.

Obama will have to face the voters in 2012. That's democracy. And the primary process is a good thing, you should welcome it as a Democrat.

Deal with it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

442. Alright, then, naive.

And no, Carter would have lost anyway. But Kennedy didn't help. And sure, Obama will have to face the voters. But you're naive, or extremely foolish, to think a divided party and potential rejection of an incumbent is a good thing for his re-election chances. And I'm not angry at all; YOU, on the other hand, sound like a petulant child ready to take his ball and go home because the game isn't what you thought it was.

[Goldstein1984]

299. If things continue as they are...

my 2010 and 2012 votes are going to be going to anti-war candidates, whether they have a chance of winning or not. Others may consider innocent civilians in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and wherever else gets added to the list in the near future merely statistics, but to me they are people. I'm ashamed of what Bush/Cheney did, and I'm ashamed of what Obama/Biden is doing.

It seems to me that the Democratic Party is taking for granted Independent democratic voters. They do that at their peril. If other Independents are like me, they are principle-driven, not party-driven. An incumbent either performs according to principle, or he risks losing principle-driven supporters (unless the greater of two evils is just so bad that I fear it more than I fear finding out there really is a god and a Hell).

I'm just one Independent vote in a Red state that will be anti-Obama no matter what I do. But I make enough money to use some of it for political purposes all over the planet. How I use my contributions depends largely on who I think deserves it, not to whom I think I owe allegiance.

[shotten99]

300. I'd recommend Eugene McCarthy.

No worries. It's not like Nixon can win this time. It would be Romney or Palin.

[jbnow]

302. I have asked people to explain to me how

Obama misled and so far no one has. Please help me understand.

When Obama was running for president even during primary a public option was in his plan. So were things like health education in schools and better reporting of medical mistakes.
However he did not talk about these things at rallies or town halls. That is what I think "campaign on" means, you make it a big thing that you are running on.
By that definition he did "campaign on" health care itself and all the things like preexisting conditions and rescinding and caps and even kids on parents insurance to age 26. (and no mandates on adults. Ooops)
public options wasn't part of those talks.

Thus to e when he said "I didn't campaign on the public option" that was simple truth.

However he did "campaign FOR" the public option after he became president and the bills were being started. He was the only one that did campaign for it that the press paid attention to and even then they never replayed his explanation of what it was which was too bad. He did a good job explaining it.

So where am I wrong?
Do people think "campaign ON" and "campaign FOR" are the same thing and so he is lying (and I don't understand terms?)
Or did he in fact speak of it at rallies I happened not to see or read transcripts of? I really tried to follow almost all of our candidates speeches at town halls and rallies but I definitely could have missed it.
I saw some posts that gave quotes where he was clearly in favor of it...but he was president.
(Hey I even saw misleading ones where he said things like "I will not sign a bill....unless there is a public option" but when I tracked it to full quote there were many words in between that totally changed meaning and inferred a vow never given. Naughty misquoters!)

I am still disappointed he didn't pressure the right wing senators at all even though I don't think we'd ever have gotten strong PO out of the Senate. Even House bill was negotiated, not Medicare plus 5% or 10% which would be strong one.
I have to admit that what Senate bill ended up with is probably better than the weak ass public option they were trying for. At least if they actually do regulate because the slight advantage of weak po was possibly slowing increase of rates.

Honestly I think we made up the controversy, that we were playing word games, not him.

Not to say I might not support a primary challenger myself but that is over his economic team and the crap they are pulling...

But I think late December 2009 is too early to decide.

[JNelson6563]

303. lol

Cracks me up! Obama raised and spent a quarter BILLION dollars to win the WH. Show me one Dem who's gonna challenge that! hahahahaha

Too damn funny! You guys are so out of touch with reality.

[DisgustedInMN]

304. Well said.

You've hit my sentiments exactly. Being taunted, insulted, and condescended to by those who I stood shoulder to shoulder with, not so long ago, isn't likely to turn it around. I absolutely HATE being lied to.

[katkat]

311. you forgot torture

Me too. I hope we have a credible left candidate.

[JoeyT]

314. I'll have to see what he does in the next three years.

Though it's going to take a hell of a lot at this point.

[MissDeeds]

322. Excellent post

I will support a primary challenge as well.

