I voted for Obama.

[madamesilverspurs]

I did NOT vote for Merlin the Magician. Nor did I vote for Santa frigging Claus.

I voted for the candidate who exhibited the intellectual ability to begin the process of clearing away the wreckage in order to begin the subsequent process of rebuilding. I voted for the man willing to shovel out the garbage before applying a mop.

I'd vote for him again. In a heartbeat.

---

[itsrobert]

1. When is he going to get to work?

Still waiting.

[katandmoon]

5. +1

[leftstreet]

6. +1

[MissDeeds]

60. +1

[Terra Alta]

8. Good question!!

I voted for Obama, but he has been very disappointing.

[jpak]

24. clue: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, GM and Chrylser Rescue, Haiti

among many oher things

but I guess we weren't paying attention

were we

[CANDO]

41. I'm paying attention!

To them getting nothing done about the further destruction of this country because they fear the Tea Baggers and the Corpo-media and the nasty Republicans. And that includes Obama. If you are not filled with dread and disgust at what the Dems and Obama haven't done, then it is you who isn't paying attention. The worm is turning and MILLIONS of Reagan Dems who finally have given the Dems a chance again are fleeing back to the Republicans. Why are the Democrats afraid of being RUTHLESS with the power they've been given? If there is one thing the working folks need, it is a Democrat with gonads who is as ruthless with his power for the people as Bush/Cheney were for the corporations. But hell NO, Obama wanted to play nice in the sand box with fucking sociopaths who just wanted to kill him politically. And hell no, it isn't chess because Obama and the Dems were check-mated months ago.

[tigereye]

25. oh for God's sake.

Do you read and listen to the news? Think the man has just been sitting around twiddling his thumbs? :eyes:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[HughBeaumont]

37. When's he going to get some help from the private sector?

King Bewsh II put the kibosh on any government job creation with his whiskey-throttle doubling of the National Debt (which was all WASTED money). Presidents cannot force corporate bosses to hire workers.

The people that run this country are more or less anti-tax, anti-Democratic arch-conservatives. We've already cut these people's taxes to where they have the lowest rate in 75 YEARS. The result of that mess has been a whopping zero net job creation in a decade. It's almost a guarantee that they'll be fighting the Bewsh tax cut expiration at the end of this year with guns a-blazin'.

To not see the destructive practices of the private sector for what they are is delusional at best. Good luck breaking through that brick wall.

[berni_mccoy]

111. Thanks for lowering the quality of DU.

[azmouse]

2. Me too!

:thumbsup:

[Chulanowa]

3. K&R

I'm exhausting myself bringing reality of this to the willfully and woefully ignorant around here.

No other president has EVER been expected to deliver each and every single thing his constituents want. Certainly no president has ever been expected to do so in the first year of his first term.

[sendero]

39. All we wanted was a change in direction..

... that is why we are pissed.

You folks keep making excuses. At the ballot box, they are worth a bucket of warm spit.

You got your shot across the bow, if DRASTIC changes are not made immediately you will get the cannon fire at the midterms.

Wait and see.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[C_Lawyer09]

100. Who is saying anything about delivering everything his constituents want

I'd be satisfied with a little backbone, and an administration that isnt "woefully and willfully" ignorant of basic economic policy as it pertains to job creation. If you aren't too exhausted, do you mind telling me how many tax dollars we're missing from "technically" off shore companies? How fast did he sell out on a public option? What happened at the jobs summit? A small amount of leadership, regardless of competence goes a long way.

[Fire1]

4. Me three. n/t

[The Straight Story]

7. I voted for an ideal (nt)

[Lifelong Protester]

9. sign me on

[Not Me]

10. I voted for him too.

He was clearly the best of the two candidates available.
But recently I have been thinking, "what if he were an employee of mine; one of my key executives?"
I have to say that I would probably be cutting him loose and looking for someone else. Someone with the ability to recognize that there are people out there who have different goals and objectives and not allow him/herself to get bogged down by the competitor's agenda.

Now, for sure, this isn't my private business, but if he doesn't start showing some real leadership, I can guarantee that he will be a one term President. And that is a tremendous loss of potential for him and the country.

[mitchtv]

13. +1

time's a wastin'

[Terra Alta]

17. that's for damn sure.

Obama needs to get on the ball start doing what the people of this country elected him to do. If he waits too much longer it may be too late.

[Obamanaut]

22. I did too. I fell under the spell of 'audacity of hope', but am leaning

toward the belief that I was duped, and that belief is so discouraging.

