OK, so we all agree he’s not stupid. Then WTF is wrong with Obama?

[pgodbold]

When Dubya the idiot prince was on the throne there were a number of books published that delved deeply into the mind of the sick fuck. “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch

was one of many books that covered the fool all the way from “dead baby in a jar” through “can’t get fooled again”.

DU consists of the smartest people on the planet. So where is the Obama psychological guide I’ve desperately looked for? Have I missed it? I’d even settle for a well written web page devoted to Obama’s pathos. If we’re going to have to put up with it then we might as well understand it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

35. people pleaser

[ProSense]

2. Three possibilities offered

1. He's suffering from stockholm syndrome
   
   
2. He's being blackmailed.
   
   
3. Is Cenk Uygur, The Ex-Republican, Stupid About That "Dangerous President?"

[rug]

6. 4. He's doing exactly what he intended.

[Tesha]

12. That's the really scary part, isn't it? (NT)

[Egnever]

19. Not at all

This president has done little so far to truly surprise me. He has stuck pretty damn close to his original agenda setting aside all the financial stuff that had to be done.

But then I am not looking for a reason to hate him.

I am actually quite impressed with what this president has accomplished be it HCR or stem cell research or lilly led better or credit card reform and banking reform the list goes on and on. He has done an incredible job in my opinion given the circumstances he had to work with.

If there was one thing i would change about this president it would be his willingness to plod ahead without grandstanding on his accomplishments but then I doubt he would have accomplished as much as he has if he had.

[Tesha]

61. Stuck to his original agenda? How's that DADT repeal going?

How's that "ending the wars" stuff going?

And soon we'll be able to ask "How's that 'no tax cuts
for the rich'" stuff going?

If he's living up to your expectations, you must have
had pretty damned-low expectations. Mine were damned
low and he's undershot even my poor expectations of him.

Tesha

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

65. I'll let her speak for herself, but...

...the way I read her post is:

Everything he said during his campaign is what every politician promises his base just to get elected. Once they get into office, they get on with their agenda.

That's the way I read her comment, anyway.

[okieinpain]

81. uh he's ending dadt just like he said he would, going through

congress, and we have pulled out the majority of the troops in iraq. he also said the war should be fought in afghanistan, which he is doing. the only thing you can complain about is the bush tax cuts.

[young but wise]

98. +1

[pscot]

112. Best of all possible Presidents?

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

123. And some here absolutely refuse to register that.

Facts are funny things, even if you don't believe in them, they persist.

[Erose999]

127. Do you think it will pass before Agen Orange and the GOOP take the House in January?

Because after that, its dead in the water.

[jefferson_dem]

74. Truth.

:thumbsup:

[DainBramaged]

88. Small potatoes, impresses small picture people

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[DainBramaged]

101. Do you support the Bush-era tax cut extensions compromise by Obama?

You have no right to criticize my moniker or avatar, this is a message board, you have NO idea who I am in real life, so maybe you need to apologize. If my fucking name was Brent Scowcroft would it make a difference?

[jefferson_dem]

102. Once I see the compromise, I might let you know if I support it or not.

Maybe you were just offended that a "small picture" person had the audacity to reference your moniker and avatar. :shrug:

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

104. First you have to KNOW what the compromise is.

Please share it with us then so we don't have to wait for the "official" report to be leaked out.

[DainBramaged]

106. PS ,a Jefferson Democrat is a strict Constitutionalist who wants limited government

A Blue Dog or pseudo-Dem. Like Rand Paul, who believed in private property trumping civil rights.


Talk about questioning a moniker......not worth any more discussions with you.

[jefferson_dem]

107. Now you're comparing Thomas Jefferson to Rand Paul.

:rofl:

Please keep digging.

But I would like to caution other posters that, when they enage in discussion with you, they best be prepared to receive insulting PMs in their inbox, like this one below that you just sent. Creeper much?

You are such a phony and still a horse's ass
From: DainBramaged
Date: Dec-05-10 09:28 PM
You are clueless, and your moniker proves it.

have a nice life.

[DainBramaged]

108. A Blue Dog or pseudo-Dem. Like Rand Paul, who believed in private property trumping civil rights.

No, YOU KNOW and I know exactly what I wrote and the reference. And you and I are done conversing.

PS, no profanity, a wish for a wonderful life, who could ask for anything more.


