Who do you think would have been a better President??

[kentuck]

Of all the people that ran for President in 2008, do you think anyone would have done better than Barack Obama?

I criticize the shit out of the President because I expected a lot more out of him. But I cannot think of anyone that would have done a better job. I do not think Hillary would have been much different from Obama. Kucinich might have had more ideas but I doubt that he could have gotten them passed?

This is probably the best that it gets this time around? However, the President is not yet halfway through his first term. Much more can happen in the next two years and probably will.

But, because I criticize the President does not mean I think anyone else would have done the job better. I don't think they would have. Yet, that does not minimize my disappointment with the President because I expected him, under the circumstances, to be a much more activist President. Obviously, I was wrong.

[Nictuku]

1. President Kucinich!

[stray cat]

13. If he could get elected nationally - too bad the US gives each person a vote

[stuntcat]

92. .

for real.

I heart Kucinich

[suzie]

115. You really need to choose someone who actually ran for President.

Kucinich didn't put together an actual campaign for the presidency. Just making a few speeches to friendly groups is not a presidential campaign.

[Skittles]

2. what does it matter now?

we are stuck

[leeroysphitz]

73. Stuck, and how...

[WhiteTara]

3. Al Gore...okay, he didn't run in 2008, he won in 2000

and he would have been incredible. Our lives would be so different today. Sometimes I wish I was conscious in that alternate universe where he governed.

[hamsterjill]

107. Amen to that!

Imagine what Al could have done! And imagine not having had to suffer through the Bush years!

[WhiteTara]

125. I imagine often when I look around and see what

has happened.

[timtom]

135. And with Joe Lieberman as VP...

Imagine...

[sandnsea]

4. What can we do to help him

If we don't figure out how to do better by elected Democrats, we'll never get the progress we want.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[donheld]

10. get him to listen to what we say

It seems as though Obama has tuned us out completely. How can you help a guy who has you on ignore?

[sandnsea]

18. How does that change blue dog votes? n/t

[donheld]

42. Is that possible?

DINOS' are DINOS

[sandnsea]

45. Then how do you get legislation passed? n/t

[kctim]

77. By making it more moderate

which is what is being done now.
For some reason, people seem to forget that.

[ChiciB1]

137. Yeah, I Have To Agree... Many Of Us Have Been Put On Ignore! Add To That

the fact that he doesn't seem to really lower the hammer on some of the rabid idiots who keep attacking him! Now he doesn't have to pick up sticks and stones, but his laissez faire attitude has worn thin for me. Plus, he's taken up and supported some of what BFEE touted!

I used to preface my remarks by saying I DON'T like disagreeing with him and that I REALLY want him to succeed, but now not so much! As to WHO would have been better, I don't know because when it came down to it I did want this country to FINALLY elect a black President, but he WAS NEVER my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice!

I recall comments that were made waaaaaaaay before he announced he was running, that many Democrats wanted to be the Party to elect a black President! Can't recall now where I heard it, but references to this fact was an issue! I recall a story that was told where he passed a slip of paper to Biden that said something to the affect of "what the hell and I thinking?" And no I can't back it up with any link, but I also recall Chuck Todd making comments on Hardball that EDWARDS would not be the nominee and Chris asking him why? Todd's reply was "you know why, the D.C. Elites just won't let it happen. THIS was before all that came out about Reille etc.!

And I freely admit to being an Edwards supporter because I think he did talk so much about 2 Americas and how you don't sit down to dinner with Big Corporations, Insurance Co's, and Big Pharma because THEY will eat ALL the food. What happened with Edwards was shameful, and Elizabeth and his kids were devastated and hurt!

But I do recall that many people "knew" Clinton loved his women BEFORE he got elected! Still he was forgiven many times. Of course he didn't have a child, but the I've always wondered WHY in this day and age Rielle NEVER USED birth control! So, I still have mixed feelings!

As I do about Clinton & Lewinski, because how many women do YOU know that would save a dress to prove a point?? Still it was "on" Clinton to realize he was the President and perhaps he should have toned it down, given that he was already suspected of liking the ladies! I feel Tripp and some cohorts set him up. So the same could be true of Edwards! I don't want to open the can of worms again because I know how many people here simply "HATE" Edwards, but I don't know that he wouldn't have fought harder for "we the people!" I also had great respect for Elizabeth and loved seeing her on the campaign trail. She most certainly was good at it and could go one on one with almost anyone. And she did it with grace. Also she had cancer and it seemed a double whammy! But Gingrich is still around and his wife had cancer too! And the way he handled telling her wanted a divorce was horrid! But I wasn't in the bedroom with Edwards, but given her cancer, plus being apart so much of the time... well men will be men! It's the bane of so many men, so when opportunity presents itself, so many have NO self control! But I'm sure I'll never know!

Many politicians have been caught red-handed regarding this type of behavior. John Ensign still looks viable to win, Vitter hasn't suffered any backlash that I know of, and there are many more!

So given the choices, at the time I wanted Edwards to win! I kind of have buyer's remorse when it comes to Obama, but I did go out and work my butt off for him. Now, I've become such a cynic I'm sure I'll NEVER again volunteer for campaigning again!