Even changed my screen name during the name-change amnesty.

[Hekate]

86. "But recently..." Do your key execs have a 4-year contract? Do their jobs demand a learning curve?

Are they all people who are assumed to be able to know absolutely everything the first day on the job, or is one of the criteria for hiring that they demonstrate a strong potential to deal with a steep learning curve and come up with creative solutions to unforeseen problems? Do you cut them loose at the first sign of difficulty, or do you give them a chance to show you what they can do?

President Obama is our key executive, and we have given him a 4-year contract. Sure we can give him an annual performance evaluation, but we don't get to fire him unless he embezzles the pension fund, or similar. The performance evaluation has to be proportional to the job description itself, and to the unanticipated demands as well as the day to day functions of the job. The evaluation should take into consideration the steep learning curve, the nature of other departments at his level with whom the exec must interact and on whom he must depend to achieve his goals, and over whom he has little control but the power of persuasion. Are the other departments co-operative or are they not? If not, what recourse does he have, if any?

And so on. We could extend your metaphor at further length, but there's really no need. For one thing, the business model is not the right paradigm for all organizations -- not only government, but the military, education, and health care delivery all suffer when forced into the business/bottom-line paradigm to the exclusion of more appropriate models.

For another thing, if key execs in your business are tasked with a job such as the one I described in my second paragraph, then are micromanaged and not allowed time for the very steep learning curve needed, and then packed off before the end of their contract -- that position becomes a sequential career-killer for one occupant of the post after another, and not one where any person can realistically hope to achieve much.

Hekate

[C_Lawyer09]

101. You're Wrong

Unfortunately it is not a career killer, as we've learned and are constantly reminded by all the inept millionaire CEO's that squander corporate money, screw stockholders, then wind up somewhere else, just as handsomely paid or moreso than they were before. Meanwhile, middle managers and workers get shit canned for the smallest of indiscretions and are blacklisted for life. Read, Pigs at the Trough by Arianna Huffington. Take a look at all the managerial elites that break laws and fuck up non-stop, only to pop up somewhere else in some cushy overpaid job. My most recent example, head of NC DMV. Again, people aren't dissapointed with his inability to learn, they are dissapointed with his inability to show some motherloving intestinal fortitude.

[Codeine]

90. The usual suspects

are making the usual tired noises, but I'm with you. :hi:

[Scurrilous]

11. K & R

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

12. I voted for him, too

And I voted for someone who would shoveling out the garbage of the last 30 years of economic policy that has slowly destroyed the working and middle class and led to the worst crisis since the Great Depression. What I didn't expect was to see him carry in the very people who gave us the garbage and put them in charge of his economic team so they could trash us a little more. It has been encouraging to see Volcker and Warren let out of the broom closet this week but notice he is still pushing for Bernanke's confirmation.

[HughMoran]

14. Same here

[anonymous171]

15. I voted for his policies. nt

[alteredstate]

16. k & r

:kick:

[timeforpeace]

18. Cult of personality voter here as well.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. I voted for him too, with hope

that I was wrong about him. Unfortunately, I've been proven right.

[rug]

20. Isn't he supposed to be sworn in by now?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[daninthemoon]

23. I cringe whenever I hear McCain or Palin speak, and consider who

might be President instead of Obama. Puts things in perspective.

[aquart]

28. Thereby avoiding all thoughts of the primary choices.

[daninthemoon]

35. no

[Edweird]

26. Well,bully for you. I, for one, expect him to keep his word or be held accountable.

[greenbird]

29. Absolutely.

In all of the negative threads I've read over the past few weeks, I have yet to see ONE post that goes beyond what Obama HASN'T done and sets forth specific, detailed suggestions as to how he COULD do it. And I mean SPECIFIC, based on reality. I know how long it can take to fix a small, personal family problem - sometimes years, if it can be fixed at all. The enormity of what he's dealing with is staggering. I should think he deserves the benefit of the doubt for a little bit longer than ONE YEAR.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. I voted for this cool guy who opposed mandated purchase

and proposed a public option. I guess he lost.

[anonymous171]

31. What are you talking about? Obama never said that. Mandates have always been doubleplusgood

The only people who believe that are Naderites who fabricate videos like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
in order to turn us against Obama.