[lonestarnot]

327. Nope

[NorthCarolina]

328. I share in your disappointment with Obama and in your hope for a chance at Real Change in 2012.

Thank you for your very well written post that perfectly details your views in an amicable way. It is well past time that the people begin to mount a serious effort to challenge the right-of-center *centrists* entrenched in the Democratic Party, and return the party to an advocate of the people. The DLC does not advocate for the people and therefore has no place in the Democratic Party.

[Tatiana]

330. I believe Obama is a good President and the best out of the choices we had.

I'm disappointed with Obama's about-face on the public option, when it's so clear he campaigned in favor of it, but that's politics.

Obama is a big picture thinker and his goal is to get a bill passed. Legislation can always be re-worked or re-tooled, but if we'd failed to get any bill passed by Congress, we would have kissed health care reform good-bye for a long time. The President is a pragmatist. We knew that going in.

A good primary challenge might help the President re-evaluate what the American public truly wants from its government. However, I'm not understanding the level of hatred and anger being leveled at President Obama, considering the fact that he is attempting to follow through with quite an ambitious agenda after inheriting a tragic mess of a nation from Bush.

Do we think McCain would have done better? Or even Hillary Clinton? I don't think so.

I think it's fine to keep up the pressure on the President to let him know we're not happy. But I think the majority of our energies should be focused on providing the President with fewer "Blue Dog" corporatist Dems in Congress and better Democrats in the Senate.

[treestar]

331. Since there are three years left

And you are already pre-judging those three years, I don't find you credible.

[mikekohr]

332. NADER + 2000 ='s George W. Bush

How did that work out?

mike kohr

[kentuck]

334. A very small third Party could do more good than 2 major Parties...

simply because neither of the other Parties could get anything done without the third Party. We need to vote smarter. The two-Party system is broken. More Parties means more coalitions. Coalitions vote on issues, not political Parties. That is the direction we need.

[David Zephyr]

351. You are so correct.

The two party system is a boat anchor on democracy in America. That's why the primary process may just be the healthiest tool voters and the American people have. I'm afraid we are stuck with a two part system.

[JaneFordA]

337. More than happy to "primary" Obama

... in fact, I'm sure I will, no matter what sort of chop-busting we take in the mid-terms and how contritely/humbly he may decide to change course. That won't be enough for me. I'm at the point in life where politicos are "one strike, you're out" and I don't have the slightest iota of remorse about it.

[proReality]

338. "Here's hoping...progressive wing...will begin to look at Iowa and New Hampshire..."

And here's hoping that the 'someone' will be tall, good looking, has a strong jawline, served in the military with honors or not, attends an acceptable church on a regular basis, can make us believe that rhetoric is reality, is as pure as the driven snow, and is down to earth enough for everyone to want to have a beer with. Those seem to be the modern requirements for anyone to become president of this country.

Personally, I can't think of anyone who fits the bill enough to make a large majority (or even a majority) vote for him/her.

Think I'll do a write-in for my cat. I know what to expect from him, and he's as loyal and trustworthy as the dog.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

345. I agree completely.

O needs a strong challenger to keep him honest and accountable.

[icee]

349. I join you, David. Too much....

[davidwparker]

350. Me too. Defeating Obama in the primaries is the best way to keep the WH

in 2012.

Otherwise, the party needs to nominate someone whose backbone is as strong has his/her mouth.

[grahamhgreen]

356. A primary challenge from the left will force him to move to the left and give a national voice

to the progressive movement that will allow Americans to understand that Obama is not progressive and that the solutions to our major problems will come from the left, yet have not even been given lIp service by Obama.

[David Zephyr]

365. Bingo!

Yep. The operative words are "force him to move to the left".

[elleng]

359. So you'd like to be a life-long OUT OF POWER dem, eh?

[Joey Liberal]

362. I agree

Which Democrat will step up to the plate. I hate to stay it, but Obama has struck out.

[colsohlibgal]

364. It's Early But....

We need to field as many strong progressive candidates as we can to run against the DINOs - and so far, it's looking like Obama fits that acronym pretty closely. I doubt he does enough of a left turn to keep the wolves at bay.

[Grinchie]

366. This Post explains why Obama is nothing more than brand X after Bush. A loser...

It's really amazing how quickly he was able to unmistakenly sell out to the DLC/NeoCon crew of the party, and for that, he signed his owned single term destiny.

Not that he cares, but his supplicants and hanger's onner's do, which is why we now see the resurrection of pathetic show bombers and a heightened state of fear being promulgated amongst the airline industry.