You proved yourself to be everything I wrote about you and denied NOTHING. I don't need to write to you, you are so strange, and soJeffersonian on a Democratic board....

[jefferson_dem]

109. Fine.

I am asking you to please refrain from directing any more of your creepy insults to my private inbox. I prefer to keep discussions in the forums where they belong.

[DainBramaged]

87. Small potatoes if he can't close Gitmo, end TWO unjustified wars, end DODT, STOP a $10 Trillion

debt is the Booshe tax cuts aren't lapsed.


EVERY death in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't worth one thing on your list. I'd trade them all for the wars to end tomorrow.

[indepat]

18. Yeah, it's not what's wrong with BHO, it's what's right, some of it pretty far right

;)

[Catherina]

25. +1 n/t

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

36. that too!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

60. That's what I've been saying, and...

...I really don't understand why some people don't get it.

There's nothing "wrong" with him at all.

He is "doing exactly what he intended." That's the perfect "25 word or less" description of his presidency.

[jefferson_dem]

73. 5. As are his perpetual critics.

[SammyWinstonJack]

89. That gets my vote.

:thumbsup:

[asdjrocky]

51. No.

I think you, and a few other Duers, are the ones with Stockholm Syndrome.

[Subdivisions]

63. +1000 n/t

[asdjrocky]

66. I mean, like duh, right?

What is it with projection around here?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[the redcoat]

4. Just admit it. He was swayed by corporations/the elite

I believe he had no idea what he was getting into when he made all his campaign promises.

Then the presidency comes around, and the few, unnamed people with more power than CEOs and special interests came down on him.

[Lucinda]

5. IMO Nothing. IF you apply the fact that hes not a leftist.

Then drop a lot of what he said campaigning, look at WHO he appointed, and listen to him now.
I think he's being very direct. It's just not the presidency that a lot of people expected.

[txlibdem]

10. I'll translate what you just said

In other words, Candidate Obama told us he would be a Progressive Democrat, President Obama has shown us at every step along the way, with each and every decision, that he definitely is a center-right Republican.

He was a multi-millionaire before he took office. Perhaps the reality of his new found status took a while to hit home for him. "Hey, wait a minute. I'm frickin' RICH."

[EstimatedProphet]

38. CANDIDATE Obama did not such thing

He campaigned on pretty much what he has given us. The voters are the ones that saw a progressive. It's their mistake, in part because the country has shifted so rightward that a centrist looks like a Marxist to the average person.

[txlibdem]

45. Wow. What planet were you living on from 2006 through 2008???

Go back and listen to his speeches.

All I can say is... wow!

:hide:

[EstimatedProphet]

125. Case in point

[pscot]

113. There are no bad politicians

only bad voters.

[EstimatedProphet]

126. Considering I'm not defending Obama, you make no sense

[Lucinda]

44. Many of us here during the early stages of the campaign

tried hard to get a sense of where he would take the country as a steward. There just wasn't any way to pin him down based on his voting record. As a result, everything became about watching how he conducted himself on the campaign trail...and what I saw, was a man that was ambiguous enough that people were able to lay their beliefs upon his words. Many people saw what they wanted to see, which has led to a lot of people looking for reasons to explain things when he has deviated from their vision of what he meant.

I finally took him at his word when he said he and Senator Clinton weren't that far apart on the issues. And as he started making his appointments, it became clear to me that he had actually been honest in those statements. So there isn't any surprise for me that he isn't a leftist.

I believe that the campaign was designed to inspire without being specific, with the exception of the platitudes that one would expect a politician to say when looking for power after a corrupt government was being replaced. (transparency etc) The master stroke was the campaign itself, everything else is just finding enough common ground to push through a predominately centrist agenda.

I do believe him when he says he wants a civilized conversation with the Republicans....unfortunately, that isn't the way DC works.

[txlibdem]

48. To be fair that was one debate you're referring to

I'm referencing his entire campaign, starting in 2006 and going all the way through the end of 2008. Go back and watch his speeches. Listen to his debate performance at all of the debates. He clearly led us to believe that he was not a center-right Republican.

Now you say that he governs the same as Hillary would. I can't dispute that because Hillary has never held elected office. Maybe you're saying that she would govern the same as her husband? I can't say that is true nor untrue. None of us have any way of knowing.