[QC]

32. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[bvar22]

33. I voted for the guy that :

*said he opposed Individual Mandates to buy Health Insurance

*said he opposed immunity for Telecoms

*ridiculed the idea of the "Cadillac Tax"

*said he would renegotiate NAFTA

*said he supported EFCA

*said he would raise taxes on The RICH to pay for Health Care

*said everyone would have a seat at the table (and then shut OUT discussion of Single Payer)

*said he would hold Wall Street accountable

*said negotiation on Health Care Reform would be televised

*said the White House would be closed to Lobbyists

*campaigned on a Public Option "like Medicare".


Thats the guy I voted for.
Where is he? :shrug:

[Raine]

58. That's the guy I voted for too

I wonder where he went. :yoiks:

[Mira]

34. Given the same set of candidates, you bet I would vote for him again as well.

In a heartbeat.
Unless I could vote for Howard Dean, Kucinich, Sanders or Grayson.

As things are, I just have to help him by holding his feet to the fire.
Was it yesterday, or thereabouts, that he was going to REALLY close Gitmo....for starters....

I love him. I do, and am proud to have helped him get into office.
I want him to more courageously use the leadership position we gave him.

[Hekate]

36. But, but--Merlin would have waved his wand and moved all the rubble of the Presidential Palace NOW.

Eight years of Bush-Cheney-Rove was a national disaster. It can't be repaired in a year, some of it maybe never.

I agree with your assessment, madamesilverspurs.

Hekate

[eilen]

38. Given the choice we had in Nov. of 2008

I guess I would have to vote for him again. Of course, not as enthusiastically with the idea he'd actually bring peace or industry back to our shores. I won't even touch healthcare because he has certainly let that get fubar'd with his "hands off" strategery. I don't know if Bush could have even gotten such a insurance company wet dream.

[Owl]

40. Aye.

[BlueIdaho]

42. Gridlock.

I voted for the President, and I will vote for him again. The notion that a new Democratic contender could sweep through a primary process un-scarred and then go on to win against a Republican in 2012 is, well, lets just call it naive. The real problem is Washington's gridlock. It is far easier, and far more desirable for Congress to do nothing than something. After all, the goal of every member of congress is to remain in Congress - as close to the lobbyists and their money as possible.

Our President needs to hack away the deadwood in the White House and demand the resignations of every Bush appointee. We need to realize the problems in our nation's capitol cant be solved in one year - and they can't be solved by one man.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Sorry, I don't feel like being part of the "pep club" today.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

44. Since when is accomplishing promised progressive change "magic"?

[Lindsey]

46. President Obama inherited a country in shambles....

I'm just amazed that people thought he would be able to completely turn the country around in one year. WTF! Remember when he said it would take time? He said that all along. And let's look at what he's done for the good. Stem Cell research comes to mind at first. This man is working his ASS off. How many vacations has he taken? He's on the job 24/7. Would you people rather have McCain/and Sarah? Given the age and health of McCain, we could well have had her as President if McCain dies!!!!!!!!!!!! Can you imagine that????????? I can't believe anyone would rather have a President who doesn't read (remember Bush - she'd be worse), who doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea, and on and on and on. This is disgusting.

[jgraz]

47. Which is exactly why we should be seeing bold changes from him.

He tries to remedy a catastrophe through incrementalism? And compromising with the people who caused it? How, exactly is that supposed to work?

It's like going Haiti and compromising with the earthquake. "Gee, maybe we'll just move the rubble halfway off this survivor..." :eyes:

[Chulanowa]

53. I really don't think you understand how government in the US works

Maybe you just got used to Bush running the country with a congressional fiat to do whatever the fuck he wanted.

It doesn't actually work that way, though.

[cascadiance]

56. In other words, are we supposed to understand that it DOESN'T work for us and we need to REVOLT...

... instead?

I understand that the corporatist infrastructure HAS NOT changed, even with Obama getting voted in, despite our hopes that he might take them on and fix things for the better.

Either he needs to take on this corporatist power structure, or he's part of the problem, not the solution. Time is running out for him!

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

85. Grow up for crying out loud

What corporatist power structure? The power structure has been around since 1789! We've done well enough with it.

[cascadiance]

97. Oh for crying out loud! K-Street was doing the government business in 1789 like it is now?

Wake UP!!! Corporations are TAKING OVER if you want to let them! Did we have FIVE mega corporations owning our media even 10-20 years ago like we do now?

I choose not to allow this takeover, and will fight it where I can. Even past Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, have warned us about the corporate influence over our government, and would have been called "commies" with some of today's political "dialogue"...