The administration and the TSA was facing bankruptcy, and laying off the TSA Gangsters would have caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket even more. What better than to conjure up some stooge to shift the focus and maybe even stir up propaganda and hatred for Namibia.

For all those myopic people that like getting slapped in the face by this administration over and over again without realize they are being abused, I feel sorry for you. You have waived your right to the inherant power we all have as individuals, and have bought into the propaganda that somehow these politicians actually know how that manage your lives for you.

One thing is clear, and that is that we must have Honesty and clarity from those who act as a masthead, and Obama doesn't have it.

That's why I will be supporting any candidate that has the courage to speak honestly and clearly about the State of the Nation, like Kucinich.

[ProSense]

373. No, this post shows that there are clowns, right and left. n/t

[Grinchie]

441. Who better to demonstrate that point but you ProSense

The One line wonder that can parrot any talking point with utmost fidelity..

[unc70]

368. 200+ recs, 100+ unrecs, nearly 400 posts - spirited, but mostly civil

A lot of emotion, a lot of frustration, a strong need for many of us to vent. But with a few exceptions, the main discussion and several side ones have remained relatively civil. A lot of long, thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. Not a lot of name calling nor banned posts.

I don't know what will happen over the next 2-3 years. I see little chance that we will reach a "happy ending"; almost every scenario seems to leave us more down than up and still facing many of the same problems. A case of "worse" versus "worser" versus "worsted".

From past experiences, if Obama continues to disappoint and anger increasing numbers of independents and of those in democratic wing of the Democratic Party, then the Dem Party will suffer losses in the midterms and Obama will certainly face a challenger in the primaries -- and a likely defeat in the midterms. Not a good outcome.

But neither is continuing or promoting polices that would enrage us if done by a Repub. A wink and a smile, while lying by the mile, just doesn't cut it for those commited to social, legal, and finacial justice. Being ignored, abused, and muzzled in the name of party unity is not a good outcome either. Certainly not if you truly believe in liberal and progressive ideals.

The Republicans and the various RW factions have their own version of unhappiness. Is it possible that the internet and its ability to distribute information and to raise money is undermining the political establishments much as they already destroying the foundations under newspapers and other institutions? Are we on the verge of a realignment in American politics and will it result in more or different parties or will it continue the decline in centralized parties controlled by insiders? Is Obama one of the last machine politicians? Or is he the beginning of a new micro-marketed, personalized political campaign where the messages are tailored down to the individual voter -- each of us sees and hears the message most likely to resonate with us?

Not sure where this goes.

[onehandle]

371. Where does this go? Ooh ooh, I know!

[unc70]

375. No, it does not go to President Palin. Not a chance. Stale TP.

A convenient and oft repeated talking point, but not really a possible outcome. Sarah has much less of a chance being president than does Dennis. The danger from the right would probably be from someone we have barely noticed, maybe a governor. But the internet and its ability to expose things quickly and early makes it harder for any candidate.

There has also been mentions of Mitt being groomed as a candidate. The story about the family dog on the top of the car for the long trip probably destroyed any chances he might have had with the Repub base. That got a lot of buzz off the radar because it was something people could relate to and which made him look really bad.

[onehandle]

378. I don't seriously expect Palin to even run. She's a book shilling facebook blogger.

But considering what the GOP is coming to, any candidate capable of getting nominated, might as well be Palin.

I wouldn't completely write off Mittens. After all, the GOP nominated a frog blowing up, coke snorting, underage Mexican hooker fucking business failure in 2000.

I believe he 'won.'

[unc70]

399. The frogs were in W's "youth"; the dog, after Mitt had car full of children

Harder to dismiss it when his own children talked to reporters about it, semmingly oblivious to the implications of what they were saying. Even my RW relatives in the rural South took notice and knew that was not right. It wasn't the same as letting the dog ride in the back of the pickup for a mile down to the local store at 40 mph. They already did not trust Romney, did not relate to him at all.

[Artscbabe]

369. Never saw so many fickeled posts...

What egotism we have here? To expect so much change to your liking in the first twelve months, when we have had so many years of failed policy up the ying yang.....you expect change to happen over night. President Obama said it would take time...that you can't turn a ship on a dime. Your loyalty to a cause for change is about complaining and back stabbing. You are all ungrateful and self serving shallow people. There is only so much that can be done at any given time when there is so much corruption and opposing views. Get real folks. This is all about the aftermath we have endured from the Bush years and before. I'm sticking with the democratic party and president Obama. One year is not enough time to judge outcomes.