The reason I voted for Obama in the Primaries and not for Hillary was because of his stated positions on the issues, his "in control" and forceful demeanor in debates. I may have read into some of that but you go back and listed to all his speeches again and tell me you can possibly come to the conclusion based on his words that he was intent on governing as a Republican. Which is what he has actually done. A center-right Republican, not the psycho ultra right that the current crop of Republicans in congress have gone to, but a Republican none-the-less. And if I'd thought for one minute that he was going to be our "Capitulator in Chief," as he has done, then I would have gone for Hillary in a second!

[Lucinda]

55. I think the more Republican aspects of how he has actually governed was the result

of his desire to find common ground so things would get done. A big tell for me was the fact that Lieberman was a mentor in the Senate, who often crosses to the other side.

We have a Republican Senator just the past few days saying that the POTUS was quite willing to listen to the opposition POV, and said Senator was publicaly pointing out the obstructionist POV of his peers. I really believe Obama thinks this is the way he should govern. I just don't think there enough men of good conscience on the opposing side to actually make this a workable way to get things done quickly enough for the greatest number of Americans. Too much gets given away in the process.

As far a sthe campaign goes, I saw too many instances of his agreeing with Hillary on the substance of a position to ever see him as the leftist that many here did. I used to teach about the power of a speech to manipulate, so I take a lot of those campaign events with a grain of salt and have always looked at actual conversation and recorded votes when evaluating a candidate. It may just be a matter of my seeing things from my own point of view though. The only things I ever saw that made me think that he might have strong leftist leanings were some of his friendships in Chicago. I just think that he's the type of person that ignores labels to some extent and learns from everyone...then synthesizes, and incorporates what makes sense to him into his world view.


edited cause Hyrocodone makes me spell funny.

[txlibdem]

59. Different perspective, perhaps, but I don't think he ignores labels at all

President Obama does not ignore labels at all. He is deathly afraid of labels and will do anything to avoid being "labeled."

I believe that he is allowing the Right Wing (and the RW Media) to control his actions by pre-emptively calling him a Communist/Fascist/Leftist/whatever. Just before the debate on each issue, the RW blasted Obama, saying "He's going to nationalize the banks because he's a Leftist!" So, in pure reverse psychological fashion, Obama reacted by giving the banks everything they asked for and not demanding a single solitary act or change from them when he did it. Same thing happened over health care. The RW came out saying he was going to "shove single payer down our throats" so what does Obama do? He immediately drops single payer. Had he not been so easy to manipulate he might have used single payer as a bargaining chip in the negotiations so that we end up with a robust Public Option (my opinion). I could go on with each major issue that he has pre-emptively capitulated on for fear of being disliked or labeled by Fox News.

That is why I said (may have been in another thread) that he may have at one point realized that he is a multi-millionaire now and the Republicans are the ones looking out for him. I have a lot of questions about our President, why he has governed as a center-right Republican when he gave so many millions of us the strong impression that he would be a Democrat in office. It's all conjecture at this point...

Lucy, the football, Charlie Brown...

[Lucinda]

64. Well if you are correct he's failed in avoiding them. Because he's getting a LOT of labels

now. They aren't pretty. And people being hurt in the process. If he really is afraid of conflict, and labels, it's time for the left to get loud and see what develops.

[txlibdem]

67. That is my conclusion as well

The left and Progressives need to be loud and strong and in Obama's face at every turn. He has surrounded himself with ex-bush appointees and bankers. We'll have to be supremely loud to break through all the useless noise in his vicinity.

I've been using the contact page at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact quite extensively but that does no good. Unless he reads my advice... and does the exact opposite. Hmmm. Maybe I should test that theory and tell him that I am a Progressive and I demand that he gives the tax cuts to the rich!

:hi:

PS, I agree with you that he is an utter failure if his aim is to avoid labels. One would think that he would someday begin to rethink his strategy, after 2 years of being slapped around and being back-stabbed by Republicans he's tried to court.

[boppers]

84. "Hillary has never held elected office"

Uhm, what? I thought she was a Senator?

[txlibdem]

122. How could I have forgotten she was a Senator?

Mea Culpa.

(perhaps I thought it was kinda unsanitary the way she did it and, liking Hillary somewhat, blocked all that out...)