I know this is long, and I fully expect the attacks that will be directed at me, but flame away... I'm just being honest and freedom of speech is still in force. I won't get into a pissing war with anyone, JUST BECAUSE!!

[emilyg]

11. The elected Democrats better figure fast how

to do better for us.

[CLANG]

5. John Edwards. He would have gotten the sleazebag electorate.

[Steely_Dan]

6. Biden (Unleashed) n/t

[rucky]

34. +1

[tularetom]

7. Barack Obama

If he had done half the things he said (or implied) he would do.

[ThatPoetGuy]

20. He's done exactly what he said he'd do.

He said he was going to work with the Republicans, he said he was going to expand the war in Afghanistan, he said he wasn't going to include a public option. He made it clear he was no friend to workers and the LGBT.

I was stunned, during the primaries, to see liberals rally around such a fiercely anti-liberal agenda. Somehow they inferred he was going to be liberal, even though he constantly let us know he wasn't.

[Skittles]

29. YOU KNOW IT, POET

I've said it before and I'll say it again - none of this comes as a surprise to those of us who were PAYING ATTENTION

[Chipper Chat]

41. A "why-didnt-I-think-of-that" moment for you Skittles:

YOU NOET POET :rofl:

[Skittles]

51. I LIKE THAT

I'M A POET AND DIDN'T EVEN NOET :D

[kentuck]

52. and your feet show it...

They're Long fellows. :-)

[OhioBlue]

9. Of all the people that ran in 2008

I don't think any would have done a better job. I agree with you, I think Hillary would have been about the same. That does disappoint me a bit as I saw her as the more DLC candidate. I was hoping for more of a Progressive push, but I have not given up hope in this Administration and I do believe they have done a lot in their first years. I'm hoping for more in the following years, but with the way things are looking in the Congressional and Senate races... it does have me worried that we will be deadlocked and forced to moderate accomplishments.

[Bitwit1234]

12. HILLARY

HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY. But the reason she didn't make it was because of the caucuses' which I did and and still do not trust. Also the males who ran the blogs were for Obama and against Hillary because she was a woman. They said she couldn't handle the job...looks like they sure make a mistake in which one could handle the job. I think Obama would have been a damn good president if he had waited til the next time. It would have given him the experience and the know how to make his own decision and not rely so heavily on such trash as Rahm and Gethner.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Feel better? (nt)

[sandnsea]

19. You've got Hillary's agenda

I would think you would be both ecstatic and vindicated.

[ThatPoetGuy]

21. Hillary's agenda was to the left of Obama's

in everything except meaningless war-posturing, which they both engaged in.

And she was aware that the right wing needs to be FOUGHT, not accommodated.

[Skittles]

22. CORRECT

[ProSense]

24. Wow, I can see where the dislike for Obama comes from, but

which Hillary are you talking about?

[divideandconquer]

30. When you threw a brick at the Clinton's, they threw a concrete block back

Hillary/Wes Clark ticket was my dream.

[karynnj]

67. How well did that work?

The fact is that it likely was the extreme brittleness and the oversized response to anything that took Hillary from being "inevitable" to a challenger having a chance. Go back over 2007, and the point where things appeared to start to change was the Clinton responses to the other candidates commenting on Clinton's two responses on Spritzer's driver's licenses for illegals proposal. Within a day, Hillary was at Wellesley speaking of the men ganging up on the "girl" - playing the gender card in an embarrassing way - when in fact, it was the normal ganging up on the front runner. Bill Clinton topped that calling the comments "swiftboating" - then hedged saying he didn't mean the comments of fellow Democrats.

[ProSense]

23. "in everything except meaningless war-posturing," garnishing wages for health care

lobbyists are people too, no talking to the enemy...need more?

[sandnsea]

25. Thank you

I never understood that whole Hillary is a lefty thing either.

[Skittles]

28. blind cheering the blind

she wasn't totally left but at least she was not RIGHT OF CENTER

[ProSense]

31. You're pining away for Hillary and

have the nerve to invoke "blind cheering the blind"?

Really? Sounds like a case.

[ThatPoetGuy]

108. Yes, you never understood.

No one argued Hillary was a lefty. But somehow, liberals convinced themselves that Obama was a lefty -- and he was to the right of her.

Do you remember the primaries, sandnsea? You called me a liar then. Do you remember why? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3933564&mesg_id=3933674 For saying that Obama's Iraq plan was going to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely.

You called me a liar for telling you that Obama's policies were not what you believed them to be. Obama said he was going to leave tens of thousands of troops occupying Iraq indefinitely. You called me a liar for saying that he was planning to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. You didn't know what Obama the candidate stood for. Now that he's president, and now that he's left tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, do you remember getting so incensed that you called someone a liar for pointing out Obama's Iraq plan?

Honestly, when I think back to the 2008 primary season, I lose hope for liberalism in America. We had seven candidates. Liberals rallied around the most right-wing of the seven. They had no idea what he stood for. They paid no attention to any of his policy details. People seem surprised when he escalates the war in Afghanistan, even though he told us he was going to escalate. Why? Why should it surprise anyone when he compromises with the enemy, when he told us he was going to compromise with the enemy? Why should it surprise anyone when he leaves tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, when he told us he was going to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely? Why should anyone be surprised when he pushes a weak health care bill, when he told us he was going to push a weak health care bill? Why should anyone be surprised when his spokesman attacks the left, when Obama was always quick to attack the left? Why should anyone be surprised when he campaigns for corporate shills like Bennet over liberal lions like Romanoff, when he campaigned for Lieberman over Lamont in the primaries? Why should anyone be surprised when he shows no regard for unions or the LGBT, when he attacked unions and the LGBT in the primaries?