Even former chief justice Rehnquist wouldn't have gone as far as Roberts did with this fascist decision last week.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

...
It's interesting that in one of the most recent cases decided by the Supreme Court expanding corporate personhood, Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented. The case was First National Bank of Boston versus Bellotti, in 1978, and the bank was asserting that, as a "person," it had the right of "free speech" to interfere in politics. This was the case that kicked wide the door to corporations corrupting our political process in the last twenty-five years, and has led directly to the corporate capture and manipulation of Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya as well as the majority of both houses of Congress, the Republican Party, and the DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

In opening his dissent, Rehnquist said: "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886)."

This makes it pretty clear that neither Rehnquist nor his clerks actually read the Santa Clara case, but, as has been done for over a hundred years, were relying on the headnote. But, to his credit, Rehnquist disagreed with the headnote, saying:

"Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law: 'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.'" Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).

Rehnquist then added, brilliantly in my opinion:

"The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by <435 U.S. 765, 824> state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.

"The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity."

In this dissent, Rehnquist demonstrated the difference between a classical conservative, as he is, and the new corporatists who call themselves conservatives. Interestingly, this interview would probably be just as interesting and agreeable to readers of the website of William F. Buckley Jr. as it is to the readers of BuzzFlash. This is an issue on which both classic conservatives and classic liberals agree.

Like it or not WE ARE AT WAR NOW! Either be complicit with the fascists, or fight them.

[jgraz]

65. I really don't think you understand how politics in the US works.

See Massachusetts, last week. :eyes:

[Chulanowa]

77. Shitty campaigns lead to defeats? Who'da thunk it

Nice of you to latch onto and propagate the Republican memes, though.

[jgraz]

79. A disillusioned base leads to defeat.

It's not a "Republican meme", it's reality. http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults

Learn to tell the difference, you'll embarrass yourself less often. (Of course, you'll always have your "watermelon" posts for that. :eyes:)

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

87. Disillusioned base hands election to the right wing

Hilarious.

If that's how it works in the U.S., we're going to remain a right wing paradise.

Because if the left were really as stupid as you claim they are, voting in Republicans because the democrats are not to the left enough, then the left deserves Republicans in office.

[jgraz]

92. Have you called all 60 million Democrats yet?

If the MA race is any indication, they don't care any more. They're voting to punish the Democrats for not living up to expectations.

As always, it's much easier to get one President to change his behavior. And hey, look at the past week -- it seems to be working. :D

[treestar]

84. This is as silly as can be

the people who caused it are Bush and the neocons. They're gone.

[jgraz]

94. Ah, I see you're now placing warning labels on your posts.

Excellent. Always good to know what to expect before I click on a thread. Of course, "treestar" really was warning enough.

[Bluebear]

49. "How many vacations has he taken?" Several. And don't play the tired "rather have Palin" card.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ????????????????

[treestar]

88. You got Brown. Maybe your disillusioned ass will get the likes of Palin, too

That'll show those Democrats!!

Really, how is it possible to be that dumb and not be a Republican?

[jgraz]

93. "how is it possible to be that dumb and not be a Republican?"

You tell us.

Oh wait... you're DLC. Nevermind...

[Bluebear]

104. Isn't she NASTY?

I had to sign out to see who was posting what, and there she is. Nasty DLC lady.

[GoCubsGo]

109. No need to sign out.

Just go to the top and click on "Printer-friendly format." It shows everyone, except those whose names were removed by the moderators.

[Bluebear]

114. thank you!

[jgraz]

110. Right, I keep forgetting she's female

Usually, you only get that personality type from testosterone poisoning.

[Bluebear]

103. Really, the hell with your nasty personal attacks.

I just had to sign out to see who was posting this nonsense, and there you are. Nasty, nasty DLC creature.

[treestar]

83. It is very difficult

To get anything affirmative out of the U.S. system.

Easier for Republicans. The "decider" could just sit there and decide on another war.

[jgraz]

45. Holy shit -- MERLIN was running? How did I not hear about this??

Fucking corporate media. It's that anti-wizard cabal again.

[Bluebear]

52. Merlin didn't have the sexay, sexay tight abs, so he didn't get the press.

[jgraz]

61. Totally understandable. Plus, how can a guy in a pointy hat stand up to this?

<SWOON>

[LWolf]

48. You voted for a center-right politician

who is part of the problem, not the solution, and I'm stuck with the results.

I don't vote for corporate/centrist/3rd way/"new" dems.

They don't "clear away the wreckage." They make the mountain of crap more massive.