:-)

[RobinA]

114. People Heard What

they wanted to hear. He led you to believe he wasn't center-right. I told somebody during the campaign that he was to the right of Nixon. I also stated more than once that in the '70's he would have been a Repub. I don't have anything against the guy, he was just never left and never said he was. DADT, Quantanamo...just not that important to him.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

39. But have you ever heard of a newly elected President...

...being taken behind closed doors by a former President, and emerging from that meeting by appointing his predecessor's people?

It struck me as really odd at the time. It was like Clinton told him what's what, and ever the people pleaser, Obama wanted to please the Big Dog above all else.

He listens. A person who is open-minded listens, takes that information, and accepts some or rejects all. By contrast, a people pleaser doesn't reject someone else's input when he gets leaned on.

That's what I got.

[Lucinda]

47. I think he truly believed that doing so would lead to a sort of

"men of good conscience" finding common ground, and doing what is right for the public good. His Senate mentor was Lieberman, who often crosses the aisle. I really think a lot of the left saw his contacts with the more outspoken left in Chicago as a tell at what type of leader he would be. I agree with you in that I think the truth of the matter may just be that he listens to all sides, learns, and find merit where he finds it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

52. I'm not quite sure I follow...

:)

but I'm going to respond, anyway.

When I say Clinton told Obama what's what, I mean Clinton told Obama about the mistakes he made--most notably decisions that directly impacted the financial crisis--and persuaded Obama such that Clinton's legacy wouldn't take a colossal hit. Frankly, Clinton has in fact emerged from this mess virtually squeaky clean.

[Lucinda]

56. I'm on meds and got sidetracked

I started with Obama's use of Republicans and didn't get around to answering your point about the Clinton people. :) I'm sorry! Hydrocodone 1 - me 0!

I think that his carryover appointees from Clinton, were people he thought could get the job done. And also people who didn't differ too much from his own POV. As I mentioned, I don't think he and Senator Clinton were very far apart, at the time, on the issues.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

57. That's not a valid excuse...

I'm on meds, too.

Depakote, Lamictal, Trazadone > Hydrocodone

:rofl:


I said elsewhere in another thread as much. Hilary supporters aren't being intellectually honest when they say she would have been better. That's not at all clear. What is clear is just how similar an H. Clinton presidency would be. Very.

[Lucinda]

62. LOL Small world!

I have no idea what kind of President Hillary would have made. I would like to think that she might have fared better because she knew what the POTUS would be dealing with, and had learned the hard way how to function in that world, after her time in the Senate... But no one really knows what the world would look like now under a HRC presidency. And I don't think it does much good to speculate. Dance with the one who brung ya. :)

[grasswire]

7. community organizers seek concensus first

But that can't be the full explanation. I think he was showed the piece of paper with the black spot on it.

[Individualist]

8. He's a New Democrat.

[Marr]

13. It's really as simple as that.

Pro-big business, anti-labor, with a sprinkling of liberal positions on social issues as Democratic window dressing.

I always chuckle when I see people complaining that he's not 'standing up for what he believes in'. Sure he is. And he is in fact playing 12 dimensional chess. He's just playing against the working class.

[kenny blankenship]

15. that's pronounced "No Democrat"

[RandomThoughts]

9. Can get fooled again.

It is part of perseverance. Not worried about that.



However when changes occur they happen in seconds, you hold the position, things look pretty terrible, a new day comes, still no reinforcements, still looks bad, that can go on for years, every day, just enough artillery to hold your position, but also every day soldiers trickle in and take a position.

Then when the reinforcements arrive in that moment, everything changes.

Or maybe you just die and get over run :shrug:


But sure better then doing what you know is not the best choice.


Although everyone gets to choose. And the military analogy does not mean it is about violence or hurting people, not about that, just a metaphor.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Cirque du So-What]

14. In light of the observation

that our Democratic president is being called an appeaser and a corporate toady openly, just what in pluperfect hell does it take to get a post deleted?!? I've asked - and not yet received - an answer to my question as to what constitutes the term 'new rules' that I've heard bandied about these past couple weeks. 'The Discussion Forum Rules' were last updated November 7, 2005, and 'How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules' was last updated February 1, 2006. If there's a link to the new, improved rules, it escapes my notice. I'll be awaiting my inevitable expulsion or a fuckload of snark from those who can't help themselves...perhaps both.

[sharesunited]

17. There comes a point when democracy itself penetrates DU.

I think it's noteworthy that the flavor of the criticism is distinctly different from what you see on FR.