Is anyone going to learn from this?

Or are liberals going to rally around another anti-union, anti-gay, pro-war, compromise-with-republicans candidate when the next time comes?

[sandnsea]

27. I can't recall where it was left

One big difference was that Hillary supported the mandates which Obama went ahead and adopted, which is costing Democrats dearly in public opinion.

I also can't recall her fighting the right wing when she was Senator. I do remember her jumping on their bandwagon when she had a chance to boot John Kerry out of her way.

[depakid]

46. Perhaps not in everything, but certainly on balance

and with respect to fighting rather than enabling and legitimizing the right wing- there's no longer any question about that, based on the current administration's record.

[defendandprotect]

47. So, you're saying DLC/Hillary was not as far right as "New Dem"/Obama...????

Wish I had known cause I wouldn't vote for any corporate-DLC'er --

and had I known Obama was describing himself as a "New Dem," wouldn't have voted for him either!

[smalll]

56. You have it. On war-posturing - and even healthcare, Hillary was SLIGHTLY to Obama's right --

... but Hillary knows how to FIGHT!



She wouldn't have fallen into the trap of believing that she could just stay low-key and expect the other side to just melt over her inherent wonderfulness and see reason.

[DonCoquixote]

83. fight for what

For the health insurance mandates that sadly Obama agreed with,
for being israel's miltary arsenal?
for less war?

Clinton would have fought all right, to push us harder to the right, just like her hubby did.

[karynnj]

106. When called on having two opposite oppinions on Spritzer's car license program,

she immediately whined about the "guys picking on the girl". In the first place, asa slightly younger member of her generation, all I can say is "the girl" ?? This was immediately playing the gender card. Then there was rough and tough Bill, who called it "swiftboating"!! It was nothing close and he was more outraged that opponents were saying that HRC did not state a clear opinion than with the real swiftboating.

Though you might not remember it, war hero Kerry defended Bill Clinton's avoiding the draft - even though Kerry had to have been offended by the letter young Bill wrote.

[HughBeaumont]

65. Hillary was less of an economic progressive than her husband was.

She supported job offshoring to India and all of the free trade agreements. I, and many others on this board, have pointed this out for a few years.

[blm]

78. Then you can submit a list of the fights Hillary LED against Bush when she was senator fr2001-2009?

You can do this easily, right?

[harun]

109. If Hillary was president we would already be at war with Iran. To the left

my ass.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

111. Her positions are virtually identical to Obama's.

[Whisp]

26. *snort

:crazy:

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. ROFL

:rofl:

[iamthebandfanman]

36. i dont have a problem with hillary but

you do realise alot of the same people would be in the cabinet/staff if she had been president right?

[donheld]

58. That should be evident to everybody

too many here at DU will ignore that fact.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Marr]

57. Coke or Pepsi?

Those two were the same product in different cans. Remember how the entire corporate media announced that the race was between Obama and Clinton, and that they were the only viable candidates-- before there'd been even one primary vote? Yeah, that was all you needed to know.

[snooper2]

94. hmm, I guess some people are still bitter

:)

I thought all the PUMA crap had died :rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

130. omg zombie pumas!

[flvegan]

14. Lee Mercer, Jr.

Since we're being silly, I'll toss that one out there.

[kentuck]

16. Who's being silly?

???

[flvegan]

17. Just seemed to me to be a silly thing to think about.

I mean we're not even halfway into his first term. Yeah, I'm disappointed, but my expectations were low. I'd have LOVED to see a President Kucinich. And I believe that DK would have ended both wars and repealed DADT DOMA etc. Otherwise, he'd be just as strangled by this do-nothing, spineless shitwit of a "majority" the Dems have in Congress.

Majority, my fucking ass.

[Brother Buzz]

99. All Three

Eye Spy Community-Military Intelligence (All Three)???

[Hippo_Tron]

131. Damnit, whenever Lee Mercer Jr. is brought up somebody always beat me to saying "All Three"

[LiberalAndProud]

32. Deja vu all over again.

Obama, for all his flaws is our President. He's doing okay in some areas, less okay in other areas, and some areas he's totally FUBARed. That's what I expect from pols.

But by all means, let's relive the primary wars. Just can't get enough of 'em.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

33. I Know He Didn't Run In 2008, But My Standard Answer To This Question Is ALWAYS.........

................Howard Dean. Yes, I was a Deaniac in 2004, and I guess I always will be (his recent statements notwithstanding--I disagree with him on that issue, but it also makes me happy that he's not a "Party Robot").

That being said, I'm behind Obama 100%. We might have our disappointments with him, but we have to back him. The alternative is just too frightening. I still believe that if he can get Rahm out of his ear, he'll be infinitely better off. Just as long as he doesn't replace him with someone worse (or the same).