[bos1]

400. That's the truth. These crybabies should get a life. At least wait til 2011 ferkrissakes. nt

[jpak]

376. Good Luck!

:rofl:

[BlackX-068]

377. Has It Been 4 Years Already???

Most of the folks on the left are giving the "Magic Negro" song true meaning thinking he can do all things, all the time. Never have I seen soooooo many cry babies in my life!!!

If you piss on the side of the toilet, you will blame him for that as well? WTF????! Black folks were promised 40 acres and a mule and it has yet to come to surface (I will settle for 5 bucks now; never picked cotton in my life). Over 100+ years ago and nothing has been done on that front but you want to condemn this man, not even a full year in office, for something you are seeking...let us know if your bath water is cold.

[Major Hogwash]

389. It sure as the hell seems like it, brother.

Where art thou, O' brother?

How the hell can anyone defend the indefensible?

[nckjm]

390. ITA!!!

[jonathan_seer]

401. The uniformity of "Support Obama" posts in this thread are a great example of Axelrod at work to

try and smother and shut down the building anger on the Progressive side of things.

Individual posters with their own individual POVs don't harmonize in tone, word usage, choice of sound bites, size of post Etc.

Posters working as a "team" do.

Watching it work here is interesting.

If anything it shows that Axelrod Etc. his feelings toward the left side is filled with chutzpa.

The political minders on team Obama" see themselves as parents for that reason.

Their job is to listen and debate just enough to keep the unruly bratty progressive types in control, just as some parents dealing with hyper kids will have discussions/arguments with the child that don't require actually listening and minimal emotional investment. They do this to avoid being manipulated by said child.

By sticking to a "figurative" parent talk script they can engage the child sufficiently to forestall real problems, and do so without doing much thinking.

That is a great modus operandi for parents and unruly children.

It risks failure in politics in the long run. The failure can be seen in the chaos among Republicans. The teabaggers as irrational and insane as they may be, got tired of being shushed by the Republican establisment, and are now threatening to tear it apart.

Progressives are the flip side of that and want far more good than they are getting. Progressives have received almost nothing except vacuous platitudes in regards to their healthcare demands. That and the blatant nature of the "corporate big win" has made Progressives poor targets for this type of social management. Progressives are quickly getting tired of being told to "shush, be quiet, sit down Daddy has work to do" routine by team Axelrod and Rahm.

The complaints are not over superficial disagreements. They are deep and profound. Pretending the progressives will get over it is a fantasy. They won't. Even if this issue does fade, the scar will remain.

Thus this strategy of dispatching discussion parents from Team Axelrod to manage lists here is not very smart.

It's alienating like any attempt to treat a rational, upset adult like a child, because he does not, she does not accept the party line verbatim.

It makes the mistaken notion that Obama is just a liberal Bush seem all too true.

In terms of health care he is, but for when it comes to food safety, import standards, drug safety Obama has gone far in reversing the unregulated dangerous non-regulatory state Government has collapsed to under Bush.

He's enforcing environmental laws, after 8 years of neglect. Civil rights are once again the focus of the Civil Rights agency.

He's dramatically increased funding for education, by removing the lenders who made billions lending government money to students.

All in all these things would be "getting my money's worth" from him.

Personally I wish he had just dropped the health care issue once he saw the corporations had the winning hand.

Some issues need to fester and grow to a certain size in order to make the whole of society join together to fix it. Until then nothing can be done, and anything done prior to that only will make the problem worse.

Some issues do actually require mass action, but it's been decades and a generation since we as a nation had the will, the awareness or the leaders that could make that happen. Because it has to spring up new, it's taking a lot longer for certain issues. It will though.

His big failures to date I think are his belief that he can do "it" on a certain issue, when the truth is he cannot.

Some enemies are just so entrenched, taking them on is best left for later in an administration when your power is established and the government isn't riddled with Bush holdovers.

That's how Bush did it. The stink from rot he instilled in the Government and society only became noticeable by the general public near the end of his term. If thing had gone to plan, the breakdown would have happened after 1/21/09 not before.