[Cirque du So-What]

20. On that point we agree

but I question the wisdom of tolerating gratuitous attacks against the man. It's become de rigueur, and if the owners of this website don't get a handle on it, they're going to run off some very good people - ones who realize that Dennis Kucinich is not going to get elected President - no way, no how - and that Barack Obama as President is infinitely preferable to any repug alternative. Constructive criticism is one thing; an endless stream of name-calling is quite another, and I - for one - am fucking SICK of it!

[sharesunited]

26. It's in the nature of tough love, I suppose. The harsh opposite of enabling. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

32. I would hope there's room for something in-between

I fully support holding the man's feet to the fire when it's appropriate, but the way he's getting demonized is counterproductive to Democratic goals. It's unfortunate that there are only two parties that stand a ghost of a chance of getting candidates elected to office, but that's the hand we've been dealt. Unless someone figures out a way to attract sufficient money to make a third-party challenge anything other than a heartbreaking 'spoiler,' we're stuck with the choices we have - and if that means nominating a Democratic challenger who stands less of a chance than the proverbial snowball in hell, then count me out! You can tell me that 'the lesser of two evils is still evil,' but I'm still sticking with that lesser devil - and you've got your work cut out for you, trying to convince me otherwise!

[mcar]

46. Thank you!

:fistbump: I've been coming here since soon after 9/11/2001; I've seen the ugliness of primary seasons but this is the worst I've ever seen.

I, too, am sick of the name calling. There are many things PO can be criticized for but in recent weeks, this board has gone way past criticism.

The Republicans are eating this up - once again, Democrats are eating their own.

[cbayer]

21. Hello Cirque,

We are not sure who you may have asked, but here is Skinner's thread on the "new" rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9563958


cbayer
DU Moderator

[Cirque du So-What]

23. Thanks!

Just a suggestion: could a link be placed in a prominent location? I'm not on here often enough to keep up on things like this, and a link would go a long way toward making sure everyone is aware of what constitutes these changes.

On edit: bookmarked!

On further edit:

Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

'Appeaser' & 'corporate tool' fall into that category IMO. Your mileage may vary.

[cbayer]

69. I suggest that you ask the administrators in the ATA forum to pin this in a prominent

place. You can also address the specific concerns/questions you have about rule implementation there.

:hi:

[Cirque du So-What]

78. Will do

It's sufficiently important to make it readily available, so I'll make that suggestion.

[txlibdem]

80. If it acts like a Duck, walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck, it's a Duck!

You cite the rules against smearing Democrats. Ipso facto, our unveiling the truth about the nation's current President does not violate that rule: he is NO Democrat.

Now if you had shown me a rule against bashing center-right Republicans...

[Cirque du So-What]

82. Yes, he's quite the repuke, isn't he?

:eyes:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[txlibdem]

96. Do you expect me to take my valuable time and peruse your link?

How much of my time should I invest in order to attempt to glean your opinion, the comment you would have made had you made any save dropping a URL?

[Cirque du So-What]

119. I have no expectations concerning you

Sorry to have squandered your valuable time.

[txlibdem]

121. Sorry to dump on you

There are a number of posters here on DU that regularly use the "link as post" tactic to avoid the issue, deflect, prevaricate, and dissemble. I have only recently had it up to my ears with that issue and I took my frustration with some people out on you, whom I have never seen do this before. I'm sorry to have been so snippy.

But to the larger point I was trying to make, I believe it has some merit. If you have a comment then make a comment. If your ideas are summarized at another site then quote that site (providing proper credit to the author by showing their link), surround this entire block with "div" tags to clearly separate their words from your own.

That's my only point. And make sure to provide proper attribution so the person who wrote those words gets proper credit... As an aspiring author and all around curmudgeon I find myself getting more and more frustrated by people taking another's words as their own.

Again, sorry I was snippy (in a bad mood from dealing with irrational people)...

:hi:

[metapunditedgy]

16. Nothing is wrong with him. You're looking at it wrong.

Conventional wisdom: Obama and Boehner are collecting corporate donations in order to compete for votes.

Alternate scenario: Obama and Boehner are collecting votes in order to compete for corporate donations.


In one of those two scenarios, everything makes sense. In the other, everything is confusing.