[phasma ex machina]

88. +1 (blame it on nostalgia)

[jgraz]

37. This guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPaqgguhbSQ

Whatever happened to him? :shrug:

[LiberalAndProud]

40. Yea, I miss him too.

Did you catch the flashing ad ... stop Obama's big labor move?

keericed

[jobycom]

38. I have an answer, but I don't see any point in posting it.

It just makes those who don't like Obama long for something they can't have, and those who love Obama defensive and angry.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. 'Cause Momma, that's where the fun is.

[scarletwoman]

39. A Democrat. nt

[defendandprotect]

48. Exactly -- That's the answer ... !! 1000% --

Isn't it frightening to think Obama is only half way thru his first term --

so little time . . . so much destruction!!

[readmoreoften]

55. +1

[JI7]

43. Only Kucinich was to the Left of Obama in 2008

and Kucinich hasn't been able to get fellow Congress Members to pass single payer .

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[MrScorpio]

49. Well, obviously, we're too good for him

He should be ashamed of himself for not living up to all of our expectations.

[kentuck]

50. He doesn't have to be ashamed...

He only needs our votes.

[MrScorpio]

59. The life blood of politicians

Right next to cold hard cash

[pitohui]

53. hillary but obama has surpassed expectations i'm v. pleased

you are welcome to check my back posts, i was totally for hillary but i hate to say it, despite his youth and lack of "experience," obama is one fuck of an impressive president

damn he's good!!!


as far as 3rd place i think edwards would have also been decent but we live in a superstitious world where testosterone charged males instead of being expected to have sex w. multiple partners are like whoooaaa that's totally transgressive...maybe bill was our last "real world" male as president, who knows

[readmoreoften]

54. They all sucked. Every one of them has proven to be a craven politician in the end.

Even Kucinich's cave-in after his defiant stand against the health care reform was craven. I think his job is to corral the progressive votes into the DLC camp.

Basically, if there was very a good candidate he or she would be mercilessly crushed by corruption in both parties. For that reason, I don't think a decent candidate will arise from the muck without a fighting social movement behind him or her.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. +100

They are all craven politicians. Say what you need to say to get elected. Do what you need to do to get re-elected, and avoid doing anything that angers your constituents no matter what.

For what.

[Marr]

60. Our problems aren't going to be solved from the top down.

The only way you'll ever see a populist in the White House is if the moneyed class decides it's time to compromise, and the only way *that's* ever going to happen is if there's some tangible threat to their own class. I mean, it seems to me like FDR largely did the things he did to save the status quo, not because he just felt like being a nice guy. I don't think we're close to that point, personally. We may never be.

But even hypothetically, if say, Kucinich had been elected? The rest of the establishment would've put on the brakes in every conceivable way, legal and otherwise. I doubt he could've actually done much. Maybe I'm wrong, though. There've been some pretty transformational leaders in South America who had to fight their own establishment all the way.

[Unvanguard]

61. There probably is someone. But the difference would not be great.

The problems the Democrats face have little to do with Obama's particular traits.

[Scuba]

63. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. UFO sightings and all.

[harun]

110. Why do you attempt to discredit Kucinish with bringing up UFO sightings?

[Scuba]

139. It was a dumb thing to say, but he's still the best guy out there.

[old mark]

64. Rec. I agree with the OP in everything...I don't like a lot of what has been

done, but I doubt anyone else could have done better...sadly, Bush II really fucked us so bad, we will still be fixing his mess for many years...if the Republicans don't take over the government again and fuck us even more.
I don't know if we could ever recover from that nightmare.

mark

[VMI Dem]

66. Just about any of the Democratic contenders.

[AnArmyVeteran]

68. I know a lot of non politicians who could have done a much better job.

Myself included. I certainly wouldn't have caved in to the enemy. And I certainly wouldn't have allowed the ignorant tea baggers outsmart me. I would have selected non-corporate, non-Wall Street people as part of my cabinet. I would surrounded myself with people with guts like Kucinich, Grayson, environmental activists, social activists and people who have been fighting for the rights of the people all of their lives. I would have selected great people like Ralph Nader as part of my cabinet to protect people from corporate assaults.

I bet there are hundreds of people on DU who could have done a better job.

Signed,
President AnArmyVeteran : )

[Dappleganger]

69. A president is only as good as the people he chooses to help him lead.

President Obama made some good choices, but he has also made a number of significantly terrible choices. No matter what person you may think have done a better job than Obama, if that person chooses poor leadership they are doomed to failure.

From the beginning there have been problems with Rahm, Arne, Geithner, Sumners, and a number of others. A president is only as wise as his advisors.

[AnArmyVeteran]

75. It was very revealing he choose the same financial thugs who benefitted from the economic meltdown.

But he selected two Wall Street insiders who handed out money to all their buddies. That was not just a bad decision, it was stupid. His presidency will be known as one with the most failed golden opportunities. And he keeps making the same mistakes so I see little hope of him accomplishing anything in the future. And because of not standing up to republicans and condemning them at every opportunity congress might end up in their hands. I wish he would think about the people who worked their asses off to get him into office rather than constantly bending over for republicans.

[karynnj]

70. This is a completely devisive thread Obama is the President we elected and he is trying to

implement the agenda that all of the first and second tier candidates ran on. Yes, all of them. The fact of the matter is that the differences argued about in the primaries were really very small compared to the things that they all agreed on. The differences were sufficiently small that there is little reason to thing that Congress when they wrote the bills would have passed something significantly different for another of those candidates.