Obama needs to slow down, and take the time to do things right. The urgency is false. People die every day from this sad issue. To suddenly declare it intolerable after the nation has barely acknowledged it existed, to use it as a motivation is foolhardy and as we are now seeing a means that defeats the original goal completely.
I haven't lost faith in his management of the financial system, but until people are marching in the streets demanding justice for the financial market's deep corruption

[David Zephyr]

409. Welcome to the DU.

"Personally I wish he had just dropped the health care issue once he saw the corporations had the winning hand." So do I. He should have.

[billh58]

418. I have a problem with

the blanket accusation that anyone who is not totally pissed off at President Obama, and is not calling for his replacement, is somehow working in concert with a coordinated evil "movement" to silence critics of his administration.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never read anything written by, or actively followed the speeches of, Axelrod. I do not parrot a particular point-of-view, and am definitely not a "blind follower" of anyone. Having said that, I am a Liberal Democrat because my views are more closely aligned with those of the platform of the Democratic Party, than those of the Republican Party. My order of priorities, however, make me an American first, and a Democrat second.

I care deeply about my fellow citizens regardless of their politics, nationality, race, religion, sexual preference, or social status. That is why this statement by President Obama resonated so deeply with me: "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America."

And no, I do not subscribe to Rodney King's "can't we all just get along," philosophy, but I do recognize the need for a higher level of civility and common purpose in this country. No single individual can be all things to all people, and Dubya decided to cater exclusively to his "have mores" base while totally neglecting and ignoring the rest of us. Some Liberals ("Progressives?") believe that this "Unitary Executive" approach is a good model for President Obama to follow in order to quickly ram the Liberal agenda down the country's collective throats. A little honest introspection, and a quick review of the Neoconservative PNAC agenda, reveals the fallacy of this way of thinking.

The main difference that I have observed over the years between Democrats and Republicans, is that Democrats believe that the Constitution and our system of governance should address the needs of ALL Americans, whereas Republicans tend to lean toward a survival-of-the-fittest, divide-and-conquer, societal makeup. I believe in majority rule, as distasteful as the outcome can sometimes be, and trust in the goodwill and common sense of Americans to eventually get it right.

The steady social and economic progress made by the first eight generations of Americans gives me a great deal of hope for the future of this country.

[defendandprotect]

406. dupe --

[defendandprotect]

407. Better than not voting, or maybe voting third party . . .

[ecstatic]

414. You and the people who recc'd your post are delusional. You deserve Sarah Palin

McCain, or another Bush. I almost wish it for you, but I'm not going to drink poison in an effort to hurt you.

[Bluebear]

417. What a nasty-spirited sentiment. Ugh.

[RoadRage]

421. Awesome.. so you like to waste time AND money!

Is there anyone further to the left who would actually WIN an election in this country right now? Answer - NO.

People on this damn board like to live in a cardboard box where they think that everyone thinks like them, and there is this "small fringe" on the right. Wrong. GWB got elected TWICE because there are a HELL of a lot of people in this country that think very conservatively. They vote. Obama was able to get their vote.. but as it is, they are already probably looking to go back to a right-winged candidate in '12 because they think the government spent to much money on the bailout, and they don't like healthcare (and many don't like it not because there is no public option.. but because they think the government is "too involved").

Some people need to wake up and realize that if the Kuchinich's of the world could get elected.. they already WOULD BE. We laugh at the thought of Palin actually getting elected.. but some here think that her opposite on the left would just be easily elected. Wrong - 75% of this country falls into the "middle" which is why our candidates are also there. Sorry - I know it pisses of DU, but Obama is better then Palin.

[ddeclue]

429. +1 if I could still recommend I would.

Damned skippy! Obama has sold us out on health care, on financial reform, on foreign trade, and on civil liberties. He needs to go and we need a Kucinich or John Edwards type to run him (and Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mary Blanche Lincoln, etc. al.) out of town in 2012.

This is what I told you would happen back in 2007-2008 when everybody was backing Obama instead of Kucinich or Edwards - a head fake to liberalism while continuing along with corporatism.

[democracy1st]

443. Kick

[SeattleGirl]

445. This lifelong Democrat will not do that. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

453. Debate is good, President Obama will be debating the Rebulican

candidate, which should be fun.

[and-justice-for-all]

458. It is far to early to make such a determination IMO...

Obama needs to run his term to its completion before I make a judgment like that.

[closeupready]

459. I agree, and would K&R, but this is older than 24 Hours. GHWB probably thought he was unbeatable.

As did other one-term presidents who lost re-election bids. It happens.