[alarimer]

22. Simple: Voters are not the real owners of the country.

It doesn't matter what we want. EVER. The capitalist pig owners of this country read Obama the riot act (or perhaps he lied from the get-go; it makes no difference) and he follows along like a good sheep.

In case it wasn't obvious already: WE do not count; we never have and never will.

[neverforget]

24. He's beholden to an ideal (bipartisanship) that is unachievable with the

Republicans. He wants to work with them. They want to destroy him. He keeps trying but they take what he gives them and asks for more and he gives.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Obama has a catalogue of important WANTS

They include unemployment insurance extension, the Make Work Pay tax credit, the child care tax credit, DADT repeal, New START, and the DREAM Act. Those are the WANTS, or things to GET.

He has only a few things TO GIVE. These include extensions of the Bush tax cuts for some increment of time for some variation of the tax brackets.

What's wrong with him? Nothing. He is working WANTS against GIVES.

Obviously, the administration can walk away from the table at any time, giving nothing. But then you don't get the wants, either.

None of this is particularly complicated, and the hyperventilating over it strikes me as bizarre, to say the least. It's not clear to me how anybody is supposed to get a shitload of WANTS without GIVING anything.

[bluestate10]

72. I did not see things that way. But I understand much of what you wrote.

Governing is a trade off. Obama is horse trading. As I have written before, I supported Hilary Clinton over Obama during democratic primaries, with my vote and my money. But Obama won fair and square. Obama's mistake may have been to over promise to the Left. He is now paying for those over promises in having the Left sour with his policy making.

[txlibdem]

115. I could agree with your hypotheses, EXCEPT

President Obama definitely does have limited amounts to give, as you so accurately point out. So why does he continue to follow the disastrous policy of preemptive capitulation, throwing away his most important bargaining chips before debate even begins?!?

A check on history shows that the Republicans have compromised on NOTHING, the President has capitulated and given away everything that was given --and in the end almost always GOT ZERO REPUBLICAN VOTES.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result?
:crazy:

[metapunditedgy]

128. LOL... so what did Obama TRADE for 70% voter support of the "Main Street" issues

that he campaigned on, and a huge show of voter support in 2008?

I didn't even get a T-shirt.

On edit: your tired talking points are making the internet cry. Forgot to mention that.

[Catherina]

28. Wait for "Can’t Get Fooled Again", it will be about Obama n/t

[jerseygal]

29. The Obama who ran has been silenced - the question is why?

My thought is that he has been threatened by the corporate powers that run the United States. He knows he will be killed or his wife or children killed, if he does not do their bidding.

That is frankly, the only logical explanation for how much his persona appears to have changed.

[Individualist]

31. Candidate Obama: Razzle dazzle 'em.

President Obama: So long suckers!

[somone]

41. It is hard to parse that truth

sad but true

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. He's an outsider who wanted to be accepted by the Cool Kids

That's a friend's assessment of Bill Clinton and why he went along with DADT, welfare reform, and NAFTA. Clinton came from a humble background but wanted more than anything else in the world to be one of the Cool Kids. As such, he was willing to do anything to get the Republicanites to like him. We all know how that worked out. Since the Republicanites went after him anyway, he might as well have allowed GLBT people to serve openly in the military and vetoed welfare "reform" and "free"trade.

Obama has the same problem. His background is designed to make a person insecure: bi-racial, abandoned by his father, moved to a foreign country, handed over to his grandparents, but placed among the affluent (Punahou is THE rich kids' school in Hawaii).

If being accepted by the Cool Kids is your goal in life, then there's almost nothing you won't do to achieve that.

[Quantess]

33. He knows who butters the bread.

He's a sell out. He is owned.

[Better Believe It]

34. Nothing is wrong with President Obama. He is doing what he supports and believes in.

[Freetradesucks]

37. I'd say he's more of a charismatic fellow,

with the ability to act well. Although perhaps even that is a stretch, apparently he has a problem remembering all of his lines, hence the excessive and even comical use of teleprompter's.

True genius? I don't see it. For the last two years people have been saying that all of his blunders "are a chess move, just wait and see. He is four moves ahead of the Pukes"!

Well apparently he wasn't and isn't. It looks more and more like he has absofuckinlutely no clue what he is doing.

PS.. Don't forget about those two wars we are still smack dab in the middle of that we were all so outraged over, but now nobody seems to give a fuck.