The only area that could have been at all different is foreign policy. It bothers me that the US did not take a strong stand against the coup in Honduras. On this, Hillary was to the right of Obama and she ended up having more influence on him than Kerry and Berman. We know that Biden and Kerry would not have gone with McChrystal's plan because both are among the few who came out with plans. Kerry was also far more vocal about issues like not torturing and gays in the military (where he spoke for that even in 1993 before Strom Thurmond's committee.) I think that we on the left would be happier - but not happy - with Kerry's foreign policy than with Obama's. However, Kerry would have angered the right more than Obama has on this. The same probably goes for Biden. People here would be furious with Hillary's foreign policy - more so than with Obama's.

[AnArmyVeteran]

72. Good post, but I don't like all of the caving to the enemy.

There are no justifications for Obama to sit on his hands and allow dimwitted tea baggers seize the national dialogue on health care reform. There are no justifications for constantly allowing the enemy water down bill after bill and not get a single vote from them. You mentioned the right being even angrier if another candidate was president. So what! They would be angry no matter which democrat was in office. Tough, strong people would have condemned their insane attacks and a strong leader would not have caved to the likes of faux noise by immediately firing Shirley Sherrod. That was a perfect opportunity to condemn fake news organizations like faux, but after Obama caved to them it was impossible to take a stand against them. Obama needs to fire Axelrod, Emanuel and everyone around him who are defenders of corporations.

Btw, I was an Obama delegate and I am extremely dissapointed with his lack of courage and his constant caving into the other side. I thought the democrats won in 2008.

[kctim]

80. You do realize

that the Democratic Party held the majority and they had the number to pass anything without the Republicans? All they had to do was agree with just how far left the legislation should go, and they could not. They were prevented from passing far left legislation by moderate Democrats, not the tea party or propaganda.

The people you are labeling as you're "enemy" are you're fellow Democrats.
Sad.

[karynnj]

104. They did not have the numbers to pass anything without Republicans - except

for about 4 months after Franken was seated. In addition, they had to hold each and every Democrat - as you note some of them were not helpful.

[AnArmyVeteran]

114. But how many times did Harry Reid force repubs to actually filibuster?

I believe the answer is zero. Am I missing something or is demanding the republicans go through the actual motions of a real filibuster too much to ask for? I would have forced them to stand nonstop for days, weeks or months if necessary.

[kctim]

119. So they had the numbers then.

And, those Dems were helpful to those who voted for them.

[AnArmyVeteran]

And if I led the senate those senators who didn't go along would be stripped of all duties.

They wouldn't serve on any committees or have any other voice in the senate except their votes. LBJ would have acted with force, but Reid has no leadership skills at all. That's why he is even having trouble beating an insane, radical like Angle.

[kctim]

118. Thats the ticket

Threaten and punish those who dare represent their constituents instead of the far-left of the party. Reid is having trouble because he did that very thing, and you actually believe every Dem should be threatened and forced to go against their voters?
Thankfully, Reid see's he was wrong in doing that and the race is still within his reach.

[AnArmyVeteran]

120. If you recall, people in Nebraska and Maine WANTED healthcare reform.

It was their turncoat senators who turned their backs on them. And I believe force is necessary to get people to do what is right. Without force we would have never passed civil rights legislation or social security. LBJ had many shortcomings but he knew how to lead the senate, Reid doesn't have a clue. He never once even forced republicans to actually go through the motions of a filibuster. All republicans had to do was whisper that word and Reid ran to the nearest corner trembling with fear. (okay, that last sentence might have been a bit strong and flowery but there still is a lot of truth in it :). How did Reid ever win any of his boxing matches? I can't even imagine him in a ring with anyone trading blows. I'd seriously like to know what his boxing record is.

I heard Nevada had an option for 'none of the above' on their ballot. I haven't verified that but I bet it gets a lot of votes in the Reid-Angle election. Are they the best Nevada has? That's scary...

[kctim]

128. IF the people of those states

want universal health care and are willing to pay for it, then they need to show up and vote for someone who also thinks its a good idea. If they don't, then they can't say they really wanted it all that bad.

And I am afraid that you mean you believe force is necessary to get people to do what YOU think is right. Moderate Dems used forceful tactics to do what they thought was right and prevented a health care system run by govt. and somehow I don't think you believe they did what was right. Many of us do, however.

[AnArmyVeteran]

140. I understand your point, but being forceful is crucial to any success

If leaders are not forceful they will never get anything done. Most political animals only do things if they are forced to do it. That's a fact. LBJ knew how to force/pressure/manipulate opponents to come over to his side. And because he was forceful he was able to get ground breaking legislation pushed through. No one who is a wimp will ever get anything done in any endeavor. You don't succeed by constantly giving in to your enemy. If you do give in you are no better than your enemy. And when I say 'force' I don't mean going around with a bat hitting people over the head. But there are a lot of ways to 'convince' a politician to vote a particular way if it means they will lose a key committee position and the power and prestige that goes with it. But none of that was apparently done. There has been a definite void of real leadership in the house, the senate and the presidency.