[alteredstate]

57. Please tell me who you think should be in his place.

Of course it has to be someone who could have actually won in 2008.

[cascadiance]

64. Perhaps if Edwards hadn't "infected" the field, Kucinich would have had a better shot!

I know if I know what I know now about Edwards, Kucinich would have had my vote instead!

[treestar]

89. Why didn't Dennis win then?

No criticism of him for failing to win the primary and election?

If you can tell Obama how to run the executive branch, why can't you tell Dennis how to win the Presidency?

Why doesn't Dennis get criticized for not winning?

If Obama can be slammed because the Senate will not agree with him on the public option, why the heck can't Dennis be criticized for not winning the election?

Explain too how he would have gotten Lieberman to agree to single payer. Not to mention the Blue Dogs.

[cascadiance]

96. Because too many of us were swallowing that Edwards had a better chance at winning...

... and Edwards was pretty much the ONLY other candidate that wasn't following the corporatist spiel... Had he not been in the mix, I think those that were behind Edwards and Kucinich would have both rallied behind Kucinich, and therefore I think he would have been more of a force. And who knows, with more votes, other people might have believed he could win too and supported him.

Running the executive branch IS something that Obama has control over. HE selected people like Rahm, Summers, and Geitner to be his advisors. Kucinich can only go so far in affecting other people's votes. He doesn't pull the levers to vote for himself.

First of all, there ARE ways of getting your party to follow your lead by playing hardball. That is things like changing the rules on filibustering (forcing people to actually quote text, etc. to do so), going towards reconciliation. This wasn't done. Instead Obama met behind closed doors with the drug and health insurance companies and probably negotiated away many of the reforms we wanted.

Good negotiators don't play the hand they would settle for FIRST when they start negotiating. They play what they WANT. Now why didn't Obama and the Dems first put out single player as what they WANTED to start with, and negotiate down to the public option, instead of negotiating just about anything worthwile away.

It's called either being complicit, or having no kahones to do good faith negotiation for what the people wanted him to do.

[treestar]

112. In your third paragraph you make that stuff sound routine, and it's not

as far as I understand it.

Good negotiators don't start too far out, either, losing credibility.

Edwards and Kucinich needed to know how to win the election - they failed. And we don't know who either would have appointed (though i don't get so interested in that stuff, in the end they do the President's bidding. If he can be "influenced" by people you disagree with, that's one thing, but in the end most of these individuals are capable of deciding for themselves). All the smug pronouncements about what the president should have done are based on what must be imperfect knowledge and coming from persons whose talents have limited them to the point where they have time to post on DU.

[cascadiance]

113. You make it sound like it was an impossible task to negotiate ANYTHING of substance!

And I'm inclined to agree with you and THAT IS THE PROBLEM! When you have corporatist influence infesting Washington so much, that the president can't have people that work for the people on his staff and they don't do much AT ALL to further the interests of the American people instead of corporate interests we have a problem. If it was so impossible to negotiate this in good faith, and he was truly frustrated, and not complicit in the corporate corruption going on, he should have publicly come out and said that if the opposing side doesn't work in good faith to give something to the American people, the next order of business would be to put in strong public campaign financing law, which would have taken their influence peddling out of the picture, and also have some laws that would take on this horrendous court decision head on.

I sometimes wonder if it was common knowledge inside the beltway in Washington that Edwards had an affair going, and all sides allowed it to persist, to split potentital votes between him and Kucinich, and then laid the bomb at the last minute after Kucinich would have had any chance to build a campaign on his own in Edwards' absence. Perhaps we'll never know if that was the case or not.

The system was working more against someone like Kucinich, as it feels more threatened by people like him who might try to shut down the power controls that some elites have that others wouldn't. That's a problem that all progressive candidates currently face, and it doesn't mean they are bad candidates, and don't speak for a majority of the people. The corporate media was always going to posit that he was a "fringe" candidate. So yes, someone like Kucinich has more challenges to deal with to get his messages across. But many will learn (as I have) that it was his message that was speaking the truth of his convictions and not corporatist mantra like so many of the other candidates were echoing. I think many now would vote for him rather than who they voted for in retrospect.

FDR had similar challenges when he took office. He showed that he had a spine though, and was tough in his negotiating. Obama needs to look to him for his role model, not Reagan or Clinton.

[jgraz]

69. This guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

Whatever happened to HIM?

[LWolf]

70. Okay, if you really need it.

Of course, your qualification can disqualify everyone, since there's no way to prove that anyone "could have actually won."