[namahage]

40. Again with the teleprompters?

Did the rules change again to allow right-wing talking points as 'criticism"?

[Freetradesucks]

54. Out of that whole post, all you saw was,

"teleprompter's"?

Perhaps it's a right-wing talking point because it makes him look silly.

[bluestate10]

77. I agree with you on the teleprompters.

Obama must ditch them now, start writing his own speeches and deliver them from notes. George Bush may have been slow, but at least you saw him fingering notes and accepted that even if you did not agree with him, he was speaking from his heart.

[boppers]

86. Bush didn't write his own speeches.

Heck, he didn't even write his own memoir, that was the product of one of his speech writers.

As far as reading words from paper or a screen, I'm not sure what the bias is there, perhaps less tech-savvy folks aren't comfortable with screens.

[2nd_try]

79. I think he was blindsided by harsh reality

I believe he was sincere about his campaign promises...at the time. There is a real possibility that the complexity of many/most/all decisions of the post became much clearer to him after he took office. It's why I thought Hillary was better suited for the job. Her insight was much deeper and it resulted in her campaign promises being more realistic and less appealing than Obama's. But, I don't doubt Obama's sincerity or integrity, I just don't think he was as ready for the post as was Clinton.

[TheKentuckian]

42. He is an ideological global corporatist and a traditional conservative.

He is just being who he is.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[johnnie]

49. Nothing is wrong with him

It's typical politics like it has been forever.

[madamesilverspurs]

50. You can easily find what you're looking for

over on Free Republic, but I suspect you already know that. . .

[ono4pono]

53. OK, so we all agree he’s not stupid.

everyone keeps forgetting he was born and raised in Hawaii. It
is not NY or Chicago. In HI he is know as a Happa or mixed
race person and looked down upon as inferior.  Racism is
rampant in the Islands The philosophy there is go along to get
along. Crabs in the bucket mentality. His high school is the
best school on the island but students are mostly Japanese-
American so no one gets much out of line. Confrontation is to
be avoided at all costs. Just check the 2 Senators from
HI..name one piece of legislation that they have initiated.
Drivers in HI will do anything not to blow their horns in
traffic... to rude. I lived and worked there for 12 years and
this is a thumbnail sketch so y'all can get an idea of what is
going on in part of his brain. 

[Lucinda]

58. Interesting! And welcome to DU!

:)

[somone]

71. You forgot his political training in Illinois

particularly in Chicago.

[BrendaBrick]

68. I think........

he failed to take advantage of whatever presidental press conference muscles (or whatever they call it) where all of a sudden (you might remember from bygone days?) the news stations (or at least...the "big three or four" mainstay stations.....ABC, CBS, NBC etc...) actually interrupted their regular scheduled progamming (gasp - you mean even interrupting Oprah?) and failed to speak DIRECTLY to the public in an ongoing basis.

Much like Roosevelt kept the public informed via his radio addresses.

He missed the mark totally and completely on this this by a long shot IMO.

[bvar22]

70. Nothing is "wrong" with Obama....

...IF you are a member of the Ownership Class.
He is just peachy for the Top 2%....

AND he is Teeing Up the ball perfectly for the Republican takeover.





"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[grasswire]

75. thank you for the Wellstone reminder

I wonder if he would be president now if they hadn't taken him out.

RIP Paul Wellstone. There was no question where he stood. Always on the side of the people.

[knotwurstforware]

76. I dont hear you clapping loud enough

[Raine]

83. He has been bought by the corporate interest

IMO as is doing their bidding, he was bought and he is staying bought.

[dorkulon]

85. He is a dive artist.

He's doing exactly what he wants.

[northernlights]

90. he admires Reagan

and his failed, piss-down economics. What else do you need to know?

When he said he admired Reagan, the MSM spun it as a way to goad Bill Clinton into going off half-cocked.

But it turns out that was the lie.

He admires Reagan and piss-down economics. We needed an FDR. We elected Reagan II on steroids.

[Exilednight]

91. He's intelligent, but he's not an intellectual. I would also argue, and many will ..........

disagree with me on this point, I think he's highly intelligent, but far from being a genius. Above average? Yes. Genius? No.

[JamesA1102]

92. Maybe it's that he lives in the real world and does what is possible

While most DUers live in a bubble with unrealistic expectations.