The people polled in Nebraska and Maine were 70% in favor of health care reform, but their senators didn't give a damn what they thought or wanted. That happens all the time. People are way to tolerant of their leaders selling them out usually because they side with corporate interests over the peoples' interest. Politicians know most people will forget almost everything they do because face it, the typical voter isn't very bright. They keep voting for the same people owned by the same corporate masters and expect different results.

And getting candidates to actually do what you want them to do is almost impossible given the corrupt campaign finance system we have. Until that is fixed we will continue to have one whore after another elected to office. That is the root of all problems in Washington DC. Politicians know they can turn their backs on the people because they can get millions in campaign cash from their corporate pimps in the next election. And like I said, most people are ignorant of the candidates and the issues and will mindlessly vote for a republican or a democrat over and over again, and expect different results. They don't understand that their candidate is a corporate whore who does the bidding of their corporate masters and couldn't care less about what their constituents want or believe.

Honest, qualified and competent people can't even run for office without selling out to get the money needed to win an election. And since the average person can't afford to buy a congressman, senator or president they are left in the dark after the election. Until we get tough campaign finance laws passed we will continue to have our country's government inhabited by professional corporate whores. And so far during Obama's administration the words 'campaign finance reform' have not even been mentioned. They only way they will do the right thing and pass effective reform to purge our system of whores is for the citizens to 'force' them to do it, otherwise they will continue to get reelected over and over again and ignoring what is best for our country and our people.

Every American should be for removing the corrupting influence money has over our electoral process. But a lot of people are clueless, especially those in the right wing who believe money is free speech. Now, since Citizens United has opened the flood gates for corporations (even foreign ones) to pollute all of our elections with billions of dollars our representatives should be using every ounce of creativity and intelligence to craft laws to change the way elections are held that will remove that money from elections. If we are not successful in doing that this country will continue to die. Unfortunately, the people we send to office aren't the most intelligent or most creative people. Look at Nevada where supposedly the two best candidates for the senate are Reid and Angle. Surely Nevada has better quality people in that state, but as I have said, it takes more than being a quality, intelligent candidate. It takes candidates who will sell out to corporate interests just to get the money they need to run.

I'm tired of seeing my country be destroyed by ignorance in both major parties. And it's getting worse. In the 90s, Perot and the Reform Party were strong advocates of campaign finance reform. So was the Green Party. But instead of people voting for real change, they mindlessly voted for one of the two major parties and we see where that has gotten us. And the only reason the budget was balanced in the 90s was not because of the democrats or the republicans, it was because that was what the Reform Party was pushing. The major parties were FORCED to balance the budget because they FEARED the continuation of the Reform Party.

[AnArmyVeteran]

116. And if I led the senate those senators who didn't go along would be stripped of all duties.

They wouldn't serve on any committees or have any other voice in the senate except their votes. LBJ would have acted with force, but Reid has no leadership skills at all. That's why he is even having trouble beating an insane, radical like Angle.

[karynnj]

105. IMO, the madder the far right, the better we are likely doing

I was certainly not criticizing John Kerry or Joe Biden.

I do agree with you on Sherrod - that was handled incredibly unprofessionally. The fact that they fired her without speaking to her is completely unacceptable. I really do not know if that went up to Obama.

[LWolf]

71. Any of them with the possible exception of Dodd. nt

[kctim]

74. Good common sense post sir

[HughBeaumont]

76. ME!!!

+ Wars = DONE. Wasteful pieces of Bewsh-shit.

+ Pentasewer = defunded and defanged substantially. Troops - employed to rebuild infrastructure. We're no longer the world's oil cops.

+ Three Words = Universal Motherfucking Health CARE.

+ Three More Words = Mandatory Paid Maternity Leave.

+ Yet Another Three Words = MANDATORY PAID VACATION. It's utter stupidity that the U.S. has no mandated vacation, but we're the world's largest consumer of anti-depressants.

+ Serious work will begin on universal college education also. The debt-for-diploma bullshittery HAS to stop.

+ Cheney/Rove/Rice/Ashcroft = subpoena'd. Cheney gives any of this "who do you think YOU'RE talking to" guff, the ICU's getting pulled on that fuck. Call it severance pay for ruining the country.

+ "Free Trade" agreements = as good as DEAD, or at the very least, repealed until something better and non-zero-sum can be built.

+ Lobbyists, especially war, pharm, tobacco and finance lobbyists = BANISHED.

+ Guaranteed minimum income. Maximum wage.

+ >$500,000/yr = 45% TMTR, $500,000/yr - 250,000/yr = 40% TMTR, 249k - 125k = 36% TMTR. 124k - 85k = 30%TMTR (that's right . .. LOWER). 84k - 50k = 25%. 49k - 25k = 15%. <24k - 10%. Time to institute some progressive taxation for once.

+ 0.05 cent tax on all trade transactions.

+ Tax credits for energy saving.

+ Excess money coming in - New WPA! Infrastructure, bridges, roads, airports, transporation updates, education, schools, alternative energy building, small business funding, etc.

+ Wall Street will no longer hold the White House or the American people hostage. BANK on it. The next to be investigated and watched heavily will be the SEC. Bernie Maddoff and the Collapse-o-rama didn't just HAPPEN.

+ White supremacist groups = investigated.

+ Drugs/prostitution = legalized, regulated, taxed.