Personally, I think any candidate we would have nominated could have won in the face of the nation's weariness with GWB. But that's me.

Here:

From the Senate?

Boxer
Feingold

Or a governor: Schweitzer

Or Al Gore, if he would have run.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

71. What do vacations have to do with being a center-right politician?

Are you sure you are responding to the right post? My post doesn't mention vacations, Palin, or anything about you. It was directed toward the OP.

You should probably know that

1. Name calling is juvenile and a sign of weakness.

2. It's also a personal attack, and against DU rules.

[557188]

72. PALIN

The misogyny on here is ridiculous. I've never seen people so obsessed with a VEEP in my life. No one in the Republicans was worried about Biden!

But I guess without Hillary to hate people needed another female to rage against.

All Republicans are awful. Lets stop pointing out Palin as being anything different for crying out loud.

[Bluebear]

75. OR that dissatisfaction with Obama = YOU WANTED PALIN!!!1 Idiocy.

[Bluebear]

74. 'Or, maybe you're either a freeper or a Naderite.' - wow.

[Politicub]

54. I'm in it for the long haul

And I don't regret my vote for one second.

[ddeclue]

55. Stop making excuses for a guy who keeps selling us out with compromises that get us nothing.

[Skittles]

63. HOPE, ddeclue! CHANGE!!!

JUST KEEP REPEATING!!!

[G_j]

59. shovel out the garbage?

That what I was hoping, but he let all the high and low crimes of the Bush admin. slide.
I voted for him too, but he lost all respect I had right there.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

67. Remind me...

never to get into an argument with you :)

Passionately said.

[treestar]

91. Such baloney

None of what you say is true.

[babylonsister]

68. Recommend! nt

[NYC_SKP]

73. Hear, Hear!

My heart jumps a beat whenever I read that another DUer is able to keep their eye on the prize and their head out of the morass of criticism.

:kick: and rec.

[ChicagoSuz219]

78. Agree. n/t

[treestar]

82. Rec'd

And the job is so much more complex than many give credit for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. He's also shoveling more cannon-fodder into a lost war.

Which is what he said he'd do and why I didn't vote for him.

[unkachuck]

98. I might vote for him again....

....but it would take at least 3 heartbeats....

[change_notfinetuning]

117. or two, and a clothespin to put on my nose. n/t

[C_Lawyer09]

99. What garbage is he shoveling out?

On what front, has he led from the front? In what way are his policies progressive? Where is the change he promised, and if his failure is Congressional failure to support what he truly believes is right, why won't he make a definitive stand on anything? He appointed a new Clintonian cabinet, has pandered to corporations incessantly, and orated about legislation that is nothing more than meaningless window dressing. I stood behind him because of the "leadership" I felt he would provide. He has provided almost everything but leadership. Lastly, his, and his administrations understanding of fundamental economic policy is abyssmal, disgustingly, that is what we are currently in need of most.

[donheld]

102. Why was he trying to give me John McCain's health care

Cadillac tax? I did not vote for that

[grahamhgreen]

105. What policies did you vote for?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[deacon]

107. Never mind that the mid terms are more important now. The party of no will throw us back into a free

fall just to get elected in 2012. They don't give a damn about anybody.

[VMI Dem]

108. I voted for better than McCain. I won't vote for him again though.

Unless a lot of things change. And they probably won't.

[Pithlet]

115. I voted for him and I'll vote for him again. But I do understand the anger and the disappointment.

I think maybe it's easier for me because I pretty much figured from the beginning that this is what we were going to get. With the way our political system works, we just don't get true liberal candidates. It sucks, but it's the way it is. I don't think it's true that he hasn't done anything. He's miles away better than McCain would have been. But I share in some of the disappointment. I'm disappointed in the cluster fuck that health care reform turned into and Obama is partly to blame for that.

[Tx4obama]

116. JUST REMEMBER ....

"There will be Setbacks"

“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.” President-Elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008.

[Tx4obama]

118. Now is the time for all democrats to unite!

United we stand, divided we fall.
We must stand together through thick and thin in order to prevent the republicans from taking over our country once again, they have done enough damage.

President Obama can not and should not be expected to clean up EIGHT YEARS of Bushs' F'ups in only one year.
No other president in our history has been called upon to do as much as President Obama in such a short period of time.

Remain proud of our victory in 2008 and please do all you can to support OUR President in these hard times.

Thank you for listening.

[change_notfinetuning]

119. I voted for hope/change. Now, I just hope he gets something right for a change.