[Exilednight]

93. Who set the expectations for a public option?

Or withdrawing all troops from Iraq?

Or bringing new blood into the West Wing and not rehashed D.C. insiders?

Or transparency?

[JamesA1102]

95. People that projected their own views on the candidate

and did not really find out what he was all about.

[Exilednight]

97. I projected his campaign promises upon him? That's an interesting spin. n/t

[JamesA1102]

110. You're the one spinning his promises nt.

[Exilednight]

111. Really? Let's take a look at his promises

From Politifact:

HCR: Create a "National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance."

President Barack Obama signed health care legislation into law on March 23, 2010. The law calls for the creation of state-based health insurance exchanges, which are virtual marketplaces where people can go to buy health insurance.

But during the campaign, Obama, promised to create one national exchange, a significant difference.

Transparency: No transparency in sight

Updated: Thursday, January 14th, 2010 | By Hadas Gold

As a candidate, Barack Obama talked a lot about transparency in government. In the case of defense contractors, he said he would "create the reporting requirements, accounting, and accountability needed for good governance and actual money savings with contracting."

While several reforms have been put into place to improve the process of military contracts, we couldn't find any new transparency standards. We did extensive searching on the Web and spoke with Laura Peterson, an analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks military spending and contracts. She hasn't seen any, either.

If any transparency standards have been put into place, they aren't very transparent because after hours of research, we haven't been able to find any.

Transparency part 2 & Bringing new blood: As Obama focuses on executive branch ethics, push for new Congressional agency wanes

Updated: Monday, December 14th, 2009 | By Louis Jacobson

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said he would "use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated."

According to news reports, critics on both the left and the right have said they are underwhelmed by the new office's work so far, noting, among other things, that it lacks subpoena authority.

Meanwhile, the Senate declined to go as far as the House did, rejecting any independent body on ethics.

Since the inauguration, the Obama White House has directed a notable amount of attention toward ethics and transparency, though one of its cornerstones -- a ban on employing former lobbyists -- was so undermined by waivers that it earned a Promise Broken from the Obameter.

Yep, I projected all those promises upon him. Let's just ignore the fact that they came out of his own mouth.

[JamesA1102]

116. Interesting that you didn't include links

Because according to Politifact most of the President's promises on Healthcare were kept: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/26/health-care-promises-resolved/

Even the Exchanges one that you cited is listed as a compromise, not as a broken promise: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/52/create-a-national-health-insurance-exchange/

And your one on tranparency only is in regard to one issue and that they list as stalled: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/158/establish-transparency-standards-for-military-cont/

Instead of focusing on the positive and celebrating what progress has been made, you rather make the perfect the enemy of the good so you can pound your chest in self-rightous indignation that you've been betrayed because you didn't get 100% of what you wanted despite that you were never promised it.

[Exilednight]

117. Here's my problem with Obama ............

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9698178&mesg_id=9698220

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9698178&mesg_id=9698328

[JamesA1102]

118. That he didn't bring about a liberal utopia in less than 2 years nt

[guitar man]

94. There's nothing wrong with him

I think he's doing what any president, repub, dem or other is going to do from here on out as long as the status quo remains as it is now in this idiocracy we call America.

I'm convinced now more than ever that this country and its government is owned lock stock and barrel by a very few, very wealthy people and no matter who we elect, they are just actors trying to project an illusion that we matter one damn bit. It's government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. I think the last president that tried to buck their system was JFK, and we all know how that turned out :(

The way I see it, if we ever want this to really change , we might just have to handle our aristocrats like the French handled theirs. I hate like hell to say it but I really don't see it changing any other way. :(

[Xicano]

99. Sorry but people don't like a sell-out....

n/t

[rucky]

105. Two things:

1) Corporate America is holding the nation hostage over tax breaks and cheap labor. They have us by the balls.

2) Obama won't fight battles he doesn't think he can win. That, IMO, is his biggest weakness.

[Hannah Bell]

120. why do you think his "psychology" matters?

look at every president you remember. they were from a variety of personal situations, different states, different class backgrounds, even. different parents, different personalities.

but they all pretty much did the same shit. prosecuted aggressive wars, increased State power, increased surveillance of the population and the power of the ruling class.

[Donnachaidh]

124. Papantonio: A Psychiatric Evaluation of Obama

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

decide for yourself -- Pap has some points.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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