+ DOMA & DADT = GONE.

+ Marriage is for ALL consenting adults of legal age.

+ More installation art, Legos, music, retro video game museums, spontaneous acts of kindness, travel, sex and robot labs.

+ I'll of course be paraded around in a bulletproof tank-like HughMobile and refuse to fly, because when you piss off corporations and the wealthy that run them, they tend to get itchy trigger fingers and have plants do a little something-something to certain planes.

:hide:

Seriously, it had to be Obama. Five Guys has a bigger menu than what we have. It was either that or bury the country in a heap of right-wing liquid manure.

[kentuck]

82. But you weren't running...

:-)

[NeedleCast]

81. Me

[NeedleCast]

84. The Poutrage from the fringe-left in this thread makes having Obama in the White Hosue even better

Its delicious, really.

[depakid]

85. Sounds like you're enjoying the decline

both of the nation and the Democratic party.

[derby378]

86. Yep, sure does...

Time for all of us to realize whose side we're on and get to work making this nation better at long last.

[NeedleCast]

90. No, I just enjoy watching the fringe tell me how awful Obama is

Like most Democratic presidents in my lifetime, I find that Obama is right where I want him to be on some issue and not doing enough on others but then, I also understand that you can only have so many irons in the fire at once. And there's some level of morbid enjoyment I get from watching the ongoing circle-jerk of the fringe and its wailing and gashing itself with brass knives as it sails along through some non-reality where Dennis Kucinich turns American into Democratic Social Paradise simply be entering the White House...because he whouldn't face the same House and Congress that Obama is facing and that it would all be sunshine and rainbows.

But that's been the failing of DU for a long time. I remember everyone falling all over themselves yelling about MADAM PELOSI in 2006 and how there would be this incredible, immediate impact. Then, 18 months later the same MADAM PELOSI IS GAWD! posters were supporting Cindy Sheehan to oust Pelosi.

Politics in the US moves at a fairly glacial pace. Lot of people on DU don't seem to realize that. They will never be satisfied, because there's no general population support for the candidates and policies they support.

FWIW, I give Obama somewhere between a B and B+ on his overall performance.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

112. Are you enjoying it from Australia?

:eyes:

[kentuck]

87. Judging from the polls....

...there must be a lot of those "fringe-leftists" out there?

[NeedleCast]

91. Those Polls that Show Obama with an 80+% approval rating among Democrats

Are those the polls you're talking about?

I know it's hard to comprehend, but DU is NOT a representative cross-section of Democratic voters.

[kentuck]

93. Is that good??

I would think 1 out 5 Democrats opposed would not be good?

[NeedleCast]

97. Seems Good To Me

Can't please all the Democrats all the time. But since you asked, which candidate do YOU think would be doing a better, more progressive job?

Short of having a president that could bat his or her eyelashes and disolve the House and Senate, which candidate do you think would have gotten "more" done at this point? Sure seems like a lot of posters on your thread here seem to think the President works in some sort of vacuum where they wouldn't face the same hurdles Obama has.

[KittyWampus]

122. You realize some percent of the few Democrats disapproving Obama think he's too far LEFT?

Especially Jews who want him tougher on Israel.

[suzie]

117. +1 trillion

[KittyWampus]

123. Not really, there's a certain percentage of fringe-rightists included as well.

[joeybee12]

89. Obama was totally unprepared to be president...

Bush was too, but that was because he was an idiot. Obama had no clue about Washington, had been there two years, everyone kissed his ass, and he thought, Gee, everyone's so nice. Washington is full of viscious, vile creatures...anyeone else probably would have been a better president because they would have had an idea of what they were up against.

[KittyWampus]

124. Then how do you account for the fact he's been so successful?

[earth mom]

127. You have to be a fighter to deal with the Washington DC cesspool.

That is part of the problem with Obama, but not all of it.

[robcon]

95. President Clinton!

She was the best candidate and the best leader we had.

[Fire1]

96. Agree, kentuck! No other candidate could have done any

better and I'm SURE of that!!

[Bluerthanblue]

98. that's a pretty fair assessment

:hi:

[Zorra]

100. Ask again a year from now and I might be able to answer,

Our President inherited a total disaster, putting it mildly. The deliberate destruction of our country by the Bu*h administration will take decades to repair and some of the damage is irreperable, dead and maimed soldiers caught in a senseless war started by a sociopath, for example.

With so much on his plate, the President has had to attend to immediate pressing concerns, small stuff like keeping the economy from collapsing, how to exit the mess in Iraq with minimal damage to the people of Iraq, a hostile corporate controlled government that can collapse the economy if they so desire, massive unemployment, a Senate locked up by filibustering republicans, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Two years in office after getting stuck with the desolation left behind by Bu*h is just about enough time for the President to begin making permanent repairs to this mess.

By the time another year passes, things should start getting markedly better if the President is sincere and competent, and by then we'll better be able to judge his performance.

[LynneSin]

101. It's easy to play armchair quarterback but honestly....

I think any of them would be in the same predicament. Bush fucked up our country royally and it's going to take years until we see some normalcy.

[kentuck]

102. And that is a truth that the Dems need to tell the people..

It was fucked up beyond all repair. FUBAR

[LoZoccolo]

103. The thing that I get upset most about the armchair quarterbacking is

that it's done by people who do not realize they are actually part of the game. If Democrats who don't hold their positions keep getting elected, it's likely because other voters do not hold the positions, or don't know how it translates to political action. That's something everyone here can work on, and indeed must work on if we really expect anything. It takes a long time, and it takes work. It's not as easy as complaining about the elected officials. But if we don't do it, and the politicians do go out on the limbs that people here demand that they do, the limb will likely get chopped off in the next one or two terms if the consensus hasn't been established with the voters themselves, and then it will be harder to get something back that was tried once and repealed.

This is why I pretty much summarily hate the idea of having a separate "netroots"; it aggressively defends the idea that you can do all this from the armchair, and it ends up being pretty much a complaint machine that doesn't reach people outside of it.

[B Calm]

113. One thing for sure if McCain had got in we wouldn't have a country to complain about.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Of the worthless slate of complicit elitist we had to choose from, I'd take Biden in hindsight

More knowledgeable, better connected to individual important Senators, hardest to delegitimize, most likely to tell the truth on occasion, most practical with use of force, and probably has the closest life to the lower 98% over the most years.

No doubt the banks would buy him out like all the rest but the bullshit levels would at least be lower.

The important thing to remember is that we are pushing toward an end, it is not our job to cut deals and hammer out compromises but rather to push, pull, or drag the bastards every fucking millimeter we can get and throw them away when nothing else can be nursed or beat out of them.

Some of the reason we fail is because we are a bunch of ideological compromisers hunting for what we can get instead of what we want relentlessly so there is at least enough space in the "acceptable" political spectrum to actually have a robust exchange of ideas that might lead to effective solutions as opposed to passable legislation.

The pursuit of "The Sweet Spot" kills meaningful conversation, much less good law.

Even 'The Professional Left' has to get out of their comfort zone so we can draw the fire of being radicals, how piss poor is it that Gibbs has so little a range of ideological spectrum that he is forced to make "Canadian Style Healthcare" loony tunes.

All the space on the spectrum is on the right and so we have to counter and perhaps even exceed that, at least some of us. That will open space for "moderate" to spread out a bit.

John Paul Stevens was a middle of the road Republican, once upon a time. He didn't change much, the country did. Let's change that. Trying to find the center between Hatch and Snowe (Scott Brown) ain't for me. Not my game. If that's what its about then I'll resolve to be a better foil and provide some contrast to force open dialog.

It is our job to make them do it, not to figure out what they are willing to do.

[Steely_Dan]

134. Biden (Unleashed)

Yes...I think Biden would have been an excellent President. His experience and track record (or most of it) demonstrates that he has carried the Democratic banner in good faith. In addition, I honestly don't think that Biden would have put up with any crap from the right. He has the chops and the "raw" skills to frame the argument in such a way that it would be hard for anyone (regardless of party) to deny the obvious. It is clear from watching him as VP that he has been somewhat muzzled. The so-called "gaff machine" mantra is undeserved. If anything, he speaks with such honesty (and sometimes without thinking, I'll admit) that it can be seen by his detractors as less than diplomatic. Most importantly, Biden understands how Washington works. His experience is nearly unmatched. My call before the election was for Biden to be President and Obama to be VP. But that's another thread.

-P

[earth mom]

126. Gore hands down. Global warming is what is killing our planet and all of us.

Gore would have implemented the huge changes needed to get off our addiction to oil = no more wars for oil = create jobs = stimulate the economy.

Win = Win = Win = Win.

Instead we got lose = lose = lose =lose = ain't getting better and probably never will get better.

Gore would have kicked BP's ass to the curb that's for damn sure!

129. Candidate Obama

Candidate Obama was the President I was waiting for. He was liberal. He wanted to have a government health care option (I would prefer single payer, but this was a start). He stood his ground to the right wing propaganda machine. Candidate Obama wanted to close Guantanamo. He promised to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. He truely did give me hope in a politician for the first time in a while.

Unfortunately he morphed into President Obama. President Obama is a centrist and a corporatist. President Obama and his team are so reactionary to any possible bad thing Fox News would say about them, they react first without even bothering to gather any data (Shirley Sherrod). President Obama gave away the Public Option without even trying. President Obama and his team are playing by the same old Washington game that everyone else has for the past 30 years. And truthfully, Democrats have generally been awful at the game.

If only Obama didn't suddenly morph into this guy that I don't recognize, I would be a much happier person, and wouldn't feel the need to vent and rage as much as I do lately.

Sigh.

[bigwillq]

132. Hello

Welcome to DU! :hi:

133. Thanks!

Not sure why I haven't posted here before. Looks like my kind of place!

[FrenchieCat]

136. The President is the President,

and he's quite good at it...
although the feet up his ass
sometimes make it hard for him to walk it...
but inaugurated 1/20/09......means it will be 2 years
or 1/2 a term on 1/20/11......

Are we even there yet? :shrug:

[cynatnite]

138. I think both he and Hillary would have done equally well...

considering the state of the country. I was a Hillary supporter and I still am. I always will be, but if she had won I don't think it would be much different than it is now. My gut says that Hillary wouldn't have done anything differently than Obama.

You are right. A lot can happen in the next few years.

When election time comes around, I'll have an Obama sticker on the back of my car just like I did before.